| Revision as of 13:43, 19 June 2024 editBilledMammal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users49,325 edits →Specific example discussion← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:38, 7 January 2025 edit undoAbo Yemen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,390 edits →Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523): reply to GordonGlottalTag: CD | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 462 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchivSee = 1 | |minthreadstoarchivSee = 1 | ||
| |algo = old(5d) | |algo = old(5d) | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| }} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | }} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | ||
| <!-- | <!-- | ||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION | NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION | ||
| Line 16: | Line 15: | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |||
| == RFC: The Anti-Defamation League == | |||
| {{Press | |||
| |author = Elia-Shalev, Asaf | |||
| |date = 2024-06-18 | |||
| |url = https://www.jta.org/2024/06/18/united-states/adl-faces-wikipedia-ban-over-reliability-concerns-on-israel-antisemitism | |||
| |title = ADL faces Misplaced Pages ban over reliability concerns on Israel, antisemitism | |||
| |org = ] | |||
| }} | |||
| <!-- ] 05:01, 2 June 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2222222222}} | |||
| In an , editors expressed concerns regarding the ADL's current status as a generally reliable source in several topic areas. I'm breaking these topic areas into different RFCs, as I believe there's a reasonable chance they might have different outcomes. ] (]) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Indie Vision Music == | |||
| === Part 1: Israel/Palestine (closed as 3/GUNREL) === | |||
| {{archive top|'''Result''': I see a consensus for '''Option 3''' — going by the numbers (roughly, 3:1) as well as the relative strength of arguments — and note that most of the participants were okay-ish with deprecation too. ] (]) 14:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC){{pb}}'''Summary''': Multiple editors presented multiple evidences of ADL's unreliability on the topic and most of the participants were convinced by this evidence. However, a minority disagreed with the nature of this evidence, claiming that atleast some of the evidence—if not all—can be, at worst, classed under "bias" and hence not be perceived as grounds for unreliability; I do not find such a characterization convincing, even ignoring the lopsided numbers. ] (]) 06:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| <!-- ] 11:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1715511671}} | |||
| What is the reliability of the ] regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict? | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| ] (]) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| has been used as a reliable source for Christian music articles since <s>(that's the furthest back I can trace its usage, and it's a revision by me when several editors including myself were overhauling ]. We were double-checking each other's work, and discussed many of the sources, but we didn't feel the need to exhaustively discuss every source.)</s>EDIT: see --] (] | ]) 10:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC) At the time, Indie Vision Music had a Misplaced Pages article, which then was later deleted - something I supported, but in ] I mentioned that I deemed it reliable, just not notable. For a lot of Christian music, it is an invaluable source as often, especially in the indie and metal genres. There's scant coverage in more generalist publications outside of the CCM/Christian rock/Christian metal niche, so it's often one of 3 or 4 sources in which one can find accessible coverage. {{u|Graywalls}} asked me to bring this here because they are unsure of the reliability of the site. It certainly has a reputation for reliability, as it is referenced/utilized by reliable sources such as ] (, , and as examples; is about the record label operated by the media outlet, but it explicitly calls the site "well regarded"), , '']'' (), and '']'' (, , ). I've excluded reprints of press releases for these examples. Cross Rhythms and ''HM'' are among the most reputable and well-known sources for Christian music, the latter being the prime journalism outlet regarding Christian hard rock and metal music. | |||
| ====Survey (ADL:I/P)==== | |||
| The site founder, , and another writer, , both also write for ''HM'' as well (Jones since 2017 and Harp since at least <s>2009</s> 2007) and thus have credentials outside IVM. There are multiple writers for the site besides those two individuals, which I believe satisfies the having a writing and editorial staff. The concern from Graywalls is, I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) the professionalism of the team and if the site owner practices actual editorial oversight over his writers (to quote them, "If you and I were both auto enthusiasts who track race together and we buddy up with you being the writer and me being the editor, that's not sufficient to make our web zine as a WP:RS with editorial oversight "). Though there are multiple staff writers, especially over the past two decades, and doesn't list the writers. So I can understand part of the concern. I will note that there is one writer who is also a member of several bands (they might also be a Misplaced Pages editor and thus at this juncture I won't name them so they're not outed - it was actually that COI that prompted Graywalls to bring up the issue of if IVM is reliable), and thus of course would be unreliable for coverage of those bands, same as Doug Van Pelt, the founder of ''HM'', is unreliable for coverage of ] (because he's a member of it), except for as statements from the band themselves. Given the above reputation, I don't personally see warrant for this suspicion. IVM functions the same as other online metal sources deemed RS, such as <s>] (which is predominantly a team of three) and</s> ]. The blog format is how most of these sites function now, including ''HM''. Indeed, Brandon Jones mentions in that the site wasn't always a blog format and they adopted that structure for the site because that was what became practical in the mid-2000s. The site also operated/s a record label, but that I'm considering separate issue as that doesn't establish reliability. I'd also stress that any artist published via the Indie Vision Label would thus present a COI with IVM news/review coverage of that artist and should not be used other than for statements about the artist themselves. | |||
| * '''Option 3'''. The ADL is heavily biased regarding Israel/Palestine to the point of often acting as a pro-Israel lobbying organization. This can and does compromise its ability to accurately report facts regarding people and organizations that disagree with it on this issue, especially non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews and Jewish organizations. ] (]) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3'''. Its CEO publicly comparing the pro-Palestine protestors wearing ] with Nazis wearing ] armbands as well as mispresenting all pro-Palestine protestors as "wanting all zionists dead" demonstrates its skewed views and manipulative presentation on the IP topic and thus highly unreliable. -- ] (] · ]) 00:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1'''. No evidence has been posted of unreliability - of them making false claims. It's unclear to me why we are even hosting this discussion without such evidence, and in the absence of it we shouldn't change ADL's rating. ] (]) 00:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4'''. Contrary to BilledMammal's ]-esque reply, the previous two commenters have concretely pointed out multiple examples of their unreliability. and are two articles detailing many more instances of the ADL's specious and less-than-credible reporting, as well as its history of intimidating, harassing, and bullying its critics and critics of Israel. The ADL has a history of and , all of which belie their apparent stated intentions of being an organization working to {{tq|Protect Democracy and Ensure a Just and Inclusive Society For All}}, and provide clear evidence they are a pro-Israel advocacy organization masquerading as a human rights group. I could go on. It just isn't a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination on anything but the most quotidian of claims. ] (]) 01:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *: Reading those articles, they don't appear to be discussing matters of factual falsehood, but of differences of opinion, as well as actions taking by ADL that the authors disagree with. If I am wrong and have misunderstood those articles then please correct me and provide quotes. | |||
| *: In fact, those articles even say that in terms of "use by others", ADL is still considered reliable by top quality reliable sources! For example, The Nation article says {{tq|The problem is that The New York Times, PBS, and other mainstream outlets that reach millions are constantly and uncritically promoting the ADL and amplifying the group’s questionable charges.}} | |||
| *: If we declare that ADL is unreliable here we will be taking a fringe position that most mainstream sources would disagree with. ] (]) 01:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Are you sure you mean option 4? Option 4 is deprecate, which has never been done for only one topic area of a source before, because it means removing the source from any article it appears in for any reason. ] (]) 01:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: "questionable charges" is an accusation of unreliability. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think this !vote is in the wrong section as the ADL claims that the Nation and Jewish Currents articles critiques are about antisemitism and not about Israel/Palestine. The two critiques (both opinion pieces) largely refer to questions of interpretation or to historical co-operation with and the US state and not any questions of fact. I can't see either critique actually saying that a single factual claim made by ADL was inaccurate. And, as BilledMammal notes, the critiques acknowledge that many RSs do judge them as reliable, so deprecating would be a perverse response to the critiques. ] (]) 10:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''': This is an advocacy group so the threshold is higher than for a standard peer-reviewed secondary source. Recent coverage suggests that the sources is not only biased but may be unreliable. For example, '']'' dismantles ADL's claims that "U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Skyrocketed 360% in Aftermath of Attack in Israel" and asks --] (]) 01:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:The Nation (or, rather, the Nation's contributor) is attacking a strawman here. The caveats the data as "preliminary", explains that "incidents" are not the same as "attacks" and, as a press release, would count as a ] source that should only be used with caution anyway. The NBC reporting of the press release shows how it is transparent and thus can be easily be used carefully: {{tq|The ADL said antisemitic incidents increased 360% in the three months after Oct. 7 compared to the same period in 2022. However, the group also said that the data since Oct. 7 includes 1,317 rallies that were marked by “antisemitic rhetoric, expressions of support for terrorism against the state of Israel and/or anti-Zionism.” The group said such rallies held before Oct. 7 were “not necessarily included” in its earlier data.}} Ditto CNN: {{tq|However, since October 7, the ADL added a category to count rallies that they say have included “antisemitic rhetoric, expressions of support for terrorism against the state of Israel and/or anti-Zionism.” It’s unclear whether rallies were tracked last year. This new category has helped to account for the increase in antisemitic incidents over the last three months, with the ADL tracking 1,317 such incidents. Without those numbers, the US has seen a 176% increase in antisemitic incidents of harassment, vandalism and physical attacks compared to the same three-month period last year.}} In short, the Nation article (a) doesn't help us know if it is reliable as a source on Israel/Palestine, and (b) does not establish general unreliability. ] (]) 10:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::*The includes this note: {{tq|Clarification: This story has been updated to include additional information about how the ADL tracks incidents of antisemitism since the start of the Israel-Hamas War.}} CNN first went with the ADL's number of "361%" from the press release in the , but then had to revise the story to add three new paragraphs and the "176%" number, to reflect statistics without incidents newly categorized by ADL as antisemitic. In anything, this suggests that ADL is an unreliable source to the point that news outlets that rely on its reporting have to issue corrections after the fact. --] (]) 03:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''<del>Option 3</del><ins>Option 4</ins>''' Sources that we classify as ] have documented not only bias (which is not proscribed as per ]), but blanket inaccuracies with respect to its content on the issue of Palestine/Palestinians and the Israel/Palestine conflict. For example: | |||
| :*'']'' reported that the ADL stated the Students for Justice in Palestine {{xt|"provided material support to Hamas"}} despite there being no evidence for that assertion and the claim being widely discredited after it was made. | |||
| :*The '']'' writes that "the ADL has a long history of wielding its moral authority to attack Arabs, blacks, and queers". | |||
| :*The ADL often takes opinion positions on questions adjacent to these before making wild, 180 degree turns on those same questions. For instance, it opposed the Sufi Islamic Center in New York on the grounds that it was "not right" but then declared that they, themselves, were not right for having opposed it in the first place. It is difficult to build encyclopedic content on a source with this type of editorial schizophrenia. | |||
| :*Most importantly, the ADL's own staff, as per '']'', have criticized the accuracy and veracity of the ADL's claims on this topic. Can we call a source RS if the source itself questions whether it's reliable? | |||
| :<del>For these reasons, I believe it should only be used, with respect to Israel/Palestine, as a source for its own editorial opinions and never for anything else, and particularly to reference ]s.</del><ins>After further consideration of ]'s comment, I'm changing my !vote to Option 4, understanding that deprecating for a single topic area presents significant editing difficulty and may be unprecedented.</ins> ] (]) 01:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC); edited 01:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}} One by one: | |||
| ::#This appears to be a situation where we don't know the truth; some reliable sources say one thing, and others say the opposite. That isn't basis to declare a source generally unreliable. | |||
| ::#That appears to be the author disagreeing with the positions and actions taken by ADL, not declaring that they are pushing false statements. Again, this isn't a basis to declare a source generally unreliable. | |||
| ::#Organizations are allowed to reconsider past positions and statements. Indeed, the fact that they have reconsidered in this case would suggest they are a better source now than they were ten years ago - and certainly isn't a basis to declare a source generally unreliable. | |||
| ::#Those staff don't appear to be saying that ADL is pushing falsehoods, but instead that they disagree with the ADL on the definition of antisemitism. As the exact definition is a matter of debate, I don't consider disagreements in that area as a basis to declare a source generally unreliable. | |||
| ::This just continues the issue of equating sources disagreeing with the positions that ADL takes as being evidence that the ADL is pushing falsehoods. If there is evidence of ADL pushing falsehoods then please present them, but absent such evidence I see no basis to downgrade the status of this source. ] (]) 01:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for your feedback. I've responded to your critique in the discussion section. ] (]) 01:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Regarding {{tq|the ADL stated the Students for Justice in Palestine "provided material support to Hamas"}}, I just reviewed both the Intercept article and the ADL document it is referring to. The Intercept only says the ADL suggested that SJP had provided material support, while the [https://www.adl.org/resources/letter/adl-and-brandeis-center-letter-presidents-colleges-and-universities ADL document only asks that universities investigate whether local SJP chapters had provided "material support". | |||
| ::There is no basis in that article to downgrade ADL - possibly basis to consider it biased, but nothing further than that. ] (]) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I encourage you to avail yourself of the discussion section. ] (]) 18:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' (and my objection to option 4 is only that I am opposed to deprecation on principle). After ], the ADL is the primary propagandist for Israel in the United States. All of its pronouncements regarding Israel are based on the advocacy role it has adopted and not based on an unbiased analysis of the facts. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *: {{tq|All of its pronouncements regarding Israel are based on the advocacy role it has adopted and not based on an unbiased analysis of the facts}} Bias is not a basis to consider a source generally unreliable. ] (]) 02:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Remove the word "unbiased", it is not the point of the sentence. The point is "not based on .. the facts". The bias is ''why'' they are unreliable. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Option 1'''.</s> '''Option 2'''. First, I agree with the argument by BilledMammal above and unconvinced by specific examples of allegedly unreliable reporting. As of note, none of "generally reliable" sources is 100% reliable. Secondly, there is a big wave of antisemitism related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I think it is actually worse than many other manifestations of antisemitism. Hence, the sourced views by ADL related to the conflict should be included even if they seem to be unfair to some people. ] (]) 02:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::While I agree that there does appear to be "a big wave of antisemitism related to the Israel-Palestine conflict" and anti-Palestinian sentiment (although they presumably mostly tap pre-existing reservoirs), a problem, I guess, is not that it may seem unfair to targets, it's that it may be inaccurate and defamatory. Does this matter given that it is a POV? I'm not sure. ] (]) 04:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem isn't that it is unfair, but that it is inaccurate, including with respect to the reporting of antisemitism, as detailed in The Nation's analysis. The very inability to maintain its bearing/credibility in a time of crisis is precisely what is deteriorating it as a source. ] (]) 09:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Nation is a partisan source in itself. The Nation's subjective opinions on definitions of antisemitism are not a justified ground to disqualify another reliable source. ] (]) 11:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Partisan in the the sense of progressive within US politics; not partisan on the IP conflict. So that's irrelevant. Otherwise, the Nation is an actual newspaper with an actual editorial board, which places it lightyears ahead of the ADL in terms of reliability. No comparison. ] (]) 13:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We all know that these days being progressive within US politics (as opposed to being liberal or conservative) also almost always means pro-Palestinians views. Furthermore the Natation article doesn't actually bring any example of pro-Palestinian groups that do not oppose the existence of Israel and were marked as antisemitic by the ADL. The only group mentioned there by name is SJP, '''and representatives of this organization have declared many times their opposition to the existence of Israel'''. See for example here: | |||
| :::::https://nycsjp.wordpress.com/points-of-unity/: | |||
| :::::"We identify the establishment of the state of israel as an ongoing project of settler-colonialism that will be stopped only through Palestinian national liberation." | |||
| :::::https://theaggie.org/2018/07/06/students-for-justice-in-palestine-kill-and-expect-love/: | |||
| :::::"it is an ideological fantasy to really believe that progress is possible so long as the state of Israel exists The goal of Palestinian resistance is not to establish ‘love’ with those who are responsible for the suffering of the Palestinian people; it is to completely dismantle those forces at play." | |||
| :::::It should also be noted that the SJP “points of unity” state that "", and some SJP members and chapters explicitly refer to the Israeli occupation as having started in 1948, when Israel was founded. In July 2018, Tulane’s SJP chapter wrote that “ began seventy years ago</nowiki>]”. In May of 2018, SJP at DePaul University distributed fliers claiming that Israel has engaged in “.” ] (]) 14:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You seem to be battling a few strawmen. The Nation was raised solely in the context of its analysis on the mislabeling of antisemitism incidents. Your opinions on progressive US politics are by-the-by, and no, you can't assume this to mean partisan in an IP setting. ] (]) 14:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::# I can definitely assume this to mean partisan in an IP setting as well. This is the result of all this progressive "intersectionality" idea. | |||
| :::::::# This is "mislabeling" of antisemitism incidents only according to ''The Nation'' progressive intersectionality '''opinion'''. It is not so according to the mainstream view. The subtitle of the article in The Nation laments "So why does the media still treat it as a credible source?". Well guess what? '''It is precisely because the mainstream media doesn't agree that the ADL is mislabeling these groups'''. Mainstream media mostly agrees that groups like the SJP who explicitly call for the end of Israel, are indeed antisemite. Your view, and The Nation's view, that they are not antisemite, are the fringe here. | |||
| :::::::] (]) 17:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You don't get to label RS analysis opinion because you don't like it. No idea what you mean by 'intersectionality' here, but it sounds like gobbledygook. ] (]) 17:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::@] | |||
| :::::::::] is a central concept in progressive thinking nowadays. I am surprised you didn't hear of it. I suggest you read the wikipedia article on it. As for you calling it "gobbledygook", I dont mind it personally, not being a progressive myself, but it might offend some of the progressive editors here.. ] (]) 05:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Adding additional source here in case it gets buried, but The Nation is not the only source with this critique | |||
| ::::::::Tablet: | |||
| ::::::::] is described as a conservative Jewish publication ] (]) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::So it appears that they've actually laundered the same bogus methodological gerrymandering of the data repeatedly and unashamedly over the long-term. Not great. ] (]) 20:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For what it’s worth, other news organizations have raised similar concerns | |||
| :::: ] (]) 17:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Is that the same one we already had above, or am I mixing them up? ] (]) 17:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don’t think so - The Nation and Tablet seem to have independently critiqued the same ADL claim, but I only saw the link to The Nation’s article ] (]) 17:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You’re right, it was a different Tablet Link and I mixed them up, mea culpa ] (]) 17:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Potentially dumb question, but this whole discussion is covered by ], right? Or is it only partial? ] (]) 18:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<s>Yep, the whole thing is. ] (]) 18:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::::::Then I would kindly ask @] to strike their comments and refrain from making new ones. Having said that, thank you for your contributions :) ] (]) 18:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That appears to be about the ADL antisemitism stats, is it not? ] (]) 18:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::As at the ADL main article, it is partial Arbpia. ] (]) 18:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::So do you also think that it requires EC? The article includes it, but it’s a partial point, and this section is I/P. Just so I don’t have someone strike their comments where they aren’t obligated to… ] (]) 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::If the material they are referring to is not AI/IPO related, I think its OK. Idk why the antisemitism stats are being raised in this section, though. ] (]) 18:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::That seems reasonable, but I would still discourage participation here, seeing how intertwined the discussions are. ] (]) 18:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I was wrong, only this section is. The other two RFCs aren't by themselves, though arguments based on their reliability on I/P still would be, I think. ] (]) 18:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Right, anything AI/IP, broadly construed, non EC editors cannot comment or !vote. ] (]) 18:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::@] I’m happy to strike my comments per request but it looks like it may actually be relevant per the above ] (]) 20:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I’m not sure if it’s relevant, but this section is pretty clearly EC-only IMO. But let’s wait for a second opinion just in case. ] (]) 20:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Talk about ], here's the new welcome message: {{tq2|Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Until you have made at least 500 edits and have been here at least 30 days, you may not refer to any of the following topics anywhere on this website: the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland (]), Palestine-Israel (]), or the Russo-Ukrainian War (]). Happy editing!}} ] (]) 20:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I haven’t seen this one yet. Is there a shortcut for it? ] (]) 21:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I made that up, that was a joke :-) The real one is {{t|welcome-arbpia}}. ] (]) 21:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I know the real one, but I liked your fake one too. Sorry for missing your joke. :) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Regarding this case, you agree with my EC-only assessment (and therefore removal), right? ] (]) 21:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Eh, the comments by Bluetik don't really mention I/P and only mentions Israel once in passing and doesn't mention Palestine. This subsection is about I/P, but if those same comments were made in a different subsection of this same RFC, I don't think they'd be covered by ]. It's pedantic, but as the rules are written, Bluetik should not comment in this subsection because it's about I/P. However, removing their comments seems like an extreme measure (especially since they've already been replied to), moving them to a different subsection might be confusing, and striking them seems unnecessary. I don't think there's much that needs to be done besides informing Bluetik of ] in ], which has already been done. ] (]) 21:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Makes sense, if none one is opposed, I’m happy to treat past comments as an improper IAR-Analogy in this case, particularly considering how high-quality they were for a new-ish editor. ] (]) 21:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If it is IP related, it is. ] (]) 18:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{quote|Secondly, there is a big wave of antisemitism related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I think it is actually worse than many other manifestations of antisemitism.}} | |||
| ::Both of these points are false, as numerous reliable sources have pointed out, but are exactly the narrative the ADL advocates for, and thus your vote is thoroughly unsurprising. ] (]) 01:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Based on the discussion, I changed it to "option 2". Yes, this possibly is a biased source, but I do not see any evidence of outright misiniformation. Speaking on the definitions they use (e.g. what they consider antisemitism), I think they are reasonable and up to them. ] (]) 18:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3'''. As documented in depth and breadth by multiple users in the discussion above and in multiple comments of this RfC, the ADL does not have the credibility necessary for us to consider their content reliable sources. There is untenable distortion by the ADL of the circumstances of the geopolitical situation in the region as well as of the behavior and activities of organizations that pertain to it such that we cannot rely on the ADL to report facts accurately. ] (] | ] | ]) 07:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''': Generally reliable. No evidence was shown of the ADL making false claims. See more detailed comment in the second survey about antisemitism.] (]) 07:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' for all the reasons stated above. Would be happy with Option 4 if we could get consensus.] (]) 08:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' because as discussed earlier, it is partisan pro-Israel advocacy group which has historically been engaged in espionage and defamation campaign against pro-Palestinian activists, and its broadened definition of antisemitism. Their reliability on the topic has been put into question by the Guardian and the Nation, both RS per WP. Attribution is required for any claim; and for controversial claims, probably best not to be used at all. ] (]) 09:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' The ADL has consistently misidentified critics of Israel as anti-Semitic, has proven credulous to disinformation that supports Israel and has experienced negative reputational outcomes from its engagement on the topic. It should not be used as a source as it is thoroughly unreliable. ] (]) 09:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1''' per the arguments made above and in the prior discussion, the ADL is considered reliable (but biased) and worthy of citation by many RS in regards to the topic area (interpreted broadly), including but not limited to the New York Times ],], the BBC ], ], Washington Post , , and many others. They and their opinion are considered reliable by many, but particularly controversial claims should be attributed, applying the same policy applying to other civil rights groups as well as biased news sources. Common sense should be used. ''Extension based on arguments by me and others (14.04.24):'' there seems to be a few suboptimal arguments used by some which are wholly or partially unrelated to reliability, including but not limited to the use of the IHRA definition and other definition of antisemitism, internal and external debates related to issues that on Misplaced Pages are considered to be bias and not unreliability, and other issues of (non-fringe) bias; none of those actually meet the definition of unreliability. Excluding those and similar points that are closer to Idontlikeit than a general policy based argument seems prudent. That being said, a few points that could go beyond the likely frivolous were brought up, specifically | |||
| #the change in methodology on the reporting of antisemitism: this is true, however, it was not shown that a significant amount of the claims made by the ADL are covered by no non-fringe definition of antisemitism. The likely change in methodology was poorly reported by media, an issue that was appropriately addressed. As the statement we would cite would be something along the lines of “ADL says Y”, a short clarification should be included where appropriate (via footnote or text), but no issue of long-term unreliability is apparent. The relevant discussion can be found below. | |||
| #the inclusion of actions at protest, even if no specific person was attacked: that’s definitely a choice that can be disputed, but including (allegedly) hateful (or more accurately, assessed to be hateful) slogans when listing hateful actions even when those don’t target a specific individual is not per se inappropriate. | |||
| #bias: bias, particularly insofar as also reflected by much of MSM, is in no way a factor for unreliability. The broad use (discussed below) is a further sign that usebyothers is undoubtedly met, despite the minor clarification required for the point above. | |||
| #old errors: are just that, old. Most of them are historic and align with either historical narratives or media reporting at the time, but that’s not a contemporary issue and also a case where other policies (like the ones about using best available sourcing) would already prevent use even if the current status in maintained. (The question regarding the accuracy and reliability of those specific claims about errors seemed to be unclear last I checked that discussion anyway, but that’s also not of relevance. | |||
| To summarise, a more policy-based discussion would have been significantly more productive, as many of the disagreements are wholly or partially unrelated to the reliability of the source and its use for facts. On that note, some of the votes seem to have had issue differentiating between the categories, an issue regarding which I do not envy the closer who will have to sort through them. | |||
| ] (]) 10:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:None of these sources are using the ADL as a source for facts on Israel/Palestine. Some of them are using it as a reliable source for facts about antisemitism in the US, which is the topic of the survey below. Two of them attribute to the ADL the opinion that the "river to sea" slogan is antisemitic, but they do not say this is a fact in their own voices. ] (]) 10:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::They use them as a source for facts/their credited opinions in regards to conduct related to I/P, mostly by Americans/people from western countries. According to my interpretation of many of the comments made, the exclusion of statement like 'ADL says “statement X about Israel is antisemitism”/“group Y is antisemitic”/“this is over the line of criticism of Israel and into antisemitism”' would be included by this as well. If it’s not, I’m having a hard time finding statements made about I/P that are of relevance, let alone warrant this discussion, they don’t generally comment on geopolitical details. ] (]) 11:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' based on the ADL's long-standing inaccuracy, advocacy and now increasingly unhinged misinformation on IP-related matters. The source's problems have intensified significantly under Greenblatt, but it cannot be chalked up to just this. That there have been no calls for leadership changes despite both external critique and the raising of internal grievances (over its intolerable extreme blurring of its civil rights and political advocacy) points to a general breakdown in the checks and balances within the organisation. ] (]) 10:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. ''Unreliable'' normally means publishing information which is factually incorrect. I don't see a lot of evidence of this. What I do see is opinion being published as fact. When the ADL characterises something as anti-semitic, that is often more an opinion than a fact. Lots of advocacy organisations do this, and for all of them, we as editors need to strengthen our skills at identifying such opinions, and decline to bless them in wikivoice. Therefore I don't think we can say this source is ''unreliable'', but we should warn editors to wear extra insulation when handling it. ] (]) 10:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''', as per Zero because I am opposed to the application of option 4 in almost every case, except egregious hate sites and the like.{{pb}}The ADL has consistently called for laws and measures that consider as possible examples of connivance with terrorism significant movements which protest in solidarity with an occupied people, i.e. Palestinians. It does this because its agenda tends to collapse core distinctions between demonstrating on behalf of human rights (in Israel/Palestine) and anti-Semitism defined as anti-Zionist disavowels of the legitimacy of Israel as a state. In its practice, advocacy for Palestinian human rights should be subject to criminalization. (Alice Speri, ] 21 February 2024){{pb}}For its director ], opposition to Israel/anti-Zionism (by which he appears to mean criticism of Israel’s human rights record) is intrinsically ‘antisemitic’. His position was so extreme that even ADL staff protested at the equation of critics of Israel with those white supremicists groups which the ADL has distinguished itself in exposing. (Jonathan Guyer, Tom Perkins, ] 5 January 2024).{{pb}}(Justin) Sadowsky (of the ]), who is Jewish, characterizes some of ADL’s actions as part of a pattern of deliberate intimidation to make it “very difficult for Palestinians to talk in a forthright way about what’s going on”, (Wilfred Chan ] 1 November 2023). And they do distort information, because their lists of antisemitic incidents do not discriminate between normal protests and serious incidents of antisemitic behaviour. Spitting on Christian priests in Jerusalem is commonplace and the ADL has protested the practice regularly, but, if that is noteworthy for them, the same cannot be said for protesting extreme human rights violations by Israel against Palestinians, which are endemic and yet, it appears, not noteworthy.{{pb}}] (]) 12:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The ADL doesn't mark mere criticism of Israel an antisemitism. It only marks calling for the destruction of Israel and denying its right to exist as antisemitism. See https://www.adl.org/about/adl-and-israel/anti-israel-and-anti-zionist-campaigns. And this is a mainstream view. ] (]) 13:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you take the ADL at its word.Noted.] (]) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you prove otherwise? ] (]) 13:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't need to. I gave some sources challenging the ADL's claims, and you merely cited the ADL "protesting too much" without troubling yourself to examine those sources' claims and documentation. I am not going to participate in another poinjtless thread. I'll just note that | |||
| ::::<blockquote> While criticism of Israeli policies and actions is part of that discourse, certain forms of anti-Israel rhetoric and activism delegitimize Israel and its existence, and '''are antisemitic when they vilify and negate Zionism''' – the movement for Jewish self-determination and statehood </blockquote> | |||
| ::::Well, all ideologies - and Zionism is an ideological construction based on ethnic exclusiveness - are closed systems of thought that are by self-definition and practice, hostile to the sort of thinking fundamental to ], a principle theorized by ] (Jewish-French). An anti-Zionist could equally define, on solid grounds, Zionism as 'the movement for the denial of Palestinian self-determination' as the tacit but, in historical practice, acknowledged corollary of that definition of Zionism, since Zionism asserted its claim when Palestine was 95% Arab, noting that half of the world's Jewish population is thriving elsewhere regardless, and does not appear to think that an ethnic state is its default homeland.] (]) 13:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] | |||
| :::::As you well know, when Zionism was formed 130 years ago there was actually no Palestinian national identity to speak of. Regardless of that Zionism doesn't necessarily contradicts the self-determination of the Palestinian nation. For this there is the idea of a two state solution. As for those hard right-wing Zionists who are opposed to the two states idea in principle, and deny that the Palestinians have a right to self-determination, I have absolutely no objection to calling them "anti-Palestinian". So why do you object to using the word "anti-Jewish" or "antisemite" to describe the anti-Zionists who are opposed to the two state idea in principle, and deny that the Jews have a right to self-determination? Why the double standards? ] (]) 15:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please don't make thoughtless comments like that. If there was no Palestinian identity in 1900, there was also no Zionist identity, since less than 1% adhered around that time. It's like saying the white colonisation of Australia, declaring the land terra nullius, was fine, even though several hundred cultures were erased, and the entire population of Tasmania exterminated, because the aboriginals had no identity unlike the invaders who were 'European'.] (]) 16:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is veering pretty close to ]. Your personal opinion regarding the historicity of the Palestinian national identity is noted. It is also entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. ] (]) 16:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Since this is WP:NOFORUM I'll send you a private comment on this ] (]) 19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{quote|The ADL doesn't mark mere criticism of Israel an antisemitism. It only marks calling for the destruction of Israel and denying its right to exist as antisemitism.}} | |||
| ::This is a distinction without a difference for those, such as the ADL, who feel every criticism of Israel is an assault on its existence. | |||
| ::But more importantly, there is nothing inherently antisemitic about wanting to abolish a state. Mandela wished to abolish the Boer state in South Africa, but not because of anti-Boer prejudice. Reagan wished to abolish the Soviet Union—did he hate Russians? Numerous politicians in Washington no doubt wish to dismantle China—are they Sinophobes? ] (]) 01:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It really isn’t identical, for example (afaik), the ADL generally doesn’t mark criticism of specific politicians as antisemitic. You can argue about where the line between antizionism and antisemitism and it is legitimate to support versions like the ] over the IHRA. However, even that version would likely show a non-insignificant increase in antisemitism. | |||
| :::On the rest of the discussion, we are going off-topic, we are not here to argue the IHRA as a whole, only if it’s fringe enough to have impact on reliability. ] (]) 07:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Nishidani}} Going through those sources I'm seeing allegations that ADL is biased, but not that it is unreliable - that it is producing misinformation. If I am incorrect, can you quote from those articles where they allege that the ADL has promoted falsehoods? ] (]) 14:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The ADL is well aware that the methods it uses have been criticized as flawed, yet it refuses to change them to conform with standard statistical sampling methods. That means that it concocts misinformation. | |||
| ::Back in the ], the ADL immediately came forth with alarmist figures, whose methodology a serious analyst with competence in statistics and hate crimes duly questioned /pulled apart. See Mari Cohen, ] 27 May 2021. | |||
| ::So aware of, but not responsive to, the technical criticism of its methods, now it has issued its latest analysis <blockquote> The ADL released its annual antisemitism report on Wednesday, announcing that there were a stunning 3,283 such incidents in 2023. That’s a 361 percent increase compared to the previous year, according to the organization, which noted '''the “American Jewish community is facing a threat level that’s now unprecedented in modern history.” . . . The ADL report was widely covered by mainstream outlets'''.</blockquote> | |||
| ::<blockquote>the ADL acknowledged in a statement to the Forward that it '''significantly broadened its definition of antisemitic incidents following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack to include rallies that feature “anti-Zionist chants and slogans,” events that appear to account for around 1,317 of the total count.''' Arno Rosenfeld, ] 10 January 2024.</blockquote> | |||
| ::<blockquote>The ADL released its annual antisemitism report on Wednesday, announcing that there were a stunning 3,283 such incidents in 2023. That’s a 361 percent increase compared to the previous year, according to the organization, . . . . . The ADL report was widely covered by mainstream outlets like CNN, NBC, and Axios, which simply took the organization’s word for the gigantic increase without actually checking the data behind the claim. Not all media outlets fumbled the ball, however. . . The ADL admits in its own press release that it includes pro-Palestine rallies in its list of antisemitic incidents, '''even if these featured no overt hostility toward Jewish people. Any anti-Israel or anti-Zionist chants are enough for the ADL’s new definition of antisemitism.'''Adrienne Mahsa Varkiani, ] 10 January 2024.</blockquote> | |||
| ::That new statistic with its deplorable attempt to press a panic button to get everyone in the American-Jewish community feeling as though they were under mortal siege is rubbish, and exposed as such. Worse, as noted, the ADL's ballsed up statistics were taken and repeated by major mainstream outlets without doing any checking. That's why it is unreliable, certainly under the present direction. ] (]) 16:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This appears to be based on a disagreement about the definition of antisemitism; the narrower definition preferred by you and some sources, and the wider definition preferred by the ADL and other sources, as well as several nations and supranational entities. | |||
| :::For example, your Jewish Currents source gives "Zionism is racism. Abolish Israel" as an example of a statement that the ADL considers antisemitic, but the author of the article considers to be "more accurately described as anti-Zionist". In this case, ADL's position aligns with the ], specifically "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor." | |||
| :::You can disagree with this position, but is is not a fringe position and there is no basis to consider ADL unreliable because of it. ] (]) 16:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The ] is the result of political attempts to define the topic, and then pressure to have its provisions enacted in law. As framed, it certainly got a toe-hold among politicians, but has veryt very little credibility as a definition in the scholarship. I was taking a person to the Exhibition Buildings Museum some months ago, and came across a pro-ceasefire demonstration. I stopped for a chat, and a donation, and the atmosphere was pleasant. The day afterwards, a young women wrote to the Age and said that as a Jewish person, she felt quite 'uncomfortable' even though she too endorsed a ceasefire. Uncomfortable because it was sidedly 'pro-Palestinian' (i.e. the major victim). Many reports of campus 'harassment' examined turn out to be interviews with Jews who feel 'uncomfortable' (of course there are the usual idiots who shout injurious remarks) in these contexts. Much of this enters the register as 'antisemitic' by organizations like the ADL who fail to carefully assess reports. When I see the word 'uncomfortable', I think that kind of discomfort, if that was all, would be embraced by 2 million Gazans as infinitely preferable to what they must endure, now and for the rest of their prospective lives.] (]) 17:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|"the ADL acknowledged in a statement to the Forward that it significantly broadened its definition of antisemitic incidents following the Oct. 7"}} – there are a few ways to describe this, but "consistent statistical methodology" and "reliable source" are not among them. ] (]) 16:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The full quote from Forward is that {{tq|the ADL acknowledged in a statement to the Forward that it significantly broadened its definition of antisemitic incidents following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack to include rallies that feature "anti-Zionist chants and slogans"}}, but that conflicts with other sources such as the Jewish Currents one that told us in 2021 that their definition of antisemitic incidents had {{tq|long considered}} "anti-Zionist chants and slogans" to be antisemitic. | |||
| :::::It also conflicts with publications from ADL, such as , which said {{tq|Anti-Zionism is antisemitic, in intent or effect, as it invokes anti-Jewish tropes; is used to disenfranchise, demonize, disparage, or punish all Jews and/or those who feel a connection to Israel; exploits Jewish trauma by invoking the Holocaust in order to position Jews as akin to Nazis; or renders Jews less worthy of nationhood and self-determination than other peoples.}} | |||
| :::::Further, even if we assume that Jewish Currents and the ADL website is wrong and Forward is right, organizations are allowed to update the definitions they use, and there is no basis to consider them unreliable because they do so. ] (]) 16:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A broadening of a definition (assuming it is apparent and communicated, which it is here), is not per se problematic, and definitely isn’t if it’s merely used to include IHRA. Based on my reading, it seems like the changes started to include some broadening, per the Forward source:''' Aryeh Tuchman, director of ADL’s Center on Extremism, which oversees the periodic tallies,said in an interview two years ago that his team generally only included incidents that had a clear victim — as opposed to general expressions of hostility toward Jews — and that there was a high bar for including criticism of Israel. ''' Inclusion is only an issue if it is inaccurate, an assuming they are generally following IHRA (and accepting the common-sense fact that people can be discriminatory against their own ethnic, religious or other group), neither of which seems to be disproven by the article(s), who are instead critical of such choices, I see no indication that it is anything beyond biased. | |||
| :::::I have a specific concern regarding the republic article, as it appears that the Forward article is summarised in a misleading way: the forward article seems to describe inclusion of some “anti-Zionist“ incidents, while the republic implies all. Is that just me? ] (]) 16:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Are you missing that after broadening its definition, the ADL then claimed there was a massive rise in antisemitic incidents, right after it significantly broadened its definition of "antisemitic incidents"? ] (]) 17:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Some others have said that the majority of the changes pre-date the conflict, and many of the new changes are covered by IHRA. As long as they publicly admit the change (which they did), I don’t see the problem. ] (]) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Publicly admitted a dishonesty does not make it less dishonest, it just makes it easier to prove that there was dishonesty. It is perverse to use an effect admission of guilt as evidence of innocence, so to speak. ] (]) 01:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Publicly communicating a changing methodology is exactly the way you change methodology appropriately. It’s possible that they failed at that (which still would be a conduct and not a reliability issue, comparable to the nepotism hire topic on the nytimes discussion) ] (]) 07:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What is dishonest about publicly changing methodology? Is it dishonesty to start failing students who score below 70% and then saying more students have failed, after telling students scores below 70% would not pass? ] (]) 03:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{quote|In this case, ADL's position aligns with the Working definition of antisemitism,}} | |||
| ::::Yes, because, as the article itself points out: | |||
| ::::{{quote|Accompanying the working definition, but of disputed status, are 11 illustrative examples whose purpose is described as guiding the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) in its work, seven of which relate to criticism of the Israeli government. As such, pro-Israeli organizations have been advocates for the worldwide legal adoption of the definition.}} | |||
| ::::The definition has nothing even remotely resembling or approaching scholarly consensus. It is a definition promoted by Zionist organizations; of course they agree with each other, what does that prove? ] (]) 01:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That’s partially true, but not relevant: there is no other definition with scholarly consensus either, if they used Jerusalem or 3D, we would have the exact same problem. I personally prefer some other for reasons of practicality, but IHRA is the one most adopted by governments, NGOs (and companies). ] (]) 07:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's not just blatantly dodgy statistical malfeasance and misrepresention (and even arguably disinformation); it's dangerous fear-mongering. ] (]) 16:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' As of late, the ADL has actively been not only producing more and more highly biased material in this subject area, but also misinformation as noted by others above and in the previous discussion. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' the simple fact is that ADL is an aggressively pro-Israel organization which considers even questioning the legitimacy of Israel (a very young state founded under circumstances that are '']'') makes it inherently biased. I’m not trying to wade into the “let’s use Misplaced Pages as a proxy to argue about Israel/Palestine” fight but the rough equivalent would be an Afrikaner advocacy group saying questioning the legitimacy of European colonization in South Africa is racist. ] (]) 16:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] Even if your claims about Israel were right they are not relevant at all to the question of reliability of the ADL. But since you raised this, I must correct you. Your claims are false. Israel is not a very young state. In fact ]. And there is nothing dubious in the circumstances of its birth compared to the birth of other states. ] (]) 15:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I mean Israel had not been continuously inhabited by Jews for thousands of years, unlike say China which has always been inhabited by Chinese people. And “nothing dubious” about ethnic cleansing? I’m not saying it’s worse than other states founded on that premise, but if you think there’s nothing wrong with the Nakba I’m seriously questioning your minimum standard of “dubious”. ] (]) 16:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' - having read much of the extensive discussion and evidence presented above it is clear the ADL cannot be considered a reliable source. The ADL has been publishing and producing blatant misinformation and disinformation regarding the current conflict, exaggerating increases in anti-semitism in the United States by sneaky and cynical misrepresentation of statistics and openly equating literally any criticism of the Israeli government, politicians and military with anti-semitism. By falsely equating criticism of the Israeli government with anti-semitism, ADL is effectively attempting to replicate a ]. This also serves to trivialise genuine anti-semitism, just as who they considered sympathetic to their cause. I don't need to re-state the countless examples of flagrant dishonesty from the ADL shown above, but it is fairly clear that we cannot in good faith trust this source. Perhaps the most damming evidence against the ADL is from ''The Guardian'' earlier this year in which multiple respected staff members of the ADL express serious concerns about the falsehoods coming from within the organisation, and declaring these falsehoods are "intellectually dishonest and damaging to our reputation as experts in extremism." If even their own staff no longer consider them honest, how can anyone? ] (]) 16:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:The Guardian article is about an internal disagreement over the definition of antisemitism; ADL says that it includes anti-zionism, in line with the ] which, while controversial, is also widely accepted, while some employees strongly disagree. At no point does that article say that {{tq|staff members of the ADL express serious concerns about the falsehoods coming from within the organisation}} - the closest the article comes is a quote where an employee expresses concerns about a "false equivalency" between antisemitism and anti-zionism, but this is just part of the dispute over the definition of antisemitism. If I've missed something, then please provide quotes from the article showing it - but from what I can see your claims about that article don't match it, and the article itself doesn't supporting removing ADL's "generally reliable" status, let alone downgrading it to deprecated. ] (]) 17:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I disagree with your characterisation of what the Guardian article is about. The relevant section "Some members of ADL’s staff were outraged by the dissonance between Greenblatt’s comments and the organization’s own research, as evidenced by internal messages viewed by the Guardian. "There is no comparison between white supremacists and insurrectionists and those who espouse anti-Israel rhetoric, and to suggest otherwise is both intellectually dishonest and damaging to our reputation as experts in extremism," a senior manager at ADL’s Center on Extremism wrote in a Slack channel to over 550 colleagues. Others chimed in, agreeing. "The aforementioned false equivalencies and the both-sides-ism are incompatible with the data I have seen," a longtime extremism researcher said. "he stated concerns about reputational repercussions and societal impacts have already proved to be prescient." ] (]) 17:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The Guardian article in reporting on the ADL CEO praising Elon Musk just after Musk had endorsed a vicious anti-semitic conspiracy theory on Twitter/X, which prompted resignations from the ADL in protest. So ignoring genuine disgusting anti-semitism but going after Jews for Peace as an anti-semitic hate group because they want an end to the war in Gaza. Hugely trustworthy source... ] (]) 17:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{quote|ADL says that it includes anti-zionism, in line with the working definition of antisemitism which, while controversial, is also widely accepted}} | |||
| *::You keep offering up this definition as if it proves anything other than that the ADL agrees with other Zionists. ] (]) 01:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It proves that it isn’t fringe, which is the relevant factor here. We can’t and shouldn’t esclude sources because they are zionists. ] (]) 07:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - it's a pro-Israeli lobbying group, not scholarship or journalism, and equates criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Citespam: | |||
| ** ], , 2020: a "pro-Israel US group ... A Jewish organization whose declared mission includes fighting antisemitism, combating hate, and standing up for Israel" | |||
| ** , ] 2020: "Israeli officials, as well as Israel advocacy organizations internationally, have a long history of charging Palestinians and their allies, as well as Israel’s critics and human-rights campaigners, with anti-Semitism" and gives ADL as an example of such an organization (noting ADL in 2009 opposed ] winning a Nobel because he was critical of Israel) | |||
| ** , ] 2023: "pro-Israel organization" | |||
| ** ADL's lobbying spending increased ~4x in recent years | |||
| ** Equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism: | |||
| ** More citespam of reports of criticism of ADL as too pro-Israel and/or willing to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism: ; ; and ; , , and ; ; ; ; ; (describing ADL as "one of the most active Zionist organisations in the US") and ("Anti-Defamation League beclowns itself, again") | |||
| ** I do not see evidence that it has a reputation for reliability, e.g. for fact checking and accuracy; what I see is that it has a reputation for being a pro-Israel advocacy org and lobbying group; the lobbying in particular is a red flag: no lobbying group is an RS, in my opinion, categorically | |||
| :As such, it is not an RS for this topic, generally unreliable. ] (]) 17:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Actually there is at least one other advocacy and lobbying group in the RS list ] : ]. ] (]) 05:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's a US civil rights group working against racism in the US, for the US; it's an advocacy group, not a lobby group, because advocating for civil rights isn't lobbying on behalf of a third party. The ADL very explicitly lobbies on behalf of Israeli (foreign) interests. ] (]) 06:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] Actually ] has a lobby arm as well - The SPLC ACTION FUND. They admit it themselves. See here for example - https://www.splcactionfund.org/news/2023/03/01/splc-action-fund-pursues-systemic-change-congress. '''And the question if certain group works for Americans behalf or other people's behalf has absolutely zero relevance to the question of its reliability'''. This in clearly a WP:NOTFORM. Drop that line of argument. ] (]) 06:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Don't be absurd. Of course being a lobby group has a bearing on reliability. A lobby group is paid to influence: it's perhaps the clearest conflict of interest. ] (]) 07:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You are misrepresenting what I said. '''I didn't say that being a lobby group doesn't matter. I said it doesn't matter who you are lobbying for.''' And the ] is also a lobby group as I have shown. Get into the link I posted. They freely admit it. ] (]) 07:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I was referring to {{tq|"the question if certain group works for Americans behalf or other people's behalf"}} – regardless of the advocacy/lobbying question, there is a clear gap between a group working on behalf of US citizens and residents and the foreign influence of a group working in the interest of another country/its dependents. ] (]) 07:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No. Drop that line. This may be of importance as an argument inside some internal American political argument, but it has absolutely no bearing on the question of reliability in wikipedia. ] (]) 08:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::This is an RFC about reliability on the IP conflict and we are talking about a literal lobby group that is open about its (paid) role to influence public opinion about the topic. That's a conflict of interest; the opposite of independent. ] (]) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::# Yes. But I'm not talking specifically about the IP necessarily. I'm talking about reliability in the relevant fields for the SPLC. The SPLC is a lobby group in whatever fields they lobby (which might BTW contain also IP incidentally, but that requires further research), and therefore according to your logic should be declared unreliable in those fields. | |||
| ::::::::::# I don't understand tour comment about the payments to ADL. Who do you think is paying the ADL and how is this relevant here? | |||
| ::::::::::] (]) 10:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::SPLC's reputation is not great either: ] (]) 07:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] I definitely agree with that. So will you support reducing its reliability if and when such an RfC will be submitted? ] (]) 07:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fair enough. There are signs that it is a fairly parallel case to the ADL as a group that once did some good work, but which has now clearly lost its way. ] (]) 07:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Kudos for the consistency. I have limited time to spend on wikipedia, and submitting an RfC on the ] is not in the top list of my projects. But maybe it will happen one day... ] (]) 07:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's my view of it, too, that ADL and SPLC are parallel cases. They're demonstrations that power always corrupts. They are victims of their own success: having gained the stature of authoritative neutral arbiters, it's clearly been too tempting for some to avoid using that stature for political gain, and once they sacrifice their neutrality, their reputation soon follows. ] (]) 19:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't think that the ADL ever presented itself as "neutral". Neutral between whom? It was definitely never neutral between antisemites and Jews or between Israel and those who wish to delete it. | |||
| ::::::I also don't know if I agree with the way you present the analogy between the ADL and the SPLC, but I don't know enough about the SPLC. Maybe you can bring the 3 worst things done by the ADL and the 3 worst things done by the SPLC (according to your view) and we can compare them? ] (]) 19:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::SPLC is currently green on the RSP list, so building an argument for its unreliability should really happen in a different thread. If we compare ADL to SPLC and they come out the same or ADL comes out better, by current consensus that would make ADL green; if SPLC comes out better that wouldn't help judge if ADL should be green, yellow or red. ] (]) 12:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' The sources clearly demonstrate a severe bias in matters AI/IP, inclusive of weaponizing charges of antisemitism for political purposes in this area. ] (]) 17:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - lobby organization with zero expertise in the topic, the ADL has expertise in some topics but this is not one of them. Id add the following source to those showing its unreliability on the topic: {{cite book | last=Finkelstein | first=Norman G. | title=Beyond Chutzpah | publisher=University of California Press | date=2008-06-02 | isbn=978-0-520-24989-9|page=xiii|quote=Among other propagandistic claims in the ADL “resource for journalists” one might mention these: the “Arab forces were significantly larger” than Israel’s during the 1948 war (p. 2); “by May 1967, Israel believed an Arab attack was imminent” (p. 6); it was “understood by the drafters of the resolution” that “Israel may withdraw from areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip consistent with its security needs, but not from all the territories” (p. 9); “Israel has shown the greatest possible restraint and makes a determined effort to limit Palestinian casualties” (p. 27); “Most Palestinian casualties are individuals who are directly engaged in anti-Israel violence and terrorism” (p. 27); “Settlements . . . do not violate international law” (p. 31); and “Neither international law nor international statute calls for a Palestinian ‘right of return’ to Israel” (p. 32). These assertions have been wholly refuted both by Ben-Ami and by the mainstream scholarship cited in this volume.}} It is not a scholarly organization, it has no expertise on the topics of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Zionism, anti-Zionism, history of the Middle East. It is purely, in this realm, a pressure organization that uses misinformation and disinformation to push a false narrative. ''']''' - 18:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Oo, err ... those last two in particular are pretty dodgy: objectively false statements about international law. ] (]) 18:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::The {{xt|Most Palestinian casualties are individuals who are directly engaged in anti-Israel violence and terrorism}} has never been true either. Literally never. ''']''' - 19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:You cannot use a controversial source like NF to disqualify other sources. Other RS dispute his factual claims here. For example regarding NF claim that this sentence from ADL "In May 1967, events in the region led Israel to expect that an Arab attack was imminent" is false see (second page): "In 1967 Israel preempted what many of the state’s decisionmakers believed was an imminent Arab attack". I can go on with regard to all the other claims NF makes here, but then someone would probably say that is WP:NOFORUM, so I'll stop here. ] (]) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::To reduce ''Beyond Chutzpah'' to Finkelstein and whatever personal reputation he may have is to lose sight of the context of publication. This is not some ] blog post that Finkelstein made; it's a monograph published with a university press, and publishers have systems and processes of review. Had Finkelstein submitted as a manuscript an unsupportable screed without grounding in the scholarly conversation, the University of California Press wouldn't have published it. That they did publish it indicates we should not dismiss out of hand the book and what it reports. ] (] | ] | ]) 19:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::This doesn't change the fact that other RS dispute his claim, and support the ADL claim on this point. Disputes between RS about facts (and needless to say opinions) are extremely common. Why should we trust in this case NF more than the RAND corporation? ] (]) 19:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Is that a serious question? A university press versus a think tank? ] (]) 21:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah, thats just silly. A work of scholarship published by the University of California Press is ], which is our highest tier of reliability. You calling it "controversial" is cute but not important. ''']''' - 20:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Finkelstein (a controversial source, as we can see from the thread up the talk page) is disputing a 2006 ADL publication called "Israel & The Middle East: The Facts", which can be found on scrbd but not on the ADL website, but I don't have access to scrbd or the Finkelstein book, so hard to judge this. Some of the issues NF contends are issues of interpretation (e.g. the balance of forces in 1948 or what Israel believed in May 1967) whereas there are some factual claims (e.g. that most casualties were not civilians) that indeed appear to be false, but I'd need to see the wording of the original before being certain. ] (]) 14:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Whether we consider the ADL reliable for verifying facts re the I/P conflict (or not), they have a reputation of being at the forefront of fighting antisemitism… and THAT is enough for us to say that their attributed ''opinions'' are absolutely DUE and should be mentioned. ] (]) 19:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Don’t think that’s true at all, when those opinions are treated as noteworthy by third party sources then sure, but including their opinions sourced to their own publications? Hard pass. ''']''' - 19:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *There is a splendid model of exemplary methodology, the very impressive paper by L. Daniel Staetsky, ] September 2017, which came out at the tailend of a year of furious claims about the Labour Party and Corbyn's antisemitism problem (which led, with newspaper hysteria, 87% of the Jewish community according to one poll, stating that they would be afraid /consider moving to Israel, if Labour won - which the ADL's recent panicking of American Jews mirrors). Editors should familiarize themselves with Staetsky's sober analysis (it sets a scholarly benchmark for these things), and compare the way the ADL handles the issues. The latter looks shabby by comparison. No one would dissent I presume from the the ADL remains an important indeed indispensable resource for hate crimes generally, but their record on the I/P issue is, unfortunately, one of polemical defensiveness re Israel, and almost total silence about human rights abuses, which NGOs of global standing routinely cover, in book length studies every other year. That silence, and the way it otherwise blurs important distinctions to make out the Palestinian cause is strongly contaminated by antisemitism, undermines its credibility there. Put it this way, it has, certainly recently, discredited itself. Antisemitism is widely studied, clinically, by many distinct agencies and numerous scholarly works. It is not as if, were the ADL to shut down, our knowledge of antisemitism would suddenly dry up. It is, after all, such an obviously outrageous phenomenon that it scarcely escapes even the dullest observer.] (]) 20:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' when it comes to the I/P conflict. Obviously it is a highly ] source on that and could never be used on the topic without attribution, but that alone wouldn't make it unreliable. The real problem is that recent coverage has made it clear that their biases tainted their factual reporting to the point where it has harmed their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; see eg. - they can still be cited via a third party, but we should avoid citing them directly on this. While it is true that they aren't generally described as publishing deliberate lies (which is why I'm for "generally unreliable" rather than deprecation), that alone isn't sufficient to make something a ]. I don't think they should be cited as a primary source for opinion on this topic, either (outside of situations where it itself is the topic of discussion.) Most sources today treat them as an advocacy organization when it comes to Israel, and I do not feel that advocacy orgs, think-tanks, or other lobbying organizations that lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy should be used even for opinions; there is simply nothing notable or meaningful about a "hired gun" churning out the perspective it is being paid to churn out. --] (]) 20:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict per the highly compelling arguments of ] and ]. ] (]) 00:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' with regards to Israel/Palestine. There are perhaps situations where its comments have some relevance due to its direct involvement, but hard to think of them.] (]) 06:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3'''. I don't consider pro-Israel bias alone to make ADL unreliable, but the above mentioned examples of false claims do. ] (]) 09:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''/3. I find this particular question bizarre. ADL has absolutely no expertise on Israel-Palestine itself, and I cannot imagine why anybody would cite it in that topic area. Almost none of the comments above actually relate to ADL's claims about I/P but rather to its claims about antisemitism, the topic of the survey below. Although I cannot imagine why anyone would want to cite ADL on I/P, <s>none</s> only one of the comments above gives an example of ADL making false claims about the topic, and therefore "generally unreliable" would seem excessive. In summary: no reason to doubt reliability for facts about I/P but no reason to cite it on this topic. ] (]) 10:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC) <small>] (]) 14:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)</s> Update 2: After reviewing our actual use of the source in this topic area, I am leaning back to option 2. ] (]) 12:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)]</small> | |||
| *:Believe I posted false claims about the conflict unrelated to antisemitism. ''']''' - 11:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Not false. At most controversial. ] (]) 11:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The claim that most Palestinians killed were involved in violence against Israel is false. The claim that settlements are not illegal is false. But kudos for modifying your earlier comment here. ''']''' - 12:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::where and when did the ADL make such claims? ] (]) 12:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::It’s in the citation I offered above. ''']''' - 13:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::The citation you offered is from a (called "Israel and the Middle East: A Resource for Journalists"). But this ADL document is no longer available as far as I could check. Maybe you can find it? Apparently it was some booklet or PDF file or webpage that nobody bothered to archive. So you see, there are serious multiple problems with your argument that this evidence can serve to prove that the ADL is not reliable on factual claims: | |||
| *::::::1. It is about claims of the ADL that were allegedly made 19 years ago. How is it relevant today?? '''If you had to go 19 years ago to find factual errors of the ADL, then it seems to me that they are pretty reliable on the factual side.''' | |||
| *::::::2. Furthermore, it seems that these alleged quotes cannot be checked in their context, '''and that matters a lot'''. For example the claim that most Palestinians killed were involved in violence against Israel, might be correct in some context such as if talking about some particular war or operation, where indeed this was the case. And the quote about the settlements says "Settlements . . . do not violate international law". There is an ellipsis in the middle, and we have no idea what text was omitted. Maybe it said that there are some International Law scholars that claim that the settlements don't violate international law. If that's the case then the claim is actually correct, even if nowadays these scholars are in a small minority. But we don't know what the context was in both cases, because we don't have the primary source. | |||
| *::::::3. Furthermore, it seems that these alleged quotes cannot be checked and verified against the primary source, which appears to have been lost. This point is particularly relevant because NF the author of this book is (beyond dispute) extremely biased against Israel, and also was found to make at least some egregious errors in his work, as had been pointed in the discussion about him above. While these allegations may not be enough to disqualify him as a reliable source in wikipedia, they definitely undermine using him as a source to disqualify other sources, when his claims cannot be verified by other sources. ] (]) 14:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::It's actually a rather good demonstration that the ADL has been unreliable for the last two decades. ] (]) 15:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::This will only be true if you can you show factual errors of the ADL regarding IP from the last say 5 years, rather than from 19 years ago (Assuming those things from 19 years ago are indeed incorrect. See points 2 & 3) ] (]) 16:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Uh huh, since NF's books appear to rather more reliable than the ADL on the face of it. ] (]) 16:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I missed this example nableezy. That does appear to be a case of some false claims of fact, though I can't actually see what the 2006 publication was as it doesn't seem to be online at all. ] (]) 14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I’m sure I can find others, but there’s an eclipse out here so I’m spending the day outside and then in the car driving home for god knows how many hours. Will go back for more sources later. ''']''' - 18:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I've been looking through . I found very few instances of it's use about I/P. I found two in the first couple of pages of hits. In our article ] we currently cite (now no longer on the ADL website) for a claim about Jerusalem's significance to Jews. This is a bad use of ADL, as the "factsheet" is basically a list of talking points for pro-Israel advocates. Options 2, 3 or 4 would enable us avoid this sort of use. In the article ], we use as the source for a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. This is a good example of a straightforward fact and the ADL reporting it reliably. Option 2 would enable us to continue using it unproblematically in this way, while option 3 would preclude this. | |||
| *::::So I think option 2 is the better choice than option 3. ] (]) 12:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1: Generally Reliable'''. A reliable source is not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, according to ]. Many NGOs, which are considered reliable, illustrate this point. ADL is an opinionated source that is openly pro-Israeli, for example, they openly say that "ADL works to support a secure Jewish and democratic state of Israel, living in peace and security with its neighbors" and "ADL speaks out when anti-Israel rhetoric or activism engages in distortions or delegitimizes Israel, crosses into antisemitism when it demonizes or negates Zionism, and uses anti-Jewish assertions and tropes". To be considered a reliable source, an organization is required to have good reputation for fact checking. When using *any* source, it's crucial to distinguish between opinion pieces and research, and to properly attribute opinions. Regarding ADL, their reputation for fact-checking in research papers has been excellent for over a century; thus, relying on them for facts presents no issue. Editors should exercise normal consideration of controversial topics and consider using attribution where necessary. For example, claiming something is or is not a "hate symbol" is more a matter of opinion than fact, serving as an example of something that should be attributed if disputed - but this is normal for every reliable source - that's why we use the word "generally". ] (]) 05:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:So this part: {{tq|"ADL speaks out when anti-Israel rhetoric or activism when it negates Zionism}} is the real problem – because this is a mission to curtail free speech. You can't really be civil rights group '''AND''' be such an openly politically biased entity that you actively go after individuals and groups for simply opposing your chosen political ideology. That's more than a little unhinged – more so even than the rest of its mission as a US (not Israeli) NGO that isn't registered as a foreign agent (FARA). And editors have pointed out numerous issues with the ADL's presentation of facts; there's a lot of not listening here. ] (]) 07:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Iskandar323, like you I disagree with how the ADL understands anti-Zionism but can you show me the policy that says a source has to be committed to unlimited free speech before we consider it reliable? The question isn't whether it's really a civil rights group or not; it's whether it's reliable for facts. ] (]) 13:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Let's put it this way: I can't imagine another source presented as an RS with a stated mission to oppose those that reject its political position. All media has bias, but stating it is your mission to actively oppose certain politics is the hallmark of a determinedly agenda-driven lobby group, not a truth-oriented organisation. Most RS media with have a mission statement about a commitment to truth and the like. Most RS rights groups will have a mission statement about a commitment to their rights specialty regardless of politics. ] (]) 18:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::] ] (]) 19:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::@] @] Actually I'm not impressed at all by "a mission statement about a commitment to truth". This doesn't matter at all. ] also claimed to be committed to truth, so much that its name literally means "truth" in Russian. Yet we know that every second word in that paper was false. | |||
| *::::The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And the only way to asses reliability of a source is by looking at its actual record of factual reporting. This can be done in 2 ways: | |||
| *::::1. We do a systematic review and asses the rate of the sources factual errors. No source has 0 errors, but if the rate of errors is significantly higher than acceptable for RS then the source is unreliable. No such systematic review was presented against the ADL in this case. On the day of the eclipse @] have promised such evidence, but so far he didn't supply it. | |||
| *::::2. Since doing a systematic review requires a lot of work sometimes we can find a shortcut by ]. If indisputably highly reliable sources use the source under investigation we can assume that they had already systematically checked it "for us". I and others have presented sufficient examples of ] in the sections '''Reliable sources using ADL''' and '''Scholarly citations of ADL publications since 2020 from JSTOR''' below. ] (]) 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Please both stop pinging me and stop bludgeoning this discussion. Everybody knows what you think now, you can give it a rest and let the community decide. Sorry, but I have things in the real world that are more important to me than this discussion, I’ll get to it when I get to it. ''']''' - 12:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The TL;DR - Indie Vision Music has been used on Misplaced Pages for over a decade, has multiple writers under a site owner, has been used by other, more mainstream sources as a source, even called by one of them "well regarded", and both the owner and another writer write for a magazine that is a prime source for the subject niche. However, another writer has a COI with some artists, the website operated/s a music label which could have some COI issues with specific artists, and an editor has questioned, due to the one COI issue and the blog structure of the site, whether actual editorial oversight is practiced.--] (] | ]) 22:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - as an advocacy group, it must be held to higher standards than other sources (per K.e.coffman). The evidence presented by nableezy, Levivich and Aquillion show that the ADL is publishing questionable content, including on Palestine, and that other sources are simply not treating them as scholarly. ''']] (])''' 12:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The real question comes to is the editorial process compared to that of the ], or is it more along that of two well known and popular, but generally unusable ] and ] sources? | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. I've never used it for anything related to the IP conflict as there are much better sources covering it. However no actual falsehoods have been presented, so no reason to downgrade it. The u:Brusquedandelion's examples are about people who disagree with their definition of antisemitism. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Many of the writers in IVM articles are band members, rather than professionally trained journalists. | |||
| :: To be clear, here I'm !voting on using ADL for facts and opinions about the IP conflict itself. There are varieties of antisemitism that involve Israel (such as applying double standards to it), this belongs to the next section. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Things to be addressed here are: | |||
| :What sort of things can it be relied on for factual accuracy? | |||
| :Is it of any use at all for establishing notability and if so, for what? | |||
| :{{u|3family6}} said it's reliable because it's in the Christian Metal list, but they did acknowledge they are more or less the lone curator of that list, so that list should perhaps be seen similarly as a blog or a personal website. ] (]) 05:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: to clarify, currently I'm essentially the sole contributor, that was not the case 10 years ago when the list was created. And I last found the discussion, see below | |||
| * Ah- I found the where this source along with a lot of others were added. multiple editors were involved and approved that listing--] (] | ]) 10:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : is what the site's staff page looked like when it was added to ]. I'm pinging editors who were either involved in the discussion of adding the sources (which included IVM) or who have otherwise been - or are now active 11 years later - in ] (and who are still active - sadly, a couple accounts got banned for socking unrelated to this issue): {{u|TenPoundHammer}}, {{u|Toa Nidhiki05}}, {{u|Royalbroil}}, {{u|TARDIS}}, {{u|The Cross Bearer}}. I'm also going to reach out to Brandon Jones about the editorial policy (without mentioning this discussion), and see what he says.--] (] | ]) 12:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' the evidence presented so far by Levivich and others speaks for itself. ] (]) 15:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|3family6}}, The RS/N specializes in evaluating sources. I don't know why you've pinged five users you hand picked. It's kind of ]ish in a recruiting kind of way especially when you hold one particular position on the matter on hand. ] (]) 16:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I already explained why I pinged these editors. Most of them were involved with curating the sources list, which included IVM. I don't know what their opinions on this issue are. It's not Canvassing.--] (] | ]) 16:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|3family6}}, Going off a bit on a tangent, but it seems to me sockpuppetry seems rather prevalent among music focused editors. Sometimes, it's necessary to go back and discount inputs from sock form consensus. ] (]) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is in a large part precisely WHY I tagged editors who were involved in that discussion.--] (] | ]) 18:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Pinging {{u|Invisiboy42293}}, {{u|Booyahhayoob}}, and {{u|TrulyShruti}} as they are also currently active and are part of the Christian music WikiProject. I also will post a notice of this discussion there so other active editors I have missed might still be notified.--] (] | ]) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' despite the efforts to paint it as "questionable" above, I don't find anything compelling to list it as anything but a reliable source. Based on my own quick review of coverage, it appears that most media treat the ADF's reports as credible. ] (]) 19:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Selecting people enthusiastic, probably part of a somewhat cohesive group who share common views may foster more groupthink. ] (]) 16:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::People in the subject area are informed. Per WP:CANVASS "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." It's ridiculous to say that people who are interested in the topic and edit it should be precluded from important discussions about what constitutes reliable sources regarding that subject. Especially given the import that the outcome has, one way or the other.--] (] | ]) 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I believe it's like notifying hand picked known railfanning people from WikiProject Trains and asking whether certain railfanning websites are reliable and expert sources. You chose an area of your enthusiasm and you handpicked a set of people from (relatively niche) Wikiproject group, as opposed to general music. I'm not surprised the responses so far have been from people you have hand notified, and of predictable input. ] (]) 06:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I also posted in WikiProject Albums, I'll ping some editors from there in a day or two if they haven't responded. The niche is why I notified editors from that project, as they're familiar with the sources. I'll post a notice to the general music WikiProject as well.--] (] | ]) 15:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::and I posted to Projects Journalism, and Magazines. ] (]) 17:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thanks! Yeah, I was trying to think of relevant projects, especially since this hasn't gotten any eyes apart from the users I tagged.--] (] | ]) 17:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I also notified WikiProject Albums.--] (] | ]) 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Important clarification: The band member mentioned by me and {{u|Graywalls}} above no longer writes for the site (not naming them because they might be a Misplaced Pages editor and I don't want to ]).--] (] | ]) 13:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I think the caveats {{u|3family6}} provided here are broadly acceptable. Obviously a subject isn't reliable when discussing itself or connected topics, but HM and IVM broadly are excellent source - HM in particular, which is without a doubt an absolutely indispensable resource for Christian rock and metal. So I think, with those specific caveats, it's an acceptable resource. '''] ]''' 18:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have already linked to several reliable sources doing exactly that: question their reliability. ] (]) 01:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Responding to {{u|3family6}}'s ping: Truthfully I haven't been active on Christian music Misplaced Pages in quite some time (personal reasons plus my interests drifted elsewhere). That said, I am familiar with Indie Vision Music, both as an editor and just casually, and in my experience they're pretty solidly journalistic when it comes to Christian music. I don't know of any reason not to use them as a source in this field. ] (]) 01:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' It is frequently pointed out in discussions of Al Jazeera that sources that are biased are not necessarily unreliable. Applying that standard uniformly, as we must, the ADL is a reliable source on I/P. ] (]) 14:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Pinging these editors from a related discussion to see what they think: {{u|Saqib}}, {{u|Axad12}}. The COI editing from ] included this source (IVM), as well as ''HM''. The latter has no association with the issue, whereas one former IVM author, who hasn't written for the site since 2017, since 2018 has a COI with some bands and their work was used by the paid editing for Metalworker14. Does this taint the entire source, or would the source be unreliable even if this specific issue hadn't occurred?--] (] | ]) 15:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Why are you comparing apples to irrelevant oranges? No one is comparing the ADL, a lobby group, to Al Jazeera, a news source with bylines, masthead, editorial boarf and ethics policy. They're incomparable, and the standard to prove that the ADL ''is'' reliable, despite having no editorial controls, is far higher. ] (]) 16:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *This looks like any other dime-a-dozen unreliable music site, self-published by amateurs with no apparent training or background in music criticism, no editorial policies, and only known by other niche or local outlets. I see no reason why we'd give their viewpoints any weight, either for reviews or for consideration of notability. I'll also note that I wasn't canvassed here. ] (]) 16:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yes they are not comparable. AJ has bylines, masthead, editorial board and ethics policy, Qatari government ownership and content that reflects it. ] (]) 19:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Lloyd Harp has a decade of experience or so at ''HM'' it seems to have come on to IVM more recently. Regarding the other authors I don't know of previous work. Brandon Jones founded IVM and only more recently has joined ''HM''.--] (] | ]) 17:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree with Iskandar that this is a terrible argument. Al Jazeera is a news organization with an editorial board and editorial standards. Their bias doesn't affect their reliability for facts. | |||
| :::{{re|3family6}}, you've mentioned ] as an indicator of reliability, but I am not sure if that's true. Writers don't write whatever they want and they are expected to write certain things to the publication's standards. | |||
| *:The ADL is an advocacy group, and it's increasingly clear that it's an advocacy group for Israel. They do not have an editorial board or editorial standards. They've even collaborated directly with the Israeli government in the past, according to The Nation. This does, pretty obviously, make them unreliable for facts and not just reliable-but-biased like Al Jazeera. ] (]) 18:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Although it says to evaluate case-by-case, we're generally discouraged from using ]. Such freelance writer sharing isn't uncommon but doesn't turn the source into reliable category. One example article https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrolli/2019/10/17/metallica-scores-biggest-global-rock-event-cinema-release-with-sm/ their profile says {{tq|I am a music and entertainment reporter who specializes in pop, hip-hop and heavy metal. I cover numerous festivals, interview local and national touring musicians, and examine how artists' personal brands and social media antics affect their art and their earnings. My work has appeared in Billboard, Paste, Consequence of Sound, Noisey and the Daily Dot|tq}} but just because that person wrote it doesn't mean it can be treated as an equivalent of a Billboard or Daily Dot article. | |||
| *::While the ADL doesn't have editorial board (as it's not a newspaper) it has other processes installed for quality control, such as peer review. See here https://www.adl.org/research-centers/center-antisemitism-research ] (]) 07:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Another source, such as ] and their now defunct sister projects like Delishably and ReelRundown did have editorial oversight and editorial policy but with specific purposes and they're rated based on AI evaluation, moderator reviews and "search traffic" over a long term. Those are MONETIZED articles and the purpose is to drive traffic so that hosting service can maximize ad revenue. The simple presence of editorial oversight doesn't make it reliable. So, what remains to be determined is the editorial process of IVM. Is it more like Forbes contributors, Hub Pages and like or comparable to Billboard, Consequence of Sound or National Geograpics? ] (]) 03:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Even if we take that centre's promo pitch at face value, it only represents its own output, which is only a fraction of the ADL's output, and so logically can't be reflective of the ADL overall. ] (]) 09:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Please read the context, {{u|Graywalls}}. I was responding to this statement {{tq|self-published by amateurs with no apparent training or background in music criticism,|tq}}. For one of the writers, this is not true, as he has an extensive background with a reputable magazine. You already brought up your point about Forbes contributors, you don't need to do so ''again''.--] (] | ]) 11:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Well, you take Al Jazeera's promo pitch about independent editorial board and independent editorial control at face value, then why not take the ADL's one as well? And this center is the part of ADL that is responsible for their publications on antisemitism. So it is very relevant to the second vote below about the ADL's reliability on anti-Semitism. I suppose this comment should have gone under that section, but I just responded to Loki's claims about lack of "editorial board" without paying attention to what section it was in. Sorry about that. ] (]) 09:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was providing an actual piece written by someone with respectable experience so there's a specific example. It's not just a simply rephrased version of the same thing I said which appears to be what you may have been implying. ] (]) 11:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::It's just a division within ADL, and unless content is specifically labelled as coming from the center, you don't know if it is or not. So again, this doesn't even reflect on the ADL is general, and no, two paragraphs do not establish that it is has standards. On the contrary, yes, I do appreciate the comprehensiveness of AJ's – do let us your know what you think is out of order. ] (]) 10:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: That is a fair point, I appreciate that these are much more fleshed out example. But that's not the point of this particular part of the discussion. What was in discussion here is the professionalism of the writing staff, particularly prior experience. And it's a mixed bag. To your point, yes, just because they're a professional writer doesn't mean that they aren't essentially self-published in some cases. Still, the professionalism of the writers is a useful tool for determining reliability.--] (] | ]) 16:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::And that "]" length ethical standards document needs to be compared with the reality of coverage that has been widely condemned as advancing Qatari foreign policy and functioning as Hamas apologia, especially in its Arabic language coverage. ] (]) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:My feeling is that the recent discussion at COIN (here ), which ultimately resulted in Metalworker14 being blocked as a primarily promo account, indicates the problems that can be encountered in small scenes (whether they be music scenes or other relatively small groups of enthusiasts). | |||
| *:::::::You've rattled off this irrelevance about bias previously, and I didn't respond for that reason. Conspiratorial views about Qatar couldn't be less relevant to this discussion. ] (]) 15:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:When a user who has a range of potential COIs starts to edit Misplaced Pages under a pseudonym, evidently the undisclosed nature of what they are doing will create issues. However, whether that necessarily casts a cloud over their work off-wiki is a different question. | |||
| *'''Option 3''' Not really much new to add; the ADL has generally lumped criticism of the Israeli government and/or its policies in with legitimate antisemitism, which at least to me indicates they aren't particularly reliable on the I/P conflict. ] ] 19:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:My feeling is that material created within small scenes is primarily for the benefit of fans - who are probably aware of the possibility of some form of COI existing (whether that be direct financial COI or individuals reviewing the work of their friends, etc.). Fans are, I'd suggest, untroubled by such issues and are grateful for the fact that dedicated coverage exists at all, created by individuals who are also enthusiasts. Whether the material is of a nature that an encyclopaedia ought to be depending on, however, I am inclined to doubt. | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per My very best wishes and Marokwitz. They have a long history of fact checking and reliability, and are treated as credible by other reliable sources. ] (]) 21:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Really we are probably in the realms of fanzines, i.e. where editors are likely grateful that material has been submitted at all and significant editorial oversight is potentially lacking. ] (]) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or 4''' clearly a zionist advocacy group that doesn't represent Jews or humanity due to the utter irrelevance the group holds outside of the USA. Being called antisemitic due to holding anti-zionist or anti colonialist views is sophistry and subterfuge of the highest caliber, and as such this group cannot be taken seriously in matters relating to Palestine or Israel. ] (]) | |||
| *I was asked to comment here rather than at the notice at RS/N, and this extensive discussion has suggested my priors on this issue are still the case: this is a standard mid-level independent source on a specialized musical topic, and 3family6's comments indicate that its writers have the level of musical expertise and training that any other music rag would have. They are not ''investigative'' journalists, but rather critics evaluating based on a background in an understanding of musical style and history - which is what you get from most staff who write for e.g. Pitchfork, Allmusic, Popmatters, or Dusted. I don't think the use of the source by one troublesome editor casts doubt on the source generally, and I'm inclined to buy the argument that the writers IVM carries that also write for ''HM'' has some weight (since ''HM'' is reliable). We'd want to exercise COI caution for any artist ''directly'' associated with Indie Vision's label or a musical release from a staff member, but that's not a cause for general concern about the source. ] (]) 16:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' The ADL has shown itself to be far too pro-Israel in their ongoing war against Hamas and have used their platform to attack people who have protested against Israel's actions. They are at the forefront of groups who try to equate even the slightest criticism of Israel's policies with anti-semitism. They also have recently been providing incidents of anti-semitism without evidence. An article they released recently conflated anti Israel protests on last weekend as being exclusively protests praising the actions of Hamas and included descriptions of signs yet did not provide photographic evidence of the more inflammatory signs they alleged to have seen. They have also called Jewish activists who do not support Zionism or Israel's policies as anti-semitic or useful idiots for anti-semites such as when they said that Jewish Voice for Peace was <i>" its Jewish identity to shield the anti-Israel movement from allegations of anti-Semitism and provide it with a greater degree of legitimacy and credibility."</i> Additionally, they've repeatedly denied that American police officers travel to Israel to train in spite of the fact the ADL themselves have routinely paid for these very programs that they deny. Since October 7th, they've increasingly squandered their credibility as an authority on racism and hate in support of an increasingly unpopular foreign conflict that the international community has grown to condemn, even among governments that have supported Israel such as the United States.] (]) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' An NGO which seems to smear ''every'' critic of Israely policies with an "antisemitic" allegation: No thanks. ] (]) 22:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' Generally reliable on gauging what do Zionists in the United States think of the conflict, but far too biased for neutral overviews. ] (he/him • ]) 15:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' per K.e.coffman and Zero. Biased sources can still be usable (although in this case, the bias is significant enough that it would at least be an option 2 situation, if they were this biased and still factual), but sources that let their bias get in the fact of being factual, and indeed (looking at this from a USEBYOTHERS perspective) require other sources which had initially used their facts to subsequently correct their own articles because those facts were not factual, well, that's option 3 or 4 territory. ] (]) 18:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4''' There are a lot of articles around that analyzed in depth how worked that website and what was their stance. ''The Nation'' 's ''The Intercept'' ''The Boston Review'' ''The Guardian'' explained very well with clear highly problematic cases what was wrong. Consequently in the end TADL is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia such as Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Extremly reputable organisation. Obviously those designated as racists, or their friends, are noisy regarding the classification by organisations such as the SPLC or the ADL, however such noise expected. The ADL is very reputable. ] (]) 05:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Who are those and who are their friends? ''']''' - 07:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1 (with serious Option 2 consideration as currently outlined in current Perennial Sources listing)''' With understanding for shifts in the tone and agenda of the organization in recent years, I think it's a troubling notion to attempt to depreciate an organization that has generally been considered reliable for more than a century (and is still considered reliable by most identified RS). This does not appear to be a mainstream matter, but a partisan one. Most of the sources provided that are attacking the ADL's credibility are politically leaning or partisan (as are, with respect, 90% of the editors who have shown up on this page). There are obvious considerations to be made given the ADL's natural and obvious slant (as currently outlined in its perennial listing), but until a majority of sources who consistently rely on ADL reporting declare it to be unfit or unreliable (which, in spite of The Nation's protestations, they have not), I see no need to alter the rating of this organization beyond current considerations already outlined. ] (]) 17:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:And are the editors supporting ADL’s credibility, you included, not partisan? Get off it. ''']''' - 19:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Of course. Almost everybody on this discussion, from all sides, is partisan. That's what ] said: "90% of the editors who have shown up on this page". That's why we have to stick to facts, and not opinions. To show that ADL is unreliable you have to show a significant number of '''factual errors''' in their reporting. So far nobody managed to do that. ] (]) 20:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I, and others, have already done that. That you dislike that doesn’t change that it has been established. Anyway, I don’t find engaging with you to be particularly fruitful or enjoyable so I’ll stop now. Toodles. ''']''' - 21:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::N, That's not nice. I didn't say being partisan it was a bad thing. I'm glad people have strong opinions, but in terms of disqualifying a source that has been reliably used by other perennial RS, I'm going to need those editorial boards to chime in and prefer to rely upon that far more than a number of editors who routinely team engage in disqualification quests. ] (]) 20:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::You’re going to need some evidence for you aspersion about {{tq|team engage in disqualification quests}}, and you’re going to need something besides a partisan recounting of who is partisan to disqualify the overwhelming majority of views here that find this source to be dog shit for this topic. ''']''' - 21:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3'''. Largely per Levivich and Nableezy above. I won't add more citespam or walls of text, but there is ample evidence above that we should not be parroting the ADL in wikivoice with regard to I/P. <span style="color:magenta;">ezlev</span> <small>(]/]/])</small> 18:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1 - generally reliable'''. ADL is a generally reliable source in its areas of expertise, including antisemitism, extremism, democracy technology and society. ADL has a strong reputation for fact checking and accuracy in most mainstream sources as demonstrated in many of the comments in this discussion, and it has three professional research centers with different expertise areas. While ADL focuses heavily on antisemitism, it deals with extremism on a global scale, not focusing solely on Israel and Jews, but also on white supremacy, racism and worldwide terrorism. https://www.adl.org/research-centers/center-on-extremism. ] (]) 15:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or 4''' Not going to duplicate or rehash the enormous walls of text I've written and replied to in the antisemitism section, one can simply scroll down for that. The TL;DR is that the ADL is a hyperpartisan source on this issue and their credibility has been severely damaged under their current leadership, to the point where even many high-profile members of the ADL have resigned in protest. The ADL's issues on I/P in particular aren't new, but they've gotten much worse. They are not a reliable, academic, or objective source when the Israel-Palestine conflict is involved. I'm open to option 2 for content that is completely unrelated to Israel, Palestine, or related subjects such as zionism. But the ADL should absolutely not be used as a source of information on those subjects, certainly not without attribution. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 23:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3'''. After reading a lot of the above discussion, I would like to briefly comment. I took another look at the reliability consensus legend, keeping in mind that we are considering the source as it relates to the ''Israel/Palestine conflict''. | |||
| :-For ], {{tq|"Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a '''reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction''', often in the form of a strong editorial team."}} (bolding mine). On I/P conflict topics, I do not think we could fairly characterize the ADL as having a "reputation of fact-checking, accuracy and error-correction". As others have pointed out, in this area the ADL tends to make statements with ''advocacy'' in mind more-so than precision. A good example of this is shown in the which Levivich linked. Following the link to , the ADL wrote {{tq|"we certainly cannot sit idly by as a student organization provides vocal and '''potentially material support''' to Hamas"}} (emphasis mine), referring to ]. As noted in the article, the ] disputed that suggestion in an open letter . The Intercept wrote {{tq|"There is no evidence SJP has ever provided material support to Hamas"}}. From an outsider's perspective, the ADL's words seem more like an attempt to smear the SJP than faithful reporting by an expert. It was at best an unsupported claim. This kind of behavior seems unbefitting of a source we could turn to as "reliable" on the Israel/Palestine conflict matter. | |||
| :-For ], {{tq|"Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content."}} I think in this subject area (I/P conflict) it hits the mark of "questionable in most cases" as a source, particularly about the people and organizations it views as anti-Israel. ] (]) 05:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' '''on I/P''' '''or critiques of Zionism''', '''Option 2 otherwise'''. Per Nabeezy and Levivich. ] (]) 03:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. The ADL is respected and used by media and scholarship. It is the most respected source out there on antisemitism, and is a very strong source for other hate groups. ---Lilach5 (]) ] 04:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2/3''' Of course this is not an acceptable source for Israel-Palestine conflict. While ADL is itself not Zionist, they properly document the Zionist views, as such it can be still used for providing the Zionist point whenever it is needed because in the Israel-Palestine conflict. <span style="font-family:'Forte';">] (])</span> 08:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:The ADL is not Zionist? Are you sure about that? ] (]) 06:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' generally no expertise, whatever narrow expertise it might have is to take one side. ] (]) 15:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or 4'''. '']'' editorial bias from higher-ups to conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism, to focus on anti-Zionism, especially after October 7. '']'' has also that ceasefire protests have been incorrectly marked as antisemitic. It doesn't appear that the ADL should have a positive reliability rating when it's strong support of Israel overrules fact-checking. ] (]) 23:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' as it pertains to I/P, per various editors who put it far better than I could myself above, including Nableezy and Levivich. I could only see used as a source for its own point of view, or perhaps general Zionist outlooks on the conflict. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 15:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3'''. ADL is an explicitly biased pro-Israel advocacy group and its claims are not at all reliable regarding Israel-Palestine conflict. I'd support '''deprecating''' this source if some editor can demonstrate that this group promotes zionist or republican/neo-con conspiracy theories. ] (]) 11:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' preferred, will be ok with '''Option 4'''. ADL by definition is a campaign organisation, and thus cannot be sourced for objective facts. If the information sought falls close to their campaign themes, their bias becomes extreme. Conseqeuntly, ADL should not be used as a source for any information related to Israel other than what's allowed by ]. — ] ] 15:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''', an advocacy source whose purpose often leads them to bias their reporting of the facts to such a degree that they are not useful as a source for an encyclopaedia. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 12:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Having read the sources presented above (especially by user Levivich), unambiguously '''Option 3''' and '''Option 4''' would not be out of the question. No way an organization with such bias in this topic area could be presented as an RS for an encyclopedia. ] (]) 12:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''', per Nishidani. ] (]) 13:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''', very clearly a strongly pro-Israel biased organization, shouldn't be used as a source.--] (]) 21:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' per Levivich and Nableezy clearly unrealiable—] 18:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' Seems unreliable and should be attributed, especially after their turn towards ] instead of actual antisemitism ] (]) 21:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' A source having a bias does not make that source automatically unreliable. However, when that bias becomes so pervasive to the point that it directly impacts the factuality of the source is when a source becomes unreliable, which is what has happened here. ] (]) 03:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''', weakly leaning Option 2. They will of course be biased by the nature of the cause they support. I don't see them as making things up, so seem to be reliable but with a lean one way or the other. ] (]) 17:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' - The ADL is widely viewed as a highly credible source on the issues it works on (akin to suggesting SPLC is not credible on hate groups or HRC is not credible on LGBT issues). It is generally reliable which is why it is ] which, per ], is "evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts". ] (]) 22:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 or 3''': Marginally reliable but completely bias and attribution should always be required. Given the ADL are staunchly pro-Israeli, I can also understand why it could also be considered generally unreliable, as have seen an increasing amount of claims that any criticsm of Israel is inherently anti-semitic, which blends into Part 2 of this discussion. ] (]) 12:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3, bordering on option 4''' per the numerous examples presented of it being a pro-Israel/pro-Isaeli government advocacy group that doesn't trouble itself with sticking to the facts. There may be occasions when it's appropriate to quote the ADL's point of view, but this must always be done with attribution and never presented as fact without independent supporting evidence. ] (]) 15:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - And I'm pretty shocked this has to be mentioned. They're a partisan political organization with a particular view and agenda. It's like asking if the Republican Party or Democratic party are reliable sources. Uh, no? If RS are covering an issue, and covers their viewpoint, they can be quoted as an example of said viewpoint. But not as a source on anything. ] (]) 01:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Additional considerations apply''': Per my comment below. ] ] 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' or, failing that, '''option 3'''. | |||
| *I'm still waiting to hear back from the website/Brandon Jones about the policy, but, I was able to determine that they do issue corrections and edits: , , , . So that's a good sign of editorial oversight and ensuring accuracy.--] (] | ]) 12:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In particular, I feel that the ADL should be deprecated with regard to antisemitism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the issues that most closely relate to that, such as ]. This would include resources like the , as well as press releases and other findings published by the ADL that either have something to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or are somehow tainted by the ADL's unreliability on that topic, such as when the ADL cites statistics about antisemitism as a whole that are dubious because of the way it classifies pro-Palestinian sentiment. In addition to having a strong pro-Israel bias, the ADL and Jonathan Greenblatt regularly promote falsehoods, stories that are later debunked, and make claims they don't independently confirm with forensic evidence, relying on their reputation as "the leading anti-hate organization in the world" to lend credibility to their claims. | |||
| * I meant to post this here, not the WP Music, but posted there by mistake. Looking at https://www.indievisionmusic.com/author/brandon-j/ it sure seems like a ]. My personal take on it is that it can't be used to support notability. These small time bands are not competing against each other but rather supporting each other. The blogosphere of these band blogs is an echo chamber of like minded bands boosting and praising each other publicly to collectively raise themselves. It's like friends and family writing references for each other. If they offer correction notices, it's better than not doing that, but people do that even on Misplaced Pages pages with strike out. It's not a one man show, but still a blog. Editorial process that only consists of fixing grammar/spelling and suppressing contents of liability concerns prior to publishing isn't really much of editorial oversight. ] (]) 19:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Others have made a distinction between advocacy groups and academic or news organizations, but I'd like to add that the way the ADL markets itself as an impartial, "anti-hate" organization makes its bias and its false or insinuating claims especially misleading. Because the ADL launders its pro-Israel advocacy and bias through its reputation as an impartial and neutral anti-bigotry research and advocacy group, it can be particularly misleading when used as a source. | |||
| ::First, let me address the part about "like-minded bands": Indie Vision Music isn't a band, it's a website, and for awhile was also a record label. So far, it's been shown that ''one'' author was in some bands. Authors are allowed to also be musicians, there's nothing wrong with that. And that writer has not written for the site since 2017. "boosting and praising each other publicly to collectively raise themselves." - that's not correct, as the site will give out negative reviews (). "Editorial process that only consists of fixing grammar/spelling and suppressing contents of liability concerns prior to publishing isn't really much of editorial oversight." What are you referring to here? Hypotheticals aren't useful. Please substantiate them. The correction examples I found and listed above are more than that. Does the review process involve more than that? Maybe yes, maybe no. You are speculating here that they don't actually fact-check. This could be a group blog, which, yes, is an example of a self-published source. Or, this could be a site with an editorial process. We know it has a reputation and is ]. The question is about the editorial process, since that isn't public knowledge. | |||
| ::Now, as to Brandon Jones and self-published sources, Brandon Jones is the publisher but also writes for the site. Other writers for the site, it's not an issue - they're the writers, he's the publisher, so they aren't self-published. But, are articles by Brandon Jones self-published? I think I asked about cases where a publication owner and publisher writes material for that publication years ago, I think in reference to Doug Van Pelt of ''HM'' or John DiBiase of Jesus Freak Hideout. I couldn't find that discussion, and so I brought this to the ]. As I asked there, Like, for example, if Ian Danzig writes an article for '']'' (which he owns and publishes), or ''HM'''s founder and publisher Doug Van Pelt or Jesus Freak Hideout's owner and publisher John DiBiase write articles for their respective websites, or ] writes a story for '']'', are those articles self-published sources only or are they considered reliable, independent published sources? And basically, it depends. There's actually two current, very active discussions on basically this and more broadly related questions about orgs where the publishing process is internal to the organization (as opposed to an external entity, for example, ] being hosted by ]). And there doesn't seem to be a consensus. I think a lot of it depends on the editorial process. On that point, with Indie Vision Music, I think there's two distinct eras to that site on this issue. From 2006 to 2020, . That adds a layer of editorial process, both for the site and for Brandon Jones. But, conversely, how much is that editorial control independent when it comes to Brandon's writings, as Brandon will be the one publishing them? That still seems to be a pretty close relation. I don't know if there's an answer here. I think that having a managing editor does indicate an actual editorial process from 2006 to 2020 at least. I still haven't heard back yet what the policy is at present. I don't know if I will get a response (which I don't think proves things one way or the other, it just leaves that question unanswered). I'm wondering if perhaps Brandon's writings from 2017 onward (that year being the year he was hired by ''HM'') are self-published material from a reliable expert in the field, whereas the other writers are not self-published.--] (] | ]) 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::From what I've seen, RSN discussions tend to find that anything written by the site runner would be considered self-published. For example, see the ] entry for ]. The editor, ], is an expert on quackery but because he basically runs the site, we often can't use his pieces per ]. That's not a problem with other authors at the site, because their work would proceed through the normal editorial process (i.e., Barrett). ] (]) 13:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay, that's what I was thinking. Thank you.--] (] | ]) 14:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Evaluating the presence/absence of editors is easy enough, but evaluating their effectiveness and reliability is the tricky one. They could just be a website with contributors and editors from various bands each given various titles. As another editor mentioned, we have to differentiate professional editors vs a group of volunteer band members with no formal training in journalism running a glorified blog. ] (]) 02:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::On that metric, then, Indie Vision Music is reliable. Volunteer professional staff is expressly allowed. The site publisher has been operating the site since 2000, and since 2017 is a professional writer for ''HM''. A current writer has written for ''HM'' since 2009. The only band member I'm aware of is one, now former writer. And band members are allowed to also write music journalism, there's no wiki-guideline prohobiting this. So, how do we evaluate the effectiveness of the source? This is where ] comes into play - we can check if it has a good reputation. And, as I demonstrated above, the copy of IVM is referenced or republished by other established reliable sources, and a reliable source calls IVM "well-regarded".--] (] | ]) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: {{re|3family6}}, As has contents from NYPOST or the DAILYMAIL, both of which are red in ]. So, I wouldn't rely much on USEBYOTHERS. ] (]) 14:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If you disagree with WP:V, then hold an RfC at Village pump. This isn't the venue.--] (] | ]) 15:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You brought up one point, and I addressed that point. ] (]) 15:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I brought up that point because WP: USEBYOTHERS is one of the two primary means of determining of a source is reliable (the other being an editorial oversight process). If you disagree with USEBYOTHERS, then by all means bring that up at an RfC.--] (] | ]) 15:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'm disagreeing in your interpretation and application. ] (]) 16:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent|::::::::::}} {{tq|How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of a topic as far as we can determine them.}} How is my usage contrary to that? I haven't relied solely on USEBYOTHERS. I've argued that this ''in tandem'' with editorial oversight is how reliability is determined.--] (] | ]) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Chubbles}}, what do you think in light of the question that {{u|Graywalls}} raises here and that I've tried to address. Do you think the site is still reliable, in light of this?--] (] | ]) 21:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Of course I do, but I'm not the one you need to convince - he is. ] (]) 06:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I was wondering what your reasoning is here and why this is more than just a group blog.--] (] | ]) 10:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I think that Graywalls is setting an unnecessarily high bar and making unnecessary presumptions about the nature and motives of music criticism and journalism (here specifically, but also generally). Most music publications would fail under his definition of an independent source - which is precisely his point; I believe he is convinced that the vast majority of popular music coverage on the site isn't worthy of the site, and this is one step in that effort. I'm confident that, say, ''Pitchfork'', ''Popmatters'', ''Stereogum'', or ''Brooklyn Vegan'' would also fail his criteria; they are also "group blogs" in exactly the same way he means. If the standard of a reliable source for popular music is the journalistic equivalent of ''The New York Times'', we will have precious little music to write about on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 05:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you for that explanation--] (] | ]) 13:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Here but also generally, Chubbles and I rarely see eye-to-eye on things though but most of our disagreements are over the notability of record labels. I firmly believe they're companies and are not expressly exempt under music related SNG, therefore should be held to NCORP, but they believe record labels articles should be permitted to remain with unnecessarily low bar. Yes absolutely, journalistic equivalent of NYT is expected for record labels, like any other articles subject to NCORP. ] (]) 02:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::This is not about record labels. You are correct that NCORP applies, but that's not relevant here.--] (] | ]) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :3family6, you keep bringing up HM and USEBYOTHERS as if it's a slam dunk case, but I don't think it is. When niche sources share authors with and are cited by similar niche sources, that's not evidence that they're reliable—it simply means that they've created a walled garden. You compared HM to No Clean Singing and MetalSucks above, but No Clean Singing has more than 3x the number of Facebook followers, and MetalSucks has 25x as many. Before this discussion, I'd never heard of Indie Vision Music or HM, and I've been listening to metal for more than 3 decades. (Not to personalize this discussion too much, but after checking your User page, longer than you've been alive!) I'd even consider No Clean Singing to be pretty insignificant as far as sources go. It's also a niche source, but not as niche as "metal but ALSO Christian". ] (]) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Those might be something that might belong to the same ] in the pre-Facebook days. ] (]) 16:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::USEBYOTHERS isn't necessarily a slam dunk. My objection to Graywalls was because I had the impression of them blanket dismissing that usage rather than engaging in the examples given. Yes, ''DailyMail'' is used by others, but it also has a mixed reputation and demonstrated consistent issues with bias and inaccuracies. Such a poor reputation hasn't been demonstrated in the case of IVM - that an editor doing undisclosed paid editing also used a source that was deemed accepted prior to them joining Misplaced Pages doesn't disqualify a source. | |||
| ::Now, as to the sources used, ''HM'' was just one of several references - there's also the less niche '']'' and ], as well as the '']'', and a reference in '' Lords of Metal'' (might still be niche, but isn't the Christian metal niche). I find it a bit interesting that the heavy metal reviews/coverage is the majority of the examples I could find, as IVM is more of an indie music site than specifically metal. | |||
| ::Regarding ''HM'', it probably was a lot more significant before I was born and when I was a very small child, when ] was still big and a mainstream act. The publication does regularly interview mainstream artists such as ] and ]. Still, yes, Christian metal is niche, apart from the big 2000s metalcore wave, and Christian extreme metal is so niche and online-based (apart from in some Nordic countries) that noted the fact of its obscurity to scholars. That ''HM'' is for a more niche market doesn't make it less reliable, and ] at WikiProject albums agreed that it is reliable as well. My point with NCS (which discussion on this noticeboard concluded was unreliable - I have changed my mind and agreed with that assessment, based on the evidence) and MetalSucks or numerous other RS is that they are structured the same way. I haven't really seen an argument that demonstrates how IVM is unreliable other than it being a more niche source than those. I wouldn't be as liberal as Chubbles, perhaps, in assessing sources, but I don't see why unreliability is being presumed outside of the issue with how the source was used in COI ways on some select articles.--] (] | ]) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is a hypothetical example of where USEBYOTHERS justification would be inappropriate. The vlog referenced is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eFIaubn24E That video was a tip that to the story in a ] source ] https://www.bonappetit.com/story/best-vodka-taste-test. If we go along with 3family6's idea of application, we'd consider Meagan After Dark YouTube an acceptable source, because some of their content was used by Bob Appetit. I'd say citing IVM directly would be along the line of citing that MAD vlog directly. ] (]) 01:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Context is important. As the heading on this page says. This discussion should be in the context of particular claims / types of claims that it is supporting and whether it is suitable to support those claim/uses. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 15:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I think others have already brought up many of the major examples of egregious bias and misinformation from the ADL that I could find, but I'll briefly summarize my findings here. Please note that some of these are merely instances of egregious bias which function as arguments for option 3, while others are instances of outright misinformation or denialism that should be counted in favor of option 4. | |||
| :Yeah, I've realized that this would have helped. The uses of this source are primarily for music journalism - news reporting about bands, music reviews, and retrospectives/music history.--] (] | ]) 15:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's a start. But we should take a look at the structure of this conversation. Graywalls is seemingly arguing for blanket exclusion of this source. My thought is that is unlikely, and in any case, per the heading of this page, this would not be the place for it. The heading of this page says to include the specific article and text which it is supporting. Maybe a good start would be to give a specific example. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 16:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'll give some examples. Thank you.--] (] | ]) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{u|North8000}}, these are the ways I've either used it myself or have seen it used: | |||
| # To verify band membership and releases by bands | |||
| # Interviews | |||
| # Album/song reviews and criticism, including supporting factual BLP claims (who is/was in the band or on the album, for example) | |||
| # Music history (I'm currently working on an article in my sandbox that I've used it for this, such as and example. | |||
| # Hypothetically, it could be used as a primary source for music released on its record label. I haven't encountered that usage on Misplaced Pages yet, but it might be out there. | |||
| With usage No. 1, what I think prompted all this, is {{u|Graywalls}} noticed that {{u|Metalworker14}} (now banned for UPE) had included articles related to and including ], and some other articles, that were written by Mason Beard from Symphony of Heaven and some other bands. Beard was/is working for a promotional company as well. Thus in those cases, citing that author, and possibly IVM in general, is definitely COI, even though Beard hasn't written for IVM since 2017 and didn't join Symphony of Heaven until 2018.--] (] | ]) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :IMO #1 is fine if the veracity in the info isn't doubted. #2 isn't a use, it a type of source/source content. #3 looks good for uncontroversial factual claims. I don't know enough about the site to comment on #3 regarding reviews/criticism. #4 IMO looks good for uncontroversial factual history. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::<nowiki>#2</nowiki> I should have been more specific. Use as a source of critical opinion and discussing and categorizing musical style of artists, and of making factual claims about artists and band members.--] (] | ]) 20:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::#:Critical opinion of some non-professionally trained band member author from some random highly non-notable run of the mill vanity band is severely UNDUE for inclusion in any capacity at all. ] (]) 23:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I could see, and might endorse, not using that specific author.--] (] | ]) 00:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm still getting the impression that it's just one man webmaster, and contributors deal, so along the line of user submitted moderated blog who makes the host/don't host decision. It says at https://www.indievisionmusic.com/contactus/ they got rid of their PO box. Actually it doesn't even look like they even had a proper office. There's no indication it's more than a label name, a webmaster, and contributors and I see no indication of it being a proper publisher. ] (]) 16:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The group blog/webmaster-contributors argument could be argued with many of the RS on WP:A/S - do you want to open a discussion about those?--] (] | ]) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Any consensus reached there is a ] and wouldn't override the broader consensus that would form here. ] (]) 18:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Some of those ''have'' had consensus from here. Again, do you want to open up a broader discussion about any websites which do not have an entity as the publisher separate from the site itself?--] (] | ]) 19:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is, coincidentally, actually one such discussion open right now. ] (] • ]) 00:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh yes, I discovered that. I commented in a couple spots, regarding that question.--] (] | ]) ] (] | ]) 00:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|Graywalls}}, if you're interested, I asked over RfC about this issue of websites published by one or two individuals.--] (] | ]) 13:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===RfC: Indie Vision Music=== | |||
| To bring up some pre-war stuff first, since I feel that hasn't been focused on as much, the ADL the Armenian Genocide until 2007, and didn't fully acknowledge it until 2016, which calls its credibility and consistency on foreign policy and international issues in general into question. | |||
| <!-- ] 19:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736017274}} | |||
| Is - - a generally reliable source for music-related journalism?--] (] | ]) 18:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The ADL also the construction of ] in New York. One of the few good things (in my opinion) that Greenblatt has done in his time was apologize for those positions, but before him, Abe Foxman was apologizing for the ADL itself with ]. In other words, the ADL has a track record over the years of being wrong when it was popular and apologizing for it after everyone else has moved on, particularly on the issue of other forms of bigotry, like Islamophobia and anti-Black racism. | |||
| has been used as a reliable source for Christian music articles since ], At the time, Indie Vision Music had a Misplaced Pages article, which then was later deleted - something I supported, but in ] I mentioned that I deemed it reliable, just not notable. {{u|Graywalls}} is unsure of the reliability of the site. It is used by other RS, such as ] (, , and as examples; is about the record label operated by the media outlet, but it explicitly calls the site "well regarded"), , '']'' (), and '']'' (, , ). reprinted in '']''.--] (] | ]) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)] I've excluded reprints of press releases for these examples. Cross Rhythms and ''HM'' are among the most reputable and well-known sources for Christian music, the latter being the prime journalism outlet regarding Christian hard rock and metal music. The site founder, , and another writer, , both also write for ''HM'' as well (Jones since 2017 and Harp since at least 2007) and thus have credentials outside IVM. There are multiple writers for the site besides those two individuals. It seems to function similar to other sites deemed RS, such as ], ], ], ], and other online-only publications. | |||
| This impacts its credibility as a broadly concieved "anti-hate" organization, but beyond that, it impacts the ADL's reliability in reporting on any sort of bias, including antisemitism, in the context of international relations and US foreign policy. That the ADL somehow managed to support apartheid and the persecution of Muslim-Americans after 9/11 and deny the Armenian Genocide while acting as an organization ostensibly founded to oppose all bigotry calls into question its principled and impartial opposition to hate and discrimination, which is what supposedly gives it a level of credibility that openly pro-Israel advocacy groups don't have. So, to be clear, in addition to any false or misleading claims the ADL has published recently, we should take into account how the way it presents itself as an organization is misleading. | |||
| The concern from other some editors is that the site operates similar to ] and is thus unreliable. Though there are multiple staff writers, especially over the past two decades, and doesn't list the writers. There also is a case where one former writer contributed some articles about bands that he was personally involved in or was a member of. Also in the above discussions, there's a concern that the website is very niche and so interested in promoting niches zines that secondary coverage independent from the artists is not a concern. | |||
| Now onto those false and misleading statements. The strongest examples I could find were: | |||
| {{tq|Additional concern I discovered after posting the above:}} IVM also had a writer, (he continued regularly for the publication until 2011). | |||
| 1. The that student protesters were "Iranian proxies" and providing material support to Hamas/terrorism | |||
| I also will note that the current site does not have any of the news articles published prior to October 2016, and reviews and interviews prior to August 2006 were brought over to the new site format and no longer bear the original date stamp.--] (] | ]) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm seeing <s>5</s> 8 options, which I've listed below: | |||
| 2. the keffiyeh to the swastika | |||
| * Option 1: Yes, generally reliable for use as a source of critical opinion and discussing and categorizing musical style of artists, and of making factual claims about artists and band members, as well as interviews. Any coverage of the site regarding artists from its own label, or from authors who are members of or otherwise closely affiliated with the artist they are discussing, are only reliable as primary sources as they otherwise have conflict of interest. | |||
| 3. anti-Zionism to white supremacy | |||
| * Option 1b: Generally reliable as articulated above, except for any coverage from author Mason Beard. | |||
| * Option 1c: Generally reliable as articulated above, but with discretion to exclude authors whose professionalism is questionable (such as Eric Pettersson, at least before 2010; and maybe Mason Beard).--] (] | ]) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 2: Generally unreliable for any secondary coverage, reliable for interviews (as interview subjects can be sources about themselves). | |||
| * Option 3: Reliable for critical opinion, discussion, and categorizing musical style, but not reliable for any statements of fact about living persons. | |||
| * Option 4: Only coverage by Brandon Jones from 2017 onward, or from Lloyd Harp, is reliable. | |||
| * Option 5: Only reliable after 2006, and with discretion for individual writers.--] (] | ]) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 5b: Same as option 5, but ''also'' generally unreliable for secondary coverage ''after'' 2020.--] (] | ]) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| --] (] | ]) 18:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 4. for some pretty serious antisemitism and comparing him to Henry Ford (you can't make this up) after he agreed to censor pro-Palestinian speech on X. | |||
| *'''Invalid RfC''' but, while I'm here, '''Unreliable for everything'''. Indie Vision Music is an extremely niche self-published fanzine, with USEBYOTHERS limited to other extremely niche fanzines. The complaint that only 3 or 4 sources in a walled garden cover these subjects is evidence that these sources are in the extreme minority and UNDUE. Meanwhile, the "similar" RS sites mentioned above are orders of magnitude larger and are themselves widely cited by ''actually'' reputable sources outside their niche subject. Besides that, the given options for this RfC only appear to include the opinions of editors who were repeatedly canvassed to the above discussion, and largely ignore editors who weren't canvassed. ] (]) 19:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 5. the 40 beheaded babies claim and other stories from October 7th that have since been debunked. | |||
| ::Almost everything you claim here is untrue. "Unreliable for everything" is an option. If your objection is that I excluded interviews, interviews are considered primary sources and thus the site can't be unreliable for that usage, per guidelines on primary sources. I also specifically mentioned yours and other editors concerns above about it being a niche source that that caters to fans and thus can't be regarded as being factually accurate or good for notability. And lastly, ''Lords of Metal'' is a Netherlands based general metal music website completely unrelated to the Christian scene as far as I've been able to tell over the years; '']'' is a newspaper <s>of record</s> dating back to 1908, so definitely not a nice Christian music scene source; and ] is a long-standing UK-based publication that also was print-based, deals with the whole gamut of Christian music including artists like ] and classical musicians, and the site runners and editors are separate from the overarching company that publishes the site (if that was also a concern). If you think IVM is unreliable, that's fine, but you shouldn't need to then make false statements to justify that.--] (] | ]) 19:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::A ] is many orders of magnitude larger than anything we're discussing here. The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, those are newspapers of record. These are much smaller, regional publications that are as good as fanzines in that they cover everything that is happening locally, typically in a positive, promotional fashion. That could easily be a template for any "Local <s>Boy</s> Band Makes Good" story. Interviews at these types of outlets are just as bad. They're like a talk show, asking softball questions, letting the subject promote whatever they want or get out their talking points. We're an encyclopedia. We shouldn't be relying on these kinds of sources. ] (]) 22:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The article lead described it as a ], which is why I referred to it as such. However, the description section describes it as a ], which seems more accurate. However, they definitely are an RS, and even if it's a local paper, your "walled garden" claim of only niche sources referencing IVM is still demonstrably false.--] (] | ]) 22:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::And this is starting to approach ] ] (]) 15:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My response to Woodroar?--] (] | ]) 00:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The way in which approach each time there's dissenting opinion, generally speaking in this discussion. ] (]) 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you want to go there, the same could be said regarding yourself. We're both the overwhelming majority of the comment here. Regarding Woodroar's statement above, I could have argued far more, but I opted to let it rest, for the reasons elaborated in that guideline. I actually wasn't aware of that linked guideline, but already was trying to approach this discussion in a similar spirit. To be clear, I've been presuming the RfC as a fresh discussion, as the previous one had stalled (if we want the tally, excluding you and I and people I pinged and/or who came from notices on WikiProjects, it was 1 in favor of how the source is generally used (North8000), and 1 against any usage (Woodroar). If we include people who responded to my notices, it was 3 in favor of general reliability, 1 of which has been at least partly rescinded per discussion in this RfC, and 1 against (Axad12) (so a total of 2 for, 1 against, 1 effectively stricken.). After North8000's and your comments and my replies to those, the discussion stalled for 4 days (and discussions are archived here after 5 days). I was hoping that this RfC would be a fresh start, but it doesn't seem to have been that but just the same three re-hashing the same arguments (apart from the discussion with Toa Nidikhi05 regarding the student writer). I personally am not responding to anything more unless it's comments from someone else or is new information.--] (] | ]) 13:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Echoing {{u|Woodroar}} here. ] (]) 01:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Graywalls}}, you've brought up ], which I think is one of the most relevant hypotheticals you've posed. Presuming it is such a situation where the editorial oversight is minimal, Options 2, 3, and 4 are all consistent with that, dependent on what level of expertise we're presuming of the contributors. While Woodroar might not have heard of ''HM'' and Doug Van Pelt, the 110,000 print and over 2 million online subscribers to '']'' have had multiple opportunities over the years to have heard, and that's just one publication of many which have talked about or referenced ''HM''. There's also academic coverage of that publication. I can provide examples if requested, but a quick Google search should confirm what I've stated here. Given that, why would you still lean to complete exclusion (Option 2) rather than Options 3 or 4?--] (] | ]) 13:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I did find of a former writer for IVM (2005-2011) had started writing for the site when he was in high school. So the professionalism of the writers definitely seems to vary.--] (] | ]) 12:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Now, these have all been statements from Jonathan Greenblatt. Other editors have pointed out that these statements have come from him in order to make the argument that those statements shouldn't impact the ADL's overall credibility. However, Greenblatt is speaking as a representative of the organization in these examples and the others provided; it does and should affect the ADL's credibility. | |||
| *:@] - you've said that you consider this publication reliable. You also on my talk expressed concern about another source (The Phantom Tollbooth) seeming to be amateur. Given this above instance of a high schooler writing for IVM, does that change your opinion at all? ] (] | ]) 14:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm not necessarily opposed to the use of high school or college aged students as long as the reporting is of high quality (student papers can actually be good resources - I think I used one in the article for '']'') - but it's very unusual for a credible website to use them. This definitely impacts how I view this site, or at least the quality of average contributors. '''] ]''' 15:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you. Both this and going back and seeing archived versions of the site as it was in the mid-2000s, I am questioning that at least at that time if it is a reliable source. I think it's important that this is a year after Murphy joined as an editor. So I'm wondering if, if it's not entirely unreliable, there should be a cutoff of it being unreliable before certain date. or at least that contributor not reliable.--] (] | ]) 15:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Looking through , he doesn't seem to have done any other music journalism, and his other journalism all student journalism. So nothing afterwards to suggest he became a more professional writer. He does seem to perhaps be a subject expert as a tour guide for ], but that's a completely different subject area.--] (] | ]) 16:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@], do you have a recommendation that you would suggest regarding the reliability of this source? ] (] | ]) 14:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've added more options, and updated the statement to reflect what I subsequently found regarding the student staff writer.--] (] | ]) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| For reference, the ways that this source is used typically used is for news about artists and album reviews, both of which also are presumed to contribute to an artist's notability. I'm also using it for an article I'm building in my sandbox (about Christian death metal) to discuss the history and stylistic evolutions of some bands as that relates to Christian death metal. Specifically, these articles: , , , , , , .--] (] | ]) 14:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| There is also a broader pattern in controversies over pro-Palestinian advocacy in public life of the ADL using sweeping language to describe incidents in a way that lends greater force and legitimacy to their claims than their documentation supports. This issue can't be reduced to a rogue CEO. For example, take the for the ADL and Brandeis center's expanded lawsuit against "snowballing antisemitism" in the Berkeley K-12 school district, which claims that {{tq|During an unauthorized teacher-promoted walkout for Palestine, no teachers intervened as students shouted, “Kill the Jews,” “KKK,” “Kill Israel,”}} alongside banal instances of pro-Palestinian sentiment like hanging a Palestinian flag in the window and writing "Stop bombing babies" on a sticky note. A reader who trusts the ADL's good reputation might assume they have video of all this, but when you read the actual , a lot of the most severe allegations, as well as nebulous claims like a teacher showing students "violent videos" are unsubstantiated by verifiable evidence. Some of the incidents the ADL is "documenting" here were apparently overheard by a first grader. ] (]) 04:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| :It's not about a certain questionable author, but rather they seem to casually allow run of the mill people to write for them making them more or less similar to Forbes Contributor articles. Still not having their editorial policy is a red flag. So, my take on this is that it's a freaking ''blog'' with no bearing on raising notability score of others. ] (]) 04:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Part 2: antisemitism === | |||
| ::Concern about them letting run of the mill people write for them is concern about a questionable author, or authors, in this case. I think you need to reread FORBESCON. The issue with Forbes contributors is not the writers, it's the editorial policies. Forbes contributors *can* potentially be reliable as expert self-published sources, provided they are not being used to make BLP statements. So by that standard, Lloyd Harp would be fine to use, and arguably Brandon Jones since 2017. There's a reason I provide that as an option: because I was taking your Forbes contributors comparison seriously. But there's two concerns: The quality of the writers, which I agree varies, and the editorial policies. We don't know that there isn't a lack of editorial policy. But we haven't been able to confirm that there is. I've never received an email back. Either way it's a bit of speculation. You are convinced that they don't have one, but we can't say that for sure, especially since prior to 2020 they had a head editor.--] (] | ]) 10:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 12:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1715515271}} | |||
| ::Another potential comparable situation to how IVM functions is ]. This was the consensus for ] music contributors - reliability is contingent on their professional experience, and ] for ease of tabulating which writers are professional and which are not. IVM isn't necessarily comparable to this situation, but it might be, and I think that's another relevant consensus.--] (] | ]) 13:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| What is the reliability of the ] regarding antisemitism? | |||
| :::And you haven't been able to produce published editorial policy for IVM. ] (]) 15:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| :::: I literally just said this above that I haven't heard back. Which means it could exist, or might not. that they had an editor suggest that there was some type of process. What's at issue here is whether it's robust or not. Could you explain more of what you mean by "published editorial policy"?--] (] | ]) 00:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| :::::Example: https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html ] (]) 01:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| ::::::: Okay, that's what I thought. I wish there was such a public statement. And that would probably have made both this and the previous discussion unnecessary.--] (] | ]) | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| ] (]) 00:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| So, my take on this is that it's still a glorified blog/webzine, or a subpar magazine. "Used for over a decade" may not have substantial meaning. RSP red sites like IMDb, Discogs, Find a Grave, FamilySearch have been used for a long time too and even though they shouldn't be used and as you've probably noticed, some highly unreliable junk sources persisted in metal articles too. ] (]) 16:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Seems usable, need some CONTEXT'''. I will go with no change to it being open for usage as RS, as it is available enough and there doesn't seem to be any reason or need to give it a categorical rating. I’d tend to evaluate any cite depending on what the edit is, per ], and think no evaluation without context can be really valid. In this case I just don't even see a specific source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports that is causing concern. So I don't see a wider concern or need for wider evaluation. Cheers ] (]) 05:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ====Survey (ADL:antisemitism)==== | |||
| == RfC: ] == | |||
| * '''Option 2 or 3'''. The ADL usually is reliable on antisemitism and antisemitic hate groups not involving the Israel/Palestine conflict. But it's very much not reliable on antisemitism when that antisemitism touches on the Israel/Palestine conflict in some way. This happens often enough that it hurts the ADL's reputation for fact-checking regarding this issue generally. ] (]) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top|This has been open for six weeks and there's been only one !vote in the last six days. | |||
| * '''Option 2 or 3'''. The intentional conflation of antisemitism with antizionism is a huge problem to make it a reliable source on these topics. -- ] (] · ]) 00:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1'''. No evidence has been posted of unreliability - of them making false claims. It's unclear to me why we are even hosting this discussion without such evidence, and in the absence of it we shouldn't change ADL's rating. ] (]) 00:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' <del>'''Option 2 for pre-2016''' and'''Option 3for 2016 and later''' </del> I have no personal take on the matter, however, based on a cursory search, RS have repeatedly questioned the veracity of its statements regarding the topic, though these criticisms have been clustered over the last ten years. For example (not exhaustive):<Br/> | |||
| :* '']'' has repeatedly and acutely examined and criticized ADL's standards and methods for evaluating and determining Antisemitism (e.g. ). | |||
| :* ] has criticized the ADL's statements on Antisemitism as being politically motivated (e.g. ). | |||
| :*] has written the ADL has "lost the plot" and used its research into Antisemitism as a "partisan political issue", rather than an objective method of evaluation (). | |||
| :*As documented by '']'' , the ADL has previously "cleared" allegedly Antisemitic persons before subsequently denouncing them as Antisemitic only after their evaluation itself has been criticized. This gives question to the reliability of their research or whether their statements are even based on an objective criteria at all. | |||
| :Based on these, and other, sources I would say that <del>pre-2016 content sourced to the ADL is fine for non-extraordinary claims and 2016 and later content</del> <ins>it is</ins> generally unreliable and should not be used except with attribution and not with respect to ]s. <ins>After reading ] article linked by ], I'm tipped to Option 3 without respect to time period.</ins> ] (]) 01:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC); edited 01:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2 for anti-Semitism not relating to Israel''' and '''Option 4 for anti-Semitism in the context of Israel'''. It has that the ADL conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and has in fact modified the way it defines anti-Semitism to include anti-Zionist rhetoric, especially in the last few years. It should be noted that "in the context of Israel" should be ''very'' broadly construed here, given the ADL's history of defending anti-Semitic remarks when made by people and organizations with a pro-Israel stance ( ) even when those statements themselves do not directly seem to relate to Israel, when viewed alone. ] (]) 01:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:The ADL doesn't consider any criticism of Israel to be antisemitic or anti-Zionist ({{tquote|Anti-Zionism is distinct from criticism of the policies or actions of the government of Israel, or critiques of specific policies of the pre-state Zionist movement, in that it attacks the foundational legitimacy of Jewish self-determination and statehood.}}) ]<sub>]</sub> 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::The last source we should be using to define anti-Zionism is the ADL, which per this and the previous discussion routinely spouts nonsense on the topic. This above passage is actually damning in that it shows how the ADL creates its own strawman definitions as a means to manipulate the discourse. ] (]) 17:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''': This is an advocacy group so the threshold is higher than for a standard peer-reviewed secondary source. Recent coverage suggests that the sources is not only biased but may be unreliable. For example, '']'' dismantles ADL's claims that "U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Skyrocketed 360% in Aftermath of Attack in Israel" and asks --] (]) 01:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:It's possible that calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state in the world (from the river to the sea, you know), is not considered to be antisemitic by the Nation's James Bamford, but it's a matter of opinion and plenty of people disagree. ]<sub>]</sub> 07:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Precisely. As I had demonstrated in the source I brought in my vote here - most people agree that calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state in the world is antisemitic. ] (]) 07:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::'the only Jewish state in the world'. The Vatican is the only Catholic state in the world. That is a confessional state, however, not an ethnic state. To call for a state to drop its ethnic qualification for citizenship and extend recognition to that 50% of the population of ] which is non-Jewish is not tantamount for calling for the 'destruction' of that state. Were it so, it would be 'antisemitic' to subscribe to the ] and assert its relevance to the structural dilemma instinct in Israel's own self-definition as an ethnic state. ] (]) 12:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I dont understand the Vatican analogy. Do you deny that the Jews are an ethnic group? ] (]) 12:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sometimes, if a post puzzles one, it is better to think its content over for more than 3 minutes, particularly if the said post distils a very large topical literature and presumes familiarity with it. I decline your invitation to make a thread of the idea of 'the only Jewish state in the world' (Italy, Ireland, Germany,etc.etc. are the only Italian, Irish, German states in the world).] (]) 12:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I didn't invite you to anything. You commented on my comment without any invitation. Which is absolutely ok by me BTW. But I noted that you evaded my question about whether you deny the the Jews are an ethnic group. ] (]) 12:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Probably because it is not germane to this discussion, run along now. ] (]) 12:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In fact Germany has a right of return law for ethnic Germans, so I'm not sure why you mentioned it. Fortunately Germany is not in an immediate danger of destruction unlike Israel. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Germans didn’t steal Germany from another ethnic group. ] (]) 16:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Germany also doesn't exercise apartheid over millions of its subjects ] (]) 01:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::It's also possible that intentionally conflating criticism of Israeli actions with "calling for the destruction of the only Jewish state in the world" is precisely the sort of stunt that makes ADL unreliable; thanks for the demonstration of how it works. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| By straight head-counting, first order preferences are: Generally Reliable (1), Additional Considerations (8), Generally Unreliable (11), Deprecate (5). | |||
| *::Stop with the parlour tricks. The Nation neither mentions "calls for destruction" nor the "from the river to the sea" slogan. Not only can you not dismiss RS analysis with your own opinion/imaginings, but you also can not misrepresent a source for rhetorical purposes in a contentious topic area. Don't continue. ] (]) 07:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The only pro Palestinian group that mentions as being recently classified as antisemitic by the ADL in ]. And I have shown, '''based on reliable sources''', that the the SJP does indeed call for the abolition of Israel. you can find a collection of citations here ] ] (]) 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Alaexis, this comment is absolutely shameful and I implore you to strike it. I was going to write a longer reply addressing specific statements you and Vegan made, but I felt that doing so would cause the discussion to stray far from anything related to the topic of this discussion. I will instead just say that I +1 what Zero0000 said. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 20:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''', with possibility for attributed opinion in some cases. As a huge organization (revenue over $100 million) whose very existence is tied to antisemitism, it is strongly to their own advantage to talk up the incidence of antisemitism. This conflict of interest makes it necessary to consider their pronouncements on the subject critically, just as we wouldn't take the pronouncements of an oil company on fossil fuels at face value. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' - Seems like a classic #2 per what I wrote . The ''subject'' of antisemitism includes a broad range of ADL's work. As this is separate from the I/P question, we're presumably primarily talking about its work on antisemitism that ''isn't'' connected to the I/P conflict. So, for example, from a few years ago. It's a great resource that's been widely cited in academic work/the press. Would it be considered unreliable because it includes antisemitism among its forms of extremism? Is there any reason to doubt that part? It wasn't even written by ADL staff, but by ] and his colleagues, one of the most respected scholars on extremism on the internet. Still, it's decidedly an ADL publication, hosted on their website. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 02:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Option 1'''</s>. '''Option 2'''. First, I agree with the argument by BilledMammal above. Secondly, there is a big wave of antisemitism related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I think it is actually worse than many other manifestations of antisemitism. Hence, the sourced views by ADL related to the conflict should be included even if they seem to be unfair to some people. ] (]) 02:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Personal opinions on a source and beliefs that it has an important place in societal debate in a specific context are both unrelated to reliability. ] (]) 09:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 <s>or 2</s>'''. While I'm somewhat more at ease with the ADL's coverage of antisemitism unrelated to Israel–Palestine matters, its misidentification of antisemitism as pertains to organizations and people involved with politics connected to Israel–Palestine is serious enough that it's difficult to still consider the ADL credible on the topic more generally. I quoted from Oxford University Press' ''Antisemitism: A Very Short Introduction'' a couple times in the above thread to warrant my sense that in particular, the ADL's conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism is well out of step from the field. ] (] | ] | ]) 07:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have amended my contribution to strengthen my preference for Option 3. ] (] | ] | ]) 21:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''': Generally reliable. No evidence was shown of the ADL making false claims. In particular, its view that antizionism is sometimes a type of antisemitism is quite mainstream. For example, in 2016, the ] adopted a ], one which subsequently was officially recognized by various legislatures and governments, foremost among them, the United States and France, which endorsed the equation of certain manifestations of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. | |||
| :And here are several references to RS which include support the claim that antizionism is antisemitism: | |||
| :https://books.google.co.il/books?id=767fCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA161&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false | |||
| :https://books.google.co.il/books?id=BHtrEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA448&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false | |||
| :https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/29/comment ] (]) 07:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3'''Chetsford and Hydrangeans have explained it well.] (]) 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' also as discussed before, ADL's conflation of antisemitism and antizionism has received widespread criticism, including increasing internal dissent from its own staff. Their figures on antisemitism has been put into question by RS like the Guardian and the Nation. ] (]) 09:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option <s>2 or</s> 3''' generally reliable except when Israel is involved. Entirely unreliable where Israel is involved. ] (]) 09:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Considering the split above, shouldn’t it be a 1 (or 1 or 2) here, as Israel is treated separately and you consider them GREL with exception to that? ] (]) 10:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I voted the same way, and no. 2 is green or yellow with a note. 3 is red with an exception. 1 would be green without qualifications. ] (]) 13:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Then I would apply the same to you: assuming a clearly divergent result, we would probably split it in two, the same way [[ Misplaced Pages | |||
| *::::Reliable sources/Perennial sources]] does HuffPost, where clearly different outcomes would be allowed, assuming the words used by @] are meant the same way as they are generally used on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| *:::] (]) 13:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::No. Please don't reinterpret my !votes to be more permissive than I said. It is tedious. ] (]) 16:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::My apologies. Would you be willing to clarify which additional considerations you would consider applicable that go beyond the obvious non-inclusion of Israel into your vote? ] (]) 16:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::"except when Israel is involved" ''is'' an additional consideration. ] (]) 16:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Unfortunately the tendency of the ADL to conflate antisemitism with anti-zionism cannot be cleanly separated. Through this they have cast their judgment on the topic of anti-Semitism, in general, in doubt. In fact I will update my !vote due to additional review of the arguments above. ] (]) 16:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''<s>Option 2 - usable with attribution for antisemitism not relating to Israel; and Option 4 (or option 3 if depreciation is impractical) for antisemitism in the context of Israel</s> Option 3:''' The ADL has had a long-standing role, especially within the US, in identifying and critiquing patterns of antisemitism within society. Such assessments are rarely without controversy, and, as a particularly pointed advocacy group, the ADL should still be attributed when used as a standalone source (option 2). Where these assessments overlap with the IP conflict, for all the reasons outlined in the proceeding section, the ADL is not to be trusted and should not be used. It has a habit of both giving a free pass to antisemitic tendencies when the individuals involved align with it politically on IP, while also miscategorizing individuals and movements that fail to align with it politically on IP as antisemitic when they are not (including through the problematic conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism). This is pretty unforgivable, and its pronouncements on antisemitism within the context of the conflict (broadly construed, as mentioned by others) should be disregarded as deprecated/unreliable. ] (]) 10:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:You can't really both deprecate and not deprecate a source because we have an edit filter that warns when you add links to deprecated sources. ] (] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 13:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Ah! Well that would fall under the 'impractical' clause then. Didn't realise the filter kicked in like that. ] (]) 14:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Modifying vote to option 3 as the ADL no longer appears to adhere to a serious, mainstream and intellectually cogent definition of antisemitism, but has instead given into the shameless politicisation of the very subject that it was originally esteemed for being reliable on. ] (]) 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' But only if the subject matter doesn't involve Israel in any fashion. I would even say restricting them to just their commentary on known right-wing groups would be best. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' pro-zionist lobbying organization that conflates anti-zionism (opposition to a nation with a well-documented history of human rights abuses) with antisemitism (hatred of the Jewish people). ] (]) 16:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or 4''' ADL itself that they count pro-Palestinian protests in the US as "antisemitic incidents" - this is an astoundingly dishonest misrepresentation of statistics. Even if a protest features no hostility or hatred towards Jewish people, if it features criticism of the Israeli government, Israeli politicians or the Israeli military, it is an "anti-semitic incident". The ADL is simply, by their own admission, making up these reports. This is nothing other than pure, politically-motivated disinformation. They should never be considered a reliable source. ] (]) 17:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' as regards AS in general, Option 3 for AS in relation to Israel or the AI/IP area. Changing definitions to suit political objectives is classic ]. ] (]) 17:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - because it is a pro-Israeli lobbying group that equates criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism with antisemitism, it is not reliable for the topic of antisemitism. See sources in my vote on the I/P question. ] (]) 17:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. The specific problem raised by the sources is when Israel, Palestinians, and Zionism come up; it shouldn't be used in that context. But there's not much sourcing questioning its reliability in other contexts and it does have enough ] to be otherwise reliable, so when discussing antisemitism ''unrelated'' to the I/P conflict it remains fine. --] (]) 20:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' for anything that does not involve Israel, '''Option 3 or 4''' otherwise. ] (]) 23:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' for matters unrelated to Israel, '''option 3''' for matters connected to Israel. The ADL is a useful source for attributed opinion on antisemitism unconnected to Israel/Palestine, however it makes inaccurate statements with regards to pro-Palestinian "antisemitism" even taking into account an extreme zionist view of what antisemitism might constitute. Simply speaking, we should not be including their claims in this regard without a very good reason.] (]) 06:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' with attribution, as it's widely used by ]. The criticism of ADL (see the links provided by u:Chetsford and u:K.e.coffman) is primarily about their definition of antisemitism . We should not assume that James Bamford's definition of antisemitism is right and the ADL one is wrong. I haven't seen any examples of falsehoods that they published. ]<sub>]</sub> 07:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:First, “all definitions of antisemitism are equally (in)valid” is patently not true. ADL says antisemitism includes any criticism of zionism. There are Jewish people who oppose zionism and always have been, and I don’t think they’re ] either. Secondly, plenty of examples of ADL publishing skewed/distorted information have been provided. So either you didn’t read the discussion very thoroughly or are deliberately ignoring those examples. ] (]) 08:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::@] Your claim that "ADL says antisemitism includes any criticism of zionism" is '''patently not true'''. In fact the ADL explicitly says and that '''not''' every criticism of Israel and Zionism is antisemitism. It only considers antizionism as antisemitic when it delegitimizes the existence of Israel as the Jewish manifestation of self-determination (as it goes against the principle of self determination uniquely for Jews only) or if it used well known antisemitic tropes. And in those cases the ADL position definitely matches the ] by the ] '''which definitely carries more weight''' than the personal definition of antisemitism used by a certain James Bamford from ''The Nation'', or even the personal opinions of entire editorial board of ''The Nation''. ] (]) 09:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::From the article: “The IHRA definition has been heavily criticised by academics, including legal scholars, who say that it stifles free speech relating to criticism of Israeli actions and policies.” Just because something is popular and politically correct doesn’t mean it carries more weight than other opinions. By that logic the opinion “homosexuality is evil” carries more weight than the scientific consensus that homosexuality is healthy and normal, because millions, possibly billions, of people agree with that statement and enshrine it in law. And no I’m not listening to anything the ADL says about itself because that’s the definition of a primary source, the last thing you’d go to in a controversial situation like this. ] (]) 09:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::# The fact that the IHRA definition has been criticized by some people does not change the fact that it is the dominant definition that was accepted by several democratic legislatures (including USA and France), by most mainstream media (this is after all what this ''The Nation''<nowiki/>'s article laments about - why the mainstream media follows the ADL opinions on this. so the Nation itself admits that its view is not mainstream) and by many (probably most) academics in the field. At the very least you have to admit that it definitely doesn't carry '''''less''''' weight than the opinion of the writers in The Nation. | |||
| *::::# The fact that the ADL sources are primary sources does not negate what I said. To say that "ADL '''says''' antisemitism includes any criticism of zionism", when the ADL '''says''' exactly the opposite, '''is a lie.''' '''Even if you don't believe they mean what they say, the fact remains that this is what they said.''' | |||
| *::::] (]) 09:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::On the “says” issue, I was speaking metaphorically. You’re missing the meat of what I was saying by arguing semantics. Really you’re just avoiding the whole point of this discussion— the ADL’s respectability is widely questioned —by delegitimizing any negative sources and making vague-wave appeals to authorities that are either unreliable and biased themselves (governments and the IHRA) or ephemeral (“]”) ] (]) 10:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::@] Although I'm vegan I do not avoid the "meat of the discussion" :-) But what it is? To me it seems that the "meat of the discussion" is that you think that the ADL should be disqualified because they think that antizionism is antisemitism (in certain conditions). Am I wrong? ] (]) 15:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Not ''just'' because of that, but because many sources linked from here show their coverage of antisemitism and I/P are unreliable and biased. ] (]) 15:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{tq|Just because something is popular and politically correct doesn’t mean it carries more weight than other opinions.}} If you're admitting that the IHRA definition is the one accepted by the majority of sources then it's one we should prioritize. You haven't really provided sources here to show that the scholarly consensus on the IHRA definition differs from the majority consensus beyond vague mentions of "academics, including legal scholars". <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 13:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::It is noteworthy that the and so far, . There is a lot of resistance from many quarters to IHRA. ] (]) 14:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' regarding anti-Semitism in general, and '''Option 4''' regarding anti-Semitism in the context as per Brusquedandelion due to the ADL conflating anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. ] (]) 09:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/2'''. Nobody seems to provide evidence for ADL being inaccurate in its factual claims relating to antisemitic incidents, so I remain of the view I expressed in the first thread about this: I believe ADL is a reliable source for facts in the topic area where it has expertise, e.g. in reporting on right-wing hate groups or conspiracy theories. The problem is about its judgement in using contentious labels such as "extremist", which are labels WP generally ought to avoid anyway. It is also the case that it is hasty in labelling Israel criticism as antisemitic and fails to distinguish between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. For this reason, we should not say "X is antisemitic", citing only ADL. However, as it is heavily cited and notable, it would often be noteworthy for us to say "ADL describe X as antisemitic", balanced with noteworthy opposing views where applicable. ] (]) 11:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2'''. I have many, many, many grievances with the quality of the ADL’s coverage in my specific topic area (crime, especially high profile far-right motivated crime). However, deprecation is stupid, and generally unreliable is too much, so option 2. ] (]) 14:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:As you've voted "additional considerations apply", could you be more specific about your issues? Which additional considerations do you think should apply? ] (]) 22:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::The ADL is widely used onwiki to a degree that is disproportionate in articles on hate groups/crimes etc, which is worse because there are almost always better sources around. Their problems in this field go beyond bad research on hate symbols. Also as said before they conflate pro-Palestine activity with things like neo-Nazism in their classification of antisemitism - which is misleading. | |||
| *::I think they should be okay to be used when it's considered appropriate to add that the ADL considers them a hate group but there should be additional considerations regarding including their fact-based work. My opinion generally is they aren't "generally unreliable" at all but that they are far from "generally reliable". Awkward middle ground where I think they're usable in some circumstances. ] (]) 13:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1: Generally Reliable'''. A reliable source is NOT required to be neutral according to ] - and obviously, this org is opinionated, however, ADL, and particularly its scholarly research arm, ADL Center for Antisemitism Research (CAR) is a respectable organization with a peer-review process and upholding academic best practices. ] (]) 05:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Some Option 2 !voters opined that it is generally reliable but should be treated with caution (or not used at all) when reporting about contentious topics or anything related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Some Option 3 !voters stated it would be fine to use for ] (including reporting official statements of Hezbollah), while ] (who !voted Option 3) said it {{xt|"might be usable for some uncontroversial facts"}} such as sports reporting, which at least four of the 11 Option 3 !voters agreed with to such an extent that they merely offered ]s toward BobFromBrockley's comment without offering any comments of their own. Finally, our generally agreed description of Option 3 includes a carveout for ABOUTSELF, of which I took note. | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - an advocacy group, it must be held to higher standards than other sources (per K.e.coffman). When this source conflates antisemitism and anti-Zionism, evidence by Levivich (previous discussion), Aquillion (previous discussion) and Brusquedandelion, it should not be considered a reliable source on antisemitism. ''']] (])''' 13:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' per Chetsford, Levivich and others who have demonstrated that it's an unreliable source on antisemitism. ] (]) 15:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per others above and the fact that their definition of anti-semitism is widely accepted by both reliable sources and aligns with other relevant organizations/authorities. ] (]) 19:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| All of the above, seems to indicate that: | |||
| *'''Option 3''' unless we develop a special method for covering the prior definition of antisemitism (roughly, against Jews) versus the one currently held by some institutions (roughly, against Jews or Israel) with clarity. Certainly, we do not try to conflate then 1820 definition of the term "gay" with its 2020 usage, and would offer clarifying text wherever there might be confusion. To suggest that it is a mere clarification is wrong. Even before the existence of the state of Israel, large portions of religious Jewery resisted the effort because the religious conditions for that nation to arise had not yet been met. We should no more hold that what one set of Jews feel is important to Judaism is right and another wrong than we should hold that one set of Christians are the true Christians. -- ] (]) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * There is '''no consensus''' that is is generally reliable, | |||
| *:Nat, what does this have to do with this specific source’s reliability? The implication of what you’re saying is that any source that uses any definition of antisemitism is generally unreliable. ] (]) 07:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * There is '''no consensus''' that it should be deprecated, | |||
| *::If I say "I describe someone as Canadian if they are from Canada or if they have red hair", then I am not a reliable source on identifying Canadians, for there are certainly Canadians with red hair, but that doesn't make it appropriate identification. The same goes for "I describe someone as antisemitic if they are against Jews or are against the state of Israel." ADL may be a reliable source for identifying ADL-branded Antisemitism-2.0 (for whatever good that does us), but they are not a reliable source on actual antisemitism as the term has been traditionally used. -- ] (]) 18:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * There is '''a consensus''' it ''should not'' be used for contentious topics or anything related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Highly reliable on this specific subject matter, and per {{u|BilledMammal}}, the evidence to contest their notability in this area simply doesn't exist - while many, many sources treat them as authoritative, to the contrary. '''] ]''' 12:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * There is '''a consensus''' it ''can be'' used for ], which includes official statements of Hezbollah, | |||
| *'''Option 1''' The ADL has a long track record for tracking antisemitism and, bias notwithstanding, its factual record is excellent as observed above. Criticism has tended to be partisan and politically motivated. ] (]) 14:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * There is '''neither a consensus for nor a consensus against''' its use for uncontroversial topics, such as sports or lifestyle coverage | |||
| *'''Option 2/3 with regard to Israel, Option 1 otherwise''' per my above vote. Like I said, I can't exactly trust them on I/P-related matters, but I've seen no indication of unreliability regarding antisemitism originating from other areas. ] ] 19:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per My very best wishes and Vegan416. No evidence that it is making false claims, and it's widely used by other reliable sources. ] (]) 21:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 on antisemitism not in I-P context''': OK to use with attribution. ADL is not reliable to use or antisemitism in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their that "There is no argument anymore that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, that is as plain as day" is quite concerning. Thus I'd say '''Option 3 on antisemitism in the I-P context''' Even so, ADL remain a reliable source for their opinions on antisemitism in the I-P conflict, wherever such opinions are ].''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 22:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' for any ADL views on the I/P conflict and on campus antisemitism. ] which has an intimate capillary knowledge of and familiarity with Jewish students on over 800 campuses has just failed the ADL's report giving it an F-grade.(Andrew Lapin, ] 12 April 2024. ] (]) 15:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:When you read the Forward article beyond the title you see that those Hillel people don't disagree with ADL regarding the rise in campus antisemitism. They just wish to emphasize that Jewish life continue to thrive on the campuses despite the rise in antisemitism, and they think ADL should have factored this into the "grade" it gave different campuses. So this isn't really relevant to the reliability ADL assessment of the rise in antisemitism per se. ] (]) 15:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' it seems to smear ''every'' critic of Israely policies with an "antisemitic" allegation: No thanks. ] (]) 22:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3/4''' ADL correctly points out some genuine cases of antisemitism, like whatever Kanye was talking about last year, but generally speaking it just uses it as a word to silence Palestinians. I'm leaning towards deprecate, but it could occasionally be used when all other sources fail. ] (he/him • ]) 15:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or 2 for antisemitism that has no connection to I/P''' (option 3 for anything connected to I/P), per Loki and Rhododendrites (and particularly echoing Rhododendrites's point that the setup of this RFC, where I/P is a separate section, suggests this section is indeed only about antisemitism unrelated to I/P). As others discussed in the preceding section, they're not reliable on I/P issues, and because they often regard disagreement with Israeli policies as antisemitic, I'm not sure setting a different "number" for their coverage of antisemitism vs I/P is workable, because they ''present'' (unreliable) I/P reporting ''as'' reporting on antisemitism: probably it's best to say option 3, which is—after all—only "generally" unreliable, and let case-by-case discussions evaluate instances where they're actually reporting on antisemitism. (I use "reporting" loosely here, understanding that they're not a news organization filing news reports, but an advocacy group.) ] (]) 18:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' they are broadly cited by almost any organisation, and are often considered the baseline for any claims about or regarding antisemitism, considered equivalent to a newspaper of record when it comes to tracking and reporting antisemitism and related conduct. No significant issue regarding their factual reporting has been shown, and all opinions should (as always) be attributed. On the topic of antisemitism, they are rightly considered one of the prototypical case of a civil rights group which can be cited for facts, and neither their reporting nor any conduct seems to have disqualified them from „generally reliable.“ ] (]) 21:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:On a more general notes, there seem to be a few de-facto duplicate votes that ignore the (in my opinion, prudent) distinction between the subject areas, which is unfortunate. ] (]) 21:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::In ], including any who posted such {{tq|duplicate votes}}, to use your words, I would suppose that they consider the ADL's coverage of the topics sufficiently interrelated that similar reasons and similar assessments of reliability apply to all three. While I also think it was prudent to make separate surveys for each topic area, I can see how an editor might arrive at thinking they are interrelated to such an extent. ] (] | ] | ]) 21:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I can understand how they have reached such as assessment, and you’re right about AGF, thank you. That being said, I would consider such a vote to not be best practice even with a degree of good will far beyond AGF. As you have given me an opportunity to clarify, I would add the following: this sentiment applies to a significantly lower degree to all whose arguments in vote 1 were unrelated to I/P or Jewish self-determination (construed broadly), but to the inherent nature of the organisation. This category, by my reading of the votes and arguments, seems to be the smaller group, but I could be wrong. ] (]) 22:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per Vegan416, Alaexis, and others. They are highly reliable, broadly cited, and have an excellent factual record on this subject area. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 22:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Extremly reputable organisation. Obviously those designated as racists, or their friends, are noisy regarding the classification by organisations such as the SPLC or the ADL, however such noise expected. The ADL is very reputable. ] (]) 05:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3/4, particularly when related to Israel or Zionism'''. Maybe an exception can be made to categorize it as option 2 when wholly unrelated to Israel or Zionism. The ADL's partisan stance on the war and its conflating of opposition to Israel with antisemitism, something that's caused quite a stir within the ADL with a number of high-profile resignations in protest of the direction their leader is taking the organization. They're not simply an objective academic watchdog organization, they are an activist organization and that includes explicitly pro-Israel activism. As others have mentioned, the organization now counts ''all'' protests supportive of Palestine as "antisemitic incidents." <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:The last sentence is simply false. they explain what their criteria are. Only protests with certain slogans like “by all means necessary” and “from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” were considered antisemitic. *You* may not consider them antisemitic but a lot of Jewish people do and so using such criteria is not an example of the lack of reliability. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::All pro-Palestinian protests feature "from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free." ] (]) 20:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Sorry, the logic here appears to be: "the ADL is right because a lot of Jewish people agree with it" – a rather peculiar bar for reliability that, no? ] (]) 21:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::"Only Palestinian protests where anti-Zionist slogans are used" is all Palestinian protests. Again, the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism is at the heart of why the ADL is disreputable on this issue. "A lot of Jewish people" is not a source. A lot of Jewish people I know think the idea that anti-Zionism is antisemitism is itself extremely antisemitic as this carries with it the implication that Jewish people who oppose Israel are not "good Jews" or that they are "self-hating", an accusation they're frequently on the receiving end of. I share their view. But my anecdotal reference to unspecified members of a group who feel a certain way is no more an indicator of reliability or lack thereof than yours. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 21:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The use of the IHRA definition with all of it’s , is disputed but clearly not fringe (as it is adopted by governments and many organisations). Assuming that what you criticise does not go beyond IHRA, it can definitely be valid criticism, but it’s also clearly not impactful when it comes to reliability. ] (]) 21:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I believe that it has been pointed out before that the already controversial IHRA appendix does not expressly make the conflation. It is merely sufficiently broad and ambiguous that it can be one interpretation. The ADL goes well beyond the IHRA appendix into full, open and unashamed conflation. ] (]) 22:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::This 2 examples of antisemitism appear explicitly in the appendix to IHRA: | |||
| *:::::* Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. | |||
| *:::::* Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism | |||
| *:::::] (]) 22:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::So the first is incredibly ambiguous. What does it even mean? How can a state be racist? People, laws, ideologies and institutions can be racist, but a state is an inanimate abstract construct. People might label a state as racist rhetorically, but actually they mean one of these other things. And what has that got to do with self-determination? The labels above have little to nothing to do with self-determination except as a very convoluted corollary. As for the double standard malarkey, that has simply grown great wings of irony in the most recent conflict where the only apparent double standard is that Israel is held to almost no international legal standard by the international community. Are Western nations then antisemitic by inference by treating Israel with a preferential double standard? You can see why people call the definition unworkable. ] (]) 21:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The IHRA is not fringe, but it is very much controversial. If an organization was relying on the IHRA to categorize antisemitic incidents, we would have to attribute it any time they did that. However, the ADL's definition of antisemitism, as already mentioned, goes beyond simply saying that certain kinds of especially harsh criticism of Israel are antisemitic, and into saying that essentially all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. ] (]) 22:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::That can be the case, but the issues disputed here are most likely covered even just by the IHRA. We should attribute statements where appropriate anyway, but the IHRA definition is (likely) the most common one, and there is no reason to attribute it more than any of the other ones. ] (]) 22:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Also, in general (as in: with exceptions), the ADL makes a destination between criticism of specific government actions/ policies and the more extreme versions of antizionism in the literal sense (advocating for or justifying violence against Israelis, denying the right of Israel to exist, denying Jewish people the right to self-determination). While you can argue where the line between those is, as has happened with the second slogan and the relevant legal debate in Germany, saying that there isn’t a lot of the latter at many of the rallies would have to be substantiated rather well. ] (]) 22:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::To repeat myself, the IHRA is very much controversial. A definition of antisemitism based on it makes that organization's pronouncements regarding antisemitism similarly controversial. | |||
| *::::::If a major paper said that the economy was going to crash based solely on the predictions of ], it doesn't matter that monetarism is not fringe within economics for that pronouncement to be not reliable as a source for whether the economy is going to crash. ] (]) 22:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::That’s would be true in you example, but a more accurate metaphor would be an economics paper based only on a liberal capitalist framework. While there is definitely criticism of liberal capitalism, it’s also the prevailing interpretation by (western) governments and organisations, similarly to IHRA. ] (]) 22:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::We also must recognize that ADL uses terms like "zionism", "denying Israel the right to exist", and "denying Jewish people the right to self-determination" in a fringe way. Everyone would agree that it would be antisemitic to call for the forcible expulsion of the Israeli people to bring about the destruction of Israel. But the ADL goes a step further by arguing that it would be "denying Israel the right to exist" or "denying the Jewish people the right of self-determination" to give the Palestinian people in the occupied territories the right to vote. that it denies Israel the right to exist, and is therefore by its definitions antisemitic, to support the establishment of a ] where all its inhabitants have equal rights and the ability to express themselves through democratic processes. That is stretching the limits of terms like "the right to exist" to argue that it is antisemitic to not prefer that Israel take the form of an ethnostate. That is not a workable definition. That's arguing that advocating for ''change'' is advocating for the destruction of Israel. Such a definition is ''not'' inherently implied by terms like "the right to exist." The IHRA definition has much more flexibility and can be interpreted in more than one way. While both definitions mention the right of self determination and the right for Israel to exist, only the ADL goes the extra mile by defining those terms to mean a very narrow interpretation. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 23:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Oh, wow. By the arguments the ADL makes on that page former president of Israel from the Likud party ] would be antisemitic. That's wild. ] (]) 02:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::I am afraid you completely misunderstand Rivlin's views. https://www.timesofisrael.com/rivlin-proposes-israeli-palestinian-confederation/ ] (]) 05:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::That's a relatively recent change and he's been on record multiple times before as supporting a single bi-national state, as is documented extensively in his article. ] (]) 20:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::But you kind of missed that in his opinion this state will have only one army - the IDF. The Palestinians won't have an army. ] (]) 08:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::@], could you cite where they say that such views are antisemitic, and not just wrong? They seem to describe them as unpractical or incompatible with the founding purpose of Israel, but that is pretty close to general consensus. They are also very critical of those advocating for greater Israel with no voting right for Palestinians, so it seems to be a biased but generally accurate and non-fringe view. | |||
| *:::::::::While I don’t fully subscribe to the arguments myself, arguing that a one-state solution could be incompatible with IHRA (unless agreed to voluntarily by Jewish people) is at least not implausible: | |||
| *:::::::::#Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. | |||
| *:::::::::#Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. | |||
| *:::::::::It is rather hard to avoid both when arguing for a one-state solution without majority support from Israelis. | |||
| *:::::::::Now, in the cited article, the ADL '''does not do that''' (but it’s possible they do elsewhere, where I would personally consider it wrong but non-fringe.) Instead, they make other moral and practical arguments, which are rather commonly made - there is a reason why a one-state solution is a somewhat niche view among both sides. ] (]) 06:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::For starters, in the article I linked to the ADL argues that proponents of a single-state solution are often nefarious actors dishonestly using advocacy for a democratic multinational state as a cover for their supposed real goal of destroying Israel. | |||
| *::::::::::<u>From the ADL</u>: | |||
| *:::::::::::{{tq|"While '''couching their arguments''' in terms of egalitarianism and justice, proponents of a bi-national state are predominantly harsh critics of Israel, and use this proposal as a vehicle to further their advocacy '''against an independent Jewish state.'''"}} | |||
| *:::::::::::{{tq|"the notion that Palestinians and Jews, who can’t even negotiate a two-state solution, could coexist in one happy state is so ludicrous that '''only the naive or the malicious would fall for it.'''"}} | |||
| *::::::::::This page does not use the term antisemitic directly, but based on the ADL's definitions of antisemitism and zionism, its description of advocates for a democratic binational state as "malicious" actors who oppose "an independent Jewish state" and "couch their arguments in egalitarianism and justice" to further their goal of a world without Israel very clearly shows that the ADL considers such advocates to be antisemites. If an antisemite is someone who does not want Israel to exist in its current form as a state consisting of, by, and for one ethnoreligious group, then someone who wants everyone in its claimed borders to have equal rights would be an antisemite. The fact that this ADL article goes at great lengths to describe proponents of such a solution as anti-Israel bad faith actors only furthers that this is their position. So yes, the ADL absolutely '''does do that.''' | |||
| *::::::::::I can see how one could interpret this as meeting the "claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor", but I also think that's far from the only way to interpret it. I'd like to quote an excerpt from ]'s 2004 ''New York Times'' op-ed to test against the definitions we're discussing. | |||
| *::::::::::<u>Example argument</u>: | |||
| *:::::::::::{{tq|"it is simply the recognition of the uncomfortable reality that Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories already function as a single state. They share the same aquifers, the same highway network, the same electricity grid and the same international borders" neither destroys the Jewish character of the Holy Land nor negates the Jewish historical and religious attachment (although it would destroy the superior status of Jews in that state). Rather, it affirms that the Holy Land has an equal Christian and Muslim character. For those who believe in equality, this is a good thing.}} | |||
| *::::::::::I believe that under the IHRA definition, you could say that Tarazi's argument is simply egalitarian and far from antisemitic. This example argument does not call for the destruction of Israel, rather it argues that Israel is already ''de facto'' the one state, and therefore those who live under that state should all enjoy the same rights. By my reading of the IHRA definition, that's totally okay. But the ADL would strongly disagree. | |||
| *::::::::::Now just to be clear, I'm ''not'' discussing the actual merits of any solution, that'd be way beyond the topic of the discussion. The point I'm making here is that the IHRA definition and the ADL definition are not one and the same. Under the IHRA definition, one could reasonably interpret it as allowing for a democratic Israel-Palestine to exist, while the ADL's definitions obviously define proponents of such a solution as antisemites. These are incompatible definitions. The IHRA definition is already contentious and should be attributed when used, the ADL's shouldn't be used period. | |||
| *::::::::::<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 20:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::I appreciate you taking the time, but you can’t synth your way into assuming that they would have taken the position if they haven’t. The ADL publishes significant amounts of material, if it is rarely or never said to be always antisemitic, that is likely not coincidental. | |||
| *:::::::::::The rest are common criticisms of the one-state-solution (OSS), where you can definitely argue their validity, but which are clearly non-fringe. My reading is that they clarify this so far specifically because not all advocates of a OSS are antisemitic, but neither of our readings is provable or of relevance. | |||
| *:::::::::::Regarding your quote, I would say both readings could be plausible (read: non-fringe). Having said that, the solution would end Israel as we know it and definitely destroy parts of it’s founding purpose, so it is clearly a highly controversial statement, even if I see no proof of it being pre se antisemitic. ] (]) 07:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::I do appreciate you taking the time to hear me out and giving thoughtful responses in a civil tone, even if we disagree. I can understand how my argument there would come off as too SYNTHY after rereading it, though I still don't agree that it is for the purpose of this discussion. In the quotes I provided, the ADL still characterizes proponents of the OSS as bad faith actors cloaking their secret real goal of a world with no Jewish state - that alone tells me that the ADL's stance on the OSS goes much too far to be comparable to the IHRA definition, so I don't think it's that SYNTHy for the purpose of this discussion to conclude that in the quotes provided, the ADL already all but called proponents of the OSS antisemites, especially when the things they accuse OSS advocates of being (malicious actors who really just oppose the existence of a Jewish state) are exactly what the ADL itself defines as being antisemitic. | |||
| :::::::::::::Now, if the question at hand were "should we write in Wikivoice in a mainspace article that the ADL calls OSS proponents antisemites?", the answer would be no, of course not, that ''would'' in fact be synthesis. But that is, of course, not the discussion we're having. We are simply looking at the ADL way of defining antisemitism versus the IHRA way of defining antisemitism, specifically as it relates to positions on Israel and Zionism. The whole "is the one state solution considered antisemitic?" side tangent started with the question of "how do terms like 'the destruction of Israel' / 'Israel's right to exist' / 'Right of self-determination of the Jewish people' get defined?" as it's one thing for two definitions to include those terms in definitions of antisemitism, but it's another thing for them to have the same definitions for those terms. The IHRA uses such language in its defining examples of antisemitism, but those terms are themselves in need of defining and the IHRA just leaves it open to interpretation. The ADL's statements on the OSS articulate what the ADL would consider to be an example of denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and according to them, Israelis and Arabs having equal rights in the same borders would be such an example. I think that alone demonstrates the broader point that the ADL definition and the IHRA definition are not one and the same. | |||
| :::::::::::::I think you'll agree that by now we've ] and I have nothing new to say that isn't just the same points rephrased, so I don't intend to add any further comments beyond this one. I only decided to write this reply because I think you made some interesting points that I wanted to respond to. If nothing else, I hope what I said made sense and wasn't just a bunch of incoherent ramblings. Thanks again for being one of the more level-headed editors I've disagreed with in this otherwise heated discussion. Have a good one, | |||
| :::::::::::::<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 23:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Thank you for your kind words, I also greatly appreciate us having a polite and productive discussion despite our disagreement. :) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I agree that the ADL characterises some opponents of the OSS as bad faith actors (IMO accurately), and I think we can both agree that it’s quite clear that they don’t say (and don’t indisputably mean) all are antisemitic. That isn’t undoubtedly (but is plausibly) in line with the IHRA definition, but even if it weren’t, that style of opposition to the OSS is (no matter what we think of it) clearly non-fringe, at least as far as relevant Jewish and Israeli circles go (and the relevant scientific communities, making it at worst a question of bias). I think we could both write full-length articles on this topic, but as we agree on most verifiable things and disagree on things which are a matter of interpretation, I agree we should leave the poor horse alone, it has been through enough. (In the literal sense, I don’t think either of us is being disruptive) | |||
| ::::::::::::::<s>Regarding it being a (hypothetical) fringe view if they called all proponents of the OSS antisemitic, I would probably say it’s “non-fringe but stupid”, but if being stupid in my personal opinion was a criteria for a reduction of reliability, we would run out of sources quite quickly.</s> | |||
| ::::::::::::::Having said that, I wanted to again express my gratitude for the thought-out and civil discourse, and cordially invite you to continue this tangent on either of our talk pages should you at some point be interested in having this discussion. ] (]) 21:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1 (with 2 consideration)'''. I refer to my first comment in the top section as my general commentary on all items. It seems that there has been some debate as to the ADL's take on matters relating to anti-zionism and anti-semitism. However, that is obviously a matter of serious debate, as well as a plain matter of opinion, and should reasonably fall under the additional considerations already applied in the ADL's perennial sources listings. Echoing my previous sentiment, the only links to RS with issues with The ADL I see in this discussion are The Guardian and The New Republic, which each have opinion considerations in their listings, and dedicated editorial slants toward Israel-Palestine matters. I would need to see a strong consensus from RS publications citing ADL publications and data before giving priority to the majority of sources cited here. ] (]) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3'''. The nature of the subject is such that the ADL is too politicised to be a useful source even outside incidents directly related to the Israel/Palestine conflict.--] (]) 21:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: '''{{TQ|ADL is too politicised to be a useful source even outside incidents directly related to the Israel/Palestine conflict.}} having said that, the ADL is a prominent US advocacy group, whose attributed opinions have considerable weight and will often be included as such, but as a source to be rendered in WPVOICE, they should '''not''' generally be used. I find the question somwhat bizarre for several reasons. There is always a subjective element to whether any words or any action are anti-semetic ''(racist, mysogynistic etc)'' since making the assessment has to do both with assessing impact and motive and ADL exists primarily to highlight anti-semetism and increasingly as an advocate for Israel and its actions, so what neutrality should we even expect from them? They don't exist primarily to report, so their words and deeds have to be seen in that context. Is any advocacy group ultimately a RS for anything other than the positions they advocate for? ] (]) 14:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. The ADL is respected and used by media and scholarship. It is the most respected source out there on antisemitism, and is a very strong source for other hate groups. ---Lilach5 (]) ] 04:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' per K.E Coffman and whatever it was or has been, it is at present an actor working for a side in war (see also the Guardian article). ] (]) 15:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or 4''' The ADL has fallen in with the Israeli propaganda line that claims that opponents of its war on Gaza, in which they've committed massive war crimes, are antisemitic (Netanyahu recently called U.S. student protestors an "antisemitic mob"). This is an ugly slur against the vast majority of protestors, who are motivated by a belief in human rights and are not antisemites. At this point I don't think ADL is reliable for other allegations of antisemitism in the U.S., even when they're not directly related to the Israeli-Gaza war, because the war gives the ADL a reason to want to greatly exaggerate the current extent of antisemitism in the country. ] (]) 16:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] | |||
| *:Do you have a source where ADL describes the opponents of Israeli war in Gaza (or any Israeli government policy) as anti-semitic? | |||
| *:{{talkquote|"The ADL has fallen in with the Israeli propaganda line that claims that opponents of its war on Gaza, in which they've committed massive war crimes, are antisemitic"}} | |||
| *:If you can bring proof that ADL equates criticism of Israeli government with anti-semitism, that would discredit this organization in public. ] (]) 12:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::See : {{tq|On January 9, for example, a few weeks after a large pro-Palestinian demonstration in New York City, Greenblatt released a report listing over 3,000 antisemitic incidents committed in the three months since the war in Gaza began. “U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Skyrocketed 360% in Aftermath of Attack in Israel,” warned the ADL press release. “The American Jewish community is facing a threat level that’s now unprecedented in modern history,” said Greenblatt. “It’s shocking.” As expected, the ADL report drew media coverage around the country.... But much of the report was hype. Rather than attacks against Jews due to their religious or ethnic identity, many of the cited “incidents” were actions directed against Israel to protest the conduct of its war in Gaza—incidents the ADL would later admit made up nearly half of the total. “Overall, a large share of the incidents appear to be expressions of hostility toward Israel, rather than the traditional forms of antisemitism that the organization had focused on in previous years,” noted Arno Rosenfeld in ''The Forward''. Many of the incidents were simply protests by civil rights organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine.}} ] (]) 12:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::They are that they consider all anti-Zionism and some "harsh criticism of Israel" to be anti-semitic. ] (]) 12:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Are you sure you are reading this correctly? Because to me, they are rather clear that some is and some isn’t. ] (]) 12:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::They definitely aren't saying that all criticism of Israel period is antisemitic (because that would be absolutely absurd and get them rightly laughed at) but they do think that all opposition to Zionism is antisemitic. Direct quote: {{tq|certain forms of anti-Israel rhetoric and activism delegitimize Israel and its existence, and are antisemitic when they vilify and negate Zionism}}. ] (]) 19:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::And that sounds pretty close to a best-practice-definition of IHRA (or 3D, if we are at that point), so clearly non-fringe. There is a difference between disagreement and vilification. ] (]) 20:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Nope, ] "definition" is one paragraph that no-one would disagree with, the trouble starts with all the so-called "examples" (3D is another version of the examples). ] (]) 21:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::The examples are generally considered part of the definition in the informal uses (and often in the formal use), and clearly necessary based on the long and fruitless discussions about in regards to what is within or outside the scope above and below. | |||
| *:::::::You are free to disagree with them (and 3D), or to prefer another definition, but IHRA is socially mainstream, despite some criticism it received. ] (]) 21:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::The WP article gives the definition in the first para of the lead, it is one para. ] (]) 21:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Yes, but that is often not the relevant part when it comes to application ] (]) 21:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Bring ] from ADL where it explicitly equates anti-zionism or criticism of Israeli government (or any of its policies) with anti-semitism. ] (]) 12:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::In order to deprecate a source because it routinely acts as a propaganda arm of a certain government (as was recently done for RyTMarti), we don't need to have an explicit quote from that source admitting that their aim is to discredit opponents or adversaries of that government. ] (]) 13:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I would prefer to see what policy basis there is to disqualify a source because it publishes biased but not inaccurate content (I note that taking a mainstream but controversial position on the definition of antisemitism doesn't make a source inaccurate). As far as I know, there is none, and ] tells us that bias isn't a reason to disqualify them. | |||
| *:::::Also, what is RyTMarti? ] (]) 13:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::From an academic position, the ADL's position is fringe, not mainstream - much as religious adherents, despite their numbers, do not define the mainstream; scholars do. ] (]) 14:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::we're going around in circles now, but there are plenty of examples of scholars, including very respected ones, treating the ADL as reliable, including those given in the Discussion sub-section below. ] (]) 11:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::@]: This has been covered before, in several discussions. Greenblatt even that if they didn't agree with the conflation, the ADL wasn't the place for them. ] (]) 13:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::: That's a quote from the head of the ADL, speaking as the head of the ADL, posted on the ADL's own site and released as a press release. I reckon that counts as equating anti-zionism with antisemitism. -- ] (]) 14:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::How things change. That hat tips Hillel, but Hillel has since , ironically for this very “massive oversimplification” of antisemitism on campuses. ] (]) 15:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' highly preferred, will accept '''Option 2'''. ADL by definition is a campaign organisation, and thus cannot be sourced for objective facts. If the information sought falls close to their campaign themes, their bias becomes extreme. Conseqeuntly, in my view ADL should not be used as a source for any information related to antisemtism other than what's allowed by ]. — ] ] 15:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:so your position is that no campaign organisation should be treated as a reliable source on the topics on which it campaigns? ] (]) 11:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' per the above responses from users Iskandar323, NightHeron and ]. ADL is an extremely partisan ethno-religious organization which advances the notion that anti-zionism is a form of anti-semitism. In its article on "", ADL explicitly describes anti-zionism as a form of anti-semitism: | |||
| :{{talkquote|"'''Anti-Zionism is antisemitic, in intent or effect, as it invokes anti-Jewish tropes,''' is used to disenfranchise, demonize, disparage, or punish all Jews and/or those who feel a connection to Israel, '''equates Zionism with Nazism and other genocidal regimes,''' and renders Jews less worthy of sovereignty and nationhood than other peoples and states."}} | |||
| : ADL CEO ] adamantly claimed in March 6 2024: | |||
| :{{talkquote|"'''Let’s make this very clear: anti-Zionism is antisemitism.'''"}} | |||
| : (source: https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-ceo-jonathan-greenblatt-delivers-2024-state-hate-never-now) | |||
| : ADL censors its own staff-members who oppose the conflation of anti-zionism with anti-semitism: | |||
| : {{talkquote|"'''In response to the dissent, Greenblatt said that if staffers disagreed with his position that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, “then maybe this isn’t the place for you.”'''"}} (Source: "", "'']''" magazine, 3 January 2024) | |||
| : ADL's main agenda is to target pro-Palestinian activists, in tacit collaboration with the anti-semites of America, in favour of Israel: | |||
| : {{talkquote|"According to the first former ADL staffer, Greenblatt is “waging war on pro-Palestinian activists, and if a rabid antisemite like Elon Musk is willing to try to ban , Jonathan is willing to tolerate that.”"}} (Source: "", "'']''" magazine, 3 January 2024) | |||
| : ADL's main targets are human rights organizations and civilian activists. It falsely inflates the number of anti-semitic incidents in USA, by labelling the activities of these groups as "anti-semitic", while ignoring the crimes of far-right extremists. (Source: "", "'']''" magazine, 31 January 2024) | |||
| : According to Greenblatt, it is even "anti-semitic" to say "Free Palestine": | |||
| : {{talkquote|"'''“Saying ‘free Palestine’ to a Jewish person out of context is antisemitism, plain and simple,” responded Greenblatt.'''"}} (source: "", "'']''", 27 June 2023) | |||
| : Articles of ADL are full of praise for ], who is also a shameless . On the other hand, ADL published a against Jewish academic ] in 2005, accusing him of fomenting "anti-semitism" due to his criticism of Zionism.<br> | |||
| : It is clear that ADL is a discredited hyper-partisan zionist lobby group that smears and abuses individuals, activists and academics across the world who criticize Israeli government and its policies. American magazine "'']''" published an article 2022, which vehemently denounced ADL for "spreading misleading information about contemporary antisemitism." (source: "", "'']''" magazine, 8 December 2022)<br><br> | |||
| : So, in my opinion, ADL is not a reliable source and it should not be cited in wikipedia at all on any issue related to anti-semitism. If other editors can demonstrate that this website advances conspiracy theories in the flavour of organizations like "]", "]", etc. I'd support the '''deprecation''' of this site in its entirety. ] (]) 17:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not to defend Greenblatt generally, but he didn't say "Free Palestine" was antisemitic, he said that saying it to a Jewish person out of context was antisemitic. | |||
| ::In context, it certainly wasn't out-of-context, since he was talking about people tweeting it at him specifically, and he's the head of a major Zionist organization. But it's not an absurd claim in the abstract, since it's seemingly conflating random Jewish people with the Israeli state. ] (]) 19:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is not the case that the ADL articles are "full of praise" for Netanyahu. It seems that there is no mention of him on their site since 2018 and the most recent piece resembling praise is from 2016. But all of this demonstrates that the ADL is biased and has an overly expansive definition of antisemitism, not that it misuses facts such that it "should not be cited in wikipedia ''at all'' on ''any issue related to'' anti-semitism". ] (]) 11:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sources which are considered "]" by wikipedia, can possibly be cited by editors in limited situations with attribution. My view is that ADL is not a credible source and I recommend editors to not cite this low quality source on issues related to anti-semitism. It isn't just biased, but it's also overtly propagandistic. ADL engages in public libel against individuals and academics through it's false allegations. Let's not forget that ADL is a core component of the cluster of organizations that form the ].<br><br> | |||
| :::Readers can be informed of anti-semitism and it's history through several other sources. ADL's Americanized narratives are unhelpful and full of misinformation. For example, I dont think ADL cares about giving an accurate documentation of pre-WW2 Euro-American anti-semitism. They are focused just on blindly defending zionism, and misinforming their pro-Israeli audience with revisionist history. There are several civil society groups that document anti-semitism in an academic manner. ] (]) 16:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think that is the best argument I’ve read in this discussion. People who are voting 1 in this RfC are missing the point that it’s not the fact that the ADL is popular or ''considered'' reputable by so-and-so, it’s the fact that it’s not an academic or impartial source. ] (]) 07:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4''', an advocacy source that has long since ceased bothering to maintain even the barest patina of objectivity; conflating separate concepts, lying, and misdirection have become their norm. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 12:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' after having read the above, and particularly swayed by users Chetsford, Hydrangeans, and Levivich, the ADL has sadly lost their way on being an encyclopedic RS for this topic area. Ultimately, at a commonsense level, when I see how extreme they have become on the Palestinian issue (above), it is not surprising. ] (]) 08:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''', an advocacy organization should have a fairly spotless and uncontroversial record to qualify as a source on its own. As has been demonstrated above, ADL doesn't really qualify. Also, I don't really see special qualifications in style "unreliable when related to Israel" usable. Whether their standards of reporting antisemitism are reputable is very much a "yes or no" question, "sometimes" simply means "no".--] (]) 21:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' morphing defnitions to serve an aganeda is clarly unrealiable—] 19:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2/3''' Seems reliable for antisemitism definitions if its not about Israel/Palestine. Anything Israel-Palestine adjacent, ADL has problematic issues ] (]) 21:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' For topics unrelated to Israel and Zionism, '''option 3''' for topics related to Israel and Zionism. The ADL still seems to be reliable for general antisemitism. However, with topics related to Israel and Zionism, my comments in set 1 above still apply: pervasiveness of bias directly impacting the factuality of the source makes a source unreliable. ] (]) 03:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' - The ADL is widely viewed as a highly credible source on the issues it works on (akin to suggesting SPLC is not credible on hate groups or HRC is not credible on LGBT issues). It is generally reliable which is why it is ] which, per ], is "evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts". ] (]) 22:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1 or 2 for anti-Semitism not relating to I/P''', otherwise per above, it's Option 2 or 3. ADL remains bias towards their interpretation of antisemitism, as you would expect from any advocacy group, so requires attribution, but I don't believe it's generally unreliable or should be depreciated. Their research centres have correctly labeled neo-Nazis and others as antisemites, when other RS were too lazy to do the research themselves, so their use as a source remains very necessary. ] (]) 12:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' (''always'' use attribution and seek corroboration from other sources where possible) for antisemitism unrelated to Israel, broadly interpreted. '''Option 3 or 4''' for antisemitism in the context of Israel, broadly interperted. It's clear form the evidence presented in this discussion that they will happily label black as white if it benefits (in their view) the cause of the Israeli government. ] (]) 16:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Additional considerations apply''': Per my comment below. ] ] 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per BilledMammal, Mistamystery and Coretheapple. ] (]) 11:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''', because of I/P considerations. Typically, the further the ADL's analysis get from the I/P morass, the more reliable they are on the issue of anti-semitism. However, this means it would be an Option 2, because it's a mix of Option 1 when it comes to domestic anti-semitism but Option 3 when it comes to foreign policy. ''']''' (]) 17:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''': They are a political activist organization with an agenda. They are not neutral journalists or scholars or historians, but people trying to actively shape society. No, they should not be cited even for anti-semetism. If their views are covered by the mainstream press, and are relevant to an issue, they can be cited as a viewpoint, in the same way a story may cover an event and the views of any organization or activist group. ] (]) 17:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| If assigning it a numerical value it's probably somewhere between Option 2 and Option 3. Keeping in mind how these decisions are usually applied in practice, I'd therefore say this ended up at Option 3, albeit with a very liberal understanding that takes note of the above areas of continued non-agreement; or, Option 2, but with an extremely strict understanding of the limits of its usability. If this is added to ], these should be reflected in the narrative. (Indeed, if added to RSP, there may need to be a further discussion over there about whether this should be represented in the table as 2 or 3.) ] (]) 01:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *'''Option 1 or 2'''. Based on evidence presented above, it appears ADL is a leading source on antisemitism, so long as it does not concern anything related to Israel and zionism (which is discussed in section above). They appear to be quoted as such in reliable (including scholarly sources). See also with {{u|Vegan416}}.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| What is the reliability of ]? | |||
| *'''Option 3''' and the only reason I'm not going straight to 4 is that 4 should be reserved for the worst of the worst. The false conflation of criticism of Israel and antisemitism has poisoned discourse about Israeli war crimes for years. ] (]) 05:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' but ok with '''Option 4''' – ADL's entire premise of existence is use accusations of antisemitism as a tool to fight for zionism and defend the zionist project. In particular, ADL people and accuses them of antisemitism for doing the most banal things such as waving a Palestinian flag or calling for a free Palestine. It ironically saves some of most vehement ire for Jewish people. ADL labels as anti-semitic anyone who dares to point out any evil done by a Zionist person or a Zionist institution, no matter how real and plain to see. ADL doesn't even care about antisemiticism and only cares to defend zionism at any cost, even at the cost of Jewish lives. ADL cannot be trusted at all on the topic of antisemitism because its support for zionism is so strong that ADL support clear racist anti-semites simply because they support zionism. --- ]&]]) 23:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{Tq|ADL particularly targets Black, Muslim, and Arab people}} - Yes, because members of those groups are disproportionately likely to hold antisemitic beliefs. ] (]) 11:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::@] do you have a statement for that claim? ] (]) 11:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' per the K.e.coffman cites, which shows that many ADL claims about antisemitism are about Israel-Palestine. We now have a GUNREL consensus for the ADL on the latter topic, and evidence that it’s intertwined with their coverage of antisemitism, so the latter seems generally unreliable to me as well. ] (]) 00:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3.''' It is clear that they are wildly biased and unreliable in relation to Israel/Palestine, but this has already been litigated. Outside of their positions regarding Zionism, the ADL , (imagine if an organization vocally denied the Holocaust and slammed against recognizing it to protect an alliance), and has a . Furthermore, as argued above, many people credibly accused of antisemitism (e.g. Donald Trump or Elon Musk) are ignored or even praised by the ADL if they support Israel. ] (]) 02:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Of the three examples, only {{tq|denied the Armenian genocide}} is a reliability issue. However, according to your source they didn't deny the Armenian genocide; they opposed a congressional resolution that would have condemned the Armenian's deaths as genocides. It's unclear whether this reasoning applies to the ADL, but the source says {{tq|Several major Jewish groups, like the American Jewish Committee, oppose the resolution, arguing that it is not the best way to persuade the Turks to examine their past.}} | |||
| *:It's a contemtable position, but it isn't a factually incorrect one. | |||
| *:The other issues you raise are both too old to be relevant here - 39 and 27 years respectively - and not matters of reliability but of bias. Further, per your source the ADL corrected their position on Nelson Mandela decades ago. ] (]) 05:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' They conflate criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism with antisemitism so not reliable for the topic of antisemitism. ] (]) 03:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{Ping|Lightburst}} The discussion on whether the ADL is reliable for Israel/Palestine topics has already closed, and it was declared an unreliable source in that regard. ] (]) 04:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' For the reasons stated by others, repeated conflating of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. ] (]) 13:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Part 3: hate symbol database === | |||
| <!-- ] 01:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1715475679}} | |||
| What is the reliability of the ]'s ? | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | * '''Option 1: ]''' | ||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | * '''Option 2: ]''' | ||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | * '''Option 3: ]''' | ||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | * '''Option 4: ]''' | ||
| ] (]) 00:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| - ] (]) 03:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ====Survey (ADL:hate symbols)==== | |||
| ], per ]. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 03:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2'''. The ADL's database of hate symbols is generally reliable but only for the narrow use case of identifying if a symbol is used by hate groups. Other background information on symbols in the database is not reliable because the ADL does not correct the background information in its entries even when clear factual errors are pointed out to it. ] (]) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1'''/'''Option 2'''. Reliable for whether something is a hate symbol, additional considerations apply for the historical background of the hate symbol - generally, we should prefer sources focused on the historical background. ] (]) 00:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2''' in the way described by ]. RS source the database for basic facts (e.g. , , , etc.), therefore, we must accept the database as a reliable source for basic facts. ] (]) 01:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' in the sense that when we say e.g. ] is generally reliable, we're not necessarily saying it's reliable for some biomedical claim it makes in the course of its advocacy. Likewise the ADL is an authority on extremism, hate speech, etc. This list is not an ideal source for, say, the ancient history of a symbol before it was adopted by some extremist group, but can be used for the fact that it's been adopted by that extremist group (and how that group uses it). I.e. reliable for its area of expertise, which is the primary value of the hate symbols projects. In other words, what I said . — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 02:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''': Generally reliable. As per Rhododendrites. ] (]) 07:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' at the end of the day ADL is a primary source with many controversies, any hate symbols data should be at least verified by secondary RS reporting on the matter. ] (]) 09:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:It's a primary source for a claim such as "The ADL considers x a hate symbol". It's a secondary (or tertiary if using other secondary sources) source for any claims we might make about the symbol itself. ] (]) 11:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option <s>2</s> 3''' A year ago I would have said Option 1 here but the poor standards of judgment the ADL has shown regarding Israeli violence in Palestine has weakened its reputation across the board. Attribution and avoidance of wiki-voice is required. Even for this. ] (]) 09:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Revising my !vote based on further discussion. ] (]) 13:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1''' within the area of specialty, '''Option 2''' otherwise: the identification is generally without major issues and used by others, but the criticism regarding background errors and comparable issues was not adequately addressed, as per Rhododendrites. ] (]) 10:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option <s>2 or</s> 3:''' The ADL has some clear inaccuracy on the fine detail of hate symbols – not least on their origins and symbology – but appears to be relied on as a source for the basic identification of symbols that have been used/misused by hate groups. For information on the symbols themselves, it should not be a source of first choice, with it seemingly conducting flawed primary research then presented in a database without any details on authorship or the referenced sources. ] (]) 10:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Modifying vote based on subsequent discussion. There appears to be far more weighing in against usage for this purpose than for it – to the extent that one does indeed have to ask the question of why use it as at all? ] (]) 14:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' Because of the issues with some of their commentary on certain symbols being inaccurate, as noted in the previous discussion. The more specific in detail and history they get, the more likely they are to introduce errors. So usage of their hate symbol database should be careful and, preferably, backed up by an additional separate source. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' the database can be used to identify something ''as'' a hate symbol. It should not be used for information on the symbol’s history or deeper meaning. ] (]) 16:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' Attribution seems best, since asserting that something '''is''' a hate symbol is different to stipulating the use of it by some persons or a group.] (]) 17:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 or 3''' Given the discussion above, it is clear ADL does not have a reputation for honesty and integrity. The organisation's CEO Jewish Voice for Peace as an antisemitic hate group. I simply can't see how they can be trusted. ] (]) 17:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' - Tbh I don't really care about this one, I find this issue to be rather silly. I mean, a symbol is a symbol, and it's trivially easy to identify or source when a hate group uses a particular symbol. It's ] obvious that, for example, the crucifix is sometimes used as a hate speech symbol, e.g. when the KKK burns one on a Black person's front lawn. I don't need the ADL to tell me that. I don't need the ADL to tell me that the swastika is sometimes used as a hate speech symbol by, e.g., the Nazis and neo-Nazi groups. "Sometimes used as a hate speech symbol according to the ADL" is a stupid statement, IMO, because that's probably true for a huge amount of symbols, it doesn't really say anything. As has been pointed out, many numbers are used as hate speech symbols by hate groups. So what? More useful would be something like, "The KKK uses the crucifix" or "The crucifix has been appropriated as a symbol by some hate groups such as the KKK," but again, don't really need the ADL for that, as the sources about the hate group will make that point. The ADL's database is a convenient database for collecting and searching for symbols used in hate speech, but I'm not sure it's a very useful RS for Misplaced Pages for this, because there will be better RS available for notable hate groups. Because of ADL's unreliability with regard to Israel and antisemitism, and because it's a lobbying and advocacy group, I think "option 2" is the appropriate option for content outside of I/P or antisemitism, including what it has to say about symbols being used as hate speech (that don't involve Israel or antisemitism; for those, option 3 per my votes above). ] (]) 17:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think this issue matters more than you think it does, because "notable hate group" is a much much broader category than "hate group everyone has heard of". The Aryan Brotherhood prison gang is a notable hate group; can you identify their symbols? The ] is a notable hate group; can you identify their symbols without clicking on that link? ] (]) 17:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::What I mean is I can identify their symbols without needing the ADL; I can use sources about Aryan Brotherhood or about Nine Angles in order to identify their ] symbols. ADL's Hate on Display database isn't a ] for this. I think it's a tertiary source that compiles secondary sources. The articles don't cite their sources, or even describe their sources. They don't list authors or a journalistic policy. It's neither scholarship nor journalism. It's not even as reliable as an encyclopedia like Britannica or, well, Misplaced Pages (which at least in theory cites sources). It's basically an unattributed group blog. Arguably ] if it can be shown that, today, ADL is considered an expert on hate speech (that might be a case that could be made). On consideration, I could be persuaded that it's EXPERTSPS on hate speech and hate symbols (so option 1) if someone were to post some recent scholarship citing it as an expert on these topics. ] (]) 17:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. Some usability as a database of basic facts, where it sees significant ] and is quoted authoritatively (and where relatively few high-quality sources have cast doubt on it), but as an advocacy org it should generally be attributed anyway. --] (]) 21:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or option 4'''. , I'm surprised that some editors seem eager to look beyond the foundational errors and lack of attribution or editorial oversight from the ADL to give them some kind of honorary pass here: As someone with an actual background in this material, it's painfully obvious that the ADL has ''no idea what they're talking about'', are absolutely not authorities on this matter (despite presenting themselves as such), and are not by any means a reliable source on this topic. ''They're not even trying''. For example, the Wolfsangel as an ""? ''What''? And all this nonsense about every number under the sun being a "hate symbol" because some tiny group somewhere ''may'' have used it ''somewhere'' at ''sometime'', to where even is listed as a "hate symbol"? Alert your local grocery store. Meanwhile, the ADL does not have its finger on the pulse of the topic enough to even provide an entry for the now popular "]", an ''actual'' "hate symbol". It's hard to imagine any organization with the ADL's funding and a podium cobbling together a factually worse and more useless "hate symbol database". Again, and this is important to stress: ''who'' wrote this? Where and what are their sources? ''When'', ''where'', ''who''? We get none of that. Does the author have ''any'' background whatsoever in identifying these topics and their history? The answer seems obvious to me. On Misplaced Pages, it's easy to instead use peer-reviewed sources from ''actual'' experts, where people actually have the slighest clue about what they're talking about and where we can—imagine this—''identify authorship and sources''. This is just F-grade garbage and simply unacceptable. We should absolutely not be 'just accepting' the ADL's word for these important topics. ] (]) 21:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree the information on symbology is murky at best, and should never be the first choice of source on such things anyway ... but the main purpose of the database appears to be to attribute the use of certain symbols to certain groups. For such cases, What's the problem with attributing such an association to the ADL? It's not clear that they're generally unreliable on the basic identification of hate group use cases. ] (]) 21:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I don't think the ADL is even reliable for this anymore. They can't get even the most fundamental facts straight and we have no idea who is making these entries, there's zero chronology, and basically just no editorial oversight. We have to do better than using F-tier sources like this. ] (]) 23:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Bloodofox, while you are right that they misidentify the Wolfsangel as an ancient runic symbol, I don't think you've provided evidence for widespread error. It is absolutely the case that "100%" is used as a hate symbol in a some specific contexts; the ADL is very obviously not claiming that every time "100%" appears it is used in this way. While there are clearly better sources for the history of the Wolfsangel, ADL might actually be the best source on the far right's uses of numbers. Similarly, of course peer-reviewed scholarly content is better than sources without named authors, but not listing sources or naming authors is not always an index of unreliability; for a database produced by a museum or scholarly organisation or for a standard tertiary source used in | |||
| *:educational contexts it's extremely common not to list sources or name authors. ] (]) 11:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::So, again, and this is crucial, we need to know ''who'' wrote this. What are their credentials? And why should we just believe the ADL, given they provide ''zero'' sources and seem to have no editorial standards at all? We get no information here about authorship, not even a contributor list. It ''is'' typical to list authorship, even if with just general credits, in databases and handbooks, because when they're ''authoritative'' they involve ''experts''. Otherwise why believe what they have to say, especially without any kind of references? | |||
| :::The ADL's database was most likely just put together by a contractor or two years ago: A non-expert, most likely a single or more than one contractor with no formal or even notable background in the topic and no tools beyond a few dated books and a Google search (like old versions of ''Misplaced Pages articles''). That's the only way to explain the manifold errors throughout this poor showing of a database. | |||
| :::And yes, the errors are widespread and similarly unacceptable. I could go entry after entry, especially on historic topics. It'd be a sea of red ink. For example, each one of the rune entries has some ridiculous error that even an introductory runology handbook would resolve. A quick look reveals that the ADL's provides butchered reconstructions of Elder Futhark names like "algis" (which should obviously be *''algiz''—with a -Z, the asterisk indicates a linguistic reconstruction) alongside the name "life rune". At no point do they alert the reader that the concept of the "life rune" (as opposed to the historic *''algiz'') is in fact ''not'' ancient but rather an early 20th century invented in völkisch circles, used officialy by Nazi Germany, and then later embraced in neo-Nazi circles. They instead imply this was "appropriated", as if it is just another item from the historic record. Wrong. There's a whole essay one could write about how bad the ADL's entry for even the most mainstream "hate" symbols, like the SS logo, is (for one, The SS logo did ''not'' come directly from Elder Futhark *''sowilo'' but once again völkisch interpretations developing from von List's Armanen futhark, which is why they're typically called ''Sig'' 'victory' runes). | |||
| :::And again, while the ADL is asleep at the wheel on this topic, content to present bad 'research' on symbols from the late 90s, many other new symbols have popped up in common use, like the so-called Black Sun/''Schwarze Sonne'', which we now cover very well here on Misplaced Pages (no thanks to the ADL, whose poor coverage on the topic actually wasted a lot of our time there). While they've probably plundered some handbook on numbers (without attribution), they don't listen other important neo-Nazi symbols, like the so-called Irminsul of Wilhelm Teudt (]). They also seem to be pretty averse to Christian nationalism symbols: there's a huge list they're missing. | |||
| :::Now if the ADL had an expert on staff, we wouldn't be having any of this discussion at all. Again, ''we have to do better than this''. ] (]) 22:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The database, which is frequently updated but obviously by definition incomplete, says it is produced by ADL's Center on Extremism, which in turn describes itself as employing "a team of experts, analysts, and investigators" (i.e. it's a collective endeavour). Missing entries don't invalidate it; the database itself asks "Are we missing something?" and invites submissions. | |||
| ::::The only error you point out re the "life rune" is the transliteration of z as s; ADL does not claim the "life" meaning is ancient (they use the term "so-called" and give the German original). Your interpretation of what they "imply" is beyond what is in the text. Nobody would use this database as a source on its ancient meanings; there's nothing inaccurate in how they report its contemporary usage by hate groups. Similarly, they ''don't'' claim the SS symbol comes "directly from Elder Futhark *sowilo"; they say "The SS symbol is ''derived from'' the "sowilo" or "sun" rune, a character in the pre-Roman runic alphabet associated with the "s" sound." Again, obviously we would prefer a scholarly source for the ancient history of its runic antecedents, but the ADL database is an excellent source for its contemporary usage by hate groups. ] (]) 11:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, a "team of experts" they don't list (!) in a database riddled with basic errors. Sounds legit. No names, no authorship, no credentials. No dates, no chronology, no sources. "Experts" who clearly don't know the history of the symbols they're writing about. Again, you're arguing that we just take the ADL's word for whatever they say, and yet if they can't get the history of a symbol right, you expect that they're getting the rest right? | |||
| :::::The slop the ADL is serving up as an entry on the 'life rune' (see how quickly I informed you of the term's actual history) is unacceptable and you are at this point making excuses for their F-grade fumbling with the historic record. You're saying that we should look the other way at the many errors in these entries related to the historic record and just believe what they say otherwise. | |||
| :::::Should I go start listing more errors? At this point I'm doing the ADL's work for it. Any decent database on the "life rune" will explain where the phrase comes from and how it is was invented in early 20th century völkisch circles. Instead they just slap it next to bungled attempts at presenting reconstructions (from who knows where) as if it were just another historic name. It's not and that's important. The same goes with the SS logo. When discussing the SS logo, it is ''important'' to know that the SS logo differs in origin and use from the historic Elder Futhark S-rune and is instead ''directly from'' völkisch author Guido von List's 'revealed' Armanen runes as published in the early 20th century. This is supposed to be an ''authoritative database'' from ''experts'' but instead it reads like a half-baked contractor job. | |||
| :::::You don't have to make excuses for the ADL. They could get this right at any time by bringing in experts. Just find a source written by actual experts and use that instead. ] (]) 19:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It feels like you expect a database of contemporary Hate symbols to be a scholarly compendium of their historical origins. You haven’t presented any evidence that the database is inaccurate for what it’s used for: describing how contemporary hate groups use these symbols. I’ll stop commenting on this thread now as any close has more than enough material to make their own judgement. ] (]) 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's obvious that a.) neither you nor I know who wrote these terrible entries and b.) that they're riddled with errors that any specialist (or anyone who has attended an introductory course on these topics) would immediately detect. If you choose to believe what's in those comedically bad database entries, ancient or modern, that's on you, but they're definitely not suited for English Misplaced Pages or any other project where reliability and authorship matters. ] (]) 23:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|And all this nonsense about every number under the sun being a "hate symbol" because some tiny group somewhere may have used it somewhere at sometime, to where even "100%" is listed as a "hate symbol? Alert your local grocery store."}} Given that the ADL explicitly says {{tq|most uses of this symbol are not, in fact, white supremacist in nature}} this is a pretty disingenuous objection. ] (]) 11:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::And we should believe the ADL that "100%" is a ''notable'' "hate symbol" why? Did an expert write this entry? If so, who is that expert? Was it a contractor with Google? When did this become a symbol of notability? Is it still? When was this entry even written? We get absolutely no authorship information and 'just trust the ADL' (or their contractor/s!) simply isn't enough, especially given fundamental errors throughout entries that an authorative body like the ADL should know ''very'' well. ] (]) 22:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' with great obviousness. Certainly there will always be pushback by groups and persons associated with particular symbols, but that isn't relevant here. ] (]) 21:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem here is even basic accuracy. The ADL's database is riddled with errors and lacks any kind of attribution beyond just "ADL". There's nothing ''reliable'' about it. ] (]) 00:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3'''. Not only are there some major errors with the definitions of hate symbols, ADL appears to be unwilling to address the issue, which is more concerning. ] (]) 09:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:What's the evidence that it's unwilling to address the issue? ] (]) 11:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1 or 2''' Generally reliable per {{u|Rhododendrites}}. Sources treat them as an authority on the subject of hate symbols. '''] ]''' 12:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1 or 2'''. Its hate symbols database is widely used by reliable sources and is treated as an authority on that subject. ] (]) 14:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/2''' per above. Some slightly shoddy compilation from a web perspective, but again, outside of I/P I haven't seen any evidence pointing to the database being outright unreliable, especially for other forms of antisemitism. ] ] 19:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/2''' They make mistakes (who does not?) but they seem generally (except for one or two minor issues) reliable, for attributed opinion. ] (]) 11:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' There's some odd nuggets like having ACAB as a hate symbol (which I've never seen any far right extremist ever use) but it's fine for the most part. ] (he/him • ]) 15:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:To be fair, the entry for ACAB specifies that its usage is not inherently a hate symbol but that some far-right skinheads have been recorded using it. ] (]) 01:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3'''. After giving the assessment for this topic area thought, this is where I land. This is at best not a ] for the topic of hate groups and hate symbols to borrow Levivich's parsing in this subthread; if this were all, I might've favored Option 2. However, as bloodofox has talked about throughout this and the related thread, that's in the best cases. In other cases, the database is outright inaccurate, and such for extended periods of time. ] (] | ] | ]) 21:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1 (pref)/2 (alt)''' In general, their database is broadly agreed to be accurate and is widely used by reliable sources.]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 22:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Extremly reputable organisation. Obviously those designated as racists, or their friends, are noisy regarding the classification by organisations such as the SPLC or the ADL, however such noise expected. The ADL is very reputable. ] (]) 05:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' (pref), '''option 2''' (alt) mostly per Bloodofox. Every few years I am reminded that the ADL's hate symbol list exists and I am then reminded of how bizarre it can be at times. Anything citing only the ADL database should be tagged with ]. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 00:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3'''. I fully agree with Bloodofox's arguments, especially the ones about how it's totally opaque who's writing the entries, what their credentials are, and what sources they use.--] (]) 16:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/2'''. This database appears to be a respected authority and cited by other reputable sources (as others have linked). There may be inaccuracies about the history of the symbols, but I think there is no problem using it (with attribution) to say something is listed as a hate symbol. ] (]) 22:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''', per concerns expressed in the prior discussion: ], and in the course of this RFC. Insufficient evidence of accuracy & fact checking. --] (]) 04:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *On a balance, '''2 or 3''', for the reasons already raised in this discussion by Loki and bloodofox, namely the not infrequent inclusion of, and the failure to correct, incorrect information. There are generally better sources we should be citing, anyway. ] (]) 05:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. The ADL is respected and used by media and scholarship. It is the most respected source out there on antisemitism, and is a very strong source for other hate groups. ---Lilach5 (]) ] 04:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' (preferred; would also support option 2 as alternative). I thought I had already commented here, but it seems I did not. While it's certainly appropriate to mention something being the opinion of an advocacy organization, in general, most of the organizations that purport to make lists of "hate symbols" just kind of throw whatever crap in there. This is no exception. For example, if you look at the ADL's "hate symbols database", you will see entries for: | |||
| **1-11 | |||
| **9% | |||
| **12 | |||
| **13 | |||
| **14 | |||
| **18 | |||
| **23 | |||
| **28 | |||
| **33/6 | |||
| **38 | |||
| ** ≠ | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| :I'm sure that somewhere, at some point, some guy wrote the number 12, and what he meant by that was something racist. However, extrapolating from this to "the number 12 is a hate symbol" seems clearly dumb. There are a large number of silly things in this database, and as bloodofox has noted above, they seem to just kind of randomly put stuff in there whenever. I do not think a classification really means much when, of the two-digit numbers between 10 and 40, ten of them (i.e. 30%) are claimed to be hate symbols. Like Levivich said, you don't really need to cite the ADL database to say that "Hitler did nothing wrong" has Nazi overtones -- for stuff that's obvious, this is not needed, and for stuff that ''isn't'' obvious, it is a very bad idea to use some random listicle entry with no attribution or citations. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The "this whole thing is silly" argument is the one I understand least here. The whole reason these symbols come about is because people don't want to just call themselves "Some White Supremacist Gang" and instead rely on seemingly innocuous names/symbols that already exist in the world. So yes, haha, 14 is just a number -- so silly to call it a hate symbol. And yet, ]. Yes, bowl cuts are funny looking and have a meaning that came before their adoption by white supremacists, and yet Neo-Nazi groups have adopted it as a symbol/name after Dylan Roof and it became a meme among white supremacists on alt-tech sites (e.g. ). Just listing out a bunch of symbols to make a "look at all this stuff they call a hate symbol" argument seems like it misses the point completely, which is to document when symbols have been cooped by a hate group. Sometimes those groups are smalltime prison gangs in Idaho who get a representative number as a tattoo and there's not much more to be said other than document it, and sometimes they're much larger entities or phenomena. The reliability question is not about "do you think this is a worthwhile project" but about whether we can trust that when the ADL says a number was used to represent some white supremacist prison gang, then it was probably used to represent some white supremacist prison gang. Nobody's saying we must rewrite the lead of ] to say "14 is a hate symbol". That's a ]/NPOV argument, not an RS question. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 14:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::So the ] page is instructive in that it notes that while there is some isolated usage of the number 14, more often than not it is combined with "88" in a hateful context. So it's not normally just about the number 14. The point that the list simply contains lots of trivial usage, such as about occasional use of bowl cuts by gangs, really just adds to the sense that this database is not really a good measure of anything. If it can't be used to determine very astutely and in what context a symbol is hateful, where is it useful, when can it be used, and when are its assertions due? I'd just use something better. ] (]) 14:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, but there is no source for any of the stuff that they are saying. The bowl-cut entry doesn't have any citations, or mention any websites, or any people, or anything at all. Neither does the "Anti-Antifa Images" entry: it literally just shows an image that's a "no" symbol drawn around the Antifa flag logo, and says that this is a hate symbol because "White supremacist anti-left (or sinistrophobic) symbology especially targets far left and anarchist activists who have dedicated themselves to actively opposing and exposing white supremacists". No citation, no byline, nothing, it's just silly.<br/><br/> | |||
| :::Including minor usage by irrelevant groups seems to make it even less useful, since at that point you gain nothing at all from knowing it's listed in this database -- it doesn't indicate that something is used mainly as a hate symbol, ''and'' it doesn't even indicate that the thing's use as a hate symbol is notable. It really doesn't seem like this database is the product of somebody trying to produce a useful and relevant scholarly resource (again -- there are no citations or references or bylines) -- I think it is primarily a fundraising tool for a political advocacy organization.<br/><br/> | |||
| :::To me, it's like if the Association of Arborists had a database of every bug that was an imminent threat capable of causing damage to your trees, and included hundreds of obscure species of lichen mites from tiny islands in the Canadian arctic, each saying "we don't really know much about this one, but it ''is'' a bug, and studies have shown that sometimes bugs harm trees". The only thing this proves is that the Association of Arborists wants you to schedule a visit from an arborist. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree that the database is rather unimpressive, but your original argument seemed to be “I think it’s dumb that these things are considered hate speech lol” in the vein of right-wing influencers. ] (]) 06:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for letting me know. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 20:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's not the case that there are "no sources". Sure, there are no sources presented, but it's not plucked out of the air. This is basically a tertiary source, a compendium of user-friendly info, not an academic research article. It's very common for tertiary sources not to include citations. It's produced by the ADL's Center on Extremism, whose staff are experts on extremism. For example, its senior researcher is Mark Pitcavage, who has multiple scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals. ] (]) 11:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This sort of thing is the main reason why I phrased my !vote in this section as "reliable for whether a symbol is used by hate groups" and not "reliable for whether a symbol is a hate symbol". I don't think they're a reliable source for the second thing, and I don't even really think they're trying to be a source for that at all. | |||
| ::The presence of a symbol in the database should not be taken to mean that it is a hate symbol; even the concept of "hate symbol" is hard to define and ambiguously meaningful. The swastika is probably the most unambiguous hate symbol there is and yet if you look at Tokyo on Google Maps you'll find swastikas everywhere (it's the symbol for "Buddhist temple"). No symbol has meaning without context and so trying to say that ''any'' symbol is a "hate symbol" by citing ''any'' database is not a good idea. ] (]) 20:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 10:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Option 3''' - Per arguments by ]. ADL's latest entry to its "hate symbol" database is . How is this a hate symbol?!! I do understand that hate symbols have a context, but do editors want to over-contextualise anything to the point where it gets inserted as a "hate symbol" in wikipedia? There are plenty of reliable sources to understand about hate symbols. An utterly un-academic and partisan front group like ADL is not needed in this topic. ] (]) 12:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Once again, “lol so stupid amirite” is not an argument. ] (]) 02:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::"lol lol amirite amirite" is not an argument either. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 20:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean ] (]) 12:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The entry for 100% concludes with the words "Additionally, caution must be used in evaluating instances of this symbol's use, as most uses of this symbol are not, in fact, white supremacist in nature." It would be insane to insist that all (or most) uses of 100% are using it as a hate symbol. But it's almost equally ridiculous to assume that this means it's never used as a hate symbol. If someone in a white supremacist prison gang has a 100% tattoo, this database (rather than a mathematics textbook) would be a good source to go to to understand why. ] (]) 11:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] Reports which are issued solely by ADL are not credible. Read user JPxG's arguments. (in particular JPxG's comment starting with "Okay, but there is no source for any of the stuff that they are saying.") | |||
| :::Also, on the topic of hate symbols. It's clear that ADL isnt reliable at all in this topic. ] (]) 09:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Taking submissions is fine. There does not seem to be an indication that they publish them without review, which would be the only issue. ] (]) 09:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The "review" of ADL staffers, assuming it occurs, is not credible. ADL cant impose its view on what constitutes hate symbols. ] (]) 10:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Why not? That’s what civil rights groups can do? ] (]) 10:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::ADL acts privately and publishes what its staffers consider as hate symbols without peer-reviewed academic research. ] (]) 10:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, that is what civil rights orgs tend to do, particularly those that monitor hate. The SPLC does the same with hate groups. ] (]) 10:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The SPLC isn’t that great either, but for different reasons. In general I think we can and should avoid using advocacy groups like SPLC, ACLU, etc. as objective sources because they have an agenda they’ll advance without much regard to methodology. ADL just goes a step further because their methodology is sketchy as hell and their agenda is based around hardcore zionism. ] (]) 12:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Would you say the same about ], ], ], etc.? ] (]) 13:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::It depends. First, none of them are ADL (thankfully). Second Amnesty is green at RSP and for others I might take their reports more seriously than other things, etcetera. So not a real argument. ] (]) 13:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::The ] also currently lists the ADL as GREL, I'm not inherently opposed to downgrading all "Tier 1 advocacy/civil rights groups" (even if I think that a disparity between newspaper and orgs is arbitrary), but as long as we downgrade some groups (for being such), we should do so consistently and that includes AI and HRW as well. ] (]) 13:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::That ignores the differences in the reliability of the organizations, so no. ''']''' - 13:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::''I think we can and should avoid using advocacy groups like SPLC, ACLU, etc. as objective sources because they have an agenda they’ll advance without much regard to methodology.'' applies to all 6 (and all other established civil and human rights orgs). My point is that the type or organisation is of little relevance for established, 'respected' and well-known orgs. I believe we should discount all arguments not '''based''' on reliability but on status, not that there can't be a difference between such orgs. ] (]) 13:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::The ongoing discussion shows that ADL is in a quite different place than more respectable orgs. Trying to compare oranges with apples is a no-no. ] (]) 13:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::I'm not saying that it means that the ADL is necessarily reliable, I'm just saying that it's status as a civil rights org shouldn't be a (relevant) factor. ] (]) 13:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Human rights groups employ huge teams of lawyers, and human rights are written into international law. The cataloguing of human rights violations is far more empirical and far less subjective than political advocacy. ] (]) 14:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Human rights groups also generally advocate for more than what is mandated by IHL <s> and rightly so, based on the state of IHL </s>. In the same way, civil rights groups often argue for more than national law mandates, and also often have quite a few of lawyers on staff/retainer. I consider this to be a distinction without a difference for the purpose of establishing reliablity. ] (]) 14:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Taking submissions from randos also appears to be how they get antisemitism statistics. They basically crowd source their info, and there are just so many ways that can go wrong. It sounds like I could basically call up the ADL tomorrow from different phone booths or write from different emails and they'd absorb whatever yarn I spun them. ] (]) 14:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok let's put an end to this red herring raised by JP and Shadowwarrior. When JP wrote above {{tqq|extrapolating from this to "the number 12 is a hate symbol"}}, he wasn't quoting the ADL or anyone else. When Shadow wrote {{tqq|How is this a hate symbol}}, that's a straw man argument. Nobody ever said the number 12 ''is'' a hate symbol, or that 100% ''is'' a hate symbol. The ADL is saying these numbers ''have been used as'' hate symbols. Which is true. And explained in the ADL article. As quoted by several editors in response above. There are other reasons the ADL is not reliable (detailed in other votes above), but not because they say numbers are hate symbols, because the ADL doesn't say that. Nobody would be stupid enough to claim a number is a hate symbol. ] (]) 14:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is not the case. I would recommend, if you're unclear about what claims I am making, that you read the three-paragraph-long explanation of the claims, which I wrote directly above this, starting with "{{tq|Okay, but there is no source for any of the stuff that they are saying}}" -- let me know if there are any issues. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 20:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with all of those arguments. ] (]) 20:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2'''. A database is a database. Certainly, inclusion criteria may be biased, and this must always be considered (especially in case of a campaign organisation), but I'd be okay with careful sourcing of actual hate symbols, whenever required, to ADFL if worded cautiously or accompanied by a disclaimer. — ] ] 16:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per kashmiri, if we ever have occasion to document a symbol (obviously this alone is no basis for a dedicated article on any symbol, nor does this mean it will necessarily be due in contexts where the issue is not symbology), yes, we should say, with attribution, what others say about its use; it's often the case that symbols (for example gang symbols) are inscrutable to many in multiple ways, except those who watch such things (or have been in the meliue). -- ] (]) 20:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''', per kasmiri and in the way described by Loki. RS source the database for basic facts so we can do that with attribution. ] (]) 09:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 or 3''' realistically there's no point citing it, if we can't find better sources for a given symbol it's ]—] 19:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' Seems most of the entries can be antisemitic dog-whistles in certain contexts, though context must matter. Could be used to identify a possible dog whistle, though it shouldn't be used to accuse randomly anyone of antisemitism without considering context or a pattern of behavior (I still recall pro-Israeli groups getting mad at Greta Thunberg because her favorite plushie was an octopus. If a known anti-semite/neo-Nazi was publishing cartoons with an octopus over the world or something like that, seems like that would be real antisemitism.) ] (]) 21:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1 or 2''' Questionable inclusion criteria may lead to some entries being overblown and thus undue, but generally no reason to question reliability or factuality. ] (]) 03:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You seem to be ignoring the lack of reliability, the absence of references, and the total lack of authorship information. These are serious issues. ] (]) 23:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' - The ADL is widely viewed as a highly credible source on the issues it works on (akin to suggesting SPLC is not credible on hate groups or HRC is not credible on LGBT issues). It is generally reliable which is why it is ] which, per ], is "evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts". ] (]) 22:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This needs to be struck out. You're accusing others who highlight the total lack of reliability or authorship information about this database of being "agenda-driven". That is unacceptable. See ]. ] (]) 23:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::That was not my intention but have edited this per a ping on my talk page. Not wanting to get drawn into what is clearly a time sink here, I will be walking away from this topic. ] (]) 23:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. Most of it appears accurate and correct, but some of it is "off the mark", ie not widely accepted as a hate symbol by any other RS which raises many questions on it's reliability. I understand this is somewhat the point of the database, as it's never going to be 100% accurate, which is this makes it MREL and not GREL with attribution required. ] (]) 12:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Additional considerations apply''': The ADL is an advocacy organization and it may be reliable for information about itself and some other cases of antisemitism, but it must be used with caution, especially within the IL-PA and A-I conflicts. It could be used for attributed opinions and possibly for information about colleges, but it should be used with care like many other religious advocacy organizations. ] ] 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per Rhododendrites, BilledMammal, Zaathras. ] (]) 11:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:] has a good point on ] ] (]) 11:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''; this would be peak "throwing the baby with the bathwater". One of the least objectionable things that the ADL does is compile the list of anti-semitic dogwhistles. ''']''' (]) 17:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Had they botehred to consult experts, that may be the case. However, they didn't, don't cite authorship, and get even the basics wrong, often spreading misinformation, as clearly and explicitly outlined above. ] (]) 01:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' on average. Reliable for the existence of a symbol and its use as a hate symbol. Not reliable for the history or meaning of a symbol outside its use as a hate symbol. ] (]) 05:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4'''. The little real information on that page drowns in serious errors and bizarre claims, which have been brought up by several editors. In the few cases where an ADL classification itself has impacted the perception of a symbol, we need secondary sources for that to be mentioned in an article. If anything, we should make an effort to go through every symbol the ADL lists and make sure any coverage of it on Misplaced Pages has a serious source that is independent from the ADL's description of it. ] (]) 09:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' or '''Option 4''' - A source that considers a sticker of the Palestinian flag placed literally anywhere as a hate symbol cannot be taken seriously. An organization that counts the ] as a symbol of hate cannot be taken seriously. --- ]&]]) 23:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:This isn't part of the hate symbol database, this is part of the , as confirmed by the categorisation of this symbol under glossary rather than the database in question ; thus unrelated to this RfC. The ADL also doesn't directly describe it as a hate symbol, more so as possible extremism it seems. Off topic, but just for context; {{tq|"can signify support for violent Palestinian resistance against Israel"}}, {{tq|"can be used innocuously in general pro-Palestine social media posts"}}, {{tq|"is now used to represent Hamas"}}; I personally think isn't far off the mark for it's current usage (ie broad in nature). ] (]) 01:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::How many of these poorly-made ADL databases are out there? Here it is again: No author attribution (who wrote this, contractors?), no sources provided, or no dates or context. They've just a slapped together bunch of stuff that cannot be verified: we're just told to trust whoever put this together at the ADL, an advocacy group. And it's likewise just a sloppy, poorly researched mess. For example, their entry on "fasces" for example makes no mention of how most people in the US will encounter it: by way of its widespread use by the US federal government () . The entry on "Jera Rune" doesn't even tell us why it's listed there ( — and I would like to know why because this is not a symbol widely used by any neo-Nazi group that I know of). We have to use better sources than this. It repeats the same garbled and confused nonsense about the "life rune" I discuss above (). It again totally incorrectly refers to the Wolfsangel as an "ancient runic symbol" (). Those are just a few I took a look at—this is similarly not at all reliable. ] (]) 02:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You're right. What is not mentioned about the use of the fasces symbol by US government institutions could fill volumes. That's pretty bad omission, or selective cherrypicking of context. If anything, the actual widespread usage in a US federal context – including being emblazoned (twice!) on the senate logo – makes it a presumptively patriotic symbol in the US. Somewhat relevant context. ] (]) 04:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' – The ADL's hate symbol database should only be cited as a source for a statement like "This symbol is in the ADL's hate symbol database.", or for well-attributed quotes of their database. It's clear that the ADL is a prominent voice in the field of hate symbols, and it likely will make sense to mention their opinion in Misplaced Pages in many/most articles about hate symbols. But, it should be clearly marked as their opinion, and other sources should be used to back up the history/usage/etc of the symbol.<br>Citing ADL should be avoided not just because of possible bias or inaccuracies, but also for the simple reason that their data is very surface-level. Most hate symbols only get a paragraph or two of information on their website and there's no indication of how they sourced/acquired the info. We also rarely cite Merriam-Webster, but not because MW is considered unreliable; it just lacks much depth. –] (]) 01:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 or 3''' – All of the entries on the database seem to actually be hate symbols (obviously within context, ), but it is clear that the backgrounds for these entries are unsourced and often times untrue, and should not be used as a reliable source. Although they are not the same thing, the related should be seen as unreliable due to branding several organizations as "hateful" or "]" merely for being anti-Zionist. ] (]) 02:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' (I am opposed to deprecation on principle). No one has managed to refute :bloodofox:'s excellent arguments above. ''Who'' is writing this? Is there ''any'' fact checking process? Where do they get this information from? All those questions don't have good answers, in addition to the concerning inaccuracies highlighted above. ] (]) 06:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' I keep repeating the same thing again. ADL is not a neutral third party journalist trying to report on the news like Reuters or the Associated Press, which are typically considered the gold standard for reporting. They're an advocacy organization with a view on how the world should be, and they are trying to advocate for it. As such, they should be treated like any other political and advocacy organization. If there's some dispute over something, and enough reliable sources cover them, then they can be included in the article, as a particular viewpoint. But we would be citing a news article by the New York Times, or the Miami Herald, or USA Today, etc. In short: They are not journalists. ] (]) 07:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === |
=== Survey (Al-Manar) === | ||
| *'''Option 3''', per comments from Amigao, Alaexis, and BobFromBrockley in the prior thread. It seems to be a comparable propaganda/disinfo outlet to ], which we deprecated several months ago, but with a handful of instances (i.e. the soccer player info brought up by Chess, or ] reasons) where it may be somewhat appropriate to use. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 03:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:''If'' and ''only if'' this ends up option 2, which would be problematic in itself, the RSP entry should make a clear distinction between justified usage (ex. non-controversial events in Lebanese life and society) and problematic usage (ex. conflicts that Hezbollah is a direct party to (Arab-Israeli, Syrian civil war), etc). That should be the absolute baseline, considering newer precedents set with the Jewish Chronicle and other sources that have some valid uses but are systemically unreliable with regards to the conflict. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 19:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Many of the comments from Amigao, Alaexis, and BobFromBrockley in the prior thread have been rebutted as misrepresenting Al-Manar. I encourage users to click through the links and see for themselves.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 17:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Having clicked through the links, I continue to endorse my position and disagree with the rebuttals' rationale. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 19:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Would also like to emphasize the verbatim re-reporting of articles from RT and TASS, both GUNREL/deprecated sources, that's been pointed out below. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 19:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' per The Kip. ~ ]] 05:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. I'd pick 3 for pretty much anything relating to conflicts in the Middle East or other contentious issues. But things happen in Lebanon other than war. Al-Manar's Arabic section has a decent amount of information on uncontroversial aspects of Lebanese society. I would like to see more evidence about how Al-Manar is used to support false claims onwiki before a full GUNREL !vote. Right now, GUNREL means blanket removal for a lot of people. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 05:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option 4''' - it's very blatant propaganda. The English content is also just quite sloppy and amateurish. Just glancing at a few front page articles, | |||
| :* {{tq|the Hitler of our time, Benjamin Netanyahu}} | |||
| :* {{tq|the Zionist invaders are incapable of facing men of God directly}} (in their own voice, not marked as opinion or anything) | |||
| :* {{tq|Israeli police will question Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief of staff over blackmailing of an Israeli occupation officer}} - implies wrongdoing (maybe unintentional from a bad translation?), never mentioning that this was ruled out by a police investigation | |||
| :* Regularly accuses "Zionist media" of lies with no details, e.g. vague accusation of a "fabricated report" by ]. | |||
| : There's just a complete lack of professionalism; RT is better in many ways. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 06:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: no comment (I don't want to violate BLP). | |||
| :: nothing wrong with an opinion that is shared by hundreds of millions. Yes, in their own voice (it's not Misplaced Pages). | |||
| :: the usual news reporting (nothing wrong with that either). | |||
| ::{{tq|Regularly accuses "Zionist media" of lies |q=yes}} So? it's not like the Zionists don't have a very long history of lying. ] (]) 13:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::* Such statements of fact in their own voice demonstrate zero regard for ]. | |||
| :::* Reliable sources will not imply wrongdoing based on allegations (again it might be a sloppy translation, but either is bad), and will correct false accusations when someone is cleared by an investigation. | |||
| :::* "the Zionists" is not an entity; Maariv is an entity and a fairly reputable newspaper. But the point is that reliable sources will offer some kind of substantiation when making serious accusations. Here it's not even clear what exactly they're claiming is fabrication. | |||
| :::— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They don't need to be pretend to be objective when describing those who are exterminating their people (with the help of those who pretend to be neutral). | |||
| ::::So called reliable sources such as the NYT, literally fabricated a story to help Israel. By you standard, we should deprecate NYT. ] (]) 16:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@], The Times of Israel frequently calls Hamas members as "terrorists", ], so I'm not sure why its unprofessional for Al-Manar to refer to the ] as "Zionist invaders"? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 17:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was more getting at {{tq|incapable of facing men of God directly}}. Professional news orgs will have at least some modicum of ] and would never write such things in their own voice. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 18:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2''' per Chess. Obviously should not be used anywhere near I/P, but may be marginally reliable for things in Lebanon outside of that. ] (]) 08:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3'''. I believe they are generally unreliable, due to multiple examples of disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories. Comparable sources might be as The Cradle, al-Mayadeen and IRNA, all of which I believe are designated gunrel. Option 2 might be worth considering, if phrased stringently, as the source might be usable for some uncontroversial facts about e.g. Lebanese sport or the statements of Hezbollah and Hezbollah-aligned politicians, but presumably (a) those could be sourced from better places (Lebanon has some decent free press) and (b) might be permissable uses of an unreliable source anyway. ] (]) 11:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per Chess. I don't see anything that would justify option 3 (if the word "generally" has changed meaning recently, then we need discuss the so called "reliable sources" that have been caught misrepresenting the events, or worse, fabricated stories, such as the NYT). ] (]) 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. I want to point out that, with the exception of Al-Jazeera, pretty much every source listed at ] from the ] and ] is listed as GUNREL or MREL. We really need to check our ].''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 18:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I believe there is more to it than systematic bias. ] (]) 18:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::The nature of RSPN means we're much more likely to discuss crap sources than good ones. And given many if not most governments in the Arab/Muslim world are not fond of freedom of the press, it should be no surprise that most entries here lean on the unreliable side.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Is that right? Mada Masr? Lebanon Daily Star? L'Orient-Le Jour? The New Arab/Al-Araby Al-Jadeed? The National (Abu Dhabi)? Asharq al-Awsat? ] (]) 23:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::None of those are on RSP, which is what VR said. ] (]) 14:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I think this is a point ''against'' systematic bias against A/M reliable sources. RSP is a bunch of ], some of which made it out to be considered reliable for another day. If A/M sources were being regularly, unfairly challenged, there would be more green entries. ] (]) 23:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I disagree in that I think it says something that ''every'' time we have brought a non-Israeli middle eastern source to RSP it has been declared MREL or GUNREL, except Al Jazeera, which had an extremely large contingent of editors wanting to declare them GUNREL. ] (]) 14:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Sorry I misread. My point is several Arab sources which are heavily used on Misplaced Pages have not been designated unreliable, undermining the argument for systematic bias. ] (]) 00:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::These all appear to be Western-aligned and/or liberal newspapers, some with serious financial COIs. I do agree that it's a bit imprecise to say Misplaced Pages's systemic bias is against Arab/Muslim sources as a whole, but the fact that many of the Arab/Muslim sources considered reliable are funded by and/or supportive of Western aligned MENA oil and real estate interests is illustrative of exactly the systemic bias problem that @] points out. The systematic downgrading of sources critical of Western and Western-aligned perspectives makes Misplaced Pages more biased and unreliable, and less legitimate to a non-Western audience. Even if the camp of pro-Western sources is broadly more reliable than Russian or Chinese or Iran-aligned sources, excluding the reporting and viewpoint of those sources extensively makes Misplaced Pages blind when pro-Western sources lie or make an error, which they often do because all media does. ] (]) 18:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Media in the Arab and Muslim world has a systemic bias. It really shouldn’t be surprising that media in countries with poor freedom of press often governed by autocrats is disproportionately represented among sources considered unreliable. A deluge of bad sources from a region of the world is not reason to relax our standards when assessing sources from the region. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 21:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per above. Despite people throwing links in the section below it hard to find evidence of systematic disinformation in the past 20 years. Reporting that Putin said X (in quotes) doesn't constitute disinformation. Being biased against certain Lebanese politicians (most RS have a certain partisan bias) doesn't make it unreliable. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' per BobFromBrockley pretty much word-for-word. That is, some form of option 2 could be viable if very stringent, but the list of topics for which this source is generally unreliable would probably be too long to be manageable. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 21:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Idk what number it would be, but I would only use it for something internal Lebanese and non-controversial or for attributed views to Hezbollah's media outlet. Either 2 or 3, whichever fits that statement best. ''']''' - 23:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' based on the comments from BobFromBrockley and Amigao. There appear to be many instances of sharing disinformation, including from clearly unreliable sources like RT. Plus the fact that it is banned in many countries. ] (]) 09:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Al-Jazeera is also banned in many countries. Politicians shouldn't get to decide what is or is not reliable.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 17:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' per Bobfromblockley ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' I don't see how this is better than Al Mayadeen or RT. ] ] 01:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''', where the "additional considerations" include not presenting its assertions related to the conflict as factual in wikivoice. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2-3''' based on Chess and others. Should not be used around I/P topic area. ] (]) 00:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 (4 for I/P and Jews only)''' based on the arguments presented, specifically regarding the spread of misinformation/disinformation and hateful conspiracy theories. I think some use as aboutself/for national politics per Chess and co may be a reasonable exception. Use in regards to Israel and Jews (very broadly construed) should be completely avoided. ] (]) 10:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''', per above. --] (]) 20:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' per BobFromBrockley. ] (]) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for non-controversial issues such as Lebanese football or basic, uncontested details about the news, as well as attributed statements from organizations that align with its bias such as Hezbollah or the IRGC. '''Option 2''' for more controversial subjects, statements by organizations that tilt against its bias, or anything disputed by other sources. In my reading of the discussion section, editors have given evidence that Al-Manar is biased and at times prone to questionable editorial decisions, but I have not seen evidence of systemic unreliability, much less evidence of a detrimental impact of such unreliability on-wiki. Special considerations bordering on '''Option 3''' should be given to any extraordinary claims, and republished content from other sources should be cited at the original source rather than at Al-Manar unless the original source is paywalled or otherwise inaccessible. ] (]) 00:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''', deprecate per M.bitton comments. Highly unreliable, beyond unreliable though as it is a deliberate and intentional arm of propaganda. That is the classic case of where deprecation is appropriate. ] (]) 02:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''': Per Chess. ] - ] 19:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 to 4''' This is clearly a worse-than-average source with a history of misattributed claims, occluding untrustworthy information sources and generally bad journalistic practice. Is it pervasive enough to deprecate? I don't know. Maybe it's fine for Lebanese football news as mentioned elsewhere. But for any contentious topic we absolutely should not be using this source. ] (]) 14:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' no evidence of unreliability seems to have been demonstrated. I don't care what it is comparable to, I'd like to see evidence of unreliability. You don't need an RfC to tell that you shouldn't be citing this for Middle East conflicts. ] (]) 06:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Traumnovelle}}, can I clarify if I understand: you think additional conditions should apply (option 2), and the specific additional conditions in this case is not to cite it for topics to do with Middle East conflicts? ] (]) 14:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::It is really just common sense. If what this source states about a Middle East conflict is truthful and due it almost certainly will be reported elsewhere. I apply the same standard to sources such as the Time of Israel too. ] (]) 19:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4'''. This station is of the "Jews did 9/11" hoax. Per its own website, its goal at the time was to conduct {{tq|effective psychological warfare against the Zionist enemy}}—so, yes, this group ''does intentionally lie'' in order to try to influence geopolitics. We don't need to close our eyes and pretend that this is somehow different than how the Russian state uses ]. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:That's more than 23 years ago, also it says that came from their television, not one of their articles. I mean, we don't usually come across a Misplaced Pages article that sources from any TV archives; it's rare if it happens. I don't see any of Al-Manar's current articles that directly make such a claim, although a hard archive search might find one. | |||
| *:As for the quote "effective psychological warfare against the Zionist enemy", Al-Manar's website is a little hard to traverse, but I did look all over the website as much as I could, and I didn't see a single page with that quote in it. It might be that an archived page from Al-Manar (from way more than 20 years ago) has something like this, but even archive searches from archive.org don't give true results: | |||
| *:* Nothing in TV captions: </nowiki>] | |||
| *:* One result in Metadata, but nothing to do with Al-Manar: </nowiki>] ]] | |||
| *:* Nothing in archived websites: </nowiki>] | |||
| *:* Some results in Radio transcripts, but none related to Al-Manar: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] | |||
| *:* Some result come in books, but most of them are written by ADL staff or some other pro-Israel lobbies; the only book that's not written by ADL staff moves on to complement Al-Manar after slightly criticizing it: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] | |||
| *:According to ] "Women and media in the Middle East : power through self-expression", Al-Manar was created ... "in order for the Hezbollah to convey a message of ‘love and tolerance ... of values, morals and goals ... to live in peace, support the oppressed", it also says "It conveyed a strongly moral message aimed at eradicating ‘instincts’ pro¬ voked by other Lebanese television channels, where women are objectified and represented as ‘belly-dancers and prostitutes’." | |||
| *:I highly doubt the notion of "Psychological warfare" is present anywhere in Al-Manar right now, and the Guardian article is probably long-time outdated. ] (]) 09:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::You appear to be correct that it was removed at some point, though do confirm that it was once there. — ] <sub>]</sub> 05:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' for anything remotely controversial, especially for the I/P topic area, since it is run by Hezbollah. '''Option 2''' for non-controversial statements and viewpoints of Hezbollah, ''a la '' the Chinese government sources. ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 21:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4''' (if this doesn't have the majority, then fallback to 3). This is obviously propaganda and very unprofessional per xDanielx's examples. We should use better sources in our articles. --] (]) 10:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:] ] (]) 15:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion (Al-Manar) === | |||
| * I'm merging the three discussion sections that would normally go here because these RFCs are all closely connected. ] (]) 00:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * {{linksummary|almanar.com}} | |||
| * In response to BilledMammal's response to my !vote on Section 1: (1) I see no evidence of RS saying SJP is a front for Hamas; (2) that's not how I read the plain language of the article; (3) correct, but this is part of a pattern of wild divergences in position that renders them inconsistent and, therefore, unreliable; (4) that's not how I read the plain language of the article. ] (]) 01:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Comment: Bias and inflamed rhetoric against Israel is NOT a valid reason for !voting options 3/4. Reporting that Israelis evacuated the Twin Towers on 9/11 IS a good reason for !voting options 3/4. I'll post some other examples of misinformation and unreliability here later, in addition to the ones in the discussion further up this page. ] (]) 11:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Here's an example: | |||
| *: Regarding (1) I don't see the ADL saying SJP is a front for Hamas either, just that they provided "material support". Regarding (2) and (4), to simplify this can you quote the sections that you interpret as the sources saying that ADL is pushing falsehoods? Regarding (3), I would need to see more of a pattern, rather than an isolated incident, and preferably in regards to matters of fact rather instead of opinion, before I can comment further on that. ] (]) 01:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **{{cite web | last=Schafer | first=Bret | title=The Russian Propaganda Nesting Doll: How RT is Layered Into the Digital Information Environment | website=GMFUS | date=30 May 2024 | url=https://www.gmfus.org/news/russian-propaganda-nesting-doll-how-rt-layered-digital-information-environment | access-date=15 November 2024}}: {{tq|we discovered RT content on Al Manar TV, a site owned and operated by Hezbollah. Though not technically a state-backed media outlet, Al Manar is a mouthpiece for a major political and geopolitical player in the Middle East, and thus exists as a politically backed, if not state-backed, channel... We found eight occurrences of RT content reposed to Al Manar, but a manual review of content tagged with “Russia” or “Ukraine” on Al Manar’s website revealed that those articles are sourced primarily, if not exclusively, from RT, Sputnik News, and Tass, all of which are Russian state-controlled outlets. Oddly, many other articles were attributed to “Agencies”, though those too appeared to be sourced from Tass.}} ] (]) 14:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''On deprecating a single topic area.''' This RfC deals with three distinct topic areas. Potentially deprecating the source for a single topic would present editorial difficulties, as Loki has observed. That said, because we have no policy or guideline that precludes this, I'm inclined to believe this remains a valid option and the method we would use to apply it would have to be sorted out after the fact if it landed on that, potentially through further discussion. ] (]) 01:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **:Are you suggesting we treat a claim from a US based source as a fact? ] (]) 14:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'm still concerned about this because the concrete meaning of a deprecation per ] is: | |||
| **:It depends on ''what'' the content they reposted from RT was. Did Al-Manar quote the RT (or Sputnik) for uncontroversial sports news? Or for official statements of Putin? I don't see that as much of a problem.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:1. The source is generally unreliable. | |||
| **::The source says at least some of the content is about Ukraine, so I think that counts as controversial. ] (]) 00:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:2. New users adding the source are reverted by bot. | |||
| *:That claim was made by Al-Manar some 20 years ago (shortly after 9/11). Do you have more recent examples of disinformation? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 17:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:3. Any user attempting to add the source is warned not to. | |||
| A UK-based source, also a partisan thinktank so pinch of salt, but a highly respected thinktank: | |||
| *:Part 1 can clearly be implemented for a single topic area but is no different from Option 3. Parts 2 and 3 do not seem to me to be reasonably possible to implement per topic area. So either it's deprecated for all topic areas, or it's just a pointed way of voting generally unreliable. ] (]) 13:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * {{cite web | title=If You Can't Make It, Fake It: The Age of Invented News | website=Royal United Services Institute | date=4 September 2012 | url=https://rusi.org/publication/if-you-cant-make-it-fake-it-age-invented-news | ref={{sfnref|Royal United Services Institute|2012}} | access-date=15 November 2024}}: {{tq|Al-Alam and Al-Manar, two Arabic-language television channels owned by Iran and its regional allies, frequently lead with stories which have never happened.}} ] (]) 14:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Agreed, particularly with the last point. ] (]) 13:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::A partisan source (in the middle of ongoing war) means propaganda (that they are welcome to feed to their kids). ] (]) 14:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you offer any concrete evidence that the statement above by the ] was factually inaccurate? - ] (]) 19:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:As per previous experience any RFC for deprecation will likely end up being reviewed, especially in this area. So if anyone is advocating for deprecation they need to be making a very strong argument.<br>There seems to be a general misunderstanding that its the next step up from generally unreliable, but deprecation goes well beyond that. It's for sources that are not only generally unreliable but completely untrustworthy (for instance publishing lies, losing a court case about those lies, and then deliberately covering up the fact that the lies had ever been published, and then lying about doing so). -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::::Skimming it, I don't see any concrete evidence in the article itself to support the claim. Do you? It appears the author is relying on the reader's implicit bias that "inventing news is the norm rather than the exception" in Arabic language media and guilt by association with Iran as evidence of the claim. I don't see any examples of debunked or falsified stories. ] (]) 23:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::::RUSI's statement was a fair one. A more recent example would be Al-Manar's stating that the ] "officially tops efficacy and safety" standards without anything else backing it up. - ] (]) 22:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*:It would be a somewhat confused situation, but my comment was just to try and stop the discussion going off course and to point out that deprecation isn't "generally unreliable++". -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::::::{{tq| Al-Manar's story ...|q=yes}} '''That's a factually incorrect claim!''' It's not their story, it's clearly attributed to Sputnik. ] (]) 22:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::So they are re-publishing ] from an unreliable and deprecated source like ]. That does not exactly help the reliability of Al-Manar, at least for the purposes of an RfC. Also, here is a March 2022 Al-Manar that spreads a version of the ] with bat coronavirus thrown into the mix. - ] (]) 04:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*:::I should have said "isn't ''just'' 'generally unreliable++'". The 1-4 scale should maybe be changed so deprecation appears differently, 1-3 +D maybe. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::First things first: '''you misrepresented a source'''. | |||
| ::If it’s a binary choice between deprecation of ADL as a whole and no depreciation whatsoever, I support depreciation of ADL. The quality of their information ranges from bad (hate symbols) to worse (antisemitism) to outright propaganda and disinformation (I/P). If ADL was (nominally) representing any other group besides Jews it would be considered a far-right disinformation campaign. Nothing is lost by saying “avoid this”, and nothing is gained from “broken clocks are right twice a day”. ] (]) 08:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Second, they can re-publish anything they want, and so long as they attribute it to the original source, it has zero (as in none whatsoever) effect on their reliability. | |||
| :::I would concur here. While the ADL website has been a convenient source for hate symbols and general information on hate groups it is not a critical one for this, nor, as has been pointed out, even one with particularly academic methodology for inclusion. With its movement toward being an open advocacy / lobby group for Israel it is increasingly inappropriate for other uses. If we have to deprecate the whole thing, let's deprecate the whole thing. ] (]) 13:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Third, '''you're doing it again''': the above source is attributed to the chief spokesman for the The Russian Defense Ministry. | |||
| *{{ping|Slatersteven|buidhe|Hemiauchenia|Eladkarmel|Chess|O3000, Ret.|ElLuzDelSur}} Ping editors who participated in the above discussion on ADL but haven't participated here. Apologies if I missed anyone who participated there, or pinged anyone who has already participated here. ] (]) 02:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have no idea why you're doing this, but it certainly doesn't look good (to be honest, it' quite worrying). ] (]) 05:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Re-publishing known vaccine disinformation narratives from ] sources has quite a lot to do with a source's editorial judgment and overall reliability for the purposes of an RfC. - ] (]) 05:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ====Antisemitism==== | |||
| ::::::::::'''Misrepresenting the sources''', like you keep doing, is what makes a source unreliable. ] (]) 12:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I wanted to expand a bit on why I think that the arguments used by editors !voting for Option 3/4 are not good. Most of the arguments are based on the sources criticising their definition of antisemitism, such as this in the Nation | |||
| ::::::::::It's not necessarily unusual or a sign of poor editorial judgment for a source to cite a deprecated source. Just this morning, I read from the ], which says: {{tq|Separately his deputy, Brigadier General Ali Fadavi, told Al Mayadeen, a Lebanese television channel close to Iran, that a response would be “inevitable”. In more than 40 years, “we have not left any aggression without a response”, he said.}} Reliable sources often need to cover what biased or unreliable sources are saying in order to tell the full story. The fact that this guilt by association tactic of "citing an unreliable source = unreliable", which has been used on the RSN to knock sources down like dominoes, isn't even accepted as an actual journalistic standard shows that it's just silly politicking. ] (]) 14:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{cquote|“U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Skyrocketed 360% in Aftermath of Attack in Israel,” warned the ADL press release... But much of the report was hype. Rather than attacks against Jews due to their religious or ethnic identity, many of the cited “incidents” were actions directed against Israel to protest the conduct of its war in Gaza—incidents... Many of the incidents were simply protests by civil rights organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine.}} | |||
| :::::::::::Citing a quote from deprecated source, as the FT example does, is quite different from directly re-publishing a deprecated source article verbatim, as Al-Manar frequently does. - ] (]) 15:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The author evidently doesn't consider "simple protests" by Students for Justice in Palestine to be antisemitic. However this is '''his opinion'''. As an example, ] slogan that was likely chanted during those SJP protests is widely perceived to call for the destruction of the world's only Jewish state, and hence antisemitic. Of course, others do not consider it antisemitic, and it's fine, we should describe all viewpoints. The problem with the !votes based on these sources is that they talk about the "veracity" or "unreliability" of antisemitism claim as if there is one true definition of antisemitism. ]<sub>]</sub> 12:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV), so do yourself a big favour and give this a break. ] (]) 15:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Here is an even more recent 2023 Al-Manar that directly re-publishes the same ] . - ] (]) 16:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::... and attributes it to them. I'm starting to question your motives. ] (]) 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Re-publishing unreliable sources that the community has long ] ''with'' attribution does not somehow make a source more reliable for the purposes of an RfC. - ] (]) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Do you honestly believe that the real world cares about some irrelevant WP RfC or the "community" (a handful of editors)? You seem to have forgotten one very important rule: we don't lead, we follow. ] (]) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Republishing from bad sources is not the same as citing, and indeed does indicate poor editorial policies/standpoints. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 22:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Today Al-Manar has an verbatim directly copied (with attribution at the bottom) from , a red flag source for us. ] (]) 18:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Good you can read Amigao’s mind to understand the motivation for his arguments here. But Amigao is correct that translating and reposting an article (as Jerusalem Post does of Walla, as noted in the discussion above, or as Al-Manar) is completely different than citing an article and attributing a claim to it. ] (]) 21:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness. 22:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 22:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::That's a fair point that quoting and republishing a source are two different things. However, I would still question why we should take republishing another source as an indication of one source's reliability. We wouldn't typically use republished content on Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in the case of a paywall on the original source, so it seems unnecessary to me to judge source reliability based on their republications. And we wouldn't make this judgment in the other direction, for example if Al-Manar republished a story from the AP, we wouldn't take that as an indication that they are reliable. If Al-Manar is merely a content aggregator then I suppose we shouldn't use it, but that doesn't seem to be the case. | |||
| ::::::::::::What evidence do we have of the reliability or unreliability of Al-Manar's original reporting? ] (]) 01:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Furthermore, here is a prime example of misrepresentation of sourcing by Al-Manar: Al-Manar claims was sourced from ] but the article was actually sourced from at ], another deprecated source. - ] (]) 00:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I appreciate your hard work in continuing to analyze the source and build a stronger critique of it. I can't find the Reuters article that Al-Manar claims to have sourced that content from (not to say it doesn't exist, I just can't find it) so that's concerning. However, the Al-Manar article has more material than the RT article, which means at least some of the material must come from a different source. I can't read Arabic outside of the use of translation tools so it's possible that I am missing some nuance here, but the overlapping aspects of the article such as Lukashenko's statement in an interview with Sky News Arabia are not identically phrased (except for the quote itself) as one might expect if the material were republished from RT. So while the Reuters article in question appears to be missing right now, I find the evidence that the article was in fact republished from RT to be insufficient. Even if it were, it's not clear that the information published by RT and allegedly republished by Al-Manar in this case is unreliable, and the material that might be republished is just a quote from a Sky News Arabia interview, so hardly a reflection on either of the sources' reliability. ] (]) 23:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Al-Manar's article does '''not''' have more text in the body than the ] article. They are the same, but Al-Manar claims that it sourced the content from ], which is clearly not the case. Here is the and the via ] links for ease of comparison. (Interestingly, Al-Manar does not appear to source other articles from Reuters.) - ] (]) 18:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::That's my bad, you're right that the articles are the same, except that the syntax of the line about the quote from the Sky News interview appears to be slightly altered. The "read more" box inside the RT article interfered with my efforts to translate and threw me off. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::That being said, I don't see how this is evidence of systematic unreliability on the part of Al-Manar. If you could demonstrate a pattern of passing off the original reporting of unreliable sources as if they came from reliable sources like Reuters, I would find that more convincing. ] (]) 01:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Another common tactic Al-Manar uses to obfuscate its sourcing is to claim to source from unspecified "agencies" when, in fact, it is copying article text verbatim from Russian state media such as ]. For example: | |||
| :::::::::::::::::* - | |||
| :::::::::::::::::* - | |||
| :::::::::::::::::] (]) 21:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| French-based ] criticised its terrorist designation in 2004, but noted its antisemitism. | |||
| :“Likely” chanted? And you’re complaining about verifiably? ] (]) 16:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * {{cite web | title=Dangerous precedent seen in decision to put Al-Manar on list of terror organisations | website=RSF | date=20 December 2004 | url=https://rsf.org/en/dangerous-precedent-seen-decision-put-al-manar-list-terror-organisations | ref={{sfnref|RSF|2004}} | access-date=15 November 2024}} {{tq|"Some of the anti-Semitic statements broadcast on Al-Manar are inexcusable but putting this TV station in the same category as terrorist groups worries us and does not strike us as the best solution"}} ] (]) 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you think that they chanted "Two-state solution"? On a more serious note, you can find them talking about the criteria {{tquote|Krain said the ADL counted any demonstration featuring pro-Palestinian chants such as “globalize the intifada, “by all means necessary,” “Zionism is terrorism,” and “from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free.”}} ]<sub>]</sub> 06:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::So ... Calling for a global uprising against injustice; calling out what is arguably a duck as being a duck; and calling for freedom. Not sure I get the part where any of that is anything but political. ] (]) 07:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] Referring to the Jewish nation's right of self-determination as "terrorism" is definitely antisemitism according to the ] by the ], and also according to common sense. ] (]) 07:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@]: I guess it's good that no one said that then. ] is not the "]"; it is a political ideology – you'll note the separate pages. ] (]) 07:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Zionism is the expression of the Jewish nation's right to self-determination. That is obvious. ] (]) 08:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, it's a political expression. And it's freedom of speech to critique political expressions quite freely. ] (]) 08:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This discussion is not about of free speech at all. The ADL is not trying to have the US government throw people into jail for saying anti-Zionist things, by equating them with antisemitism. Since in the US even undisputed antisemitic speech is also protected by the First Amendment (as long as it's not a direct incitement for violence). It is a genuine debate about what is the definition of antisemitism. And whether you personally like it or not most people agree that saying that the Jewish nation doesn't have the right for self-determination and its expression, is antisemitism. ] (]) 09:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I've already addressed this muddled conflation of Zionism, a political ideology, and the conceptual right to self-determination. But that's not the topic. Pertinently, you are not in a position to define what "most people agree", let alone determine that the ADL somehow represents what most people agree, with regards to anti-Zionism: you haven't provided RS evidence for any of this. You are assuming that the ADL's position falls within the mainstream, but you haven't actually demonstrated that. ] (]) 09:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't know the validity of the statement "most people agree", but let's assume it's accurate for the sake of argument. In that case, wouldn't it be more precise to say that saying that the Jewish nation doesn't have the right for self-determination is about 74% antisemitic, 20% anti-Arab, etc. based on the demographics? Just putting this radical idea out there in the hopes that the ADL will pick it up and run with it. ] (]) 10:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Don't forget the Druze, who in Israel don't like to be called Arab either. ] (]) 10:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::It's certainly a complex and interesting question. For example, what happens if you apply the question to a smaller area? Instead of saying the entire Jewish state doesn't have the right to exist, someone says that a predominantly Jewish settlement that is half in Israel and half across the Green Line does not have the right to exist? Is that 100%, 50% or 0% antisemitic? Sentiment analysis is hard. Good luck to people trying compress language into categories. To their credit, at least the ADL seem to take the "it depends, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't" approach. ] (]) 11:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I would argue that this is one of the cases where the old 3D definition is actually superior to some of the more modern ones, despite the associated issues, making the answer to your question 0%. ] (]) 12:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::What has that to do with ADL screwing up on antisemitism? ] (]) 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Whether IHRA (or other modern definitions) is a fringe definition to use. I believe this not be the case, but this is one of the cases where another is clearer ] (]) 13:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::The ADL takes the already controversial IHRA and expands its already undue protection of Israel even further by specifically equating AZ = AS, that's fringe in my view. ] (]) 13:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::It is broadly cited, reported and also used by multiple institutions and governments, I wouldn’t consider it fringe. ] (]) 13:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::What's "it"? IHRA? It's controversial, add AZ = AS and its fringe. ] (]) 14:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::It is IHRA, sorry for being vague. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Every definition of Antisemitism is controversial, and IHRA appears to be one of the most broadly used ones. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::AZ being partially AS, IHRA covering all or most of AS and combing both is not unusual if you are going to collect all antisemitism, particularly as some AZ (and related actions) are covered by IHRA. And even if it were unusual, it’s far from fringe. ] (]) 14:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::Who else does it besides the ADL? ] (]) 14:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::Use IHRA or describe some AZ as AS? The aggregation is one of the significant things where the ADL is premier and the reason they are broadly cited, particularly by media RS. ] (]) 14:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::::https://www.timesofisrael.com/has-the-term-antisemitism-been-overused-or-overblown-beyond-usefulness/ ] (]) 14:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::::This seems to show discourse, not really an indication of being fringe, unless I am missing a specific part? ] (]) 14:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::::I agree with Ury, but the fact he is pushing against a prevalent, possibly even dominant, view shows that the view he’s pushing against is not “fringe”. {{tq| Some 43 countries have adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Hundreds of regional and local governments have also adopted the resolution, including 33 states in the US. Unlike Miron and Ury, most mainstream American Jewish leaders — including President Joe Biden’s antisemitism czar, Deborah Lipstadt — support the IHRA definition.}} ] (]) 07:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::::::I hope I am replying to the correct comment- this thread is very hard to read in mobile at this point - but, yes, Misplaced Pages does lend undue space to Trump's nonsensical statements. That doesn't mean we should do the same for the ADL's nonsensical statements regarding post October 7 antisemitism. If Misplaced Pages needs to speak to these claims we should handle it like we do climate change denial. ] (]) 12:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::: ] (]) 14:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::::A biased and uncited article describing broad use is also not really an indication of it being fringe, merely controversial, which I (and most reasonable people) don’t dispute. ] (]) 14:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::::I would actually add to @] words that this article actually proves the opposite of fringe. Even Neve who is very much against this definition is forced to admit that it gained huge acceptance. Even in the academia "In the UK alone, three-fourths of all universities have taken it on board". Thanks for proving my thesis for me :-) ] (]) 15:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::@] The view that AZ=AS (under certain conditions) is definitely not fringe. In the general public it enjoys a huge support. Definitely in the US where the ADL operates. This is evidenced by a landslide majority of 70% who voted for it in the house, against only 3% who voted against it. You may of course be dismissive of the hoi polloi, and say that only the opinions of scholars count. But the truth is that you cannot prove that for the academic world either. '''You gave no proof whatsoever that the view AZ=AS in considered fringe even in the scholarly world.''' The fact that some scholars object to AZ=AS doesn't make it fringe. To make it fringe you have to show that there is a consensus in the scholarly world that AZ is not AS, i.e. that the majority of scholars think that AZ is not AS. Nobody has shown that here. To sum up. If you want to declare it fringe and disqualify a source based on this then the onus of proof is on you, and so far you failed to do that. ] (]) 14:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::I never said AZ = AS is fringe, I said IHRA + AZ = AS is fringe and I said that is my view. ] (]) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::I'm not sure how IHRA+AZ=AS is different from AZ=AS. And if you admit this is just your personal view then this is clearly not a good enough argument... Anyway I think we have taken too much space on this. If you want to continue this particular discussion come to my talk page. If not then bye for now. ] (]) 14:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That depends on what you consider the line between legitimate and protected political speech and illegal violation of hate speech laws, which varies depending on the country. Arguing that People of Color should not be allowed to vote due to their race/ethnicity is also a criticism of liberal and egalitarian political values and expression, and could also be banned depending on your location. ] (]) 12:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Also nothing to do with subject at hand. ] (]) 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It does if some people are arguing that antizionism is generally or always not antisemitism. ] (]) 13:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Might be, might not, ADL says it is, that's fringe. ] (]) 13:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::As cited elsewhere, it generally doesn’t. It says that some is, a view that is not fringe. ] (]) 13:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::They do IHRA + AZ=AS, that's like everything, fringe. ] (]) 14:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::A expansion of IHRA to account for relevant and debated is not fringe unless you show it is, particularly if in line with the social and political discourse. ] (]) 14:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::] of ] considers the protests to be antisemitic, which is one of the reasons he's been giving his support to them. PJ Podesta, writing for the Electronic Intifada say that {{tq|Such calls to action do not include that we opine on Palestinians’ methods of resistance.}}, Students for Justice in Palestine says that {{tq|Settlers are not “civilians” in the sense of international law, because they are military assets used to ensure continued control over stolen Palestinian land.}} to justify the killing of Jewish people in Israel's pre-1967 borders. Its easy to read what the protestors are writing, and they are a disparate group of people united by a shared hatred of Jews. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 14:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, because being opposed the dispossession, starvation and slaughter of your people can only be possible if you are racist against their oppressors. That quote doesn’t say one word about Jews, much less hating Jews, and this game in which one argues that conflating Jews and Israel is antisemitic and then conflates Israel with Jews so as to deflect any critical view on Israel or Israelis as against Jews is tiresome. But by all means, continue arguing by association fallacy, one of these days you might be able to convince somebody that your unsupported and libelous claims are actually grounded in anything besides worn out propaganda. ''']''' - 15:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Even going along with the dubious assertion that the slogan in question was a specific call for the destruction of a state (as opposed to a call for freedom, as the chant actually goes), the religious characterisation of Israel cannot be directly inferred to be the motivation behind such a call. Indeed, when the state in question is a racist, apartheid and now genocidal one, there are rather a plethora of secular, moral reasons that one could imagine being invoked. The religious profession of a mass murderer is hardly relevant to the question of whether or not to condemn them. ] (]) 18:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That doesn't make it unreliable. ] (]) 15:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The problem with ADL is that it has expanded advocacy into activism in the Israel/IP area, even to the extent of bashing Jewish orgs that are sympathetic to the Palestinians. ramping up the rubbish 40 beheaded babies claim and then in says first that the head of Hamas called for a "global day of Jihad" () and then declared that “anti Zionism is genocide." (never mind just antisemitic). In fact the whole interview is worth a listen, if that's what the ADL is espousing, well...] (]) 18:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Once again, more than 20 years ago. Also see ].''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 17:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :That’s not ADL. That’s a tweet from Greenblatt’s personal account. We don’t need every ephemeral personal comment by the CEO to be true for a source itself to be reliable. Material in their reports goes through an editorial process in the way this individual’s kneejerk response to an emotional situation doesn’t. Has the ADL itself published the 40 beheaded babies claim? ] (]) 00:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Are you accusing RWB of weaponising antisemitism? Why would they want to? ] (]) 00:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What are we supposed to “see” here? You have reason to believe that this is a manipulative and dishonest claim of antisemitism? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 22:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * ] has cited Al-Manar at least 14 times (, , , , , , , , , , , , , ) for spreading disinformation. Some are re-publications of articles from deprecated sources such as ] and ], and include claims such as conspiracy theories about the ] leading to ]. - ] (]) 15:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I think there is an issue in this RfC of different interpretations of {{u|Loki}}’s original question 2 of whether ADL is reliable “regarding antisemitism”. I took this to mean can we generally assume ADL’s factual claims are accurate in the topic area of antisemitism. Other editors (most of those arguing for option 3?) took it to mean should we call something antisemitic on the basis of ADL calling it antisemitic. I would agree with these editors that we shouldn’t, while still believing (on the basis of use by others and no presented examples of factual inaccuracy relating to antisemitism) that the ADL is a reliable source for facts in this topic area. Have I misread other editors’ interpretations? ] (]) 07:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:A pro NATO source criticising Russia and anyone who doesn't consider NATO's word as the absolute truth. What a surprise. ] (]) 15:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::], is there a criticism of Al Manar, real or hypothetical, that you would accept or at least not consider to be bullshit? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 22:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I looked at some (not all) of the links. Every single one is simply reporting what Russian or Syrian officials said, and attributing it directly to them. It is the job of journalists to quote officials' statement no matter how unsavory they may be (and many of these statements are quoted in Western RS themselves).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 17:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{re|Vice regent}} while this discussion is talking place, Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find to the "Al-Manar" article. ] (]) 18:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It is very offensive to call another editors’ edits “garbage”. I would be grateful if other people could look at these edits too. ] (]) 00:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::That's what you've been collecting and adding while the discussion is taking place. That's not something I would expect from an experienced editor, least of all when another discussion involving sources misrepresentation is also taking place on the article's talk page. ] (]) 00:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] ] ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 00:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: is an Al-Manar article (sourced from ] and ], another deprecated source) that speaks about the ] as if it is a fact without any balance or qualification. Source: - ] (]) 19:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * {{cite web | last=Mintz | first=John | title=U.S. Bans Al-Manar, Says TV Network Backs Terror | website=Washington Post | date=22 December 2004 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/12/22/us-bans-al-manar-says-tv-network-backs-terror/0df6c836-5e6d-4ca1-957e-7891ea01d799/ | access-date=15 November 2024}}: {{tq|French officials prohibited the network from broadcasting in France, citing what it called al-Manar's anti-Semitic content and appeals to violence. French officials cited al-Manar programs reporting that Jews spread AIDS around the world and that they seek children's blood to bake into Passover matzoh.}} ] (]) 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :"According to the ADL, ] has engaged in antisemitism," and "according to the ADL, antisemitism has risen 10,000% since October 7" are two sentences that should not appear in Misplaced Pages, and that's why I vote 3 and not 2. If that makes sense? I do not agree with you that there is a distinction between "calling something antisemitic" and "factual accuracy." If they do things like call BDS antisemitic, then they are unreliable, about anything. Too partisan to be trusted. ] (]) 09:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:In France, you can bash the Arabs and the Muslims all day long (under the protection of the so-called freedom of speech and bla bla bla), and believe me when I say that they do (they will even honour you for doing so), but the moment your criticize Israel, you get accused of being antisemitic. ] (]) 16:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] I think that there is in fact a strong case that the JVP had indeed engaged in antisemitism or at least bordering on it. This opinion is not just the ADL position, but also appears in these RS: | |||
| *::"Jews spread AIDS around the world and that they seek children's blood to bake into Passover matzoh" is NOT a "criticism of Israel". ] (]) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::In a book published in Indiana University Press: https://books.google.co.il/books?id=rEJFEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA114&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false | |||
| *:::I'm referring to clear theme (when citing the opinions of their enemies who are known for their double standard). In France, you can say about the Arabs and the Muslims and that's fine given that Arab and Muslim bashing is literally a sport. ] (]) 16:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::In HaAretz: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2017-07-10/ty-article/has-jewish-voice-for-peace-crossed-the-line-into-anti-semitism/0000017f-e485-d38f-a57f-e6d7d4da0000 | |||
| *::::Yes, the French state is deeply racist and Islamophobic. That doesn't make it "reliable" to accuse the Jews of the blood libel. ] (]) 17:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::In The Forward: https://forward.com/opinion/391783/jvps-anti-semitic-obsession-with-jewish-power/ | |||
| *:::::{{tq|the French state is deeply racist and Islamophobic|q=yes}} so why are paying attention to what it says? ] (]) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::In NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/14/opinion/college-israel-anti-semitism.html | |||
| *::::::I am paying attention to what the French Jewish community said. There are other sources for this too in the Al-Manar article. ] (]) 00:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also try to look open mindedly at the evidence presented by the ADL here: | |||
| *:::::::You mean the CRIF? ] (]) 00:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/jewish-voice-peace-jvp-what-you-need-know | |||
| *:@] can you find Al-Manar articles in the past 20 years that say Jews use blood in Passover? That's clearly antisemitic, but please actually find such articles.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 18:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that it might be farfetched to write in wikivoice "] has engaged in antisemitism" with a reference to ADL, but when it is attributed such as "According to the ADL, ] has engaged in antisemitism," it looks fine. Or you can even make it like this for good measure: "According to the ADL's '''opinion''', ] has engaged in antisemitism". But there is no basis and no need to declare it unreliable on the issue of antisemitism. ] (]) 10:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::It was a TV series made by a Syrian company, which they screened. So not as straightforward as if they were claiming that in their own content (as they did with Israelis having foreknowledge of 9/11) but it shows you their editorial standards are incompatible with a reliable status. ] (]) 23:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I really don't think it's a good use of this noticeboard to argue over whether JVP is antisemitic. It's really not the question at hand. | |||
| *:::They screened a Syrian TV series that some pro-Israel sources don't like. What's that got to do with their reliability as a source? ] (]) 00:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would say that the question of whether we say "According to the ADL, Jewish Voice for Peace has engaged in antisemitism" and "according to the ADL, antisemitism has risen 10,000% since October 7" are not questions of reliability, but questions of due weight. I mean Donald Trump told endless lies, but we wouldn't remove his comments from our articles for that reason. If multiple RSs are reporting what ADL says, that's going to be noteworthy in some articles. | |||
| ::: |
*::::again, it is not “pro-Israel” to say the blood libel and the protocols of the elders of Zion are not the content carried by a reliable source. ] (]) 00:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *:::::It's a Syrian TV series that they screened, it's their right to do so. What's that got to do with their reliability as a source? ] (]) 00:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If other RSes report what ADL says then we'd cite those other RSes. Same with anything else. But that doesn't mean we cite ADL directly. | |||
| :::: |
*::::::Sigh. Yes it’s their right to screen something based on the ], but nonetheless the Protocols were a forgery so doing so indicates unreliability. ] (]) 00:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *:::::::That's a baseless claim that nobody can substantiate. What does a TV series (produced in Syria) have to do with al-Manar's reliability? ] (]) 01:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To use a concrete example: I don't think we should cite this ADL page for "many anti-Israel activists flocked to rallies across the United States at which speakers and attendees openly celebrated the brutal attacks" or for what it says about JVP ("JVP’s most inflammatory ideas can help give rise to antisemitism") or anything else in that report. Because it's not reliable for I/P or antisemitism (because of its partisan bias), I don't think it's reliable for saying what anti-Israel activists did or said. Also note this is labeled "blog" and has no byline. I don't see any masthead on the ADL website or any journalism ethics policy. It has none of the indicators of reliability that journalism has (bylines, masthead, editorial board, ethics policy). I don't think we should cite that page for anything. ] (]) 13:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I’m confused. It’s widely agreed that the Protocols were a forgery. Numerous RSs say two different series screened on Al-Manar in the 2000s (one Syrian, one Egyptian) were based on the Protocols. So maybe this isn’t a dealbreaker in terms of reliability; it seems that they did subsequently apologise after France banned the station. But I think it’s obvious that it is a data point in the unreliability column. ] (]) 21:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is not just JVP, it is "The ADL did not count resolutions calling for a boycott of Israel as antisemitic," the report said, "because they do not target individuals. However, these are antisemitic and contribute to the pressures faced by Jews on campus." (Tchah!). ] (]) 12:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Who cares about the protocol and whether it is a forgery or a fact? It's a flipping TV series. | |||
| ::::The ADL is perfectly aware that the Palestinian slogan "From the river to the sea" corresponds exactly to a core article in the Likud party's foundational charter:- | |||
| *:::::::::{{tq| it is a data point in the unreliability column|q=yes}} that's another baseless claim that nobody can substantiate. | |||
| ::::<blockquote>The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable… therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; '''between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty'''.</blockquote> | |||
| *:::::::::I repeat the question that you ignored: what does a TV series (produced in Syria to boot) have to do with al-Manar's reliability? ] (]) 22:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since 1977 <s>that has remained on its platform and</s> Likud has been the dominant governing party over the last 45 or so years. So the ADL or whoever, in-citing the Palestinian version as 'antisemitic' is deliberately obscuring the fact that Likud, by that definition, would be 'antisemitic', in identical terms. ] (]) 12:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Was this TV Syrian TV series a drama or presented as factual? If a channel has broadcast a syndicated drama which contains blood libel and the allegation around AIDS, I feel all of its output needs to be looked at carefully in terms of reliability. Propaganda of this nature is a strong indicator of extreme antisemitic conspiracist views which may also be present in its factual output, even though no unreliable claim has technically been made. However, if it has broadcast a syndicated program presenting this as factual information then it becomes immediately unreliable for our purposes. If we aren't using the Daily Fail, and we can in good faith argue about the Telegraph's reliability based on them publishing a true story that was somewhat litter-tray adjacent, then there's no way we should be using a source that parrots blood libel.--] (]) 06:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have no objection at all to describing those who support "greater Israel", like some of the Israeli right wing, as anti-Palestinians. But of course it would be wrong to call them antisemitic, as this term in unique to being against Jews. And you can check that in any English dictionary. ] (]) 12:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Very well put, and good question, which the sources are vague about. It appears to be a docudrama, but Al-Manar initially seemed to think it was factual: {{tq|Al-Manar’s program director, Nasser Akhdar, stressed that the series was “purely historical” and that it was based on some 250 sources written by Jews. The program covers the history of the Jews and the Zionists between 1812 and 1948, he said, and underlines the Jewish emigration to Palestine, the Balfour Declaration, and the European policies regarding this issue during that period. “It offers a clear image of what the Zionists have committed in the social, political, and ideological fields,” Akhdar said. “It is a voice against all those who wish to hide the truth.” He said US complaints were an attempt to “misguide public opinion,” adding that this was part of the US strategy of hegemony over the media to “cancel other people’s opinions.”}} It might be a point in Al-Manar's favour that they later removed the show from their archive and said they erred in showing it and that they never saw it before they broadcast it (although I am not sure that's been reported by anyone other than Counterpunch, an unreliable source). ] (]) 10:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please don't chip in if you have failed to grasp the point (irony in a logical inference taking the form of an hypothetical).] (]) 13:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::{{tq|this was part of the US strategy of hegemony over the media to “cancel other people’s opinions.”|q=yes}} it certainly looks that way. | |||
| :::::"From the river to the sea" is not, in fact, in the Likud platform, {{u|Nishidani}}. You can literally find all their platforms online - here's one from , no mention of that wording. It was in the original platform, but that specific wording is not used now. Likud is fairly extreme enough, so there's no need to mislead about what their platform actually is. '''] ]''' 13:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::When the US complained to Lebanon over the series, Lebanese officials refused to interfere and one of them said: | |||
| ::::::It may no longer be explicit in their platform but that is what successive Israeli governments actually aspire to, ] (]) 13:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::{{Blockquote|"The United States has a strange conception of freedom of expression... What would they say if we tried to interfere with the way Fox News portrays Arabs, Muslims or Palestinians?"|source=Lebanese official}} ] (]) 13:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Putting aside a slanted opinion piece, "from the river to the sea" is clearly controversial because of its use by actual terrorist groups that . Most rationally-minded people recognize the issue with one side claiming all of the territory. '''] ]''' 13:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::{{tq|If a channel has broadcast a syndicated drama which contains blood libel and the allegation around AIDS, I feel all of its output needs to be looked at carefully in terms of reliability|q=yes}} I see, so channels in the west can distort history and portray the Muslims and Arabs as terrorists in their dramas, while hiding behind the cherished freedom of speech, but the rest of the word has to abide by some fictitious standard that only the west has the key to. Fascinating. ] (]) 13:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The 'slanted opinion' comes from one of the foremost scholars of the conflict, who unfortunately happens to be Palestinian. I have struck out the error, as you indicate, in asserting likud still has it on its platform. The point is, that Likud has no need for it to be on its platform, since it passed in 2018 the same principle in its ] | |||
| *::::::::::::We deem Western sources that repeat racist conspiracy theories unreliable too (Boynamedsue mentioned the Daily Mail; we also rate the Lebanese minister's example, Fox News, as an unreliable source). I think there's a difference, though, between perpetrating stereotypes that are deep in a culture (as the majority of Western AND non-Western sources do) and repeating actual conspiracy theories such as Jews deliberately spread AIDS or Jews kill Christian children to harvest their blood for ritual purposes. ] (]) 15:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* Basic Principles | |||
| *:::::::::::::No, we certainly don't judge the reliability of western sources based on the TV series and movies that they screen. ] (]) 15:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*1. The ''']''' is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established. | |||
| *::::::::::::::If an Arab drama series portrayed a group of Israelis, or even Jews, as nefarious villains sabotaging a society, I agree that would be a pretty perfect analogy to what Western media does to Arabs, and I wouldn't say it had any effect on how we should evaluate news output. However, if a Western channel broadcast a drama that said, say, Arab Muslims worship ] and train children to suicide bomb Jews as they believe (and the following is a deliberately offensive example) their inherent, irrational and motiveless antisemitism is more important than the lives of their children, then we would have a more precise analogy to the question of blood libel. | |||
| ::::::::*2. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination. | |||
| :::::::::::::::I am a strong opponent of Israel's aggression against Palestine and Lebanon, and I am disgusted by the despicable attempts by various ghouls to suggest that any mention of the IDF and West Bank Settlers' mass murder of children is equivalent to blood libel. However, blood libel is an incredibly serious thing. It is not hard to find out that Jews absolutely do not mix blood with flour to make special biscuits, or that this belief has had terrible consequences in the past. Anybody not prepared to make that little bit of effort will have, in my view, question marks over their reliability..] (]) 18:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*3. '''The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.''' | |||
| ::::::::::::::::{{tq|if a Western channel broadcast a drama that said...|q=yes}} Have you ever noticed that the TV series "Homeland" (based on an Israeli television drama) that was being screened all over the place is actually Islamophobic and Arabophobic? That's just an example; in fact, Islamophobia and Arabophobia have become so common in the western media (especially, in the last two decades) that one doesn't even notice them, i.e., they've become the acceptable norm. | |||
| ::::::::::::::::What we have here is a clear case of double standard, where freedom of expression seems to only be acceptable when it comes from the west. Franky, it beggars belief that a country such as the US (the "champion of free speech") would try to censor a TV series in another country. ] (]) 19:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::I've never seen Homeland, so I don't know whether its level of Islamophobia would be equivalent to blood libel. But it is made by Fox 21, whose sister news network we DON'T USE for politics or science.] (]) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::It doesn't matter who made it, it was screened everywhere and it received many awards. Like I said, that was just an example amongst the many. This all comes down to one thing and one simple choice: one either supports freedom of expression or one doesn't. ] (]) 21:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::Oh, I'll make this crystal clear. I absolutely do not support freedom of expression. I have used physical violence in the past to prevent nazis from freely expressing their views, and would do so again. However, even if I believed in freedom of expression, freedom to express your views is not freedom to be accepted as a reliable source on wikipedia. Have a look at ] for the criteria which apply.--] (]) 21:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::I will make this crystal clear: the reliability of a source doesn't depend on what TV series it screens (WP:RS doesn't say otherwise). ] (]) 21:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::I think the current relevance of this sort of content comes through when you look at how they report Israeli , mixing reliable and unreliable sources and misrepresenting both to shape a narrative echoing the Protocols, or how they describe settlers engaged in "" at al-Aqsa to describe something that isn't actually Talmudic but again fits an antisemitic narrative (in contrast, e.g., to Al-Jazeera who use quote marks when reporting this). ] (]) 18:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * {{cite web | title=LEBANON: Did Tunisia's tyrant buy off Hezbollah TV? | website=Los Angeles Times | date=24 May 2011 | url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/babylon-beyond/story/2011-05-24/lebanon-did-tunisias-tyrant-buy-off-hezbollah-tv | ref={{sfnref|Los Angeles Times|2011}} | access-date=15 November 2024}} {{tq|Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television was allegedly paid $100,000 to polish up the image of deposed Tunisian dictator Zine el Abidine ben Ali... The newspaper said Al-Manar, which used to receive $150,000 a year to support the Ben Ali regime, asked for an extra $50,000 annually if ACTE wished to raise the profile of the ruler, who now resides in Jeddah with his wife.}} ] (]) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq| allegedly|q=yes}} no need to read further than this. ] (]) 16:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Being paid money to polish up someone's image doesn't make it unreliable, as long as they don't say something inherently false. It just proves bias, not unreliability. Also, that's alleged by Sabah newspaper, which, if you see their , was accusing several different agencies, such as ], ], ], and ], all alongside Al-Manar. Almost ALL of Lebanon's news agencies were involved in that, if it's really true. ] (]) 11:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * {{cite web | last=Cochrane | first=Paul | title=Bombs and broadcasts: Al Manar’s battle to stay on air | website=Arab Media & Society | date=7 March 2007 | url=https://www.arabmediasociety.com/bombs-and-broadcasts-al-manars-battle-to-stay-on-air/ | access-date=15 November 2024}}: {{tq|France banned the channel following complaints by the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France to the French Higher Audio Visual Council (CSA) that scenes in a 30 part Syrian-made series, Al-Shatat (The Diaspora), aired during Ramadan 2003, were anti-Semitic. The show, which claimed to depict the history of the Zionist movement, stoked widespread condemnation by portraying the killing of a Christian child by Jews to use the victim's blood to make matzoh bread.}} ] (]) 16:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I already told you: unbelievable as it sounds, in France, you can bash the Arabs and the Muslims all day long and make up any story about them (under the protection of the so-called "freedom of speech"), but the moment you say anything that is related to Israel, then your freedom of speech ceases to exist. ] (]) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Are you saying the show, ], did not portray Jews as child-killers, and that the French Jews are making this up? Because otherwise French racism and free speech ideas are not relevant to determining this Lebanese source's reliability. ] (]) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is? They are free to show whatever they want. Arabs and Muslims are often portrayed as terrorists (when they're not portrayed as something worse) in the western media, and their history often falsified, yet, you don't see them crying and whinging about it. ] (]) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::@] your tone throughout this discussion is verging heavily on ]/], I heavily encourage you to slow down a bit. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 19:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::{{re|The Kip}} Your targetted comment is verging on aspersions. ] (]) 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Aside: our article on this series, ], has been nominated for deletion, in case editors are interested in that. ] (]) 08:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * There's always heat in discussions of contentious topics, but even given that this sections is starting to go off topic. Discussions should be about the source in relation to policies and guidelines, how the source is described by other reliable sources, or matters relating to the handling of the RFC. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == RFC Science-Based Medicine == | |||
| ::::::::The slight legal equivocation here between State of Israel and the (Greater) Land of Israel was clarified by the present government in its programme, when it took power.I.e.<blockquote>'''The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel.''' The government will promote and develop the settlement of all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan and Judea and Samaria. Carrie Keller-Lynn, Michael Bachner, ] 28 December 2022</blockquote> | |||
| <!-- ] 02:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736474472}} | |||
| Is the blog ] in whole or in part, a ]? ] (]) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::In plain man's language, the Jewish people are the only people in the world who have an exclusive right to all of the land between the Jordan and the sea. So waffling around the obvious is smoke in the eyes. It's useless trying to justify, by the jejune 'terrorist' use of it card, the distortions of the ADL or anyone else who fudge the obvious correlation between the positively championed policy of the government enshrined in a recent basic law, and the negatively spun slogan used by pro-Palestinian demonstrators. That is part of the Orwellian politics of language abuse and conceptual obfuscation instinct in the discursive gamesmanship of this area.] (]) 13:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::None of this actually matters to the phrase in question, which is undeniably and unequivocally connected with terrorist groups. This is why the ADL regards it as antisemitic and it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to understand that. You're not going to get any disagreement from me that claiming the entire region for your specific ethnic group is wrong. '''] ]''' 14:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::It is not quite accurate to say that the ADL regards it as antisemitic *because* it is "undeniably and unequivocally connected with terrorist groups". They regard it as antisemitic because they say it denies "the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland", for example. I assume if it was not connected to terrorist groups they would arrive at the same conclusion. ] (]) 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It would take a degree in hasbaraology to understand that.] (]) 14:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::You might want to strike that yourself. ] (]) 14:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Why? Read ], no need to reinvent the wheel here. ] (]) 14:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::" the phrase in question, which is undeniably and unequivocally connected with terrorist groups. This is why the ADL regards it as antisemitic and it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to understand that." | |||
| ::::::::::I'm sorry but this is nonesense. This whole debate is ridiculous as the bare phrase "from the river to the sea" is in no way antisemitic by itself. We should not need to be having this "debate". | |||
| ::::::::::Also, please everyone in this conversation stop with the excessive arguing and ]. ] (]) 14:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Words have meaning, and phrases have meaning. You're right, the random string of words "from the river to the sea" has no inherent meaning, nor does "Christ is king" or "it's ok to be white". However, words have meaning in context - "Christ is king" is used on Twitter to harass Jews and Muslims, "]" is coded language used by white supremacists, and "from the river to the sea" is used by terrorist groups as their end goal of a Jew-free levant. There may be contexts where using any of these sets of word are not racist, but the ADL - understandably - regards phrases heavily tied to racist groups as being, well, racist. And saying "well, Likud said it too in the 70s" doesn't change that, because Likud could (quite reasonably) be also seen as racist, and if radical Israeli groups started to use the phrase, too, they'd likely face stark condemnation. '''] ]''' 14:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::It is right-wing, pro-Israeli nonsense that "from the river to the sea" is somehow linked to "terror groups". Which groups exactly? And what on earth? Anyone with eyeballs and common sense is perfectly well aware that tens of thousand of peaceful protesters have routinely turned out over the past six months while using that phrase to call for a "free Palestine", which here, as all know, means freedom in an extremely classic sense: liberation from an oppresssive (here apartheid) regime. The vast majority of the usage is in such a peaceful context that it couldn't be further from terrorism. ] (]) 16:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::@] As a matter of fact the ADL had accused the Israeli police minister Ben-Gvir of racism.https://www.timesofisrael.com/ben-gvir-adl-trade-barbs-over-jewish-racism-section-in-annual-antisemitism-report/ ] (]) 14:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Regardless of where you fall on the argument, a recent poll done in Gaza and the West Bank shows that 71% of Palestinians still support what Hamas did on October 7th. <ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.nationalreview.com/news/over-70-percent-of-palestinians-support-hamass-october-7-terror-attack-poll/ | title=Over 70 Percent of Palestinians Support Hamas's October 7 Terror Attack: Poll | website=] | date=21 March 2024 }}</ref>. October 7th was based on antisemitism. I take issue with the ADL for many reasons but rating this a 3-4 solely on the current events unfolding aurround Israel and Palestine is uninformed in my opinion. Up until 2017, the Hamas charter was full of antisemitism and made direct references to their negative views about the Jewish people. It was rewritten specifically to gain legitimacy to garner support around the world which is now helping them in their fight against Israel. In my opinion, I believe anyone that is chanting "From the River to the Sea" is supporting the 71% of Palestinians that support Hamas. ] (]) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Comment for context: Note that a ] that Science-Based Medicine is considered ] and not considered ]. See ] for more details at ]. ] (]) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :If you think a bunch of leftie college students support radical Islam, you’ve been drinking the ADL brand flavor aid. If you think Palestinians don’t have any reason to support Hamas and just hate Israel because they’re the bad guys, you’re still drinking the flavor aid. And if you think 71% is “all”, I can’t help you. ] (]) 02:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{strikethrough|], is there a reason that you chose not to list this RfC on the Maths, science, and technology list? If not, would you mind adding that topic area to the RfC template? Thanks,}} ] (]) 19:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Never mind, Raladic added it. ] (]) 20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Responses (Science-Based Medicine)=== | |||
| {{reftalk}} | |||
| *'''Not SPS''' - Per the previous RfC, there seems to be no reason to rehash this. The editorial practices of SBM show that they do not act like an SPS and that has not changed since the prior RfC. So there appears to be no reason to deviate it from it now. What is the rationale for this repeat RfC other than to try to discredit it? SBM is one of the watchdog media that help keep ] science out of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' {{summoned by bot}}, @] has there been in discussion of this on this noticeboard since the last RFC? '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ====Reliable sources using ADL==== | |||
| *:OP created different RFC here: ] which was closed as a bad RFC as it was not neutral and editors pointed out the lack of RFCBEFORE on a reasoning of why this needs to be rehashed. Given that that one was just closed and now this new one was immediately opened again without any RFCBEFORE discussion, it similarly appears to be looking for a problem without information as to why this RfC is here without any new evidence that should change the established consensus of the community. ] (]) 03:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Per ], {{tquote|how accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation}}. In fact ADL data is widely used by RS | |||
| *:There was a discussion from a few years ago listed on RSP that seemed very mixed as to whether SBM is a SPS ] (]) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| # . The numbers are attributed, there is no criticism of their methodology. | |||
| * '''SPS'''. Per what they wrote on their site: "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" If people are able to publish directly, by themselves, without being reviewed, then that meets the definition of SPS and we need to treat it that way for BLPs. Noting that this only means that it can't be used for direct statements about living people, but can still be used for statements about the truth (or, more often, otherwise) of views held by living people, the views of the authors about living people, and statements about fringe theories themselves. - ] (]) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| # . The numbers are attributed, there is no criticism of their methodology. | |||
| *:You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight - {{tq|After careful review, the editors of SBM decided to retract this book review. Because we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness, occasionally corrections need to be made post-publication. In this case we felt there were too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science, and leaving the article up would not be appropriate given the standards of SBM.}}, so this looks like exactly what you'd expect from a non-SPS. You basically just made the case why they are not an SPS. ] (]) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| # . The numbers are attributed, there is no criticism of their methodology. | |||
| *::In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - ] (]) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| # . The numbers are attributed, there is no criticism of their methodology. | |||
| *:::"''As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs''". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. ] (]) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| # . The numbers are attributed and there is some criticism of the approach by The Philly Palestine organisation. | |||
| *::::It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as ]. ] (]) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! ] (]) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::This just seems like sealioning but here you go... ] (]) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You have linked to several articles by ]. Where does it claim on those articles they are self-published? David H. Gorski obviously reviewed those articles, he is listed in the link you cited below as the other editor. There are two editors so this isn't self-publishing. ] (]) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). ] (]) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::The website says "''SBM is entirely owned and operated by the ]''" . So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella . This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. ] (]) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. ] (]) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology . My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! ] (]) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --] (]) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::Thanks for the correction. The dude looks young for his age, fooled me. ] (]) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::So between Jay, Steve, and Robert Novella it seems that we have a lot of relatives here. ] (]) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::What is your source for the organization having 25 employees? ] (]) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::{{Ping|Psychologist Guy}} you've claimed three times that the organization currently has exactly 25 employees... It is the core of your argument, but I don't think its true and I can't find it anywhere online... So how are you getting that number? ] (]) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. ] (]) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::::Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. ] (]) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::::::::{{Reply|Psychologist Guy}} Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. ] (]) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::::::I have contacted someone who should know about this; hopefully they get back to me and I can let you know what the current figure of their employees is with documentation if possible. ] (]) 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS''' This isn't a self-published source, the articles are reviewed before being published by an editorial board. The four current editors are: Steven P. Novella, David H. Gorski, Kimball C. Atwood, Mark Crislip. Guest editors can submit articles to the website, all of which are reviewed before publication. Critics of SBM are jumping a single retracted article that this is an SPS. Seems like a bad case of cherry-picking. There is no good evidence this is an SPS. '''Update''' There are two editors not four my mistake. The publisher is the ]. ] (]) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That doesn't match what is currently on their website, they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. ] (]) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. ] (]) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? ] (]) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. ] (]) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. ] (]) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by ], it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. ] (]) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The New England Skeptical Society, of which Novella is founder and president. ] (]) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Their own statement was "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" Given that, it is clear that in at least some cases, people can publish directly on SBM without being reviewed before publication. - ] (]) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''', seems to be pretty cut and dried at least when it comes to Novella's pieces (remember SBM claims to be a blog, its generally presenting personal opinions... When its two expert editors want to publish their actual work they do not publish it there but in real journals). I would also note that this discussion should include the sister blog NeuroLogicaBlog. If anyone wants to disagree with me they can lay out what editorial checks and balances would apply to Novella. ] (]) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. ] (]) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. ] (]) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own . There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. ] (]) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Is it two or several? ] (]) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:(How) does the following factor into your assessment that it's an SPS? In their of "Why Dr. Harriet Hall’s review of Abigail Shrier’s ''Irreversible Damage'' was retracted," they note that "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing," and that they "have mechanisms of quality control" for articles that are posted without prior review, including "clarification in the comments" and "corrections to the original text of the article." Their about outside submissions says in part "The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using an informal peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a 'rough and ready' peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission." ] (]) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. ] (]) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I was asking ], in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for ] as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." ] (]) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::With Quackwatch we came to a similar position - articles published by the editor are self published, but articles on the site by other authors are not. I'm ok with something similar here. The only problem is that all they say is "trusted authors" can post directly. I would read that as safe to assume people who do not regularly have articles posted on the site would not be trusted, but it doesn't say only the editors are trusted to publish without prior review. Thus there may be some gray area between the two. - ] (]) 21:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The others are more a grey area for me, most of what we are currently using on wiki is pieces by Gorski and Novella... And we have discussions elsewhere about some guest authors like Harriet Hall not producing work of the same quality/rigor as Gorski and Novella. Its a bit of an odd situation, normally the editors are not also the authors and even when they are they're normally not the primary and most reliable authors. Its made extra odd because most of the editors/authors are subject matter experts so usable under EXPERTSPS no matter where we come down on general reliability. ] (]) 03:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS'''. It's a group blog with some guest authors. Having multiple contributors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Having guest authors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Retracting a post does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. This language in ] is particularly relevant: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". As a pro-SBM editor argued in the aborted RfC, the need for SBM in Misplaced Pages is to enable wikivoice accusations of "grift, fraud and quackery" ''that cannot be sourced otherwise''. In other words, the reason this group blog has been elevated to a reliable source is to work around NPOV. - ] (]) 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) ] (]) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::That is a direct quote from ]. - ] (]) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. ] (]) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If you have a problem with WP:SPS the appropriate venue is ] - ] (]) 21:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment'''. Do some people !voting here have a connection to the source? I see one editor referring to Steven Novella as "Steve" and another who may be affiliated with the New England Skeptical Society. I have seen some surprising interpretations of WP:COI in the past so I'm not sure if this is important, but thought it was worth noting. - ] (]) 18:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:That is also a great point and worth investigating as part of any close here. Looks sus at the very least... ] (]) 01:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. I personally think this source is fine to use on BLPs, but there is no way to honestly read our (convoluted, strange) SPS guidelines and not come to the conclusion that it is one. It is a small group of people most of whom publish without prior review on a blog. That they make arguments we like does not make it not a blog. ] (]) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. It's a group blog, but still a blog. Group blogs are specifically called out on ]. As noted above, SBM "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness". The fact that they later retracted one article doesn't negate that the norm for "trusted authors" (probably including regulars, and definitely including the owners of the site such as Gorski and Novella) is to publish without any editorial review of the author's work. Hence, it is clearly by and large an SPS. | |||
| :The claim that we need this to not be an SPS to effectively fight fringe and quackery is often made but I've never seen it backed up with an example of a fringe topic whose Misplaced Pages article would become credulous to pseudoscience without it. There are plenty of published and even academic sources that stuff like homeopathy is pseudoscientific, quackery, etc.; we are perfectly capable of sourcing something like "John Smith is an advocate of homeopathy, a pseudoscientific practice" in just about any case it is needed. SBM being an SPS also doesn't preclude its use in cases of ], as pro-fringe sources themselves are often SPS or otherwise poor. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The ] article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. ] (]) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's no shortage of reliable sources establishing that the germ theory was a huge advance in medicine and that we have basically incontrovertible proof of it for maybe thousands of diseases. | |||
| ::: - ] (]) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But using any of those sources to draw conclusions about the specific claims of a particular germ theory denialist would be ]. ] (]) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Reliable SPS'''</s> - can be used to describe fringe theories proposed by people as discredited or as quackery, including on a bio... should not be used to describe people themselves as quacks. ] (]) 00:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Partial SPS''' - saw some of the info of arguments below from CoffeeCrumbs, and FactOrOpinon. I think the partial peer-review for some articles is... frustrating for a direct answer, but if there is peer-review on an article, it should stand as non-SPS material. ] (]) 01:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS''' - We see at ] that an SPS has clear rules and restrictions, such as not being used '''ever''' for a ], absolutely '''never'''. Some seem to be arguing that this obvious SPS should for some reason be granted an exception to the clear language of "'''never'''" and should be allowed on biographies of living persons in some cases (or in many). There are many reasons why that is not allowed generally, but we have now learned that this source is essentially the soapbox of primarily only ''two individuals'', and most importantly, is not part of a media outlet or organization or inclusive of any external (or even further internal vetting). No, rather, it is a '''blog'''. An SPS '''blog'''. One perhaps run by scientists, two scientists, but a blog, nonetheless. Again, quoting directly from WP:SPS, "{{tq|'''Never''' use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.}}" So here we have this source, which is obviously beyond ] a blog and a self-published source, we must then at the very least clarify that it absolutely must not be used in any circumstances for BLPs going forward, by the fact that it is so clearly a SPS.] (]) 00:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Partly SPS and partly non-SPS''' - The site makes it clear that some authors can publish without prior review. I consider their articles to be self-published; for example, I put Steven Novella's articles in this category. The site also says that other articles undergo prior review (e.g., "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing"). I consider the latter to be non-self-published. Examples of authors who clearly aren't regular article authors there and whose articles presumably underwent prior review: and . For some articles/authors, it's not clear to me whether they fall in the SPS category or instead in the non-SPS category. ] (]) 03:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * It seems that posts by some established contributors are self-published (as shown by links above), while guest contributors are not. So the answer to whether SBM is an SPS or not is 'yes'. '''SPS and not SPS'''. Certainly the idea that it's fully SPS has no basis. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS''': As noted by other contributors, SBM openly acknowledges that it often publishes content without prior peer review. Consequently, this makes it a self-published source (SPS), with the opinions expressed representing those of individual authors. Like any other SPS, its use requires caution, especially in articles about living people or controversial topics, where ensuring accuracy and neutrality is critical. ] (]) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| So it's clear that RS do not treat ADL numbers as unreliable and if we deprecate ADL we'd be fail to follow our RS guidelines. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS for reviewed articles''' They directly state they have editorial peer review for a number, if not most, of their articles. And only a select few don't go through that process (though appear to have after the fact review, considering the retraction, so even that seems to be in question). I will note that this appears to be yet another attempt by ] pushing editors to try and remove skeptical debunking media from negatively covering their fringe topics. Par for the course attempt, honestly. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don’t think a bunch of sources, no matter how reliable, uncritically repeating a single report is a good measure of general reliability. ] (]) 16:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:It's a day that ends in -Y.... ] (]) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Your personal opinion on this doesn't matter. I suggest you familiarize yourself with ]. It means precisely what @] said here, namely that the fact that undisputable reliable sources uncritically repeat claims by source X, confers some reliability on source X in and of itself. ] (]) 18:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:If we can't tell what is and isn't peer-reviewed and what is SPS material, is that not a problem? ] (]) 11:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's uncritical in the sense of the news outlets neither praise nor bemoan the ADL as a source. It's not really news either. All the pieces are just churnalistic regurgitations of the findings of the ADL (almost certainly from a press release). The pieces just say: the ADL said 'this', without conveying any real sense of the outlets' trust in the ADL as a source whatsoever beyond acknowledging its basic existence as an organisation that draws up tallies of stuff. ] (]) 21:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : |
*:And how we will determine which articles have been reviewed? Also note that editorial review and ] are different things and they do not appear to make a claim of peer review. ] (]) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *::Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a '''blog''', they are a '''''trusted''''' blog." ] (]) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Your argument here is strange. The whole ] policy with regard to usage by high reliability newspapers is '''talking about cases where claims are attributed to another source.''' How else would you know that high reliability newspaper is citing a specific source, if it doesn't attribute it??? Newspaper don't carry footnotes like scholarly articles. ] (]) 19:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Poor editorial control is a matter of reliability, but all matters of reliability don't have to be decided by classifying a source as self-published. It's accepted that other sources follow their stated editorial practices, and noone has shown why that shouldn't be the case here. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that ADL is a good source, with attribution, on statistics on antisemitic incidents. None of this has to do with ADL's pro-Israel advocacy though? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 22:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS for reviewed articles''' They've got editors, which sets it apart from a standard SPS. Those articles that could be self published are still reliable for most purposes anyway, since they are from subject matter experts. It is also worth noting that while it should not be used for biographical details in general, even if this were to be considered a SPS that would not rule it out for comments on science, medicine, or the reception of fringe ideas, even when those ideas happen to appear on an article with a person's name at the top. - ] (]) 18:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::response in your talk page. ] (]) 19:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Adding several new citations of ADL statements about antisemitism that were cited uncritically by reliable newspaper sites in the last few days since @] published his list on April 9: | |||
| *'''Not SPS''' by virtue of having either pre-publication review or the possibility of editorially imposed retraction. A source that is truly ''self-published'' wouldn't have either of those. ] (]) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/04/11/adl-antisemitism-report-card-gives-top-schools-failing-grades/73294604007/ | |||
| *'''Partial SPS''' It's a bit awkward since they do so much good work, but "our own editors, however, have earned the privilege of publishing articles without prior review, since they have a proven track record," is extremely concerning. What they describe as an editorial process for these articles, saying that "if any concerns about accuracy, fairness, or completeness come to our attention, we deal with them in a number of ways," is just not enough. The job of an editor is checking before, not just maybe cleaning up after "if," so I would have to say that the articles by their own editors have to be considered '''SPS''' until they revise this. Things they actually do vet ''before'' putting up, I consider as being subjected to an editorial process, however. ] (]) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/11/business/adl-antisemitism-report-card/index.html | |||
| *'''Generally not SPS''', though additional scrutiny for articles by Gorski and Novella may be appropriate. Essentially per ]. I'm also frankly not impressed with this RFC, and the manner the proposer starts these discussions in general. Said discussions are not {{em|quite}} up to the point of disruption, but I would nonetheless heavily suggest that they seek advice as to the drafting of their statements and formatting of their proposals and whether adequate prior discussion has taken place, from one of the other editors supporting their point of view. ] (] • ]) 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''' A group blog posting guest postings is still a group blog, and still self-published. Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella, whose blog it is), previous claims to having a robust editorial process seem unconvincing. There is no consistently documented publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and this source is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. ] (]) 16:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as , and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. ] (]) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am responding to suggestions that some sort of allegedly robust editorial and accountability process makes it not an SPS, which I think is a nonsense. | |||
| *::My favoured definition of SPS is: if it isn't traditionally published (book, newspaper, journal) or something directly comparable structurally, it is an SPS. That is in line with USESPS since it considers virtually all websites to be self-published. It is narrow, yes, but it is also consistent across media. It is also not a reflection on reliability in other ways, as SPS vs GREL are two different concerns. | |||
| *::I think the "self" in "self-published" causes much confusion, as does the consideration that "publishing" is the mere act of putting information online. A publishing company is more than a person who vets content and presses a button to place material on a website. If we consider something not self published simply because the person who writes it has to go through another person before it is published, that means celebrity social media accounts where an intern reports to a manager aren't self published, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing (ie, virtually nothing is self-published by that standard). | |||
| *::I consider "science based medicine" to be a publication as a whole rather than something that can be approached article-by-article. There is no distinct, separate, traditional publishing entity, as with a newspaper, a book, or an academic journal. The owners and editors are all the same, and that they solicit other people's content to add to their own publication which they entirely control still makes it their own self-published publication, in exactly the same way as any blog with guest posts. | |||
| *::I know there are difficult edge cases to the whole "what is a traditional publisher" model, but I don't think a group blog like SBM is even close to that, and considering it to be one (because editors want to use it to make BLP claims about quacks) has turned into a slippery slope IMO. ] (]) 10:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. ] (]) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::] is '''policy''', <u>not an essay</u>. It is clear '''policy''' that '''<u>blogs</u>''' like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs <u>at a bare minimum</u>. ] (]) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I said "'''USESPS''' is an essay, not a policy" (emphasis added). It seems that you're confusing ] (which as I noted is an essay) with ] (which is a policy). People clearly have different opinions about whether SBM is wholly SPS or only partially SPS, and if the consensus of this RfC is that it is only partially SPS, then the part that isn't SPS can be used for statements about living persons despite identifying itself as a blog. Also, the BLP policy is for statements about living persons, wherever they occur, but AFAIK, RS expert blogs can be used for DUE statements about non-persons, even if that statement appears in a biographical article. BLPSELFPUB is also an exception. ] (]) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I'm aware. We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them. When I raised this weeks ago I asked what I was missing, and it turned out I wasn't missing anything except a massive intractable tarpit. I think none of it is obvious. Your objection here is understandable depends very much how you interpret "author", "publisher" and the work being published, and a narrow definition restricted to natural persons means any source with two people can be argued to be not self published. But to me it remains obvious that for a self published book in which my friend writes the foreword, their content is still self published even though I acted as "editor", and I don't see a difference between a self published book with multiple contributors and a group blog with multiple contributors. And the trouble is a lot of the discussions about how we classify X or Y revolve not around what they are, but about how we want to use them, which makes it ever more messy. Personally I would like to see clarity on *why* BLPSPS exists, and define the standard clearly there, because that would inform what sort of sources are acceptable in BLPs, which is really the nub of the matter. BLPSPS feels like it might once have been shorthand for "a source who's probably had the lawyers look it over before publishing it", but that's just my impression/speculation. Absent BLPSPS, the question of whether sources like grey literature or SBM are SPS or not is largely moot. ] (]) 11:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. ] (]) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Yes, most local and hyper local news outlets are in fact self-published. ] (]) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Not SPS for reviewed content. Where content is clearly reviewed, definitely not SPS. Where we’re not certain, treat it with extra caution. By the way “blog” and “SPS” are not synonyms. Blog is a format that can be edited and published by reputable organisations, as with eg The Conversation or perhaps the SPLC’s Hatewatch. ] (]) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I would agree with you that your two examples are not SPS, however I have seen people argue the contrary in both cases. ] (]) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Everything in ] is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per ]. I also don't believe that '''any''' of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." ] (]) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this '''<u>blog</u>''' are considered '''reviewed''', and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. ] (]) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That argument is ]. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone ''needs'' to make, but ] overrides ]. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. ] (]) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling ] a guideline). ] (]) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of ] that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using {{tq|self-published sources as third-party sources about living people}}, but that fails to apply in two different ways. ] (]) 23:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::How does "fail to apply in two different ways"? ] (]) 01:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There seems to be a lot more than that which is pertinent, that whole section for example is pertinent not just that one sentence. Many of the "not SPS" arguments also seem to be based on ]. As for it somehow not applying you've lost me, gonna have to explain. ] (]) 07:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''', several editors seem to claim something along the lines of "since Science-Based Medicine is 'reviewed' it cannot be a SPS". This claim would benefit from some proof, ideally other secondary sources validating this claim, and not just the very same source saying that it does so. Alex Jones might claim that he is reviewed and reliable etc. That claim by itself does not make it so. Also, I am not saying that Science-Based Medicine is anything like AJ in terms of reliability etc., and to be clear, this RfC is not about reliability, it is just on whether or not the SBM source is an SPS, which I think it pretty obviously is. ] (]) 01:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models: | |||
| *:# Book publisher: External authors submit book outlines and sample chapters; if selected, the publisher contributes substantially towards editing (including ] if necessary), designing, and marketing the book. The author pays for none of this and expects to get paid (at least if sales exceed a minimum threshold). If the publisher rejects the book, then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher. | |||
| *:# Newspaper: The publisher/publication hires editors and journalists. The editor assigns stories (to internal staff) or commissions them (among freelancers; alternatively, editors may accept external pitches, in the book-publisher model). The journalists write the stories; the editor and publisher/publication representatives decide whether to publish what the journalists wrote. If an employee instead of a freelancer, the journalist expects to get paid the same even if the article is ] (not published). If a freelancer, and the piece doesn't run, the freelancer is free to sell it to a different publication. | |||
| *:# Peer-reviewed journal: The (usually for-profit) publisher or (usually academic) sponsoring body creates the publication and hire editors. External authors submit whole papers; editors send the papers for external review and use that information to decide which ones to publish. The authors usually pay for publication, but this is understood to be akin to volunteer work on all sides, with the money usually coming from a third-party grant rather than the author's own funds. If the journal rejects the article, the author is free to submit it to another journal. | |||
| *:I wonder if any of these models feel similar to how you imagine SBM to work. ] (]) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I have in a sandbox. I wonder whether people would find that comparison useful in, say, ]. ] (]) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I do not think any of the above apply to SBM, but I'd like to see you perhaps write up a few methods for what clearly SPS look like, and then we could compare to the above, and determine which SBM most closely resembles. Again, if you write stuff, then you are the publisher, that is by definition "self-published", which is very often the case even if not always for Science-Based Medicine...even by their own admission! ] (]) 14:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I don't think defining none self-published sources are the ones we give a free pass because of our social-culture background is a good way to define them. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. The website describes itself as a blog. According to ] blogs are considered SPS. In addition, SBM publishes unknown proportions of articles without prior editorial review. Therefore, SBM could only be used with attribution, because it is impossible to tell which articles passed editorial review and which did not. ] (]) 17:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:@], WP:SPS says {{xt|"...self-published material such as...personal or ] blogs (as distinguished from ], above)...are largely not acceptable as sources"}}. Are you sure that this isn't a ]? They have an ] and a ], which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with ], too. ] (]) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "{{tq|These '''may''' be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, '''but use them with caution''' because '''blogs''' may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.}}" ] (]) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want ] to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. ] (]) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per ] we are advised to {{xt|use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process}}. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. ] (]) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Exactly. ] (]) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Use with caution and statements of opinion are covered by other parts of the guidelines, separate from SPS. Whether a source is self-published or not doesn't mean it's reliable or unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Mostly SPS'''. It seems to be the Novella and Gorski show. That doesn’t make it unreliable for topics in which they are recognised experts - neurology for Novella and oncology for Gorski, apparently. That would make them reliable reviewers of any guest content on those topics too. But outside their domains of expertise, they are just blogging. Expertise in one domain does not imply expertise in another - and sometimes it’s quite the opposite, in that smart people who are accomplished in their niche start to think their opinions on everything else are equally robust (looking at you, Elon). ] (]) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. Editorial oversight is insufficiently verifiable nor independent enough to call this something other than self-published. ] (]) 19:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS''' It seems their peer-review is only for new contributers, the staff is volunteer and they explicitly say that they like to avoid as much editing as possible. There also doesn't seem to be much of editorial indepencence from the owner (New England Skeptical Society) which is an advocacy group. Especially troubling is that the Executive Editor is also the President of NESS. NESS also has two other members of the Novella family on the board. That makes three of the five board members from the same family. This is no what oversight should look like. The group of writers is also small and probably know each other well and are of course, ideologically similar. ] (]) 11:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>Partial SPS</s> '''Partly unclear, partly not SPS''' As discussed above, it isn't clear which articles by Gorski and Novella have been reviewed and we should probably lean towards treating those ones like ] just to be safe. They do, however, have a very clear review policy on guest articles (see ) which states {{tq|volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which '''at least three of our editors evaluate the submission'''}} (emphasis added). That's pretty obviously not self-publishing. I do want to note though that this type of discussion would really benefit from more consensus on what an SPS is. Maybe some more experienced editors should consider drafting a big RfC to revise SPS with more detail on what it means in practice (probably after ARBPIA5 is over so admins have more time to focus on it)? ] (]) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Reply|CambrianCrab}}The main problem is that they currently only have two editors (one being the managing editor), so we can be relatively sure that they do not follow that policy becuase it requires a minimum of four editors to follow (the managing editor and at least three others). ] (]) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Exactly. ] (]) 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good catch on the number of editors, I missed that the other ones had retired/passed, but I don't really think that makes it SPS since articles are still getting reviewed. Imo, it's a red flag in terms of ''reliability'' that either the list of editors and/or review policy is out of date, but no impact towards whether or not it's ''SPS''. ] (]) 02:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See and that is interesting because I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I think that it could be reasonably argued that SBM is reliable, but that there is no case at all that it is somehow not SPS. When there is <u>one</u> person in most cases writing something and then just directly launching it to the internet on a blog, that is self-published. Which we have no way of knowing if these <u>two</u> editors even check one another, so it is very possible that frequently this is exactly what is happening. However, how different is it really when there are only <u>two</u> editors from one checking on anything. That is practically and definitionally a self-published source by every possible measure for evaluating whether or not a source as SPS or not. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? And again, even if that is true, if there are only two editors doing the "reviewing", that is not due diligence, that is back scratching and ]. ] (]) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To be clear, I don't think SBM is unreliable, just that outdated pages would be a red mark towards reliability. Whether or not pages or up-to-date has nothing to do with if something is self-published. | |||
| :::::I don't really follow the rest of your argument. {{tq|We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed?}} Yeah we generally take sources at their word on their own policies unless we have reason to question it. SBM is a relatively long-running and well-known outlet run by experts in the topic area. I don't see any reason we should think they're lying about their policy. ] (]) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Those are fair point, review is review and it seems that at least some are seemingly getting reviewed. ] (]) 19:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS'''. What someone means by "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" is "these writers aren't dumbasses and we trust them" with an implied "if an issue is found after the piece is out, we'll put out a correction", not "these people are infallible and we will never correct them because reasons".  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 21:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:So they are essentially "Not SPS" because they claim to sometimes not be SPS. Got it. ] (]) 01:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:The purpose of oversight is due diligence, not dumbass detection. ] (]) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Partly SPS and generally unsuitable for contentious topics on Misplaced Pages.''' While SBM is valuable for some scientic topics, it self-described as blog with inconsistent editorial oversight, allowing authors like Novella and Gorski to pubish without review. Gorski, who often takes strong positions, is a polarizing figure, and his articles often reflect a bias and lack of nuance. For controversial topics or biographies, more neutral and independently vetted sources would better meet Misplaced Pages standards. ] (]) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''' As I've said before on previous RfCs, this is explicitly a self-published source. ] (]) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not SPS unless Gorski and Novella wrote the piece''': SBM is one of the best sources for coveraging ] and ] activism we have <small> and I'll note ''some'', certainly not all, wanting to make it a SPS tend to have, at best, a ] attitude </small>. Simply put, there is editorial oversight of contributors. We don't know if there is for Gorski and Novella, and should act accordingly and treat them as subject matter experts outside BLPs, but we do know that there is for other contributors. I'm somewhat concerned with the shape of this RFC - we have longstanding consensus that SBM is a reliable source and not an SPS. Instead of challenging that, this RFC was opened to challenge specifically the SPS designation in a seemingly roundabout way to question it's reliability. | |||
| : I also want to note that per ] {{tq|In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed.}} - so while I still maintain it's not an SPS, the standards for ] allow non-peer reviewed sources on fringe topics as long as they're reliable, so an SPS designation should not, unless we ''also'' agree it's not reliable, be used to go a purge of its use. ] (]) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''No''' due to editorial oversight. ] <small>(])</small> 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Given that the editors have stated that they do not provide oversight on all contributers prior to publication, this does not seem to be universally true. - ] (]) 09:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''' I think it's important that the arguments about whether Science Based Medicine is SPS or not are removed from our own assessment of the topics they’ve covered, otherwise we infuse topic bias on a process matter and risk floating away from the core question of this RfC. SBM is SPS simply because of the lack of editorial oversight and independence needed for subject matter of medicine.--] (]) 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/harvard-dozen-schools-receive-grade-adls-campus-antisemitism-report-ca-rcna147346 | |||
| == RfC: Bild == | |||
| https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4587901-harvard-tufts-mit-failing-grades-adl-campus-antisemitism/ | |||
| ] (]) 07:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736895671}} | |||
| ==== Scholarly citations of ADL publications since 2020 from JSTOR ==== | |||
| {{rfc|media|rfcid=FF7A9FD}} | |||
| These were found by simply putting "anti defamation league" in JSTOR search box and limiting the search to start in 2020. This yielded 164 results. To determine the relevancy of each result and its context I had to look inside the articles. This is a time-consuming process, so I did it so far for only a small number of results. I might continue with it in the following days, if required, and if time permits, but even this small collection proves that there are quite a few scholars who view the ADL as a reliable source even for scholarly work. This is relevant to the reliability question because of ]. | |||
| What is the reliability of the German tabloid ], including its website Bild.de? | |||
| # Generally reliable | |||
| # Additional considerations apply | |||
| # Generally unreliable | |||
| # Deprecated | |||
| ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Responses (Bild) === | |||
| *'''Option 3/4''' Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, , routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation) {{tq|Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers.}} ... {{tq|The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary}}... EDIT: another quote {{tq|BILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.}}} ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 , as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic ] (]) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that ] is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3/4'''. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--] (]) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3''' at least, and I wouldn't say no to '''4'''. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for ] material; if they claimed something as simple as {{var|X}} number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3''' I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. ] (] • ]) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3/4''' Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people''' it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and ''allegedly'' breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. <small> Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable </small> ] (]) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2, provisionally''', since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''', I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Misplaced Pages project. ] (]) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''', there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – . But see my comment in the discussion section below. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' per ActivelyDisinterested. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per ] would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. ] (]) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3/4''' per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. ] (]) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:it's ''snowing 3'' ] (]) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3/4'''. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --] (]) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (Bild) === | |||
| 2024: | |||
| Bild is currently used over 1,800 times on the English Misplaced Pages per {{duses|bild.de}}. It is already currently listed on RSP as "generally unreliable". This RfC was prompted by a discussion at ], where a user questioned the lack of participation in previous discussions. ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I asked the initial question at WT:RSP since I don't like when we classify sources based on vibes. So I'll play the role of the devil's advocate. I have very little knowledge of the German media landscape and I'm open to arguments in both directions. The sources provided by u:Hemiauchenia make two claims: | |||
| cited about antisemitism (including in the Israel-Palestine context) | |||
| * {{tquote|articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary"}} - this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities | |||
| * In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes . ]<sub>]</sub> 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated): {{tq|From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.}} | |||
| cited about antisemitism | |||
| ::If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. ] (]) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@], I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks! | |||
| :::::These are the key points from the foreword | |||
| :::::# articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers | |||
| :::::# BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples | |||
| :::::# is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze | |||
| :::::# A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer | |||
| :::::# A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable. | |||
| :::::I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed? | |||
| :::::In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very ] source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not really sure what is meant by {{tq|classif sources based on vibes}}, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. ] says {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}, as does ] multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. ] (] • ]) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the {{duses|bild.de}}, most of them belong to the first category. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Nigerian newspapers == | |||
| cited about extreme right and antisemitism | |||
| ] has nothing about Nigerian newspapers, but references a project-list of them which seems rather too optimistic. It seems to me that these newspapers are filled with completely unreliable promopieces. You can see ], where a completely unknown Nigerian/French person supposedly got a US-only award from President Biden. Not a single source outside Nigeria confirms this, there seems to be no reason at all why she would have received this, but it got reported by , , , , ... | |||
| 2023: | |||
| We had similar issues with e.g. ], ], and probably many others which I can't find as easily. | |||
| cited on hate crimes | |||
| Isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers which routinely publish such completely unreliable promo pieces as articles? ] (]) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| cited about racism | |||
| : The problem is that if you deprecated these newspapers, there'd be basically no usable Nigerian sources left, which hardly seems good in terms of attempting to fix Misplaced Pages's coverage biases. I do agree that it is standard practice at a lot of Nigerian newspapers to run effectively undisclosed promotional material, and it seems good to note this somewhere on RSP, but I think deprecating them outright would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ] (]) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says {{tq| realised that their top quality journalism or influential columnists alone weren’t going to win the battle for eyeballs. Enter “viral content” and clickbait headlines. Press releases were repackaged as news stories, fact-checking and verification became redundant. Aanu Adeoye says, “the traditional gatekeepers of journalism (newspapers) in this country don’t give a hoot about the quality of what they’re churning out daily.” In a few years, stories from Nigeria’s top newspapers looked as hurriedly written as stories from blogs. It had become a game of who could break the news the fastest and who could churn out the most news. Nigerian traditional media beat the upstarts at their own game and occupied spots at the top of Nigeria’s most visited websites. But the true cost of this pyrrhic victory was quality control.}} If even mainstream Nigerian newspapers can't be trusted as factual sources then it's not clear what Nigerian sources can be trusted. ] (]) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I really don’t get arguments like this one. How does it help Misplaced Pages to use unreliable sources from countries with more limited media landscapes? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::One of Misplaced Pages and the WMF's goals is to be "diverse" and to lessen systemic bias to western nations. Limiting coverage to Western liberal democracies will obviously prevent that. ] (]) 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::How does it help the English Misplaced Pages to eliminate practically all English-language sources for about 1 billion English-speakers? There's not an easy answer, here.--] (] | ]) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Much of the editor population vastly underestimates how much of our reader base comes from these regions of the globe. | |||
| :::Formally deprecating sources is a last resort for widely misused stuff like the ''Daily Mail'' (arguably part of the issue there was the perceived credibility of a mainstream Western paper subject to strict British libel laws). Simply following and enforcing existing P&G should address the issues adequately. | |||
| :::Furthermore, if one of these Nigerian papers were to come under new and improved management or ownership, I doubt WP would take notice with any real celerity. | |||
| :::] (]) 00:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a problem with virtually every newspaper published in Nigeria and India. We cannot simply deprecate all news from two of the largest English speaking countries in the world. Or, we could, but we would get called very racist for doing so. ] (]) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which ''don't'' have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. ] (]) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. ] (]) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. ] (]) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? ] (]) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. ] (]) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It still has a disparate impact in a racially biased manner. ] (]) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No its not, it is based upon lack of truth, no one here has raised race once apart from you. ] (]) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Whatever the ''intention'' banning the entire media ecosystem of a developing country of 230 million people (plus India's 1.43 billion because we would ban them for the same reason) and making our encyclopedia irrelevant to large swathes of the non western world would have a biased ''outcome'' - doesn't matter the intention if it gets you the same result. Is that a sacrifice we are willing to accept? Because if so we need to stop pretending we have any interest in "combatting systemic bias". ] (]) 11:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, in my opinion it hasn’t been shown that reliability issues already aren’t being handled at in a nationally disparate manner. ] (]) 00:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::if these sources want to be accepted as reliable on Misplaced Pages, they should give up their practice of publishing paid news and writing puff pieces for anyone willing to pay. - ] (]) 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If we are going to be banning every single news source of a country of 230 million, then we should be very aware we are doing it. And possibly throw out all the project's virtue signaling over countering systemic bias along with it, if we decide to go that route. ] (]) 10:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::We should allow perpetuation of misinformation on Misplaced Pages because it would be racist not to? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (] or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. ] (]) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Should we do the same and ban all news from India? ] (]) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We should ban all shitty sources. If that wipes out all of India’s news (I’d sure be surprised) then yes. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can't see how it would be preferable to have our coverage of non-Western developing countries be dominated by propaganda, paid-promotion, tabloids, and un-fact-checked reports... ] (]) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No one is suggesting an either-or dichotomy. We should start by enforcing existing policies with regard to usage of these sources on a case by case basis. Mass deprecation was merely an impulsive suggestion someone made somewhere above, and would self-evidently be overkill unless all other options had been exhausted, which they haven’t. Cheers, ] (]) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this claim should be presumed true but not notable. The PVSA award is given out annually by any number of authorized NGOs to their own volunteers without any US government involvement, and it does come with a form letter in the president's name. Ononiwu apparently received hers from Innovate Africa Corp. There's no reason any US press to write up such a thing, and there doesn't seem to be a public database of honorees. Note however that Ononiwu should not have been eligible for the award because she's not a US citizen or permanent resident. I guess these newspapers went along with exaggerating the award's prestige, but I don't see it as a major problem for reliability on facts. ] (]) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it could be worth writing some guidance along the same lines as ], though I'm not sure it rises to the point of a general deprecation yet. ] report might also be helpful in developing such guidance. ] (] • ]) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As with WP:NEWSORGINDIA Nigerian news sources are full of undisclosed advertorials. It's a common practice, so editors need to be cautious with anything that uses promotional language. Their use for establishing notability needs to be seen in a similar light. | |||
| :Formally deprecating all Nigerian news media just isn't an option, in the same way deprecating all India news media with the same issue isn't an option. I would support changing the language of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it highlights the same issue in other countries not just India. I doubt this is an issue limited to those markets, and one that will likely become more of an issue everywhere with the difficulties newsedia currently face. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I recall at least one instance of them churning out AI generated puff pieces e.i and . Oddly enough Daily Times NG is listed as a "generally reliable" source for Nigerian topics at ].- ] (]) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| cited about extremism in general | |||
| :There's evidence that their promotional articles aren't reliable. But I've yet to see anyone present evidence here that other kinds of news from these sources are unreliable. Does anyone here have evidence of that? If not, I don't see why we'd deprecate these Nigerian news sources in their entirety, and instead I support Hemiauchenia's having added "Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability" to RS/P, perhaps adding something like "especially for promotional news articles." ] (]) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Since the PROMO issues seem to be localized particularly to biographies, perhaps we could have guidance similar to what we use at NCORP that calls for heightened Nigerian source scrutiny re: independence when it comes to BLPs. Deprecating them just for BLPs might also be an option. ] (]) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I refuse to comment on the instances that led to this proposal because they can happen on a platform with the format adopted by Misplaced Pages. However, I oppose the proposal to deprecate all Nigerian newspapers on English Misplaced Pages. Applying a blanket judgment based on issues with a few outlets among many is unjust and undermines Misplaced Pages's inclusivity. Nigeria's media landscape, shaped by its diverse population of over 500 languages and 300 ethnic groups, plays a critical role in democracy and accountability. | |||
| :"While no media is flawless, treating all Nigerian newspapers as unreliable disregards their contributions and efforts to uphold global standards. Media reliability concerns exist worldwide, yet discussion of this nature is sensitive and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through blanket exclusions. Adopting this precedent ensures fairness and avoids marginalizing voices from the Global South. | |||
| :"I recommend individual evaluations of Nigerian newspapers, involving local expertise and ongoing monitoring, to maintain Misplaced Pages's mission of inclusivity and accuracy. A nuanced approach will preserve diversity and strengthen the platform's credibility."] (]) 02:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Yes banning falsehoods is a sacrifice I am willing to make, be they from White people black people, or yellow people. As I said about Fiox and the Daily Myth, if you do not want to be accused of telling lies, there is a simpler solution, do not tell them. This is my last response here with a firm '''not reliable'''. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind, but it has to be proof and not emotive appeals to (so-called) fairness. ] (]) 11:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| cited about extreme right | |||
| :{{tq|1=or yellow people}}<br>Uhhh.... ] (]) 18:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Obviously meant as in "persons of any color, including colors in which persons don’t exist" and not a reference to the antique Western epithet for East Asians <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's not "obvious", even to those of us who have interacted with Slatersteven enough to presume he wasn't intending to use a racial epithet. ] (]) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm against this. Nigerian sources, like all sources, are entitled to be evaluated one by one. ] (]) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| cited about extreme right | |||
| ===Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)=== | |||
| I've gone ahead and created a new section covering Nigerian news organisations at RSP ]. It's a bit stubby at the moment but it's at least a start. ] (]) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 2022: | |||
| ::Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. ] (]) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not saying that their judgment is poor or that Nigerian editors are inferior in any way, but that there are issues with Nigerian press across the board, such as low press freedom that is very different from say, news sources in Western Europe and North America, which should be kept in mind with evaluating their content. ] (]) 21:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I encourage you to engage with folks at ] as you develop guidance on Nigerian media. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I second this. I conversion about Nigeria WP should not be done without Nigerians editors involvement. Just because you found something wrong in some sources that doesn’t give you the right to assume all is bad. I can literally give you examples of where , in 2024! So let’s listen to these editors as they are more familiar with these sources. ] (]) 07:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Reliable sources can churn out a lot of rubbish once in a while. No matter what anyone says, the likes of Vanguard, Guardian, Daily Times, Punch, Daily Independent, The Sun, etc, would always be notable relating to general issues about Nigeria. Some weeks back, a state in Nigeria held their governorship election. These media houses in question were the source of verified information about the election. When a political appointment is made by the president, it is the same media houses that Misplaced Pages editors would use to establish the claim. If we make them unreliable, it means we are putting an end to Nigerian contents on English Misplaced Pages. These media houses will dish out promotional materials whenever they want and we can do nothing about it (it is business for them). All we can do as Wikipedians is to speedy norminate articles for deletion if they are not notable to be on the Wiki. The major issue we are having now is a result of a loophole in the notability criteria. GNG should not be used '''ALONE''' to establish notability. ] (]) 10:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| cited about racism in the middle east | |||
| ::If these media houses(e.g The Daily Times) are churning out AI generated puff pieces then we should indeed add a cautionary clause in the guideline that care must be taken when using these sources to establish notability, especially at venues such as AfD. - ] (]) 12:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :GNG still works. The sources have to be independent. What this means is that in the case of Nigerian media, it's tricky but necessary to try and determine if a particular report is independent of the subject.--] (] | ]) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Judging articles on a case-by-case basis is something we (Nigerian editors) are already doing and believe it or not, we’re doing a damn good job at it. Deprecating these sources means that articles on Nigerian topics would be deleted in batches——thousands, if I might add——and this doesn’t necessarily reflect the systemic bias we are supposed to be fighting. | |||
| :There are tells that give off a sponsored/paid article and every Nigerian editor in good standing already knows this and by this, I vehemently disagree with Hemiauchenia that Nigerian editors are not able to distinguish a reliable source from an unreliable source. | |||
| :Also, I think sometimes, what we consider as “poor journalism” (in the Western standard) are just Nigerian journalist (correctly) using ] to write articles that it seems like it is promo. This does not mean that undisclosed paid journalism does not happen but sometimes, we confuse the two. So, this is me opposing any form deprecations as this will have unintended consequences. Best, ] 12:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have ] that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - ] (]) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], uhm, if Indian editors did so, someone took the liberty of doing it for us (]): ]; no one is opposing it. Best, ] 16:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It is true that Nigerian news outlet like their Western counterparts (RSBIAS?) do publish opinions, promotional and advertorials like reliable news without explicitly marking them as much. In fact, this has long history in and it is mostly associated with UPE editors who want to create contents for their gain. | |||
| cited about antisemitism | |||
| Yet, deprecating Nigerian sources is not the solution. It will definitely do more harm than good to the visibility of the most populous black nation on earth. This means that we would have no reliable source to either curate or create contents. This is just an indirect way of saying that Nigerian content is no longer acceptable on English Misplaced Pages. This is because reliable sources are the backbone of contents creation. | |||
| cited about antisemitism in Europe | |||
| Prior to this discussion, we have been sending a lot of articles with promotional sources to ]. This is what we can do from our end. We can neither stop people creating them nor stop the media from doing their business. | |||
| Also, there is currently a section at ] tagged ] notifying reviewers and editors of caution in dealing with Nigeria sources. This alongside thorough analysis of Nigerian sources should drastically reduce the promotional articles and create a better future for Nigerian contents on the English Misplaced Pages.] (]) 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| cited about extremism in general | |||
| :We cannot disregard Nigerian sources entirely. Yes, there are issues with some outlets, such as publishing promotional content or reworded press releases, but this isn’t unique to Nigeria. Even in countries with established media systems, there are sources that can’t always be trusted. The solution isn’t to write off all Nigerian sources but to evaluate them individually. Some articles might be biased or promotional, and we can avoid those. However, there are also credible reports and investigative pieces from Nigerian media that meet our standards. By treating each source on a case-by-case basis, we strike a balance, avoiding systemic bias while ensuring the content we use is reliable. A blanket approach would only create more gaps in coverage, which isn’t what we want for Misplaced Pages. And as {{u|Reading Beans}} mentioned, we Nigerian editors are already doing a good work judging sources on a case-by-case basis. ''''']''''' ] 17:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ], the only keep argument is based on just the above "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?". This is why they should not be acceptable because content is being created (and defended) using dubious sources (on the very grounds those sources are being defended here, false allegations of racism or false balance). ] (]) 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Such a statement from a suspected UPE with limited knowledge around ] and ] shouldn't hold water let alone be used as a basis or argument for the deprecation of an sources of information. The volunteer are doing enormous tasks to ensure content that doesn't meet the English Misplaced Pages standard is nominated for deletion. ] (]) 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| cited about extremism in general | |||
| :{{u|Slatersteven}}, like already stated above, every sources presented in an AfD discussion is analysed carefully. FYI, majority of !delete votes there are Nigerian editors and the only keep !vote there being the paid creator (whom I suspect of UPE). If you can get a deletion discussion where a non-notable article was kept and defend with unreliable sources, I would appreciate it. Like the examples shown, the unreliable of the published articles were always pointed out and the articles were (correctly) deleted. Best, ] 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::No. No. No. my friend, @], I have told you ever and anon that this editor is not into UPE. So STOP THE SUSPICION and even voicing it out. It is affecting the reviewing of my articles. It is a blessing in disguise that my article brought this intense discussion. My take away from here is the guide being created for Nigerian sources and the caution I will employ in future creations. ] (]) 18:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :What I'm seeing in that AfD, and in the others mentioned that all ended in deletion, is editors using their own good judgement to deal with this issue. Hopefully the new advice at NEWSORGNIGERIA will help encourage other editors to use the same caution. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :], if someone argues "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?", the response should be "no, we don't. We're rejecting notability based on these specific Nigerian articles, because (a) the articles being used to assert notability all focus on a single "event," (b) the articles are extremely similar and might have been content farmed, especially since they seem overly promotional (e.g., it's not a "prestigous" award, it's solely based on number of hours volunteered and being nominated by a relevant organization), and (c) US government info about the award makes it clear that she's not eligible for that award (as she's not a US citizen or permanent resident), which means that ''these'' articles aren't reliable for ''this'' content. But the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do ''you'' have evidence of the latter? ] (]) 23:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which is what Im did say, more than once. To me met with stonewalling "but that's racism" comments (and still am), at which point if the best argument you have is emotive, I have to assume you have no others, thus Im assume its an accepted problem with them. And as this is about "reputation for fact-checking" and the best argument is "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism"...well I have to assume they dio not have said reputation.] (]) 10:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, but I'm not sure what the referent of "them" is in "Im assume its an accepted problem with them." | |||
| :::As for the rest, my argument ''isn't'' "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism." My argument is "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable ''doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable''. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do '''you''' have evidence of the latter?" You still haven't presented any evidence that articles from Nigerian news media are ''generally'' unreliable. Either you have evidence for that or you don't. ] (]) 14:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] ]. ] (]) 11:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Did you actually read those articles? Neither one makes any mention of any of the Nigerian news outlets identified in the OP. The BBC piece is about ''new'' websites "established around the time of Nigeria's general elections in February 2023." The SSRC piece is about "the spread of disinformation and ''how social media has only furthered this spread'' by providing new, fast-moving arenas for confirming and amplifying such false information" in Nigeria, including uptake by traditional news media, while noting that "The increasing threat to democratic institutions posed by disinformation is a ''global phenomenon''." ] (]) 14:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Vangaurd and The nation ]. ] (]) 14:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::"This story is part of a series by the BBC on disinformation and fake news - ''a global problem'' challenging the way we share information and perceive the world around us," where this particular article focused on the "spread of fake news in Africa" by looking at how five false stories — one each from five African countries, including Nigeria — was picked up by some news media in those countries. Yes, "The Nation and the Vanguard, both published stories with a very similar theme" to one of those false stories, but absolutely nothing in the BBC article suggests that Nigerian news media are ''generally unreliable''. Is there any country globally where the BBC couldn't write an analogous report? For example, another BBC in this series is "How President Trump took 'fake news' into the mainstream." ] (]) 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You have it in reverse, we judge a source on its reputation for fact-checking, I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not, it down to you to show they do, We do not judge sources based upon how local editors will police pagers, but on the sources alone. ] (]) 13:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{tq|I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not ]}} No, you haven't. Nothing you cited says anything about their reputation or suggests that they're ''generally unreliable''. If you believe that something you cited provided evidence of ''general unreliability'', please quote what you have in mind. {{tq|it down to you to show they do}} I haven't claimed that they have a reputation for fact-checking, so I have no burden to prove that they do (and more generally, if you want me to show something that I've said is true, just quote it, so we're both clear about the claim in question). What I said is (again): "the fact that ''these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable'' doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are ''generally unreliable''. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter." Fram proposed "to formally deprecate these newspapers," and you responded with "a firm '''not reliable'''." Since you're claiming that they're ''generally unreliable'', you have a burden to show that they're ''generally unreliable''. ] (]) 14:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I finally dug up an old AfD comment I'd made after reading a bunch of literature on Nigerian sources:{{pb}}Nigerian newspapers in particular are well known to on paid advertising. {{tq|Professor Omenugha describes a similar trend in the print media: “In the newspapers, the so called specialised pages of the property, IT and computer businesses and finance pages are prime examples of commercialised spaces. The point is that no attempt is made to let the audience or readers know that these spaces are paid for and they end up holding them as sacred as they would news”.}} {{tq|Some journalists also work as paid consultants to politicians and businesses thus threatening professionalism. AIT’s Amarere says it is demeaning to journalism as “some of the concerned journalists now work for companies through which they obtain jobs. They cover their track by saying they are staff of this or that company and run offices outside the newsroom. In this situation it is difficult to balance profession with commercial interest”.}} "Awards" issued by media are also considered corrupt. {{tq|“The awards are not free, they are for money and anything that comes with a prize has implications”, says Olumide Adeyinka-Fusika, a lawyer. “If a newspaper names a bank as the best bank of the year and the bank is later indicted for corruption, that newspaper will not be willing to publish the story because that will be like passing a vote of no confidence on their own judgement”.}} ] (]) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Here are some other references: {{pb}}{{tq|For example, such practices as pack journalism by beat associations of journalists which operate like cartels, the payment of protection fees by reputation managers of institutions, the granting of awards of dubious credibility to non deserving individuals and organisations are some of the ways in which corruption manifests in the media.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|Even though over 64 % of those sampled believed that acceptance of any form of gratifications was unethical, over 75 % of the<br>journalists engage in corrupt practices with impunity. More than half of the 18 media outfits covered by the study are indifferent to certain identified corrupt practices in their organizations.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|Adewale (2008), in his "The Rot in Nigerian Journalism Is Much Deeper Than We Thought" cited a controversial statement by Graham Greene to back up his position thus: "A petty reason perhaps why novelists more and more try to keep a distance from journalists is that novelists are trying to write the truth and journalists are trying to write fiction". This embarrassing irony aptly describes the state of Nigerian journalism and journalists in particular.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|In its mildest form, press releases are published almost verbatim. Reporters either have an agreement with the government media men and are ‘settled’ with money, or threatened they will not be paid what is known as ‘qua”, or ‘mobilisation”. Some papers don’t pay salaries, and journalists have to make what they can on commission. In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men. Newspapers have a straight conflict of interest, they are financially reliant on political adverts, full-page colour hagiographies to governors and other political players. Last year, one paper alone took an estimated £270,000 in advertisements on one edition from supporters of former military ruler Ibrahim Babangida, celebrating his birthday.}} ] (]) 01:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think we need something similar to ] for Nigerian media as well. - ] (]) 03:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@] the "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome" is an auto-expiring link that doesn't let anyone else use it. Could you provide a better link/where you found the original link? ] (]) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Clicking the link from should work. ] (]) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::All seriousness aside, {{tq|In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men}} - those powerful men should just buy the newspaper or hell even a whole media empire to rebroadcast their personal opinions. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I was pointed to this discussion by @] after a similar discussion when I ran across ]. It does seem like much of Nigerian media simply writes whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay for. It seems like these sources should simply be banned except in cases where it is clear that the article was not purchased. ]] 00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{ctop|unhelpful ChatGPT wall of text}} | |||
| ::::::::My humble take and summary from these deep debates: | |||
| ::::::::'''Analysis of Nigerian Newspapers as Sources for Misplaced Pages Articles''' | |||
| ::::::::The reliability of Nigerian newspapers as sources for Misplaced Pages articles—particularly in Biographies of Living People (BLPs)—has ignited considerable debate within the Misplaced Pages editing community. A complex interplay of skepticism regarding the veracity of these sources and the recognition of systemic biases in coverage dynamics has led to high-stakes discussions. This report delves into the characteristics of Nigerian newspapers that contribute to their portrayal as unreliable, as well as those that underscore their potential value as information sources, and the broader implications for Misplaced Pages's commitment to inclusivity and diverse representation. | |||
| ::::::::'''Characteristics Leading to Distrust''' | |||
| ::::::::Nigerian newspapers often face criticism for their propensity to publish promotional content, undisclosed advertorials, and sensibly sensationalized reporting. This trend raises significant concerns regarding the integrity of journalism in the country. A primary issue is the commercial influence on editorial decisions, wherein advertising dollars can lead to the suppression of unfavorable stories or the propagation of misleading information to satisfy financial backers. | |||
| ::::::::High-profile examples, such as the case of a female personality—where numerous Nigerian news outlets reported unverified claims regarding an award from America—underscored the media’s failure to provide corroborative sources from outside Nigeria. Such instances not only reveal a troubling trend toward questionable journalism but also invite closer scrutiny of the claims made by various outlets. | |||
| :::::::: | |||
| ::::::::The environment fostered by these publications has seen a shift toward prioritizing clickable, viral content over factual reporting. This prioritization can obscure quality journalism and make it increasingly difficult for both editors and readers to discern credible information from misleading narratives. Such practices contribute significantly to the stigma that Nigerian newspapers face in the eyes of the Misplaced Pages community. | |||
| ::::::::'''Reliability in Context''' | |||
| ::::::::While there exists a notable trend of unreliable reporting among many Nigerian newspapers, it is critical to contextualize this within the broader media landscape of Nigeria. Not all publications succumb to dubious practices; several outlets continue to uphold high journalistic standards, successfully publishing well-researched investigative reports and reliable coverage of current events. For instance, reputable newspapers often play an essential role in reporting on significant political developments, including elections, thereby contributing positively to public discourse. | |||
| ::::::::From the perspective of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for sourcing (specifically WP:RSNP), engaging in a case-by-case assessment of sources is pivotal. This approach emphasizes the necessity for editors well-versed in the Nigerian media landscape to identify which sources maintain their integrity and contribute substantively to Misplaced Pages’s mission. A blanket rejection or deprecation of all Nigerian sources would, therefore, overlook the valuable contributions that some publications make, ultimately hampering the representation of Nigerian voices in global discourse. | |||
| ::::::::'''Recommendations for Misplaced Pages Editors''' | |||
| ::::::::1. '''Develop Specific Guidelines''': Create detailed guidelines akin to those for other regions, such as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. This document should articulate the acceptable use of Nigerian sources while pinpointing common issues like promotional materials and the nature of reporting practices. Such clarity will assist editors in evaluating sources effectively. | |||
| ::::::::2. '''Engage Local Expertise:''' Encourage the involvement of Nigerian editors in determining the reliability of local sources. Their unique insights can significantly enhance the community's understanding of the nuances of language and reporting styles prevalent in Nigeria. | |||
| ::::::::3. '''Enforce Critical Scrutiny''': Emphasize the importance of thorough evaluations of articles from Nigerian newspapers, particularly regarding BLPs. Editors and reviewers should be trained to recognize promotional language and ensure the use of independent, verifiable sources. | |||
| ::::::::4. '''Adapt to Changes in Media Landscape''': Continuously monitor and research the evolving landscape of Nigerian media, documenting improvements in journalistic integrity and the emergence of new, credible news organizations. This ongoing reassessment will allow Misplaced Pages policies regarding sourcing to adapt in line with current practices. | |||
| :::::::: 5. '''Maintain a Balance in Coverage''': While it is essential to prioritize accurate information and avoid systemic bias, it is equally crucial to reflect the diverse perspectives from non-Western countries. Dismissing all Nigerian sources could marginalize important voices, undermining Misplaced Pages's mission of being a comprehensive encyclopedia. | |||
| ::::::::Finally, the integration of Nigerian newspapers into Misplaced Pages remains a multifaceted challenge that requires a balanced approach acknowledging both their shortcomings and their capacity for delivering credible information. By applying informed scrutiny and developing nuanced guidelines, Misplaced Pages can adeptly navigate the complexities involved in sourcing from Nigerian media while committing to enhancing its inclusivity and representation in global knowledge sharing. ] (]) 18:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That's not "your humble take", that's a bloated ChatGPT-generated regurgitation of this discussion. ] (]) 21:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{cbot}} | |||
| *'''Comment''' pretty much everything has already been said; the news media in Nigeria seem to be in the habit of puffing everyone and everything. As with the Indian news sources, we almost have to evaluate each news story on a case-by-case basis. We can keep Nigerian sources, but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability. The sources in the country are in the habit of puffy reporting, we just have to learn to use them. ] (]) 01:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'd be ok if we create a policy similar to the NewsOrgIndia ... We allow the sources, but to be taken with a grain of salt. ] (]) 01:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::See ]. What did you mean by “…{{tq|but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability.}}”? Best, ] 05:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@]'s addition of ] is helpful but the link to the unvetted WikiProject list is not, in my opinion. It lists, for example, ] as "reliable" which is the publication I ] which seemed to have drawn the conclusion to disregard promo and use with caution. It also lists pretty much every newspaper which reported inaccurately sparking this thread as "reliable" | |||
| *:Beyond the issue of promo, "Nigeria is one of West Africa’s most dangerous and difficult countries for journalists, who are regularly monitored, attacked and arbitrarily arrested, as was the case during the 2023 elections." ]] 10:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@] What sort of opinionated and unstructured comment did you just make? What do you mean by "unvetted WikiProject list"? Do you, by any chance, know the efforts I and few other editors who are Nigerians have put to bring up that list? Please be careful when making comments, especially when the topic has to do with one you're not entirely familiar with. As far as I am concerned, you cannot call a list which I have put efforts in contributing to "unvetted", the comment is not only unreasonable but also incorrect. | |||
| *::I couldn't locate the thread you linked but whatever you brough up there are your opinion. I know the efforts I have been putting at AfD when it comes to Nigerian sources. Be careful, please, with all due respect. | |||
| *::In a more general note, this thread is not going anywhere, '']'' is a reliable source of information whether anyone "who is not a Nigerian" likes it or not, in fact, any source listed in the WikiProject as reliable is indeed reliable. The Herald, Guardian, New York Times, and other UK or US papers all publish nonsense piece as well, no one is permitted to call Nigerian sources unreliable because there are only a few Nigerian editors? I can't tell. I guess when this thread was initiated it was thought that there'd be no editor to oppose. SMH. ] (]) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The link they are referring to has been archived, see ].<br>In regard to {{tq|who is not a Nigerian}} There are many non-Nigerians who don't agree with the comment that started this thread. I both support and encourage projects to maintain there own sources lists, as they most likely to have knowledge of that particular area, but they are subject to ] and so from to time discussions like this will happen. The net result of this discussion has been ], which only writes down the advice that has been given in many other discussions. | |||
| *:::If any editor wants to discuss a particular source they believe has issue outside of what's already covered by ] I suggest they start a new section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::@] last time we discussed This Day, you pointed out that they . Currently, top of the advertorials is . As you noted, there is no indication on the article that this is an advertorial and it looks like a normal news item. . | |||
| *::::How can this be a reliable source when advertorials are completely indistinguishable from reporting? ]] 15:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Because otherwise it would result in the making all news organisations in multiple countries completely unusable, and it wouldn't be limited to India and Nigeria. Such undisclosed advertorials are common in a lot of countries, and will likely become more common not less due to the changes effecting news media across the globe. It wouldn't help to improve the encyclopedia by saying that such vast swathes of the news media are generally unreliable, and in many ways that isn't a fit description for the sources. They are reliable for many things, but not for the promotional nature of these advertorials. | |||
| *:::::As has been said before the AfDs show that noone is being fooled. Editors are correctly spotting when this is happening and acting accordingly. Promo content being added to Misplaced Pages is certainly not an issue limited to these countries, just look to all the reputation management companies found elsewhere. | |||
| *:::::Ultimately it's what effect should be had. We don't want those advertorials being used to add promo content to Misplaced Pages, that is achieved by ]. So do we need to class all those news media organisations as generally unreliable, will that help to improve the encyclopedia? I very much doubt it would. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Are they? How are they being spotted? For example, see ] - there are many sources here but every single one of them appears more dubious than the two advertorial examples linked above. For an active AfD, see ]. It was moved out of drafts by an editor who is now blocked and the editors voting keep simply insist that the sources are reliable without any evaluation. ]] 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::(Pinging you is difficult) Let me be blunter, you deletion rationale in that AfD {{tq|Sources all appear to be ]}} is not only unappealing but also vague. Why? you simply said that "ALL" of them are NEWSORGNIGERIA without telling us what analysis you did that made you come to that conclusion. I figured since we're not doing anything in-dept here, it would make sense to also tell you, since this area is my expertise, that the subject clear-cut passed GNG. If you did any analysis and showed it, then we'd be discussing what you analysed and not something else. ] (]) 18:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I do not get the impression that advertorials are regularly passed off as real news in countries with strong protections for journalism. What the academic papers I linked earlier were emphasizing is that Nigeria has a striking systematic problem with unethical journalism that goes beyond what is seen in respectable broadsheets (the "brown envelope syndrome" being one example) and appears to affect ''all'' major outlets. The last link talks about an egregious political advert for Babangida's birthday that ran in the ]—listed as generally reliable—and characterizes the newspapers as being ''reliant'' upon such revenue sources. Some of the other journals note that several newspapers don't even pay their journalists; surely at least those should be considered generally unreliable? ] (]) 02:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Not sure why you're responding with so much emotion. It would be better to discuss this dispassionately. Your reply doesn't actually explain why a publication like This Day, which publishes disguised promotions, should be viewed as reliable. @] also provides very compelling evidence above which has not been rebutted. ]] 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Maybe the rather emotionally charged use of "unvetted" to describe another editors work had something to do with it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::So, my reply is emotional to you, and you think I am dispassionate, lol. I'll entirely ignore this your comment. ] (]) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| People may defend ], but when I see that e.g. The Nation is considered "generally reliable" but publishes (with a byline!) e.g. pure promo drivel (used in a new article here, not something I went looking for especially), then it is hard to take that list or the defense of it seriously. It turns out to be (at least in part) a copy of a four year old article from the Vanguard, not some actual journalistic effort by the Nation, but how could one tell? ] (]) 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| (and several more articles on the same subject that I'm too lazy to copy now) cited about extreme right | |||
| == ] / ] == | |||
| mentioned as a source on on Anti-Government Extremism | |||
| Used for many claims throughout pages for CBM movies, such as ], ], ], and ], including those which are otherwise unverifiable like Victor von Doom appearing in the first or that Spider-Man was supposed to appear in ] but was cut. | |||
| (and several more articles on the same subject that I'm too lazy to copy now) cited about hate crimes | |||
| I really do not see why his claims is so widely allowed and accepted as fact, even though he is undoubtedly more reliable than random blogs or posts on Twitter he's still a journalist making claims without evidence. I would like to establish here definitively if we continue to site theinsneider.com as a source, as we currently do in many articles. ] (he/him • ]) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 2021: | |||
| :I did a Google News search and when other outlets report his stuff it is described as a rumour or "reportedly". He is also described as a "scooper". I don't think most of that should be used on Misplaced Pages because of NOTNEWS. Rumours about media that haven't been released yet aren't even news yet. Does he say that he got his info from a source? Then it should be attributed to that source. It also looks like a SPS. So everything sourced to him should be attributed, but even then it probably shouldn't be used. ] (]) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| PNAS article cites ADL on global antisemitism | |||
| ::Right now, much of what is sourced to him is just taken as face value, for example Doom is listed in the cast for the Fantastic Four movie without clarification that it's based off a claim by him. My changes to remove such information from the pages were undone, so there seems to be some ambiguity if he is currently accepted as a RS. ] (he/him • ]) 18:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :For any stories about named people (e.g. casting), ] would probably bar use of this source, since he's self-published. His record on this is at best mixed from a quick search. For example, he reported that ] would be starring in a new Johnny Depp film, which was swiftly denied, kept posting that it was true, and then a few months later, ] was announced as the co-star. | |||
| :I did some digging and apparently he made a recent post, copied here, , in which he says {{tq|This may speak to my own reckless vanity, but I’d rather be wrong sometimes than sit on 100 accurate stories and stand idly by and watch as Nellie Andreeva breaks every single one of them. Yes, it’s nauseating to get a story wrong — seriously, it makes me sick to my stomach — but it’s an even worse feeling when you don’t report something and then get beat by the competition.}} If that's his attitude to reporting, then it would probably be best if we don't use him for non-BLP subjects as well. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've removed everything that clearly failed ] and tried to beef up non-BLP uses of this (e.g. filming dates, projects in development) with better sources that cite his work. Honestly most reputable don't really cite him and hedge by using "rumoured" or "reportedly" and cannot corroborate. Definitely not an ideal source and probably runs afoul of ], especially if not picked up by better sources citing him at all. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In the future it would be appreciated if you notified other editors of such a discussion rather than going on what I would describe as a deletion rampage, making dozens of edits to remove a source that is widely deemed to be reliable. Sneider clearly meets the SME requirement at ], he is a long time film and entertainment journalist whose work has previously been published by various reliable sources. The fact that he is now self-publishing his reporting does not now make him unreliable, which is what the wording at SELFPUB caters for. If you take issue with specific claims he has made or the wording of specific claims then the place to discuss those is at the talk pages of the articles in question, not here where the majority of editors will never see it. - ] (]) 09:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| cited about extremism in general | |||
| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| :I have notified editors at ], ], ], ], and ]. I think that should cover all the articles impacted so far by this discussion. - ] (]) 09:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :No idea what these are, clicking on the links seems to bring up random texts eg the first one for 2024 brings up "Closing Civic Space in the United States: Connecting the Dots, Changing the Trajectory"? Second one brings up "Chapter 3: Patterns of AGE across Countries" so I didn't bother reading any more after that, you need proper citations if we are to take this seriously. ] (]) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :For a lot of these pages, the relevant policy isn't ], but ], since the InSneider is self publishing reporting about living people (e.g. A didn't role B, C got fired because of D, E might be in F). BLPSPS is a bright-line rule and while ] exists, superhero movie rumours isn't going to justify that. This is especially true when non-selfpublished exist to cover the same claims or when ] applies. | |||
| :For example, your revert at ] restored The InSneider when the material in the sentence is already fully supported by the already cited ] piece and your revert at ] restored material alleging very specific allegations of sexual misconduct with young men that is corroborated by independent sources . I've reverted the latter given the serious BLP issues there. | |||
| :It's less of an issue when the BLP-connection is less direct such as when it's talking about a film production in general (e.g. G starts filming in H, I was delayed to J, K is in development at L), but even SELFPUB recommends replacing with better sources when possible and I highlighted some reliability issues with Sneider above. | |||
| :I have also notified ] since this touches on BLPSPS. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you are forgetting that there is a very big distinction between Sneider's pieces written for Collider and other RS and those he written on his own blog. He speculates much more and gives unverified, evidence-free information on his blog than he does when working with publications, and he isn't impeded by an editor or journalistic oversight in his own website. | |||
| :If you want to see ''proof'' that Sneider has made false and provably false claims on his own website before, then there's of all the time he has made false claims thanks to the people at the subreddit for Marvel spoilers. Among the falsehoods he has promoted on his site include that the Fantastic Four movie would start filming in March, that Adam Driver was cast as Doom, that Jack Quaid was cast as Johnny Storm, and that Tom Holland was going to appear as a full role in Across the Spider-Verse. Sneider should be used in articles ''only'' when he is writing for reliable sources, otherwise we are inviting unsourced and oftentimes completely imagined speculation on our pages. ] (he/him • ]) 18:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh wow, so he's basically correct about 2/3 of the time. Not terrible, I guess for online postings, but this would seem to fall well-short for ] purposes, much less making an exception for ]. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think we should be letting some people from a Reddit community dictate what they think is true or false to determine notability on this encyclopedia. I understand Sneider gets a bad rap from some people and in the press, but he does qualify as a ] in the field of entertainment news. I am subscribed to his newsletter and Sneider does a pretty good job clarifying what he is actually reporting from what are his own opinions and beliefs. A lot of what he says in his newsletter tends to be blown out of proportion or taken out of context, and not everything pans out in the film industry. For the Sydney Sweeney thing, I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart and thus, Cruz came onboard, not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading. A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions (because they get ad revenue from major companies involved) but Sneider has a good track record of reporting on industry details, deals, and events as they are in progress, which goes for the Fantastic Four castings and Black Widow. I have been working on adding third-party sources for some of his recent newsletter issues being cited to help make verifying his reports easier, though this takes time. I do not agree with removing his published articles from Collider, Variety, or his newsletter outright as we cannot disregard a source simply because ] or you don't believe in it. We go by ], and report all the facts as presented, which is how an encyclopedia ought to be. I have not found any instances to my immediate recollection where editors cited a Sneider report only for it to be proven intentionally wrong or misleading. The Madame Web report was not disputed or debunked, and the recent reports of Superman and Beyond the Spider-Verse have since been clarified as a matter of semantics, not actually being intentional false news reporting on Sneider's part. A lot of what he says is regurgitated through aggregators and social media which tends to be less reliable or transparent than what he actually says in his newsletter or on his podcast The Hot Mic. I would not go as far as to say Sneider's newsletter reporting is "speculation", as he is an independent working journalist with 20+ years of experience in this profession. He knows his stuff but gets a lot of bad publicity from his social media activity and because some of his reporting hits a nerve with select communities. I would consider him a reliable source, but with clarification needed to specify when he is making an educated guess or providing an opinion alongside what he is reporting from his industry sources. ] (]) 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, because @] questioned what Sneider's sources are, I suppose it ought to be explained that every journalist gets their information from sources. These individuals are usually people who work within the industry they are reporting about, so they are often talent agents, managers, PR workers, producers, involved creatives in a production, etc. who have first-hand information and provide information as a tip to a journalist. Most of these sources prefer to remain anonymous, so we cannot just find who his sources are to verify their tips. That's just not how this industry works. Filming schedules and castings change all the time, so to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a ] and ] concern because no sources said these were absolutely false, and if you have any reliable sources saying Sneider specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report, that should be presented rather than just going off of some editors' opinions of a controversial figure. ] (]) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Anonymously-sourced reporting obviously can be used in RSs, but you're not really making a strong case for reliability and encyclopedic quality by defending Sneider with {{tq|to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false,}}. In respect to the Holland thing, it's not a good look to be confidently stating things about major casting at the tail end of February 2023 that then don't pan out upon release in at the end of May that year. Maybe he was right at the time, though no one else has corroborated this from what I can tell, but even then he would've published too early given he was ultimately wrong. | |||
| ::::{{tq|specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report}} would meet the standard for defamation of a public figure, but it isn't the standard for assessing if a particular source is reliable or a good indicator of if something is encyclopedic. If someone gets a lot of stuff wrong in good faith, they're still not reliable, especially in ] situations. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, using anonymous sources is common in journalism, but is not standard. The standard is to cite their sources. Sure, NYT and WaPo don't always follow their own guidelines on anonymous sources. Usually such guidelines involve mentioning that the information is from an anonymous source and giving clues as to the credibility of the source. When including information from anonymous sources, wikipedia should follow suite. If the NYT cites a "source close to the president" for a claim, the wikipedia article should also mention a "source close to the president" So how much info does Sneider give? | |||
| ::::Also, information should be verified. This might involve asking another source if they object to the publication of the information. Also, really, the studio should be asked to comment. If there is not a comment from the studio or a line saying that comment was sought, then best practices have not been followed. | |||
| ::::The idea that Sneider is a SME is questionable. The reporting in question seems to be a matter of insider knowledge not expertise. Basically, people are leaking the information to Sneider or gossiping to him about who will get the part. ] (]) 15:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::FYI, we are also not here to be ]. It is completely acceptable to note what an SME reports about an industry topic they have been covering for two decades now. The reports should be judged on a case-by-case basis to determine if Sneider has ever actually intentionally made any false or misleading statements and passed them off as a report directly by himself, and not by sheer opinion or a lack of or misunderstanding of the filmmaking process and journalistic procedures. ] (]) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even if he is 100% correct (which he isn't), none of his tweets and InSneider reports can be used per ] to verify anything about living people since they are self-published. There's presumably no issue with his work in non-self-published sources with editorial control like Collider, but for the self-published stuff in respect to living people (e.g. castings, cut scenes, staffing), Misplaced Pages has a bright line rule against it. The only stuff that is even allowed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for self-published stories would be for instances where it's being used for stuff that is general enough to not really implicate BLP (e.g. filming schedules, runtime, episode length). -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The whole sum of BLPSPS is that no self-published blogs may be used. Sneider's publishing is via a newsletter and is part of his job as a journalist. In what ways are his newsletter reports violating any core and basic BLP policies or how are they of a major concern to it beyond the X-Men '97 allegations. A lot of journalists nowadays are posting on their own outside of major trades or news organizations because those options have become more prevalent to do so. Anonymous sourcing is also how all journalists operate, so if we say journalists who post on their own cannot be cited as reliable sources for doing their job without disclosing their sources and having a company watch over them, that sets a very bad precedent for the freedom of the press and what we actually allow to be included, let alone mentioned, in this encyclopedia. If it applies to Sneider, it ought to apply to all self-published journalists and newsletters, and I don't see how that could go well. ] (]) 06:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's a misreading of BLPSPS, which says: {{tq|Never use self-published sources—'''including but not limited to''' books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—}} (emphasis added). Unless there's a clear organizational structure (e.g. ]), most newsletters are little more than self-published blogs. There's tons of great journalists with their own newsletters that I think are most likely reliable that I would love to cite (though Sneider may not be one of them), but BLPSPS is crystal clear on this front and for good reason. If you want to start a new discussion somewhere (here, ] ], etc.) on whether we should move to a case-by-case basis for journalistic SPSs, you can do that, but until then BLPSPS is policy and can't be overridden by ]. Don't really care about the anonymous sources issue, since that is an accepted norm for journalists. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Not all of the instances of Sneider's reports are about people themselves. They are primarily about the Hollywood projects which naturally involve people's jobs and castings. I fail to see how a technicality should prevent us from using a decent source at all. If the issue is of verification, find a third-party source verifying the report. This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. ] (]) 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{tq|This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that.}} The InSneider can be separately assessed for reliability for any claims not about living people, but as ] makes clear in the first sentence, it applies regardless of if the article is a biography or not, so the fact that Sneider is cited on movie articles is immaterial in respect to ]. | |||
| ::::::::There's been multiple discussions on this noticeboard about Substack and other newsletters involving much more prominent journalists than Sneider and the consensus has always been that BLPSPS bars their use in respect to living people unless the publication has editorial oversight and a reputation for reliability (e.g. ] , ] , ] , in general ) | |||
| ::::::::I don't object to the underlying facts per say if they are indeed verifiable through third-party sources. I did try to find non-self-published sources that independently corroborated what Sneider reported, and replaced InSneider with them when I did. I only removed when I was unable to do so. ] makes it clear that the onus to restore material removed for BLP issues is on those who want to restore it to do so in a policy-compliant way, which seems unlikely since nothing in this section has challenged the individually self-published nature of InSneider. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you for your lengthy examination of Sneider as a reliable source. I think a potential compromise that I hope the editors here could agree on- is to restructure all current citations to his self-published website so that it clearly states that it is journalist Jeff Sneider reporting. The example on ] that spurred me to open up this discussion in the first place, for example: | |||
| :::{{tq|Additionally, the character Mole Man is expected to appear, and Robert Downey Jr. is expected to appear as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.}} | |||
| :::could be reworded to: | |||
| :::{{tq|Journalist Jeff Sneider reported in 2024 that the character Mole Man is expected to appear, as well as Robert Downey Jr. as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.}} | |||
| :::This would be done for every single citation that uses his personal site. I see your arguments defending his inclusion as a verifiable source, but I also feel as the central issue here- that a lot of pages take him at face value as equivalent to official news from Deadline or Marvel Studios themselves, should still be rectified. We could also add him to the RS list as a source that can be used in the articles ''with attribution only.'' | |||
| :::Thoughts? @] @] @] ] (he/him • ]) 05:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For anything that involves stories about living people, this would be BLP violation, attribution or not, since The InSneider is a self-published source and that's barred by ]. If no other sources are writing about it besides a self-published report from Sneider, that's a good indicator that we shouldn't include it on Misplaced Pages. Attribution for stuff like "Mole Man" might be okay depending on Sneider's reliability and how tied that is to a specific actor in the text. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I support attribution being applied to Sneider's reports, and most of the instances where his reports are used already do this in prose while third-party refs are being added to them. The BLP violation reads to me like a bit of a stretch with semantics itself and could probably be re-evaluated when it comes to journalists reporting as part of their job. Reporting on allegations should not be a reason to be barred as a source when major news outlets do the same. ] (]) 06:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tq|Reporting on allegations a reason to be barred as a source}} is a straw man. Major news outlets have a reputation for fact checking and reliability, while Sneider has had multiple confirmed reports not pan out. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Which ones have not panned out? ] (]) 07:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sweeny, Lindelof, and Holland make at least three incorrect reports in approximately a year. If I did more spot checks from the spreadsheet, there would probably be more. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Again, not everything in Hollywood pans out. That does not mean the reports were false. Unless other independent sources confirmed they were false, you are assuming they were not true, which draws into some dangerous POV issues here on your apparent bias. I have asked you to provide sources which confirm Sneider's reports were false, and you have provided none of the sort. ] (]) 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Lots of stuff in all kinds of different fields don't pan out. However, if a source often reports things as confirmed and they don't pan out, there's a reliability/jumping the gun issue and its starts falling into unencyclopedic ] territory. The end result is that Sneider either misjudged how correct the story originally was or how likely that status quo was going to remain. If you look at the Deadline and Variety archives, they only reported on certainties in respect to the Sweeey/Holland/Lindelof stories (i.e. Cruz hiring/nothing/hiring and departure). | |||
| :::::::::Genuine question, does Sneider ever issue corrections/retractions or do retrospectives on why he got stories wrong? Obviously sometimes reliable sources get it wrong, and the proper thing to do in that case is to issue corrections/retractions. | |||
| :::::::::I think I've seen only even heard of Sneider once before (when the X-Men '97/Beau DeMayo story was happening) so to accuse me of bias is wild when you've created a position where it is functionally unfalsifiable that Sneider could ever be wrong. If it pans out, he was correct. If it doesn't, he was correct but things changed afterwards, despite in many cases no reliable sources backing up his original story. Sneider isn't important enough for something like the ] or an an actual reliable source to investigate his methods and he uses anonymous sources (which isn't an issue in and of itself) so it's essentially impossible to prove if any of his reports are false in a way that would satisfy you. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I think that is an argument for waiting until things are officially announced, before putting them in the article. The problem isn't Sneider, but the kind of reporting that he is doing. He is reporting other people's predictions. He also isn't a SME. He is a reporter that chases leads and reports what may be hearsay or leaks or outright lies by his sources. He is reporting on Hollywood, after all. ] (]) 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{reply to|HadesTTW}} I just saw that you pinged me in this message. I agree that a good resolution here would be to add Sneider to the RS list as an SME for entertainment reporting as long as he is attributed, and potentially with the caveat that his self-published sources should be replaced with non-self-published sources if available. - ] (]) 15:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You can spot check the examples used and some definitely seem to hold up as poor reporting. Besides the Holland/Across the Spider-Verse example I discussed above another one I spot checked was this comment made March 9, 2023, in which Sneider says it's 100% confirmed that ]'s Star Wars film would be coming out in December 2025 film. On March 21, 2023, Lindelof's departure is announced. | |||
| :::{{tq|I am subscribed to his newsletter}} Can you confirm if the quotation from the post I cited is correct then? It matched the title of this post from InSneider and it went unchallenged in the thread and seemed to match the style from what I've found. | |||
| :::{{tq|not everything pans out in the film industry.}}, {{tq| I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart...not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading.}} and {{tq|A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions}}. I don't think Sneider is maliciously creating false reports or anything, but if he's reporting too early on things that aren't confirmed yet while the major trade publications are reporting when it's certain, that does not bode well for his reliability nor for the encyclopedic value of his coverage (]). | |||
| :::{{tq|removing his published articles from Collider, Variety}} Pretty sure no one here is suggesting that. The main issue is ] and then reliability as a ]. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sneider's report and those quotes are correct from his newsletter. I have no idea what "thread" you are referring to, but a lot can change and happen in the 12 days between Sneider saying Lindelof's film was confirmed for that release and when Lindelof ultimately exited the film. That's just how Hollywood, and all of business, pans out. You can't seriously hold that against Sneider to say his statement is false when Disney's Star Wars films have pretty much languished with ] issues for years. Even major trades report on projects in early development and when directors or writers are in talks. That's just what the trades do. They report on the production process, which is always in flux. ] (]) 07:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you for the confirmation. I copied the quotation from a Reddit thread from a film podcast subreddit which I linked in my comment above. I dealt with how the other trades operate and the issues with using Sneider for the truth of what he's reporting above, so I won't repeat them here. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{OD}} | |||
| <br> | |||
| Alrighty, I wrote the below on ] and I'm copying this below. | |||
| '''Jeff Sneider being used as a source in Hollywood reporting'''.<br> | |||
| ::The JSTOR interface contains a "cite" button. If you click on it, it supplies you with the proper citation of the source. For example for the first 3 sources you will get these: | |||
| Jeff Sneider's reports, found in his ''TheInSneider'' blog and also ''Above the Line'', have been covered in several other reliable sources. | |||
| ::Kleinfeld, Rachel. “Notes.” ''Closing Civic Space in the United States: Connecting the Dots, Changing the Trajectory'', Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2024, pp. 31–40 | |||
| His career besides his self-published blog: He has had two notable tenures at '']'', and in between those two tenures, he had a stint at '']'' covering the film industry. This is confirmed , with information on his tenure at ''Variety''. '']'' also as Senior Film Reporter, and says he did work at '']'' before his venture into trade publications, and at one point he contributed reports for '']''. | |||
| ::Molas, Bàrbara, et al. “Patterns of AGE across Countries.” ''Anti-Government Threats and Their Transnational Connections'', International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, 2024, pp. 18–28. | |||
| ::Pantucci, Raffaello, and Kalicharan Veera Singam. “Extreme Right-Wing in the West.” ''Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses'', vol. 16, no. 1, 2024, pp. 106–11 | |||
| ::I'm sure you can manage to do it on your own for the other references. ] (]) 13:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::No thanks, these are obviously just passing references. ] (]) 13:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Doesn't matter if they're passing or not. Vegan416 is trying to establish reputation for reliability based on use by others, not notability. ] (]) 13:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, it does matter. The ''way'' in which a source is used matters, not just the fact that they're being cited. If a source is cited with attribution to illustrate its own opinion, or simply to establish that a high-profile advocacy org said X, that doesn't necessarily imply any reliability at all; and if a source is cited in passing for uncontroversial or less-important things, that isn't as significant as someone using it for the crux of their argument. The broader way a source is used is important because we're trying to answer the question of "is it treated like it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" But more generally I feel that ], especially when it's just a passing citation like this, is a weaker indicator of reliability or unreliability than actual ''coverage''; use by others can only roughly imply reliability, whereas sources that overtly describe something as unreliable are more clear-cut. --] (]) 00:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Right. It's the same general principle as the trivial versus significant coverage concept in deletion discussions, i.e. about ''quality'', not quantity. ] (]) 04:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But that's the whole idea of scholarly citations! Most scholarly articles do not rely on just one source but rather cite from many different sources which they regard to be reliable. Haven't you got any academic background? ] (]) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I know how to display a cite properly if that helps. ] (]) 14:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is not relevant. What do you think ] means? That we should only considers highly reliable source that rely singly on the source whose reliability we try to check??? This is a ridiculous interpretation. Scholarship (and high-quality journalism) do not work that way. ] (]) 14:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::More straw men. ] (]) 14:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Very little care in selection here. The Carnegie Endowment, for instance, is an advocacy group, not an academic journal. ] (]) 14:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This had already been addressed. Look at ] comment from 13:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC) who identified in JSTOR that the majority of 32 articles from peer review journals citing ADL as a reliable source in the last 3 years. ] (]) 15:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Diff where he discusses the Carnegie Endowment one from 2024 which I objected to specifically? ] (]) 15:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::He didn't look at my selection. Inspired by me he made a new search in JSTOR only in peer reviewed journals. His comment is right here below/ Search for the words "" on this page. PS while Carnegie Endowment might be called advocacy group, it is definitely not biased towards Israel or Zionism. ] (]) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Vegan416}} can you, for every source you cite, give the exact page number? For example, I have no idea where source talks about ADL, so I can examine the context for myself. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 22:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::While obviously it would have been more helpful to give page numbers, I don't think it's that big a deal. Using search, I can see that the ADL is cited in footnotes 72, 73 and 126. It might be easier to read on the publisher's webpage : {{tq|In 2023, Jewish organizations faced an epidemic of swatting incidents, in which a hoax reporting of a crime at a specific address brings armed police to a site at which they expect to confront violence. This increase took place prior to the spike in antisemitic threats and violence that occurred after October 7.72 Jewish organizations first witnessed an uptick in hateful rhetoric from the right after 2017 and from the left following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Threats from the illiberal left and right are now putting Jews at increased risk across a broader geography, spreading from threats at clearly Jewish organizations and synagogues to university campuses.73}} And: {{tq|The Anti-Defamation League challenged the 501(c)3 status of extremist organizations such as the Oath Keepers militia, whose leader was found by the Department of Justice to be guilty of seditious conspiracy.126}} These, to me, are good examples of a reliable source using ADL as a source for facts about antisemitism in an unproblematic way, in two cases without in-text attribution and in one case with. I would say this is good practice, and why we should avoid option 3-4 for the antisemitism topic area. ] (]) 12:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Many of the sources here are thinktank reports rather than peer-reviewed articles. Limiting to the latter by filtering gives . The majority of these treat the ADL as a reliable source, although a small number (e.g. in the '']'') criticise it and some are history articles that mention it without using it as a source. Particularly notable are Daniel Staetsky (praised as a model of excellent methodology by Nishidani elsewhere on this page) saying that his methodology builds on one of the ADL's surveys, a terrorism researcher listing ADL's HEATmap in a list of useful databases on extremism, and a review by a criminologist of various hate crime monitors that discusses ADL as a source precisely for this. In other words, quite a bit of USEBYOTHERS data. ] (]) 13:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The ADL may well be reliable for this or for that but there 3 RFCs, IP area, antisemitism and hate symbols. Stick to those. ] (]) 14:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] Well, if you look at the next to last source I brought, from PNAS which one of the top tier of peer reviewed journals, you will see that it cites the ADL twice on questions of antisemitism (Maybe @] missed it because it spells "Anti-Semitic" instead of "antisemitism"): | |||
| :::"Internationally, one recent global survey of 100 countries found that 32% of people who have heard of the Holocaust think that it is a myth or greatly exaggerated, including 63% in the Middle East and North Africa and 64% of Muslims in the region (11, 12)." | |||
| :::"11. Anti-Defamation League, ADL Poll of Over 100 Countries Finds More Than One-Quarter of Those Surveyed Infected With Anti-Semitic Attitudes. (2014). <nowiki>https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-global-100-poll</nowiki>. Accessed 27 March 2020." | |||
| :::12. Anti-Defamation League, New ADL Poll Finds Dramatic Decline in Anti-Semitic Attitudes in France; Significant Drops in Germany and Belgium. (2015). <nowiki>https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/new-poll-anti-semitic-attitudes-19-countries</nowiki>. Accessed 27 March 2020." | |||
| :::Here is the proper citation as you like it: | |||
| :::Nyhan, Brendan. “” ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America'', vol. 118, no. 15, 2021, pp. 1–7 ] (]) 17:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You said that these were ADL cites from after 2020, those are two ADL polls from 2014 and 2015. Besides that, so what? I don't think anyone has denied that the ADL is cited by others. ] (]) 17:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I meant that the citations appear in articles published after 2020. This is how the search works in JSTOR. And I explained why I brought those sources - ]. This is particularly relevant against option 3 and 4 that ADL should be deprecated or declared generally unreliable. ] (]) 17:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The RFCs are about specific areas, as regards the antisemitism RFC, most editors up to now appear to be arguing for attribution rather than gunrel. ] (]) 18:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::OK. I don't think it is necessary, but in order to achieve consensus I won't object to attribution. ] (]) 18:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Vegan416}} {{tq|cited about antisemitism (including in the Israel-Palestine context)}} - can you provide the ''exact'' quote where the ADL is being cited for something about the Israel-Palestine conflict? That is, the statement about the I/P conflict that they're being used as a citation for? I searched it myself and none of the citations to the ADL there even mention Israel or Palestine, nor were they used for parts of the paper discussing them. If it was an error or if you can't turn up a quote, could you strike the ''(including in the Israel-Palestine context)'' bit? --] (]) 00:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The specific example you asked about is a bit complicated because for some reason the footnotes have a separate link from the article itself. | |||
| ::Here is the article link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep58112.4?seq=9 | |||
| ::And here are the footnotes link (that's what I posted here before): https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep58112.11?seq=6 | |||
| ::The references to the ADL there are in footnote 73: | |||
| ::“Anti-Semitic Incidents Surged Nearly 60% in 2017, According to New ADL Report,” Anti-Defamation League, February 27, 2018, <nowiki>https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/anti-semitic-incidents-surged-nearly-60-2017-according-new-adl-report</nowiki>; “'''ADL Records Dramatic Increase in U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Following Oct. 7 Hamas Massacre''',” Anti-Defamation League, October 24, 2023, <nowiki>https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-records-dramatic-increase-us-antisemitic-incidents-following-oct-7</nowiki>; | |||
| ::This footnote is a footnote to this sentence in the article itself: "'''Jewish organizations first witnessed an uptick in hateful rhetoric from the right after 2017 and from the left following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Threats from the illiberal left and right are now putting Jews at increased risk across a broader geography''', spreading from threats at clearly Jewish organizations and synagogues to university campuses." | |||
| ::I think it is quite obvious that this talks about antisemitism in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. ] (]) 05:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| These following perennial sources have cited his self-published blog, exemplifying ''']''': | |||
| It has been argued in the survey above that ADL is fringe, including because it supports some version of the IHRA. E.g. {{tq|From an academic position, the ADL's position is fringe, not mainstream - much as religious adherents, despite their numbers, do not define the mainstream; scholars do.}} However, as this section shows, a significant number of scholars consider it a reliable source. I believe the ''Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism'' is the only academic journal focusing specifically on antisemitism. Looking at the articles in its recent issues that focus on the US, most cite the ADL, explicitly taking its attitudinal surveys and incident monitoring seriously. a chapter in a recent academic book taking it extremely serious as a reliable source. Historian ], the US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, spoke last month at one of its events. She cited the ADL in testimony she gave the House last month too. David Myers, a UCLA prof who spent the weekend defending the encampment there from Zionist counter-protestors, cites them as a reliable source for antisemitism figures.And there are so many other examples. If we diverge from this practice, it will be us who is fringe. ] (]) 12:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*'']'', including and | |||
| :''Forbes'' describes him as, "Jeff Sneider, an industry insider and reporter", and covers his reporting, even providing a link to another site he contributes to, ''Above the Line''. | |||
| :Worth noting that the ADL only appears to have crossed over into its extreme fringe conflationary position fairly recently – I'm not sure exactly when – so it's hard to know in terms of dating which sources can be said to intellectually support it. I do know it was by Hillel exactly three weeks ago. Reaching back to sources from several years back is not necessarily reflective of the most recent dark turn that's been taken by the organisation. This year began with the ADL's staff in an uproar, and Google "ADL conflation" and go to news you'll see a real deluge of recent criticism, including, just two days ago: . ] (]) 13:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree that the bias issues have intensified recently, especially during the current phase of the conflict, but to clarify all of the examples of scholarly use I gave just here are fairly recent, although obviously the material they cite was published prior. ] (]) 11:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* '']'' covers his reporting | |||
| ====RS having to revise articles based on ADL data==== | |||
| Since we are doing multiple subsections, I'll add one. Here are two examples of news media having to revise articles after having uncritically used ADL data: | |||
| *The based off the ADL data includes this note: {{tq|Clarification: This story has been updated to include additional information about how the ADL tracks incidents of antisemitism since the start of the Israel-Hamas War.}} CNN first went with the ADL's number of "361%" from the in the , but then had to revise the story to add three new paragraphs and the "176%" number, to reflect statistics without incidents newly categorized by ADL as antisemitic. | |||
| *NBC likewise had to revise its article: . Their note reads as follows: {{tq|CLARIFICATION (Jan. 11, 2024 1:57 p.m. ET): This article has been updated to add details on how ADL has changed the way it compiles data on antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7.}} NBC had to change the headline as well; the original read: "Antisemitic incidents in the U.S. jumped 360% after Oct. 7 Hamas attack, advocacy group says". | |||
| This suggests that ADL has become an unreliable source to the point that news outlets that rely on its reporting have to issue corrections after the fact. --] (]) 12:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* '']'' covers his reporting | |||
| :If a news outlet has used a source uncritically, isn’t that more of a reflection on them than on the source? I see neither of these two updates is described as a correction (rather, they are described as clarifications). ] (]) 12:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not necessarily, ADL trumpeted the increase but didn't trumpet the change in criteria, misleading at best. ] (]) 13:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::'s the original ADL press release which indeed trumpeted the increase and didn't mention the change in criteria, although thrice says the data is "preliminary". It notes that it includes "1,317 rallies, including antisemitic rhetoric, expressions of support for terrorism against the state of Israel '''and/or anti-Zionism'''." I can't see what was changed when it was amended a week later. I agree that not mentioning a change in methodology is sloppy at best, misleading at worst. Don't think that evidences general unreliability in the way being argued though. ] (]) 13:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is in my view bias to the point of unreliability to lump any of those three things together. Much less all three of them. ] (]) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not if you are tracking public anti-Jewish actions and using modern definitions, then all 3 are covered. ] (]) 13:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I’ve previously pointed out that the Working Definition of Antisemitism, while popular among governments and advocacy groups, is controversial among scholars and by no means universally accepted. ] (]) 11:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's a reflection on both, isn't it? If skepticism is required of the sources claims, that implies it's not actually generally reliable for our purposes. ] (]) 13:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The clarification wasn’t to increase skepticism, it was to increase visibility of the definitions being used. I agree that not stating the definition change alongside the headline statistic is questionable, but I think that is evidence more of bias than unreliability. Looking into their explainer on the change, they present it not as a methodology change, but rather that the backdrop context of the war renders certain expressions of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic that might not have counted in mellower times. That is ultimately their opinion, and the charge of anti-semitism is closer to a subjective opinion than an objective fact. Certainly this source needs to be handled with greater than usual care, and it’s not a source which should get waved through into wikivoice - hence “additional considerations”. ] (]) 16:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@] These are not "corrections" but "clarifications". In other words CNN and NBC do not say that the ADL was wrong about facts, but rather that definitions used were not clear enough. And CNN and NBC do not say that ADL definition (that AZ=AS) is necessarily wrong either. They just clarify what is the definition used by the ADL because some people objected to this definition. A dispute about a definition doesn't make the ADL generally unreliable. ] (]) 07:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be clear, we, as a community, object to that definition as fringe. Nowhere on Misplaced Pages will you find a statement substantiated in Wikivoice asserting that conflation, because it is, politely speaking, unacceptable fringe, and, frankly speaking, drivel. Again, were in not already painfully obvious from a conceptual perspective, you only have to look to see ] and ] existing as separate pages and briefly check the definitions, or do the same on any encyclopedic or RS resource, to observe the difference. Similarly, nowhere will you find the notion that the conflation is a valid minority position within the academic mainstream. You will find RS and scholarly sources denouncing the conflation, and then a small coterie of POV-pushing sources defending the conflation as somehow not intellectually and morally bankrupt. Needless to say, we stick to mainstream. ] (]) 09:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] To be clear, politely speaking, what you said here is absolute nonsense. We don’t say in wikivoice that “AZ is a type of AS” for the same reason that we don’t say in wikivoice that “AZ is not a type of AS”. Namely, because '''as wikipedia community, HAVE NO OPINION on this question, and therefore we neither endorse, nor object the view that “AZ is a type AS”, and we definitely do not regard this view as fringe'''. This is because of WP:NPOV policy. And the fact that there are different articles for ] and ] doesn’t prove your claim either, because even those who think that “AZ is a type of AS” don’t mean that these concepts are exactly identical! That would be ridiculous because AS is much older and much wider than AZ. What “AZ=AS” actually means is that AZ is a subset of AS, or to be even more precise that there is a large overlap between AZ and AS. This view about the relation between AZ and AS is best illustrated by this Ven Diagram here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:TheRelationshipBetweenASandAZ.jpg | |||
| :::As for the question of what we can say is really mainstream and what is really fringe (outside of wikipedia’s NPOV) this had already been discussed here enough and continuing this discussion at length here would be bludgeoning. Therefore I’ll respond to you about that in my talk page later and notify you so you can respond there if you (or anyone else here) will wish to do so ] (]) 16:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We don't state that "AZ is not a type of AS" because you don't need to affirm a negative – it's the default state of things. And of course Misplaced Pages endorses opinions: it endorses mainstream opinions based on a consensus understanding of RS sources. You neither understand the issues here nor how Misplaced Pages works. ] (]) 16:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are bludgeoning here. As I said if we you wish to continue this discussion you can respond at my talk page when I'll write my lengthy reply, or you can move the discussion to your talk page. I'll be glad to continue there as well. ] (]) 16:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think ''you'' are doing infinitely more bludgeoning than anyone else here. ] (]) 12:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : and here's him reporting that ] was chosen to play ] in ] of '']'', which ended up being '''spot-on correct''', via '']'': | |||
| ====From the River to the Sea" in the Real World Context==== | |||
| There was significant discussion about this phrase above, so I want to make a distinction between the hypothetical meaning of it, and the "real-world" meaning of it to which the ADL refers. | |||
| :* per a ] publication, '']''{{'}}s own '']'', covers one of his reports | |||
| Some people say that the slogan “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” doesn’t necessarily negate the idea of Jewish self-determination in the holy land, since a "free and democratic" one-state solution can in theory be a manifestation of the self-determination of both Jews and Palestinians. That is debatable. But in any case, if people really meant this slogan in this way, then this should have been reflected in the protests where this slogan is chanted. For example, it would have been expected that the people chanting this slogan would do it while carrying the flags of Israel and Palestine together. Or that they would print on their shirts some of the ideas of combined flags that had been suggested for a one-state solution (see for example ], and ). | |||
| :* '']'', (] as {{tq|considered reliable for entertainment-related topics}} but not for {{tq|controversial statements related to living persons}}, which in this case, we're sort of concerned about that stuff in relation to Sneider's reporting) '''covers Sneider in many, many instances'''. <br> | |||
| But in fact, nothing like this happens. In all the protests, the people who chant this slogan carry only Palestinian flags and symbols. '''Moreover, quite often this slogan is visually explicated to mean the deletion of Jewish self-determination,''' '''by using it alongside images of the entire area of the holy land “from the river to the sea” covered by the colors of the Palestinian flag, or by a Palestinian ''keffiyeh,'' without any Jewish symbols whatsoever'''. See many examples from demonstrations ( ), (), , , and more. | |||
| : and reported by ''Screen Rant'' an ''InSneider'' report that '']'', (a film with Austin Butler and Norman Reedus) was dropped by Disney's ]. Sneider's report '''ended up being true''', as Disney let the rights go to ]. | |||
| :* And '']'' - reporting on the ''InSneider'' report mentioned above concerning ''Bikeriders'', right . Can hardly get better than trade publications. | |||
| So, to sum up, while '''hypothetically''' the slogan “from the river to the sea” might perhaps be used in a meaning that is not contradictory to Jewish self-determination, '''in practice''' in the protests and other contexts that the ADL condemned, it had actually been used as a slogan against Jewish self-determination, i.e. an Antisemitic slogan according to the IHRA definition appendix. In the words of ] - in the past, some antisemites wanted to make the world Judenrein, today some antisemites want to make the world Judenstaatrein. | |||
| :* '']'' - that Sneider was the first to get the news that ] were coming back for '']'' and '']. | |||
| :* via '']'' - Sneider that ] was playing ]'s son in '']''. | |||
| <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I also find the ''Mary Sue'' story about Johnny Depp and Sydney Sweeney to be drama mongering. Their punchline about Sneider's story amounted to "and <u>internet users</u> were pissed about the actress potentially working with the subject of the ]" - like who cares about internet people being ticked? Was there doxxing? was ] or a world government involved? '''No!''' | |||
| PS, , '''by a landslide majority of 86%!''' '''This shows again how ridiculous is the opinion that this is a fringe view,''' and that holding this view should make the ADL an unreliable source. This is especially true if consider that this is after all a political question and not a scientific one. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :If Sneider gets something wrong, nobody gets mangled or tangibly harmed. The ] policy is for claims concerning living people themselves, not films and casting processes or anything of the like. and for randoms who are not, something that is not what Sneider is doing. | |||
| :Let's ] the concept of this policy and apply it to ]. Even though the chunk of rock is the subject of the article, there are parts of the article for the Moon which concern living people, like ] and how he walked on it. '''Holy hell!''' the very association of living people to a subject of an article clearly not about people means we '''must NEVER''' use any ] about the Moon in the article because it is ]. | |||
| :I don't think that Sneider should be used to state facts about casting. I certainly don't believe we need to add a person to a cast list because he says something on his podcast: while I question his nature of jumping the gun on reports, I don't believe the rationale should be that the info he reports is concerning a living person. I figured that saying ] was gonna be in ''Fantastic Four'' was bold, but it's concerning that a character is going to be in a film, not some claim about a person's life and times. Besides his casting scoops, I think he gives worthy insight into the film industry and its processes. I think that his branding is corny and I'm concerned that but hey, ] was cruel yet he was still held in high regard for his work. Same thing for Sneider. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, I started this discussion because I was bothered by the Fantastic Four page where he's used for the cast list. I hope we are able to at least agree that he shouldn't be cited without attribution, lest he gets something wrong (not maliciously, but because his sources may have been wrong, or events changed in the production process that he was not aware of). Advocating him to be deprecated for BLP violations is a massive stretch that I do not agree with- he's generally reliable, and I trust that his self-published site can be used for article content. He just shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. ] (he/him • ]) 01:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Precisely. I agree with all of that. The Fantastic Four page's cast section is something that is being discussed at ] and would be best handled there rather than here, though I agree with the core points with the attribution and use with non-BLP content. ] (]) 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think it's best if we formalize it here, anyways. It's my hope that we can get a consensus enough to write an entry on ], which would be helpful for everyone editing CBM articles that refer to his claims. ] (he/him • ]) 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would prefer listing Sneider at perennial sources. The ] taskforce already has an entry for his reports at ], for reference. ] (]) 04:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Just to note that this wouldn't meat the criteria for inclusion on the RSP. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know, saying someone was going to get a job, and then it turns out they didn't might have a negative effect on their career. A casting director might wonder why they weren't chosen. This is just speculation, and it probably helps the actors, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. The stakes are low either way, and it makes sense to wait for an official announcement. As it has been said, things don't always pan out. Speculation on casting seems like news to me. ] (]) 15:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :All three of the listed ''Forbes'' articles are written by ] ] {{rspe|Forbes.com contributors}}, which are ] due to lack of editorial oversight. Please note that Forbes.com contributor articles do not count toward ]. As a policy, ] takes precedence over the ] guideline. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::alright, we can consider the other 97 out of 100 <small>joking exaggeration</small> sources I've laid down here. We've still got use by Hollywood trades, reliable entertainment websites, and other popular sources. My point stands still. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe that Sneider's reporting of casting is 90% of the time on point, but the margin of error warrants attribution and additional consideration. I do not believe that info about a person being cast in a film constitutes ''personal'' information, and thus I believe that BLP does not apply to that extent. I believe additional considerations and attributions should apply for the first reason, rather than depreciation for a grossly WikiLawyered reading of BLP policy. I believe he is considered reliable for general behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood, having been at it for a long-o time and that he would know about these things. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is a bright-line rule that prevents self-published sources from being used for third-party claims {{xt|"about a living person"}}. The policy is phrased with the word {{xt|"Never"}} to emphasize that routine exceptions for claims such as film castings are not appropriate. This language is repeated in the ] policy in more explicit terms: {{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."}} Like the remainder of ], this rule applies to all claims about living persons, and not just {{!xt|"''personal'' information"}}. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay. We seem to agree to not use it as a third-party source. We seem to agree to give Sneider attribution and consideration of ] in these reports he does. | |||
| ::::If there are any concerns, I suggest you turn to the great policy that is ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::What do you mean by {{tq|behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood}}? Like what a gaffer is? Or the type of camera used? Or does he know more about things like how casting directors and location scouts work? I thought he was a reporter that covered the Hollywood beat. Does he do anything besides report what industry people tell him? ] (]) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wonder if reporting what industry people tell you is, uh, what trade journalism is the definition of? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think he is a trade journalist, either. A trade journal covers an industry with people in that industry as the target audience. ] describes him as an Entertainment Journalist and describes him writing for publications aimed at the general public. His own website describes itself as {{tq|Scoops and insider analysis}}. This isn't about being an expert, it is about being in the know and chasing down leads. A lot of the articles are even labelled "Hot Rumor". He is a reporter, he reports things. The nature of what he reports means that it involves making predictions as well as discussing rumours and other gossip. A lot of it involves upcoming movies, that is, events that haven't happened yet. It also means a lot of his stuff isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. ] (]) 11:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::know what? I think his insights have merit. Glad to see you found the article about the journalist that I wrote. Did you see the part where he threatened to drive his car into a tree when he lost a Christopher Nolan scoop, then got fired from ''Variety''? Or when he said something racially insensitive and got fired from ''Mashable''? I personally enjoyed the part where he went on about getting his butt kicked by ] in a boxing match. | |||
| ::::::Anybody think that he does a self-published newsletter because he can't hold down a job? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It did strike me as surprisingly negative considering the defence he is getting here. It is basically a hit piece. The boxing thing was confusing, it is probably undue. ] (]) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Reliable sources describe Sneider the way that they do, so that should be reflected in the article. This is a rationale that is based on a concept which is probably best explained by ]. | |||
| ::::::::As for the boxing match, that is a notable event he was involved in. Fighting the director of ] is plenty notable for inclusion. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I like Paul Tassi's work, but per ], he can't be used in USEBYOTHERS analysis. However, he, like the other links in this post generally refer to Sneider's reports as in terms of rumors instead of certainties. The one exception is , where it is corroborated by THR, and they suddenly switch to writing in certainties. The last three links here from the major trades are clearly doing their own independent corroboration of Sneider's story and doing the polite thing in journalism and crediting him with being the first to break the news. | |||
| :As for accuracy, many of the links were about the Beatles casting, which Sneider was actually wrong about Charlie Rowe as George Harrison, which was immediately denied, and ultimately ended up being wrong. The many commentary pieces about the rumored casting that it sparked might justify inclusion, but the miss doesn't speak well to his reliability. So even from your own links, it seems that for content that doesn't run afoul of ] and is encyclopedic enough to include, it would have to be attributed and written as though it's a certainty. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have not kept up with this discussion over the holidays but I see a bunch of dubious arguments have taken place. Trailblazer was correct above when he said that Sneider makes it clear when he is noting rumours versus reporting on something that his sources have confirmed to him, and the high-profile instances where he "got something wrong" are not examples of him lying but clearly examples of things being true or potentially true at the time which did not pan out. Several instances have been mentioned where a potential casting was reported but did not pan out. That is not a lie or a "miss" or anything of the sort, he is reporting on people being eyed by a studio or even entering negotiations but he can't guarantee that everything will work out in the end, and his wording reflects that. The exact same can be said for any of the Hollywood trades who have reported on potential casting that ended up falling through. The level of scrutiny being put on the accuracy of his reporting here is a bit ridiculous considering the same would not be done if he was still writing for ''TheWrap'' or ''Variety'', which is what WP:SELFPUB protects. If any of these reports had come from a journalist who was still working at the trades we would not be having this conversation at all. As for WP:BLPSPS, its wording is oddly vague. "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person" -- what does that even mean? Any sentence that mentions a living person cannot be sourced to any self-published source, regardless of what that source is or what the sentence says? If an expert on the life of Donald Trump had a meeting with him and then tweeted out something Trump had said, we could not include that in any articles even if it was not a detail about Trump's personal life? I think it is crazy to say that we can't use a tweet or a blog post from a person we otherwise consider to be reliable to note when an actor is being considered for a role in a film or that they may have a scheduling conflict that could prevent them from doing a certain job. I am sure the wording at BLPSPS could not have been meant to prevent that. - ] (]) 14:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :In your example, if that expert's tweet contained anything of substance, a reliable source would mention it, and you would be free to cite that reliable source. Alternatively, you could wait until the ] policy no longer applies to Trump, although I highly doubt that the tweet would constitute ] in any Misplaced Pages article if no reliable source mentions the tweet by that time. In all other cases, yes, ] would prohibit that tweet from being cited on Misplaced Pages to support a claim about Trump, despite the tweet being written by an expert, because the tweet is self-published. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 22:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Whoever wrote this drivel forgot to sign, but I'd like to inform them that we do not listen to what any particular government has to say about a polarized issue. How would you react if someone made an argument phrased identically to yours, same big bold letters and everything, but instead of arguing about the U.S. House passing a resolution saying that "from the river to the sea" is antisemitic, it was an argument about the various governments of the world that endorsed South Africa's genocide case against Israel? Not well, I'd imagine. We do not repeat the positions of governments in Wikivoice. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 00:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - ] (]) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] 1. You are using a straw man. I never said that we should "repeat the positions of governments in Wikivoice". What I actually said is that it is ridiculous to say that the view that "From the River to the Sea" is antisemitic is fringe, when it gets 86% majority in the USA House. | |||
| :::The ] policy, {{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer"}}, is as explicit as can be. That longstanding requirement has been part of the ] since ], and part of the ] when it ]. (It was added to the latter page as a guideline requirement ].) If you would like to contest these policies, you are free to do so on their respective talk pages. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::2. You are also wrong in claiming that this is the view of one "particular government". In fact, this is the view of several governments and scholars. See here ]. The IHRA definition which is the base of this view is accepted by an even larger number of governments and scholars. See here ] - '''Adoption''' section. So again, it cannot be viewed as fringe. | |||
| :::I was going to mention the wording in ], as it's more explicit, but Newslinger beat me to it. I've found this annoying in the past, where the project of a living person is detailed in a otherwise reliable third party self-published source. However that exact situation is meant to be covered (and excluded) by it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::3. You also completely ignored the main point of my comment, which was that the way that the slogan is used in the anti-Israeli protests actually proves that the intention of the protesters is to delete the Jewish self-determination. ] (]) 09:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I and others have said, the policies against self-published sources used for anything about living people is a bright line rule. And as for ] and ignoring the self-published/BLP issue, if the only source that mentions an aspect of an article subject is a self-published newsletter, then it would more likely to be undue to include based on the proportion of RS coverage. Misplaced Pages is not the great place to ] about what reliable sources should be covering. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please read and internalize ]. ''']''' - 11:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - ] (]) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agree. I’ll give Vegan416 a moratorium of three more comments before reporting them for bludgeoning. ] (]) 12:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::When I went through and removed most of the mainspace uses of InSneider, the overwhelming majority were reports of people being cast, people being considered for a acting/directing role, when an already cast role was going to make a secret appearance in a film, or creative decisions that can only be made by a very small number of people at a studio (i.e. director, producer, executives) that the guidance at ] leans towards applying the policy. | |||
| :::::If something aligns with what other reliable sources have said, then it would be best to use what those sources have said instead of a SPS. But in any case, UNDUE is not an avenue to bring in content that doesn't meet our verifiability/sourcing policies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Again, we are not writing a biography about James Gunn or Peter Safran and using Sneider to source claims about their person. Sneider is used to write about the particulars of film production. | |||
| ::::::One side of this discussion is looking at the forest, while the other side is focused on the trees. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::BLPGROUP doesn't seem to be relevant to this discussion, it is talking about "corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons" and specifically refers to harmful claims, neither of which apply here. - ] (]) 11:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The subsection is about when BLP applies to "legal persons" AND "groups". It does not displace ] and in no way limits the applicability of BLP to groups to instances of potentially harmful material. | |||
| :::::::The first part of the paragraph is a clarification about how ] existing as a term of art in law doesn't mean that they are always covered by BLP, which is meant to protect natural persons. The second half of the paragraph applies to all groups and tells us to look at each group on a case by case basis to see where it fits on the spectrum between groups that are small enough that BLP should apply and ones where they are too large. The part about harm is simply noting it is part of the analysis. For creative decisions on films, the people actually making that decision would be very small, so it should attract BLP protections, which means BLPSPS applies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - ] (]) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Besides the stories involving named people where BLP would obviously apply, the level of creative decisions that InSneider reports on and that Misplaced Pages uses him for are those that would clearly be attributable to a very small number of people (5-10 max). They're typically stuff such as what projects a studio is considering, what characters will be cast, and what the plot of film will be about. | |||
| :::::::::We're not using InSneider for lower-level stuff like what belt buckle was used on a particular costume, what brand of communication devices the PAs use, or what shade of a color was used in a particular CGI shot. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of ], we are fine. #2: ]. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see ] on this very page. '']'' censored CEO killer ]'s face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If ''general association'', not even ''direct'', with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The one policy that ] does not bypass is ]. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the ] and the ] policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like ] {{ndash}} which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per ], {{xt|"Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful"}}, particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::A few editors here are trying to stretch the BLPSPS and SPS policies to prevent Sneider from being used at all, which shouldn't override the existing community consensus and clear evidence that he is a reliable source for film-related reporting. HadesTTW suggested wording that is a good start towards a common-sense solution where Sneider is used, with attribution, for reports on film-related coverage where better sources do not exist. This should lead to a compromise, with Sneider being used in situations where his reports are improving articles while editors become more aware of whether he should be used (and not using him in situations where his reports genuinely fall into BLPSPS territory, could be replaced by a better source, or some other issue such as DUEWEIGHT). All that is preventing us from moving on to that conclusion and ending this discussion is the idea that BLPSPS and SPS apply to every little mention of a living person in a source, which I maintain is ridiculous and inappropriate. - ] (]) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::If you do not agree with excluding self-published sources from being used for claims about living persons, you may propose a change to the relevant policies at ] and ]. What you believe is {{!xt|"ridiculous and inappropriate"}} is actually how these policies have been applied on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, per community consensus. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I never said I was against the central ideas of BLPSPS, I completely understand why we want to have a higher standard of verifiability when it comes to exceptional/controversial claims about real people who may take issue with said claims. That makes sense from multiple angles. What I take issue with is using the same standard for non-exceptional claims that happen to involve people. In my opinion, there is a very big difference between (which I accept) and . - ] (]) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::exactly! If I actually paid any attention to X-Men 97, I would have rm'd that in a hot second. Sneider making claims that ] was doing heinous stuff to his staffers is some outrageous content that I would insist we wait on reports by '']'' or '']'' or '']'', any particular source of merit to include those claims in the article. Outrageous claims require usage of especially reliable sources like ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::In the 18 years since that BLPSPS policy was enacted, the industry of journalism has changed drastically with a variety of seasoned journalists and subject-matter experts publishing their reports on their own accord, and I believe it is about time that the policies are updated to compliment such changes to update with the times. I do not think Sneider's status as a self-published source should discount his reliability with his actual reporting in his newsletter, and am more than happy to raise concerns for the policy to be updated elsewhere, but that is not the central issue to determine reliability in {{em|this}} discussion. ] (]) 02:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Most people on this board are aware of the poor state of traditional journalism and the rise of indie outlets. I myself noted in a ] that ], who has a track record of good journalist work and whose stories I think are accurate, should nonetheless not be used without corroboration and/or discussion by non-SPS RSs because he's a BLPSPS. If any of you think there's appetite in moving from the current bright-line rule to another system for BLPSPSs (e.g. limited carve out where RSN endorses use with attribution), that might be a worthwhile discussion to have. As its stands though, BLPSPS is quite clear and the overwhelming majority of the uses of InSneider are in such cases. | |||
| :::::::::::::::If we do want to go back to discussing the reliability of InSneider for non-BLP claims, I would start with something I asked earlier, are you as a subscriber to InSneider, able to provide examples of if he retracted, corrected, and/or explained why he missed on the Sweeney/Day Drinker, Holland/Spider-verse, Lindeloff/Star Wars stories? Getting a story wrong isn't fatal to use as a reliable source since even the best sources aren't 100%. However, for assessing new sources, correcting mistakes is an indicator of reliability (as long as the miss rate is not too high), but not addressing them is a sign of unreliability. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::The language in ] and ] does not provide an exemption for self-published content about other living persons that is deemed to be uncontroversial. The "central idea" of this requirement is to ensure that any claim (not just controversial claims) about a living person passes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing special about Sneider or his self-published newsletter that would warrant an exception to this requirement, which applies to every other individual who meets the ] criterion. If anyone wants to amend this requirement, which has been applied on Misplaced Pages for more than 18 years, a discussion at ], ], or ] would be the first step to enact the change you are looking for. Such a change, if it gains community consensus, would apply to all sources of this kind and not just Sneider's content. Until then, the use of Sneider's self-published claims about other living persons remains a violation of core content policies. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Once again, that is your ''interpretation'' of the policies which is clearly not shared by all editors. I fear a discussion at one of those other places will have similar luck due to a few editors that like things the way they are, but I am happy to give it a go. As for wrapping up this discussion, I still think we should return to the wording that I suggested above in response to HadesTTW. I am not concerned about these apparent "misses" that Patar knight keeps harping on about. Some of these may have been genuinely wrong, but not many of them (which is the case with almost all reliable trade sources as well). Most would have been accurate at the time but then things changed due to the developing nature of films (i.e. Lindelof leaving his SW film, Driver being considered for FF but not getting the part). The Sweeney instance seems to be a blatant case of him getting it wrong and being called out immediately, but that one time isn't enough to make him an unreliable source especially when nearly everything else he has reported aligns with other sources. - ] (]) 10:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::I've started a policy talk page discussion at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Self-published claims about other living persons}}. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Pimlico Journal == | |||
| :I'll give you one guess who wrote that... ] (]) 00:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry to ruin the suspense. ''']''' - 03:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Complete and utter rubbish. Campaigning for one cause has never required one to carry the flag of every other cause on the planet. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Is this reliable? https://www.pimlicojournal.co.uk/p/the-new-age-and-the-continental-far ] (]) 23:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ====What should be discerned from this RFC?==== | |||
| :The notice at the bottom indicates that it's hosted by Substack. I can't find any information on who writes it or their editorial policy. So it's like an anonymous blog, basically. ] ] 23:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Obviously results are highly polarized, with a lot of “ADL is no good at all” and a lot of “ADL is 100% reliable”. There’s obviously not enough of a consensus to label it as any one thing, but there are enough reputable editors showing concerns about its reliability that it should somehow be acknowledged as a controversial and un-ideal source for most claims (since nothing it’s cited for is uncontroversial). ] (]) 14:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :No. This is just an SEO blog. ] (]) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's self-published. ] (]) 19:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's new and apparently mostly anonymous, but has received notice, with stating it "has gained a small but not insignificant following, one that includes many young Conservative activists and special advisers, even some MPs." Author anonymity is not automatically bad, as '']'' almost never credits authors, and even "good" journalists are moving to Substack these days. However, Pimlico's newness, coupled with anonymous authorship, suggest it should be used incredibly sparingly, if at all, and as attributed opinion, if appropriate per ]. ] (]) 01:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :My take away… it can be cited, but use in-text attribution. ] (]) 14:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :There are 3 RFC's. ] (]) 15:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I know but it’s basically one super-rfc ] (]) 15:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do see some difference between them, leaving aside the obvious crowd of "1"'s. ] (]) 15:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Likewise, at first glance based on votes (without weighing them), Part 1 looks like about 2-3, and ranging widely between 1 to 4. Part 2 could potentially be 1-2 if you were to overlook all the comments based on I/P coverage that in my opinion shouldn't be applicable to that part of the RfC. Part 3 looks like it averages around 2. There could easily be three different outcomes. Ideally there would be three of more uninvolved experienced users who would close this by now since the comments and discussion have died down, maybe taking a part each, as it's too much for one user. ] (]) 13:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Even though I voted 1, for the sake of consensus I won't object to 2. I don't see in-text attribution as an affront when we are talking about political rather than scientific issues. ] (]) 15:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Think there's a pretty clear consensus for option 3 on the first two RFCs, despite the bludgeoning by a number of people. ''']''' - 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would say on the second one there's a clear consensus for at least option 2 and a rough consensus for option 3, but that's a quibble. ] (]) 22:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Consensus has to be based off of reliable sources, and a bunch of people saying "I don't like it" doesn't actually demonstrate the ADL in unreliable. As far as I can tell, the sides advocating a downgrade or depracation haven't actually shown any evidence the ADL is regarded as anything other than a reliable source. '''] ]''' 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There have been reliable sources showing the ADL lying about facts on the conflict. If you are unable to see that then I suggest you try reading the discussion again. Otherwise Id say your {{tq|As far as I can tell}} is a personal problem. ''']''' - 22:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've read the discussion, and this simply hasn't been convincing. No need to throw around insults, though. '''] ]''' 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Unaware of any insults thrown around. But your being convinced is not the metric we decide consensus on. The claim that {{tq| the sides advocating a downgrade or depracation haven't actually shown any evidence the ADL is regarded as anything other than a reliable source}} remains a straightforward false statement. ''']''' - 03:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There is absolutely no consensus on anything. I suggest you count and read the discussion again. ] (]) 05:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Lol, it isn’t based on how many times you said the same thing that the overwhelming majority of editors disagreed with. ''']''' - 08:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I made a rough quick count of the votes on the antisemitism question (please recheck since I could have made mistakes). These seem to be the result: | |||
| ::::::::1: 12, 2: 17, 3: 20, 4: 6 | |||
| ::::::::That doesn't look like any consensus. ] (]) 08:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Consensus is not unanimity, nor is it plurality, in fact it is not settled by votes. There's a reason we refer to them as !votes. However one thing a reviewer is likely to take away from this distribution of !votes is that the broad majority of people who attended to the RFC had mixed feelings regarding the use of the ADL for antisemitism questions and that, at the very least, there is a clear and substantial majority who would prefer avoidance of wikivoice for ADL claims. ] (]) 18:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::lol 12 ppl said generally reliable, 43 said not: looks like the answer is "not." ] (]) 05:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::LOL. If you'll look well you'll see that I responded here to Nableezy's and Loki's claim that there is a consensus on option 3 in the second question (about antisemitism). I stand by my claim that there is no consensus on option 3 in the antisemitism question, and the numbers prove that. And while I'm breaking my temporary silence here, I'll also mention another high quality RS that cites the ADL on antisemitism, that wasn't mentioned before, I just found it accidentally while exploring another topic, it is an article from 2023 in one of ''Nature'' journals: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01624-y. And DroneBogus since you are counting, it's 1 out of 3. ] (]) 11:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Use by others is not really the issue here (and your math needs improvement). ] (]) 11:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::My bad I didn't realize "There is absolutely no consensus on anything" meant there was consensus on something. ] (]) 13:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :One consideration I haven't yet seen is that the ADL's reliability may or may not vary with its management. Different leadership, staffing, and strategies correspond with changes to any organizations capabilities (either on a particular subject or generally) and, as a result, should perhaps change expectations. | |||
| :For example, the ADL has to expand its international capabilities, and, there has been discussion surrounding the difference in capabilities, degree of controversy, and areas of focus between the current leader, Jonathan Greenblatt, and the previous leader, Abraham (Abe) Foxman , , . | |||
| :This may not be a practical standard to implement, but perhaps its worth consideration that material from the ADL on different subjects may meet different standards of reliability depending on when that informational material was published. ] (]) 13:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a very good point. For example, most of the negatives above relate to the period since October 23, including a definition change in January and descriptions of protestors in this period, so I think there might be a stronger case for option 3 in this period (and for issues relating to the conflict) than in the prior periods. However, the three links there kind of cancel each other out. The third, an opinion piece in ] and ] of the ], attacks Greenblatt for being too left-wing, for supporting Black Lives Matter and other groups allegedly "hostile to the Jewish community". It also attacks Greenblatt for taking money from ]. (Apparently, "Omidyar has also financed The Intercept, an Iran-apologist, radical left-wing news outlet that has at times defended Hamas and Hezbollah, antisemites in the British Labour Party, the Jew-hating leaders of the Women's March, and supporters of Louis Farrakhan.") So if we take that seriously, it's hard to also take seriously The Nation, which criticises it for being too pro-Trump. The Tablet, meanwhile, is not that critical (it discusses how the ADL attempts to be bipartisan and even-handed in a partisan, polarised world) and does not raise any issues relating to reliability. The criticisms of the ADL under Greenblatt which they cite are more aligned with the Newsweek op ed: that it is too critical of Trump and right-wing antisemitism and not sufficiently focused on Jewish-only issues rather than a civil rights perspective more broadly. These criticisms contradict the arguments raised on this talk page against ADL, which say almost the opposite. So my take-home from these three articles is that both the left and the right have ideological dislike for ADL, but I see no reliability issues raised in them. ] (]) 12:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think you should actually read the criticisms in detail, and not put them into boxes. The Nation doesn't just criticize the ADL for being too pro-Trump but , which by itself would make the ADL not a reliable source. ] (]) 02:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Just to note that that's a different Nation piece than the one I was replying to, which was the one Glinksnerk linked to. | |||
| ::::::] (]) 16:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What that article establishes is a single opinion writer for a single left-wing outlet thinks the ADL is the spy agency of a hostile foreign power. If anything, the opinion piece goes to great lengths to emphasize how reliably and authoritatively the ADL is viewed by news outlets. I'm not going to value a single opinion piece over decades of earned credibility from mainstream news organizations, in other words. '''] ]''' 03:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The Nation isn't "left-wing"; it's "progressive" within US politics, which just means it picks up on a handful of meaningful social issues and presumably supports the slightest vestige of social security. The ADL is associated with at least one well-documented espionage scandal, and is openly a lobby group, so that's not controversial. And James Bamford is an award-winning journalist and specialist on espionage and intelligence, so it's not a random opinion; it's a featured analysis from an experienced, specialist journalist. ] (]) 07:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And he still states very clearly in the article that the ADL is uniformly regarded as reliable and reputable by mainstream media. He doesn’t like that, but it absolutely is. '''] ]''' 15:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::While detailing all of the organisation's red flags, he essentially points to the glaring and inappropriate systemic bias in coverage of the ADL – essentially flagging the very issue that Misplaced Pages editors should watch out for. ] (]) 18:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's such a common take to hear that "US politics are so right wing that any progressive in America is unbiased by the world's standards". It's not based on reality. The first thing I found when I went to The Nation's website is this article which claims that Trump is on Xanax because he fell asleep in court. This is unhinged. According to The Guardian (which is British), people fall asleep in court because there is no air conditioning and legal proceedings are boring. If the first article I see on The Nation is some guy making up a rumor that Trump is on Xanax and presenting that as news I highly doubt an opinion piece is more reliable. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 14:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The Nation strikes me as the sort of magazine you can publish anything in, from quality journalism to baseless conspiracy theories, as long as it toes the ideological line. ] (]) 03:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: just took his next step into the abyss. As noted in the comments, all this chap seems to do these days is defame in defence of Israel. ] (]) 18:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If we used Greenblatt's remarks to camera on MSNBC (a highly unlikely scenario), then we'd presumably be citing Greenblatt/MSNBC, not the ADL. I don't think this is pertinent to the discussion. Our question isn't whether Greenblatt is a sensible commentator, it's whether ADL publications are reliable or not. ] (]) 13:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As the figurehead for the lobby group in question, Greenblatt's position is highly relevant. When he speaks and is given a platform, it is as the representative and spokesperson for the ADL. The things he says he says openly as the head of the ADL, so I'm not sure how that can be detached from the group. ] (]) 14:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::He presents as the public face for the org, much like Dave Rich does for CST, neither go out of their way to specify that they are simply rendering their personal opinions. ] (]) 14:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::While you might dislike such comments, JVP is pretty uniformly regarded in the Jewish community as a disagrace, primarily due to their radical anti-Zionism and support of Palestinian terrorism and terrorists (see: , , , and ). '''] ]''' 14:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Odd of you to attempt to claim that JVP is not part of the Jewish community, and that only Zionist Jews determine what is a "disgrace". Also odd framing on most of your links. But par for the course I suppose. ''']''' - 14:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::JVP is a part of "the Jewish community", I really do dislike it when this mysterious "community" is summoned to berate "bad Jews". I don't believe the Jewish community is any sort of monolith. ] (]) 14:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm sure both of you are better experts on the Jewish community than the ADL, of course. '''] ]''' 14:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::J Street? Or are they just slightly bad Jews? Not yet consigned to the pale. ] (]) 14:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Well, J Street has certainly faced criticism from the right, but it certainly isn't loved by anti-Zionists - ] called them "]". Not sure why you're referencing a group generally regarded as mainstream here. '''] ]''' 14:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Because they are out of step with AIPAC, who are also "mainstream", no? ] (]) 15:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::When have I mentioned AIPAC here - what are you even talking about? '''] ]''' 15:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::To reiterate, not a monolith. ] (]) 15:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I still have no clue what you're talking about. '''] ]''' 15:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I will just have to take responsibility for my failure to explain the obvious. ] (]) 15:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please don't make claims that some Jews are considered a disgrace by the Jewish community, that's borderline hate speech. ] (]) 14:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think what he is going for is “highly controversial” or “broadly disliked”, which I can strongly affirm within my anecdotal experience (young, centrist/liberal European Jews) and aligns with what I see in online spaces. | |||
| :::::::I can’t speak for groups and places with which I am unfamiliar, and some of the more rabid responses are (in my personal opinion) wrong, but his description is a generally accurate assessment of broadly held sentiments. ] (]) 14:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: "at odds with most Jews in the U.S., including friends and family" but "In a conflict so often reduced to Arabs versus Jews, the Jewish identity of JVP comes into play beyond simply guiding the personal politics of its members. As one small part of a broader movement for Palestinian rights, JVP sees great strategic value in turning out large numbers of Jewish dissenters to Israeli policy, according to Saper. "We know that we have such an important role to challenge false accusations of antisemitism,” Saper said, “and also make it so clear that, actually, our Jewish values teach us to take action for justice." resonates. ] (]) 14:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::So we both generally agree with what Toa said then? ] (]) 15:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I have a more nuanced opinion. ] (]) 15:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Could you elaborate on the difference? It may be off topic (and the curiosity killing the cat), but to me it feels like you two are phrasing the same content differently, not a difference in content. ] (]) 16:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::This discussion is about the reliability of the ADL and they are certainly not reliable for their views about JVL (or much else, so it seems). ] (]) 16:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's certainly a way to characterize what I said, {{u|Levivich}}. The ADL has a . What I said isn't controversial whatsoever. In that regard, they're quite similar to ] - a group that, while Jewish, are . '''] ]''' 14:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Oh, an advocacy group explains why a conflicting advocacy group don't get to get counted among the Jews? That form of Jewish erasure is not exactly shocking, but given the source, it's of dubious value. Can be filed with Trump explaining Biden's lack of popularity. -- ] (]) 15:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, that's exactly what the source says - they aren't Jewish. That is what the ADL is arguing verbatim, and I'm sure you can cite exactly where in the article it says that. | |||
| ::::::::Now, if you actually ''did'' read it you'd note it simply says their views " represent the mainstream Jewish community, which it views as bigoted for its association with Israel", cites specific examples of areas where JVP has engaged in extremely dubious behavior (endorsement of violence, use of antisemitic tropes and cartoons, casting traditional Jewish religious doctrine as racial supremacism, etc.). '''] ]''' 15:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yeah, they're defining "mainstream Jewish community" as those who agree with the ADL, so that those who disagree with them do not get counted, when actually huge portions of American Jews disagree with the ADL in varying forms and levels. It's the | |||
| :::::::::True Scotsman" fallacy. So the ADL views may be the most common but it's not so slanted to erase all else from the "mainstream". In the mainstream, there are broad disagreements among Jews, which is hardly news. -- ] (]) 18:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You want to trust not just the lobby group but its blogs as well now? ] (]) 15:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, I regard the ADL as a reliable source on Judaism and the American Jewish community. So do most reliable sources. Shocker, I know. '''] ]''' 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::If they stick with that, that'll be good. Diversification isn't working out too well. ] (]) 15:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::But, umm ... ]? ] (]) 16:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It’s not a blog. The ADL is a reliable source. '''] ]''' 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Aside from looking like a crap blog, it has blog in the URL and sits under the tag of "blog". I admire your tenacity in resisting this, but I'm not sure you can escape the self-evident reality here. ] (]) 17:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I don’t think you know what a blog is, or what a self-published source is. I see no reason to continue this discussion and would advise you to… actually read before you cite policy. '''] ]''' 17:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Walks like a blog, looks like a blog, says it's a blog.....it's a blog. ] (]) 17:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Couldn't really be quacking harder. ] (]) 18:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Would you be willing to elaborate how (in the sense of policy, not name) you believe it meets the requirements for ] or ]? I think an argument can be made for the latter, I’m lost on how it could be the former. ] (]) 18:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Newsblog -> Newsorgs (might be OK, depends, not auto assumed as OK) (ADL isn't a newsorg or even a newsmag) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Blog No good unless expert author. ] (]) 18:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Part of what the ADL does can be construed as news/reporting (construed broadly), so an application of the policy regarding news blogs could be reasonably argued for IMO. | |||
| :::::::::::::::::On the other hand, it’s clearly non-analogous to a blog by a random person/group, but I guess this is something for the closer to interpret. ] (]) 18:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Not a chance, its an advocacy group, CST does the same thing in the UK, dresses up a blog like it was news. ] (]) 18:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::Based on a very cursory reading, I would also consider the HRW news tab to be RS as well, wouldn’t you? ] (]) 18:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::I consider HRW reports to be reliable. Anything else, depends. ] (]) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::::Then I appreciate how consistent your views are, and choose to disagree with that assessment as well ] (]) 18:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I would not trust the ADL to be a reliable source for information on Jewish Voice for Peace. Nor an Israeli newspaper. ] (]) 16:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Rejecting all newspapers from a country as unreliable is not only ridiculous - it’s bigoted. If this is genuinely something you believe in, not sure it’s worth further discussing anything. '''] ]''' 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::] - I suggest you retract that aspersion and AGF. ] (]) 19:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Why? I don’t trust anything PRC papers say about Taiwan or Falun Gong, and it’s not because I irrationally hate mainland Chinese as people. ] (]) 03:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::And, rather specifically, the claims that JVP have used "antisemitic tropes" is dependent on the assumption that anti-Zionism is intrinsically anti-Jewish. ] (]) 16:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yeah, so, working off of the axiom that you believe the same things that the ADL believes, the ADL is correct. But that's some pretty circular logic. ] (]) 16:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I think it more depends on whether you consider the examples in ] by the ] as part of the definition or whether you go by the ] which was drawn up to avoid the problems with the examples. I think it is pretty clear the ADL agrees with the examples and does not agree with the Jerusalem Declaration. I'm fine by the Jerusalem Declaration and I reject the idea of calling Jews antisemitic because they do not agree with the actions of Israel. ] (]) 19:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This section might be useful to brainstorm the simplest possible consensus statements, so as to avoid having multiple RSP entries, but thus far we mainly have involved participants restating their own opinions, but reframed as pseudodispassionate consensus statements. I guess I'll link a pet essay: ]. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 19:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I come back after 10 days and somehow this has turned into a discussion about Trump on Xanax (my new band) and ] ] (]) 06:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Hatnote|Once Telegram gets mentioned on ], its shortcuts would be ] and ].}} | |||
| : noting how she now disavows ADL data altogether (due to its deterioration) and just goes by FBI numbers. ] (]) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Telegram is unreliable because: | |||
| ::And not just any prof, ]. ] (]) 13:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Telegram is an ] platform, which means that it is highly unreliable as a source because it is used by the alt-right to evade censorship and publish far-right opinions and pseudoscientific conspiracy theories. | |||
| *Telegram is a ] because it is a social networking service. | |||
| *Most far-right things (such as ], ], and ]) have escaped to Telegram after getting suspended on several mainstream social networking services. | |||
| *Telegram has been described as a "safe haven for spammers and crypto scams" because of how most Telegram groups are flooded with cryptocurrency scammers and other types of spammers. However, t.me links are barely seen on Misplaced Pages (or i just don't see them often). | |||
| *]. | |||
| Telegram would either be ] (like all other self-published sources) or ] (because it is alt-tech). However, if t.me links are commonly used to violate ], it would be ]. | |||
| ] (]) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ====But seriously, what should be discerned from this?==== | |||
| Coming back to this with fresher eyes I see something vaguely resembling a consensus— the “option 1” voters are mostly leaning on the circular logic of “the ADL is authoritative because it’s widely treated as authoritative” or even “it’s authoritative because OF COURSE it is”, while most of the others who actually provide evidence and reasoning obviously fall under various degrees of “unreliable”. Specifically I think you could read this discussion as pointing towards “unreliable for uncritical statements on Antisemitism and I/P; potentially acceptable for cited opinions; hate symbols database unreliable due to lots of shallow, dubious information and lack of methodological transparency.” Thoughts? ] (]) 03:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I wasn't aware there was anyone suggesting that it might be reliable. ] (] • ]) 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Apart from the database that does look like the consensus. On the database, there are relatively few 3 !votes. I think the consensus there is more like "OK but seek out more specialist sources". ] (]) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Telegram doesn't need to be on the RSP, it's obviously unreliable and I don't see anyone arguing that it is reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree, but I am quite happy that I am not the person who has to close this, because trying to figure out the ratio of !votes and actual policy-based arguments seems to be an almost hopeless endeavour, including some rather novel factors used to establish (un-) reliability. | |||
| ::Agreed, it's just a user-generated source (]). Reliable for ] claims and posts by respectable experts/journalists/reliable sources, unreliable generally. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the only clear close is likely to be 3, probably a 2 with the additional consideration being something along the lines of "attribution and cautious use for historical background" ] (]) 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Aside from the fact that the ] i.e. '''''literal''' neo-Nazis'' use it (which is ]), Telegram, as a platform where ] with no clear editorial oversight, is a ] and unreliable, except in cases such as ]. I thought this was pretty obvious. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I was going to point to the ] instead of the ADL so it wasn't circular, but in fact it seems the ADL was already going this way back in 1974 according to ]. ] (]) 12:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :“the ADL should be considered authoritative/reliable in wikipedia because it’s widely treated as authoritative/reifiable in reliable sources (both newspapers and scholarly works)” is not circular reasoning. It is the accepted Misplaced Pages policy of ]. | |||
| :And a note for Levivich: "Anti-Zionism is a type of antisemitism" is objectively true, at least in my opinion. Because denying the Jewish nation the right of self-determination while upholding it for other nations (e.g. the Palestinian nation) is using double standards against the Jewish nation, i.e. antisemitism. | |||
| :And Dronebogus this is comment 2 out of 3 which you allowed me in your grace in this discussion. One left... ] (]) 15:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If that's your objective opinion, then I recommend you do some more study both on what modern anti-zionism is today and on historic opposition to zionism. Far from being an inherently antisemitic position, it was one long held by large portions of the Jewish populace. Much of the objection in the years before the founding of the modern state of Israel was religious in nature, with some religious Jews feeling that this was a worrisome intersection of the religious and the political, while others holding that we were not supposed to return to Jerusalem until the messiah comes. This is not to say that an anti-Zionist belief cannot be reached for antisemitic reasons nor that it cannot be expressed in antisemitic ways; both are common. But there are other objections that folks have to Israel existing in the form and location that it does, and some of that is not only not in opposition to Judaism, but in direct embrace of it. -- ] (]) 17:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for keeping count for me, not really getting the actual message that “you are commenting too much and your comments are mostly belligerent contrarianism” ] (]) 12:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == HeyAlma.com == | |||
| It's not circular logic to say the ADL is reliable because reliable sources say it is - that's exactly how we decide what's reliable. And there's been no evidence provided in this RfC that the ADL is regarded as anything less than authoritative by reliable, mainstream media outlets - even criticism acknowledge this. What comments that ''should'' be disregarded are ones that rely on personal opinions or judgements about the ADL that aren't backed up by reliable sources. '''] ]''' 13:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Is ''HeyAlma'' reliable for this claim? | |||
| :It's also logic that belongs in the past. Here is '']'' on everything currently wrong with the ADL: . ] (]) 14:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That article doesn’t seem to be saying that the ADL is unreliable - just that the author has disagrees with it on subjective matters. ] (]) 14:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yep - it says they are "the go-to American organization on antisemitism". So even if an opinion piece from ''Slate'' is to be seen as authoritative - which it shouldn't (the website is notorious for contrarian viewpoints, or "Slate Pitches") - all you've done is back up the fact that even opponents of the ADL know it's regarded authoritatively. '''] ]''' 14:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then I doubt you did more than just skim it. Read it again. It systematically works through all of the organisation's recent failings and lays numerous charges against it. If you can't see that, we must be looking at reality through mutually incompatible lenses. ] (]) 15:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I read it fully - can you provide some quotes? I understand that the author strongly disagrees with the ADL, but nothing they say suggests the reason is objective, rather than subjective - and we cannot classify sources as unreliable based on subjective disagreements. ] (]) 15:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism" is objective, at least in my opinion. But I really do think that's ''objectively'' true. In the same that it's objectively true that anti-Pan-Arabism is not anti-Arab, or anti-Pan-Iranianism is not anti-Persian, and anti-Iranian-theocracy is not Islamophobic. ] (]) 15:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Considering that this is matter of some dispute, I would call it subjective, and also non-analogous to the examples made. The equivalent would be if an opposition to Palestinian self determination in any areas of Palestine is anti-Palestinian, where I think that a rather reasonable answer is yes. Note that this means anti-zionism in the literal and proper sense, not the way it is sometimes wrongly used as criticism of conduct by Israel/their government or past actions. | |||
| ::::::That being said, I think we are at IHRA again, so not sure how novel this discussion will be. ] (]) 15:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not sure where the dispute is. Mainly lobbyists and politicians like the IHRA definition. Even some of its authors have subsequently issues ''culpa mea'' statements over its undue conflation – and the IHRA is less extreme than the maximalist ADL position. By contrast, scholars including ] wrote the ], which 200 scholars signed, specifically to address antisemitism while avoiding the same muddling of issues and conflation. The IHRA, let alone the ADL's extrapolation of conflation to realms beyond, has never had a scholarly quorum behind it. ] (]) 16:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It makes it very clear that the ADL is unreliable for applying the label antisemitic. It does not even correspond with what most young American Jews would describe as antisemitic. Their use of the term is not one we can use in Wikivoice. ] (]) 16:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)] | |||
| :::::::::I agree that we should not use their definition in wikivoice… HOWEVER, they are prominent enough that I think we should mention their definition with in text attribution. Their ''opinion'' on what is (and is not) antisemitic ''matters''. The ADL is hardly fringe. ] (]) 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Given that there are currently more Christian Zionists in the world than Jewish Zionists, the notion that anti-Zionism can even conflated with antisemitism is really quite risible. It only even arises to the level of discussion because misguided individuals and irresponsible organisations profer the notion up and need to be dismissed. That the ADL has gone down this track is the ultimate hallmark that it has gone full pro-Israeli lobby group, with Greenblatt apparently willing to drag the entire enterprise through the mud in order to tar political opponents of Israel. ] (]) 16:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Whether the Earth is flat is a matter of some dispute, but it's still objective. Whether vaccines cause autism is a matter of some dispute, but it's still objective. Just because somebody disputes something doesn't make it subjective. Don't forget that "Zionism" does not mean "Jewish self-determination." Nobody would think that being anti-Hamas would constitute being anti-Palestinian, and that is also objective. ] (]) 16:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::] does generally refer to some idea of a Jewish homeland through which they exercise the right to self determination </nowiki>], including according to the ADL ] (]) 17:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::No, no, no, not "some idea," a very specific idea. Why would you cite Britannica or the ADL for this? Look at the Misplaced Pages article, and sources cited therein. "is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century aiming for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people, particularly in Palestine." Zionism, especially modern Zionism, is a political, nationalist movement for the establishment of a Jewish state <u>in Palestine</u>. That last part being extremely important. | |||
| :::::::::Look, if a person believes in the one-state solution, where the state does not practice Jewish supremacy -- meaning it does not give rights to Jews that are not given to non-Jews -- then that is anti-Zionism. It is ''not'' antisemitic. | |||
| :::::::::This boils down to an old question: can Israel be both Jewish and democratic? If it's Jewish -- if it gives rights to Jews that are not given to non-Jews -- then it's not democratic. If it's democratic, then it won't be Jewish (indeed, due to demographics, Jews may not even be a majority in a potential one-state solution). The majority of Israelis, and Jews around the world, think (according to polling) that Israel should be Jewish, even if that means it's less democratic. A minority of Israelis/Jews think that Israeli should be democratic, even if that makes it less Jewish (like not majority-Jewish). This minority opinion is, objectively, ''not'' antisemitic. The ADL says it is antisemitic. This is the problem. ] (]) 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I disagree, but we are going in circles here, so I’ll just reiterate my invitation from the other comment as not to clutter this up with the same discussions we all fruitlessly had above. I hope others agree as well, continuing this will just make the close harder. ] (]) 17:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Idk, claim->rebuttal seems like a straight line to me, not a circle. ] (]) 17:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Sure, let’s start simply: cite a place where the ADL explicitly says that advocacy for an OSS by a Jewish person is per se antisemitism? Because that was discussed above, and there wasn’t one. | |||
| ::::::::::::Secondly, the definition of Zionism vary, particularly in the modern context, and there just isn’t a mainstream agreement on exact scope, even if you discount all that are as close to objectively wrong as a political definition can be ] (]) 17:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{tq2|Look, if a person believes in the one-state solution, where the state does not practice Jewish supremacy -- meaning it does not give rights to Jews that are not given to non-Jews -- then that is anti-Zionism.}} | |||
| ::::::::::Not really true: see ], who believes in a one-state solution that does not give special rights to Jews, but who is still a Zionist and who still staunchly believes in a Jewish state in Palestine. He just thinks that Jewish state should include full voting and civil rights for the Palestinians. But it wouldn't, symbolically, be their state. | |||
| ::::::::::(And as far as I can tell, when one-state solutions show up in Israeli politics they tend to look like this. Something similar was also advocated by older forms of Zionism that supported a bi-national state.) ] (]) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::+1 ] (]) 17:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::That's not a one state solution, that's a "version of a one state solution," without Gaza. ] (]) 13:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::This is my last comment on this discussion. @], When you look at all the Arab states and the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict, it seems quite likely that a "one state solution" where the Jews will be a minority, wouldn't be a fully democratic state and the Jews would likely be persecuted there to some degree. But even if miraculously it will turn out to be the first fully democratic Arab state and Jews could live there safely and enjoy full equality, it would still not be a fulfillment of the Jewish right of self-determination. For example, the Czechs, Polish, and Hungarians were all enjoying safety and equal rights in the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the beginning of the 20<sup>th</sup> century and yet at the end of WW1 it was internationally accepted that the right of self-determination means that they should all be given independent states. If someone said then that these nations should stay under the Austrian rule and be satisfied with their equal rights there, then such a position would rightly be considered anti-Polish, anti-Czech and anti-Hungarian. | |||
| ::::::::::Dronebogus this was comment 3 out of 3. From now on I shall keep forever silent in this discussion... ] (]) 18:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Another thing to remember: if anti-Zionism were antisemitic, then a Jewish person who is against Zionism would, according to this "logic," hate Jews, which means they'd be a "self-hating Jew." The idea that anti-Zionist Jews are self-hating Jews, or that they hate Jews, or that they're antisemitic... all of that is, well, antisemitic. And demonstrably wrong. Not a reasonable opinion to hold. It's objectively true, at least in my opinion, that Jews who are against Zionism do not hate themselves or other Jews. It's not a matter where reasonable people can disagree. And this is why the ADL's recent AZ=AS stance is making so many people upset. It must be remembered that AZ=AS is ''not'' a reasonable opinion, no more than saying that being against Intifada is Islamophobic. This is just patent nonsense. In my opinion :-P ] (]) 16:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Anecdotally, there are about as many Jewish people who deeply hate | |||
| ::::::::every actively antizionist Jews as there are such Jews, but if you ask me, neither group is antisemitic, just often misguided (and occasionally malicious). And just to be clear, you can definitely be biased against your own group, no serious person would argue that a gay person can’t be homophobic. | |||
| ::::::::While this is very interesting, we are getting to for OT here, please feel cordially invited to my talk page if you would like to continue. ] (]) 17:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :But seriously, new sections for involved parties to reiterate their arguments under the guise of "consensus" aren't helpful. Also, ] != "circular logic". — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 17:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I feel quite bad for whichever poor admin gets tasked with closing this RfC. ] ] 19:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::We need to figure out what we’re supposed to be getting out of this, otherwise it’s just an extremely long ] for people to argue about ADL and antisemitism. And I’m reading a consensus of “not reliable” in broad strokes that keeps getting drowned out by digression and contrarianism. ] (]) 12:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not "we," an uninvolved closer. ] (]) 13:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Then I think an uninvolved closer should come along and close this because it’s getting ridiculously long and increasingly unproductive ] (]) 13:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::While you may see a consensus for unreliability (no surprising, given how you !voted), I see a very strong no consensus (no surprise, given how I !voted). An uninvolved closer is going to be essential here, and it's probably going to be a shitshow afterwords. '''] ]''' 14:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nah, easy close (sorry, closer). ] (]) 14:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tq|No consensus, tldr.}} ] (]) 16:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Article: ] | |||
| ====Comment leaderboard==== | |||
| * Diff: ]: "He identifies as ]." | |||
| As best as I can tell, here are the comment counts across the above ADL sections: | |||
| * Source: | |||
| *Vegan416: 73 | |||
| * Quote: I reached out via Instagram DM to ask if he identifies as culturally Jewish. “Yes!” he responded, before clarifying that he always has to explain that he’s not “technically” Jewish because his mother isn’t. (Jack is referencing halacha, or Jewish law, which states that a child’s Jewish status is determined by the mother’s religion.) | |||
| *FortunateSons: 70 | |||
| * ''HeyAlma'' | |||
| *Iskandar323: 67 | |||
| *SelfStudier: 58 | |||
| *BobFromBrockley: 37 | |||
| *LokiTheLiar: 29 | |||
| *Levivich: 27 | |||
| *Toa Nidhiki05: 25 | |||
| *Nableezy: 22 | |||
| *BilledMammal: 17 | |||
| Id suggest if you dont feel youve gotten your point across after 20 comments that comments 21-10000 will not be helpful, and at a certain point dominating a discussion like this is straightforward bludgeoning that should be reported as disruptive editing. This is not a partisan request, my own name is on that list, as are editors who have had similar positions of mine. But if you have made this many comments, trust that people know what your position is at this point, and please for the love of anything you hold dear stop adding to the count. ''']''' - 15:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It was stated by two editors ] and ] that this information is "trivia", that how a person self-identifies culturally (eg. Jewish, Iranian, ], etc..) is irrelevant to their biography (!). And claiming the source is unreliable. | |||
| :Agreed, thank you for taking the time to write it all down. | |||
| :I think if no-one is opposed, all people listed should (if not completely) refrain for 48h and see if this discussion is even alive without them, otherwise we’re all beating a dead horse here. Is someone willing to join me? ] (]) 16:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Another unnecessary comment, lol. This one as well, tho. ] (]) 16:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::]. ] (]) 16:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This discussion weighs in at {{tomats|51000}}. Closing it is the work of reading two novellas, digesting and weighing the arguments, and then summarizing it. It's over three hours ''just to read'', disregarding the necessary note taking and weighing to craft a close. This is why everyone needs to say their piece and leave shit alone. ] (]) 17:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was going to reply to the idea lab discussion but its archived, anyway what I would have said is that well timed administrative interventions like the one you just made should be enough to keep things on track. My 2 cents. ] (]) 17:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You don't think that a 500 or 1000 word limit down at ] would be helpful? Also, every time I've popped into a discussion to remind people that someone has to close it, and that prolonged exchanges between the same editors aren't productive, keep uninvolved parties from engaging, and make closing far more difficult no one actually stops the back and forths. ] (]) 17:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: ] (]) 17:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I could have sworn you knew what ''discretionary'' sanctions meant. ''']''' - 18:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I understand there is baggage about calling people Jewish on Misplaced Pages, particularly incorrectly by antisemitic forces, but in this case, the source is Jewish itself, there is no bad faith involved, it appears to be true, and there are questions about how he self-identifies: his father is Jewish and mother not. So we now have a source that directly asked him, quoted his answer unambiguously, finally clarifying how he self-identifies. -- ]] 17:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Closing the RfC=== | |||
| {{hat|This is already long enough. Go to ] to challenge the closure if you'd like. ] (]) 15:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| First section of the RfC was closed by a non-admin participant. I think it was an inappropriate closure for several reasons: (1) one must close the entire RfC, not a section, this is all connected; (2) given the nature and the scale of the discussion, the closure should be done by administrators who have enough experience; and (3) the provided justification (just a head count) was doubtful. ] (]) 14:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :WP:AN is where you can go to challenge a closure. ''']''' - 14:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it can be appealed there by anyone, but I would like to hear opinions by others. ] (]) 14:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was an unsuccessful discussion on the closers talk page, so no, you’re not the only one. I’m not a fan of him having a quote about the topic by a person who voted in the RfC on top of his talk page, that’s not what we are looking for when we want an uninvolved closer.] (]) 15:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|he provided justification (just a head count) was doubtful}}: By way of clarity, it was not "just" a headcount. The closer explicitly referred to {{tq|the relative strength of arguments}} as well. I'm also not sure OP's impression that the closure of one part of a thread is unprecedented is quite right. ] (] | ] | ]) 15:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, the closer provided the following justification: ''I see a consensus for Option 3 — going by the numbers (roughly, 3:1) as well as the relative strength of arguments — and note that most of the participants were okay-ish with deprecation too.'' With all due respect, I think this is an insufficient justification for a big RfC, such as that one. ] (]) 15:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Already raised with the closer, so just take it to AN, although I can't readily see how that could be overturned, personally. ] (]) 15:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A close as “no consensus” is quite plausible IMO. | |||
| ::::<small> While there are multiple arguments that I read closer to a dislike of the source or it’s bias than to an actual sign of unreliability, I’m not sure we can exclude enough of those to get to a “pure” additional considerations, but I haven’t counted, so I’m could be wrong. </small> ] (]) 15:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, when you close it, you can make that argument, while at AN that argument won't even be listened to. ] (]) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, indeed, the actual arguments at AN would be involved closer making a close of insufficient quality, which I would consider to be quite clear. ] (]) 15:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| :That section contains a bunch of other ancestry trivia that's not even mentioned in the source cited. I'm personally opposed to any mention of ancestry in someone's bio unless it is found in RSes and is relevant, but that practice is so pervasive on here that I rarely make an issue of it. ] (]) 03:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Challenge to Part 1 closure at AN === | |||
| ::How a person self-identifies, and their ancestry, may or may not be the same thing. And apparently the question was so relevant and often asked, an article was written about it. Is the source reliable? -- ]] 14:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Zanahary has ] at ] challenging the closure of part 1. ] (] | ] | ]) 22:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This would be easier if the subject had published the comment themself, as this isn't quite ]. It's a third-party saying that the subject said this about themself. | |||
| :I can't see any immediate reason that HeyAlma would be unreliable, but equally I'm unconvinced they are a "high-quality" source that ] calls for. | |||
| :Whether to be include this or not isn't based on reliability, included content must be verifiable but verification doesn't guarantee inclusion. If this is the only mention the subject has made of their Jewish heritage does the subject really think it's an important aspect of their identity? Whether other secondary sources have mentioned his Jewish identity or if the subject has posted anything about it themself might be more relevant to inclusion then the reliability of one source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here's a Haaretz noting that Schlossberg "says he keeps some of the Jewish tradition and celebrates Jewish holidays, but the religion clearly doesn't play a central role in his life." One can be a cultural Jew even if one isn't a religious Jew, and it sounds like that is partially the case for Schlossberg. A relevant Hey Alma quote: "I feel I’m at least 100% half Jewish ;)". It's easy to confirm Jewish heritage on his father's side (an ), but that's distinct from the question of whether he's culturally Jewish. ] (]) 19:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson == | |||
| === Warning of meatpuppetry === | |||
| Potential meatpuppets incoming: --] (]) 07:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] is cited in the''' Media outlets''' section of ]. He's an independent journalist who self-publishes and doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist. Reliable or not? I say no. Some other editors from that article might come here with more context. ] (]) 02:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Also ''The Independent'' etc. ] (]) 10:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :. Mr. Klippenstein is being used to cite: | |||
| == RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues == | |||
| :# {{tqq|Klippenstein also alleged that '']'' directed their staff to "dial back" on showing photographs containing Mangione's face.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Klippenstein |first1=Ken |date=December 11, 2024 |title=NY Times Doesn't Want You to See Shooter's Face |url=https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/ny-times-doesnt-want-you-to-see-mangiones |access-date=December 15, 2024 |website=kenklippenstein.com |language=en}}</ref>}} | |||
| :# {{tqq|A report on the killing by the ] was obtained by independent journalist Dan Boguslaw, and published by Klippenstein on December 26. The report focused on Mangione's motive and people who express sympathy for him, whom they labeled as "extremists". Klippenstein alleged that multiple media outlets had access to the report, but selectively quoted it in a way that focused on Mangione. He said that "By withholding documents and unilaterally deciding which portions merit public disclosure, the media is playing god."<ref>{{cite web |title=Read the NYPD’s Mangione report the media won't publish |url=https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/post-luigi-the-extremist-threat-is |publisher=Ken Klippenstein |access-date=28 December 2024}}</ref>}} {{reflist}} | |||
| :] (]) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's crap. "Media reactions" or "in the media" sections in Misplaced Pages articles too often, like this article, become dumpsters where Wikipedians simply like to show off how good they are at finding random sources and shoehorning them into an article, for reasons. ] (]) 04:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. ] (]) 04:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Right, but the focus here is on the reliability of Ken Klippenstein and whether or not his statements (sourced to his own website and attributed) are usable in the article. ] (]) 12:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist}} That's not accurate, as you could have confirmed by checking out the references in the Klippenstein WP article that note that he's been a journalist for outlets like The Nation and The Intercept. Both of those are generally reliable on the RSP. He's also seen as serious by other journalists (e.g., in Columbia Journalism Review interview, which describes him "as one of the most fearless reporters of the Trump era"). | |||
| :His self-published work cannot be used as a source for WP content about living or recently dead people (e.g., about Mangione's letter), per ]. He could be used as a source on a BLP if the WP text sourced to him is not itself about a person (e.g., if it's about mainstream media). But in this case, I don't see how to disentangle his statements about the press from content about Mangione. Some other news outlets have reported a bit about the content currently sourced to Klippenstein, such as this , noting Klippenstein's apparent publication of Mangione's letter. ] (]) 15:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was just going to say something similar - it's definitely inaccurate to say he hasn't written for other reliable sources in the past. It's true that his own stuff would fall foul of ], but his stuff picked up by other reliable sources is usable, conceptually, with proper context and attribution. ] ] ] ] 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Hell no, get rid of this Kenny guy now. ]: this content directly involves a living person (Luigi), and to make self-published claims about info regarding these living persons is against policy. And, Kenny boy over here is using his blog to write ] things about an American newspaper of record. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{U|BarntToust}} - Dial it back a bit. ] applies to all BLP is all Misplaced Pages spaces. You calling him weird names like "Kenny Boy" probably doesn't constitute "written with the greatest care and attention". ] ] 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If this was like '']'' or '']'' writing this about ''NYT'' then yes I would support inclusion. This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here. "Ken" should be more concerned that he is writing damning blog posts accusing a reputable newspaper of compromised journalistic integrity. Who else will pick this up? Who else will corroborate this bold as all hell claim with trusted journalistic process? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here" is false, as is "he is writing damning blog posts." More than one person here has noted that he's a reliable journalist. Unbandito explained why he chose to start his own journalism Substack (not a blog). There are a number of established writers using Substack to host their reporting; here's ]. It's bizarre that you put his name in quotation marks, especially after calling him "this Kenny guy" and "Kenny boy." Nothing is stopping you from answering your own questions. I already noted a couple of sources that had picked it up; here's . ] (]) 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I personally believe that bold claims against these news organisations need other comparable news organisations to corroborate them, to establish ]. the spreading of claims by sources who are especially biased and opinionated means nothing. "Ken" can make a bombshell accusation against NYT for spineless reporting but can we get ''The Guardian'' or some other prestigious institutions to back these claims? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A reminder that WP:RS states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject," so I don't agree that his reporting "means nothing." This thread started off with the false claim that he "doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist" and the question "Reliable or not?" The false claim has been addressed. The question shows that people have different opinions. Whether some mention of Klippenstein is DUE is not a matter of reliability and belongs on the Talk page. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Having been employed by two ultra-partisan outlets for some short period, and then by "The Young Turks" which is marginally better than InfoWars, does not indicate this individual's self-published works meet the encyclopedia's reliability standards. And it has not been shown that I made a false claim, only if you think these ultra-partisan sources are "mainstream". Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent, which is laughable. ] (]) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::He was employed by The Young Turks ''before'' he worked for The Nation and The Intercept, not ''after'', and those aren't the only other media for which he's written. Partisanship doesn't determine whether a given media outlet is/isn't mainstream media. They're both listed on Harvard's . {{tq|Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent}} Please quote whomever you're referring to, because I don't see any comment suggesting that. I'd be happy to be corrected, but otherwise, it's counterproductive to characterize people's comments as more extreme than they actually are. Again: people clearly have different opinions about whether he's "Reliable or not?" You have your opinion, and I have mine. Personally, I consider the ] interview as evidence of his reliability; if they happen to focus on someone who's unreliable, I think they say so, as . ] (]) 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Funny, Misplaced Pages lists The Federalist as "generally unreliable due to its partisan nature" yet they're listed as mainstream on Harvard's index. Seems like some kinds of partisanship are more acceptable than others. ] (]) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I didn't claim or imply that all MSM on Harvard's list are ''reliable''. Reliability, partisanship, and mainstream media status are all distinct dimensions. A source can fall into any one of their 8 combinations. The full RSP sentence is "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature''' and its promotion of conspiracy theories'''." Maybe you think a source that promotes conspiracy theories is reliable, but I don't. ] (]) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't think a source promoting conspiracies is reliable, and I'm not disputing the decision against The Federalist. I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview, and I disagree. Even the content in question isn't just a professional critique of editorial decisions, but it's couched in nefarious undertones, even going so far as to accuse MSM of "playing god." ] (]) 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::{{tq|I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here.}} That's a very general claim for which you've provided no evidence and that also seems way beyond the scope of this particular thread. {{tq|Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview...}} Another very general claim, though this one at least touches on the thread's topic. Focusing just on Klippenstein, if you have evidence that he "''frequently'' write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a ] worldview" and not reliable, you should present it. If you do have that evidence, then you really should have presented it when you first asked "Reliable or not?" ] (]) 00:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I would just refer you over to the article's talk page where discussion of this issue has continued, and a resolution has been reached. As to Klipp's conspiratorial worldview, see his latest media rant which I also submitted in talk.. ] (]) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I don't see how anything on the talk page provides evidence for your claim that he "'''frequently''' write of large corporations as dark plotters," and either you have evidence of that or you don't. So far, it looks like you don't. The only thing I see in your link relative to a "conspiratorial worldview" is his claim that "every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is," which hardly rises to the level of "frequently." ] (]) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a ]? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::It's a BLP violation to keep calling him a conspiracy theorist is what it is. One that Jonathan f1 seems quite committed to. ] (]) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Like I explained to you on the talk page, I'm using his own words. He's alleging that politicians and major media outlets "conspired" against the public. ] (]) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Him using a turn of phrase one time doesn't give us cause to start throwing insults at him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Please provide a couple of reliable sources calling Klippenstein a conspiracy theorist or desist immediately. ] (]) 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::], do we need reliable sources? I don't think we should explicitly be throwing around the ]-word, but rather ]. Keeps BLP vio away. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::I'm not putting him in the same bucket with Alex Jones, but his repeated attacks on major media followed by a remark about them "conspiring" with each other is what it is. But okay, to move past all this pointless tone policing, I'll find a new phrase. ] (]) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I'm not going to rehash his entire career as a journalist here, and particularly his time with The Young Turks which will certainly provide you with ample evidence of this. It isn't even relevant here -the articles in question are attack pieces where he is either implicating major media outlets in a plot or calling their journalistic ethics into question. That we are even debating inclusion with no corroboration from high-grade sources is remarkable. ] (]) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Again, I said {{tq|if you have evidence that he "'''frequently''' write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it.}} You're the one who made the claim, and you're the one with the burden of proof for it. Don't try to shift the burden onto me. I'm not "debating inclusion" of any specific edit right now. I'm telling you that if you can't or won't substantiate your claim, then you should retract it, as it's an unsubstantiated contentious claim and a BLP violation. The BLP policy applies to any statements about living persons on all WP pages, including this one. ] (]) 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::I'll retract it just to move on from this. My objection to Klippenstein in this particular case does not hinge on this little side issue. ] (]) 23:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why did you put his real name in quotes like that? ] ] 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As an indicator that I generally distrust Substack reporters and their methods. I can't believe that anything will pass as qualified journalism nowadays 😐 <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :In this case, I'd say keep it. Klippenstein obtained and published the manifesto, which mainstream sources begrudgingly admitted was the same one they refused to publish. It appears that the citations in this article are of secondary coverage of his work, which makes them even more admissible. Klip is not just some guy, he has journalistic credentials and a past of reliable reporting for multiple reliable orgs. He's one of a number of journalists who was laid off from major outlets in the last year or so as part of a broader trend of restructuring in media that is ongoing. He and others like Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill have moved on to independent work, but despite the loss of their association with an established organization, their reporting remains influential and they've made a number of valuable contributions to our knowledge of and discourse on current events. I worry that Misplaced Pages policy, which assumes that mainstream media has a static financial and ethical position in perpetuity, is not adequately nuanced to accommodate major shake-ups in the press such as what we're seeing today. I think it's also worth noting that while Ken publishes on substack, at least in some other articles he's written (such as his publication of a US intelligence report on Israeli preparations to strike Iran) he employs an editor to review his work. This is the same sort of self-publishing that mainstream RS do, and another argument in favor of his reliability. ] (]) 16:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::"multiple reliable orgs." | |||
| ::Really, like what? The Young Turks? I'm aware that Nation and Intercept are considered generally reliable, but there's also consensus that they're opinionated, biased and partisan, and should be used with caution. Klipp doesn't work for any of these publications anymore; he self-publishes on substack and has made a career for himself publishing MSM polemic. That's what this section includes currently -Klipp's self-published polemic directed at NY Times, CNN etc. Even if this appeared in The Nation, there'd be weight issues. ] (]) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, The Nation and The Intercept. All media has bias, and any media-literate person should understand this. I think weight arguments are a lot stronger regarding content that is more than a few sentences or a short paragraph long. I don't think the due weight for this content is zero, and therefore I think the material is appropriate. If there is a significant view in opposition to Klippenstein, I think the page would be better improved by expanding it. ] (]) 17:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course all media, and all humans, are biased, but when a consensus on here comes with that caveat, you know you're not dealing with a gold standard RS. And this is only relevant here if you think his past employment with these outlets, however brief, in some way lends credibility to his self-published substacks. ] (]) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think what his past employment in media shows is that he has the training and follows the same standards of verifiability as prestige media organizations. I think it's worth noting that when a fake version of the manifesto was making the rounds, Klippenstein declined to publish it and called it out as misleading because he couldn't verify its authenticity. Regardless of where he's publishing them, I think his publication of several leaked documents ahead of the mainstream press as well as his history as a FOIA journalist shows that he is well connected to valuable sources of information and is engaged in "real" investigative journalism of the sort that prestige outlets are increasingly unwilling to pay for when opinion pieces get them just as many clicks. | |||
| :::::His perspective on the unwillingness of the media to publish a document which they had verified is true is granted some additional relevance by the fact that he is the one who published the document and inquired to these organizations as to why they hadn't, as well as by the fact that journalists from those legacy organizations leaked internal communications to him which showed the decision those organizations had made. | |||
| :::::I think that this is frankly a strong example of the way that Misplaced Pages's current RS policies are inadequate to handle the reality that with the traditional media in financial and organizational crisis, sometimes breaking news is going to be published by small independent outlets or individuals. Any conception of reliability that uniformly dismisses sources like Klippenstein as if they're some random blog post by John Q. Public while reifying legacy media despite the history of its errors and shortcomings and the media studies scholarship that problematizes a simplistic conception of source reliability, is sure to exclude some valuable material and include a lot of junk. Without getting too far off topic, I think the solution to this is to emphasize verifiability and source consensus over things like editorial process and organizational prestige, and to attribute wherever there is controversy or disagreement. ] (]) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Anyone using phrases like "MSM polemic" ought to be stepping well away from deciding the reliability of ''any'' sources, to be honest. ] 19:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::NY Times and CNN are mainstream media, a polemic is "a piece of writing expressing a strongly critical view of someone or something." Thus, Klippenstein's hit pieces on MSM are polemics. I don't see why me knowing what these words mean implies I need to "step well away" from assessing reliability. ] (]) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::if someone else reports on it, its not sps, its secondary coverage of SPS, which should be admissible in BLP, right? I think we can't directly use any details in his blog that aren't vetted and cited by another non-SPS news source ] (]) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, secondary sources can be used for a BLP, if they are RSs. For example, this article confirms that Klippenstein published Mangione full "manifesto." And this article could be used re: his criticism of other media for not releasing the whole thing, though RSP says "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." Perhaps there are other reliable non-SPSs that are better sources for the content about Klippenstein's criticism of other media; I'm not going to take time right now to search further. There may still be questions about due weight, whether a claim needs to be attributed, etc., but those are distinct from the question of reliability and what can be used for BLP material. ] (]) 17:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See, this is the thing, we've got LA Times, a high quality RS for news, so there's no reason to cite Klippenstein. But that covers the manifesto issue, which I wouldn't object to including. But the hit piece on those MSMs? Yeah, that's not found in LA Times or any other source on that level, only a "marginally reliable" source. I do not think Klipp is any position to critique editorial decisions at these publications, and do not see how that's due weight anyway. ] (]) 18:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this: | |||
| :::::* I don't object to the bit about media not publishing the manifesto, and this could be sourced to the LA Times (the secondary source referencing Klippenstein). | |||
| :::::* The next line about the NY Times not showing the suspect's face -no RS is talking about this and I personally find it irrelevant. | |||
| :::::*The last part about media outlets selectively quoting from the NYPD report -this exceeds weight limits and makes the section read like a hit piece against MSM, all sourced to one man. Klippenstein objects to the NYPD using the term "extremists" to describe the suspect's supporters, and cites a report by security firm Dragonfly to argue that the risk of violent attacks on corporate leaders will likely remain low. If you read his source, they, too, use the word "extremists" to describe people who support the killing. | |||
| :::::] (]) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I read his work and personally trust Klippenstein. However, his substack is clearly a self-published source. Unbandito's comments on broader issues with Misplaced Pages, while interesting, don't address the ] issue. Ultimately, Klippenstein is the person with final approval on what he wrote. | |||
| :I would consider Klippenstein's views ] if they are reported on by reliable sources. Based on what I know and see here, I can't consider him to meet the ] criteria in this topic area. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 07:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with Chess here - ] is appropriate here. Klippenstein is a respected journalist. He's also self-publishing. But, in this case, he's an expert who is self-publishing. ] (]) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::See talk page (article linked up top). ] (]) 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll endorse this as position as well. Klippenstein has a good track record with reputable outlets and hasn't had issues so far on his own, but is ultimately a ] that should only be included when corroborated and/or discussed by non-SPS RSs. That appears to be the case with the manifesto itself, but not the other reports. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Pretty much yes. There's no issue with the manifesto content, but the other reports are not mentioned in any secondary RS of any quality (ignoring Washington Times and the art website). There's also the fact that he's mentioned 3 separate times in a section of only 8 lines, which is hard to defend. ] (]) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I merged the 'Media outlets' section with the 'Other' section. An editor made a ] on the talk page that according to Klippenstein's article, he's a FOIA document expert, and that {{tq|much of his journalism draws on information he has uncovered from records requested at state and national levels of the US government}}, which {{tq|also frequently include information from leaked documents}}. ] (]) 02:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Regardless of expert status, BLPSPS applies and would bar the use when it's not corroborated. It seems the new combined section has some sources that discussion Klippenstein's work in and of itself, which partially solves that issue. The issue then is if the amount of coverage is DUE. Klippenstein is an established journalist and some inclusion is probably due given the coverage, but a lot of the paragraph is repetitive, so I would probably cut it down by half. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Could you comment in the ], because despite what is being said here in this thread, certain editors still think he's a ], ], and unreliable ], ], ]. ] (]) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :From what I can tell, a consensus has not yet been achieved here. I don't wish to step on anybody's toes, but I have reverted ]'s blanking of a large portion of the disputed section . ] (]) 10:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please see ]: {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} You should self-revert your reversion until consensus has been reached in one way or another. ] (]) 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::But ] is also relevant: {{tq|When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.}} ] (]) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. ] (]) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The material that User:Toa Nidhiki05 removed had been in the article since December 13 without any dispute (until now). ] (]) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Slayage == | |||
| <!-- ] 02:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1720404072}} | |||
| {{rfc|pol|soc||rfcid=AB773D5}} | |||
| What is the reliability of the Telegraph on trans issues? | |||
| ''Slayage: The International Journal of Buffy+'' {{ISSN|1546-9212}} https://www.whedonstudies.tv/slayage-the-international-journal-of-buffy.html | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| ] (]) 01:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{tqb|''Slayage'' (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. journal. All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. ''There is no submission or publication fee for authors.''}} | |||
| {| style="margin:auto;text-align:center" | |||
| | width="150px" | '''Jump to:''' | |||
| | width="150px" | ] | |||
| | width="200px" | ] | |||
| | width="200px" | ] | |||
| |} | |||
| * https://www.whedonstudies.tv/editorial-team.html | |||
| === Survey (Telegraph on trans issues) === | |||
| * https://doaj.org/toc/1546-9212 | |||
| : '''Option 3''', and I'd vote 4 if I thought deprecating in a single topic area made sense. The Telegraph has lied repeatedly about trans issues. In one case, it promoted the ] about a British school , and even when the hoax was they didn't retract or correct any of it. In fact, in the final article in the series it seems to double down on its dubious claim despite it directly being proven false. Also the second article in that series makes several other similar hoax claims that are completely and totally unsourced. | |||
| ** Links to the www.whedonstudies.tv site | |||
| : This wasn't a one-off incident either. Here are several more examples of the Telegraph going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things about trans people or trans issues: | |||
| * https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1546-9212 | |||
| ::1. They regularly ask anti-trans interest groups for comment while calling them subject-matter experts or trying to disguise their affiliation. See (James Esses is not and has never been a therapist and Thoughtful Therapists is an anti-trans interest group), (the idea that the UN is violating international law with a tweet is pretty transparently ridiculous, and yet they have the person saying that positioned as an expert), and (anti-trans interest group Sex Matters is positioned as {{tq|a women's rights group}}) but there are many many other examples. | |||
| * There is also a site at https://slayage.ejournals.una.edu/. https://una.edu/ is ]'s website. UNA hosted the 2018 ''Slayage'' Conference,<sup></sup> but I have not found more about their relationship. | |||
| ::2. They've that trans women are men or trans men are women, which is not in keeping with the opinions of most sources on this topic. And they're not even consistent on this, this is a factual question they don't appear to have a single position on either way. One way or the other they ''must'' be saying something false. | |||
| * {{-r|Slayage}} and {{-r|Slayage: The Online Journal of Buffy Studies}} (a previous title) redirect to ]. It has a few sentences about ''Slayage'', but they are out of date. | |||
| ::3. they try very hard to cast doubt on what reading between the lines appears to be a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on. Similarly see , which appears to just be anti-trans activists whining about a study that came to a conclusion they don't like. | |||
| : I'm not just going based off direct evidence either: there is plenty of as well. I have because it's frankly unending. ] (]) 01:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Where did they promote the litter boxes in schools thing? I can't find it in the articles you linked. The only mention I could find in those articles was them saying it was a hoax? {{tq|tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes}} Did you link the wrong articles, or am I missing something here? ] (]) 05:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::What you're missing is that according to ], it's not just about literal litter boxes but any accommodation for students that identify as animals. Sorry for the lack of clarity, but I partly blame it on the article title and the lead being so strongly focused on this particular iteration of the hoax, when the rest of the article has followed the myth as it's actually evolved. ] (]) 15:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::There was no mention of a litter box. The viewpoint seems to be that any mention of a child identifying as an animal is an example of the litterbox hoax.--] (]) 07:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Addressing a few different points discussed here: | |||
| ::* As noted above, the statement that the Telegraph "promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax" is misleading at best. | |||
| ::** The Telegraph does not mention that litter boxes were involved in this incident. In fact, places the incident in its broader context and denies the hoax: {{tq2|Stories about children self-identifying as animals – sometimes referred to as “furries” – have been circulating for some time. Some of them, such as tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes, which has made it all too easy to assume that the problem is either a myth or is wildly exaggerated.}} | |||
| ::** The and articles do not show that the story was "directly proven false". The central question here is whether a student truly had a feline identity. These articles do not disprove that. They state that an investigation exonerated the behavior of the teacher and school (reprimanding the students who mocked the idea of a feline identity). | |||
| ::** In general, pointing to an article from an otherwise reliable source and saying "This story resembles other incidents that were hoaxes, therefore this is also false and an instance of the hoax" is not a sound argument. Consider the example of ]. The Misplaced Pages page says that snuff films are an urban legend because there are videos of people being murdered, but none of them have been sold for profit. But if such a film were to emerge and be sold for profit, and then be reported on by a reliable source, we wouldn't say "This is clearly an example of the snuff film hoax, therefore we should deprecate the source that reported it". | |||
| ::* describes James Esses as {{tq|a co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists, a group of counsellors and psychologists concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people}}. Esses is a counsellor according to , which calls him {{tq|a children’s counsellor and trainee psychotherapist}}. If Esses is indeed a counsellor, then there is nothing wrong with saying he is part of "a group of counsellors and psychologists". | |||
| ::* The characterization of as "whining" does not appear to be a good-faith summary of the article. The IOC paper's critics raise several issues that, if true, are significant and problematic: small sample size, self-selection bias, failure to control for important variables like hormone treatment and body fat percentage, etc. It is not "whining" to raise these concerns. | |||
| ::* The ] linked further down is largely unconvincing in terms of reliability issues. Stories are described as "extremely dodgy", "dubious", and "suspicious", but with no explanation for why this is so. Without further elaboration, this strikes me as precisely what the IOC study's critics are being accused of—complaining about articles with an unfavorable perspective—but from the opposite direction. | |||
| :: ] (]) 08:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is perhaps important to point out that seemingly the only mention of litterboxes wre this in The Telegraph (search query: "telegraph litterboxes lgbtq") is ] (]) 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::See above: the ] is about any accommodation, not just litter boxes, and this is clear if you read the examples and not just the lead. ] (]) 15:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is not the way it is framed in the article or how a reasonable person would understand it.-] (]) 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes it is? The article uses all the following as examples of the hoax: | |||
| :::::* {{tq|In January 2022, Michelle Evans, a Texan Republican running for congress, claimed that cafeteria tables were "being lowered in certain Round Rock Independent School District middle and high schools to allow 'furries' to more easily eat without utensils or their hands". The school district denied the claims.}} | |||
| :::::* {{tq|In March 2022, a conservative commentator promoted claims that the Waunakee School District in Wisconsin had a "furry protocol" specifying the rules for furries, including being "allowed to dress in their choice of furry costumes" and "choose not to run in gym class but instead sit at the feet of their teacher and lick their paws".}} | |||
| :::::* {{tq|Several Republican lawmakers in the U.S. state of North Dakota sponsored legislation to prohibit schools from adopting "a policy establishing or providing a place, facility, school program, or accommodation that caters to a student's perception of being any animal species other than human". In January 2024, Oklahoma representative Justin Humphrey introduced legislation that would ban students that identify as animals or who "engage in anthropomorphic behavior" from participating in school activities and allow animal control to remove the student from the premises.}} | |||
| :::::"Litter boxes" specifically is the central example of the hoax but it's not the only way it can manifest. ] (]) 16:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|LokiTheLiar}} Let's assume any claim of accomodations for animal-identifying students is a hoax (even though you have been unable to show that despite being pressed on this issue by many people). | |||
| ::::Can you provide some actual examples of The Telegraph saying that students identifying as cats receive accomodations? More specifically, some kind of quote? Accommodation is a broad term; a student could self-ID as a variety of things and yet not need individualized accomodations from the school. If your claim is that The Telegraph falsely promoted the idea that students received accomodations for identifying as animals, you should be able to '''a) point to specific examples of accomodations and b) quote The Telegraph saying that students received those particular accomodations'''. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 16:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The articles repeatedly claim that a teacher punished another student for denying the animal identity. That sounds like an accommodation to me, right? ] (]) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] (such as punishing other students) are not an "accommodation" in the same way as ] (such as providing litter boxes). And the litter box hoax article contains no similar stories where students or school officials were punished for refusing to respect any feline identities. This story does not slide into the "litter box hoax" framework as neatly as you want it to. ] (]) 17:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This said it better than I could. Even if the claim that {{!tq|students identifying as animals receive rights to services matching their chosen animal identity}} is false in every case, that's not even what LokiTheLiar is saying The Telegraph said. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 18:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] Okay then, so, was the story true? | |||
| :::::::Even if you disagree that it's an example of this particular hoax, it's still definitely false reporting every day for a week, right? IMO this "which hoax is it" stuff is a red herring: it sounds compelling but doesn't actually make the Telegraph any more reliable that they promoted a false claim that was merely ''similar'' to a well-known hoax rather than an actual example of it. And again, never corrected nor retracted said false claim. And tried to imply it was true even in an article directly mentioning the proof that it was false. ] (]) 21:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm just now entering the discussion, so I may have missed this, but...what exactly did the Telegraph say that was "proven false"? I'm having a hard time finding it. ] (]) 21:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::They claimed multiple times that a student identified as an animal, and that a teacher strongly insulted another student who questioned this identification. None of this is true according to the school itself. It's a misinterpretation of a (real) recording, on which the idea of identifying as an animal was brought up ''rhetorically'' to insult a trans student. ] (]) 23:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The claim you're disputing is {{tq|that a teacher punished another student for denying the animal identity}}. This claim is true. A student was reprimanded for denying "animal identity". There is a recording of the incident. The only dispute is whether or not the student was reprimanded for denying a ''specific classmate's'' identity as a cat, or the general idea of students identifying as cats. The recording suggested that it was a specific classmate, the school denied that any student identified as a cat a week later, and an external report didn't take one side or the other. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 22:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It's not true at all. The student was reprimanded for attacking another student's very real ''trans'' identity ''using the metaphor of'' animal identity. ] (]) 23:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Let me make sure I'm getting this straight, @] and @]. | |||
| ::::::::::A student at a school (call them student #1) identified as trans. Another student (student #2) objected in some way to acknowledging student #1's trans identity, and rhetorically brought up animal identity...i.e. "if we respect student #1's identity, what's next, does that mean we have to respect animal identity, too?" Then, the teacher reprimanded student #2, and told student #2, essentially, "yes, if a student identified as an animal, you would have to respect that, and it's insensitive and wrong to not respect animal identity." | |||
| ::::::::::But the Telegraph missed the "rhetorically" part, and instead inaccurately reported that student #1 '''actually''' identified as an animal. | |||
| ::::::::::Obviously I am paraphrasing, but do I have the gist correct? Want to make sure I understand the objections before I weigh in on the survey. Thanks. ] (]) 01:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::One small misunderstanding; the Telegraph never reported that student #1 actually identified as an animal; they only reported that students #2 and #3 were reprimanded for not accepting classmate #1 identifying as an animal, which is true. ] (]) 01:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Close, but the teacher didn't say "yes, if a student identified as an animal, you would have to respect that". She just said, essentially, "you're being very disrespectful and you need to stop". | |||
| :::::::::::BilledMammal above is incorrect, here's the direct quote of what they said: {{tq|A school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat.}} Clearly this is also saying that her classmate identifies as a cat for the same reason that {{tq|The queen refused to accept the prime minister's resignation}} is also saying that the prime minister resigned. ] (]) 01:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::You keep using {{tq|The queen refused to accept the prime minister's resignation}}, but the equivalent hypothetical would be {{tq|The king chastised the queen for refusing to accept the prime minister's resignation}}. Clearly, the statement remains true regardless of whether the prime minister actually resigned. | |||
| ::::::::::::In addition, at the time of publication, no one knew whether the classmate actually identified as a cat or not, and as such there was clearly no issue with them not taking a stance on whether the classmate did identify as a cat. ] (]) | |||
| :::::::::::::If you really insist, I will use the longer example, because it clearly doesn't make a lick of difference. You cannot make a false claim not false or not a claim by adding more subordinate clauses. ] (]) 03:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::A question to all participants. Where can we see a full, accurate and reliable transcript of this video, or even better the full unedited video itself? ] (]) 04:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::The best option is the Daily Mail's one which has captions but is edited to have scary music on top of it. ] is deprecated for a reason though, so I'd take anything not substantiated by another source with a grain of salt. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 05:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I've placed a transcript here if you don't want to sit through the Daily Mail vid: | |||
| ::::::::::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Void_if_removed/sandbox/Catgate_transcript ] (]) 13:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::{{re|Pecopteris}} Pretty much. I think the teacher was less clear than you're making it out to be, but you have the gist of it. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 02:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There are two examples referring to extreme non-litter tray accommodations in our article, but the point is that they were not true. Hence the word "hoax". The Telegraph does not make any claim of accommodations, merely stating that children were called despicable for refusing to identify a classmate (who it does not specify is real or hypothetical) as a cat.] (]) 16:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Loki, please stop moving this down to discussion; you don't get to present your arguments and deny those who disagree with those arguments the opportunity to reject them in context. | |||
| ::As a general rule, if you are going to hat or move something, the highest level reply included within the hatting or moving should be one ''you'' made. For example, you could move 15:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC), but not 05:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC). ] (]) 04:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I find it incredible that you won't let me move a discussion that's several pages long down to the Discussion section where it clearly belongs. | |||
| :::Let me ping an uninvolved admin to settle this. @], twice now I have tried to move this incredibly long thread responding to my !vote to the Discussion section. Twice now BilledMammal has brought it back up, and this time they're accusing me of attempting to eke out some sort of advantage by doing this. Could you please settle where it belongs? ] (]) 04:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Loki, I don’t see you moving your own rebuttals to others !votes down to discussion. | |||
| ::::As I said, if you want to shorten this, do so from your own replies; allow the immediate rebuttals to stand, and move your replies to those rebuttals, and all conversation from those replies, down to discussion. ] (]) 04:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I put comments I expect are going to lead to long threads in the discussion section in the first place. But I do and have moved other threads many times without regard to whether or not it helps "my side". Honestly the idea you think this is partisan is baffling and is indicative of a huge ] attitude. | |||
| :::::I'm not moving just my comments down because that wouldn't help. There are five responses to my !vote, counting this thread, and one of them is a ]. If you want I can move the whole thread including the !vote down and re-vote, but that would make several other people's !votes not make a lot of sense in context so I'd rather not do that either. | |||
| :::::(Why did you put this in the Survey section, by the way? It's clearly not a !vote, you could have put it in Discussion and pinged me.) ] (]) 05:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::IMHO, we might as well leave everything as-is and just stop making the wall of text bigger. If anyone has more to say about this thread, just put it in the discussion section and ping everyone from this thread. Cheers. ] (]) 05:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The general rule, when refactoring a discussion you are involved in, is don't refactor in a way that gives you the last word. | |||
| ::::::As for just moving down just your comments, and the responses to your comments, it would reduce the length of the responses from ~2600 to ~800. For context, the length of your !vote is ~800. If your concern is length, I'm not sure how removing ~1800 words wouldn't help. | |||
| ::::::No objection to moving this discussion over refactoring down to discussion. ] (]) 06:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::At least 3 editors have independently brought the !vote out of the moving/collapsing now. I hope that we can take that as consensus. ] (]) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Given editors are taking Loki's claims at face value, apparently without reading this - probably because it is collapsed - I'm uncollapsing it. ] (]) 06:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I highly doubt that and have collapsed it again. The biggest chunks of rebuttal text, including Chess's (the most cited!), are outside of this !vote. ] (]) 13:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::See Daveosaurus' !vote. Regardless, there is no basis for this collapse under ]; please stop. ] (]) 17:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I disagree that it was caused by this !vote being collapsed due to the overwhelming amount of Option 1 arguments others have referenced, but whatever. ] (]) 20:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3'''. The Telegraph is generally unreliable for topics involving transgender people, matters, etc. There is extensive evidence that the Telegraph's coverage of trans topics defies relevant academic consensus around the reality of trans experience and existence and favors sensationalist parroting of rumors without contextualizing the content ''as'' unreliable rumors. Secondary sources, including scholarly pieces published by academic presses ] and ] as well as conventional journalism, have reported on this unreliability. This unreliability cannot be reduced to a "bias" that editors are expected to filter out when citing the coverage. A "bias" is an implied frown or favor; it's not a failure to get facts right or a disregard for academic consensus. The Telegraph's coverage entails the latter. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3'''. It was extensively proven that ''The Telegraph'' constantly propagates blatant lies and misinformation regarding transgender topics. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 03:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' We're not quite at Option 4 yet on trans topics in particular, but we're rapidly approaching that with ''The Telegraph''s seeming turn toward ''Daily Mail'' esque misinformation when it comes to topics involving transgender people. Actively promoting extreme fringe people without including their pseudoscience position in their articles, making up incidents and conversations that didn't actually occur in events involving trans people and gender identity and then trying to pass things off as "well, the things we said could be true and may still be true" is some high level gaslighting nonsense from a supposed mainstream news source. Like I said, we're not quite at Option 4 yet, but I feel like we're teetering on a knife's edge and one more extreme case of this sort from the paper would push it over. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. The evidence provided here by Loki distorts the articles and mainly hinges on The Telegraph not taking a pro-trans viewpoint, same as the last RfC. The Telegraph never said students have litterboxes in schools, did proper journalistic due-diligence on the possibly cat-identifying student, quoting opposing views on a subject is standard journalism, and saying that "trans women aren't biological women" doesn't make it unreliable. A drug that the manufacturer states could be harmful to breastfeeding babies does in fact make chestmilk less safe and a self-selected study of 69 people does not conclusively prove that trans women are worse at sports than cis women. | |||
| :To go point-by-point (starting with the 0th), The Telegraph never promoted the "litterboxes in schools" hoax. The articles cited by {{u|LokiTheLiar}} claimed students identified as animals, not that they requested accommodation in the form of litterboxes. The first claim is much more believable than the second, and was based on a recorded conversation in which a teacher at Rye College asserted a student was offended because their identity as a cat was questioned. | |||
| ::Specifically, this controversy was because a student was reprimanded for not accepting that a classmate of theirs could identify as a cat. This student recorded the conversation and leaked it to the media. The contents of the conversation itself implied that a classmate *did* identify as a cat, which Pink News acknowledged. {{tq|In the recording, which was shared with the press, the teacher is also heard saying that a student had upset a fellow pupil by “questioning their identity” after the student asked, “how can you identify as a cat when you’re a girl?”}} And when The Telegraph initially asked the school for comment, they did not deny the story. While the school later denied the claims of cats in schools, that does not invalidate the original reporting which was based on a recorded conversation. There was also no "debunking" of the original story beyond the school's denial that students identified as cats. The Guardian said: {{tq|Although the report does not directly address the argument between the teacher and pupils, or the question of whether any pupils identify as animals, it praises the quality of staff training and teaching of relationship and sex education “in a sensitive and impartial way”}} in reference to whether or not the Ofsted report indirectly cited by Loki debunked the claim that students identified as animals. | |||
| ::It's bizarre to claim that The Telegraph knowingly spread false information when the contents of the recording the story was based on indicated that a student did identify as a cat, and the school did not even dispute the truthfulness of the allegation. How were they supposed to know that this was false when they published the story? | |||
| ::If Loki wants to refute my point that The Telegraph said that animal-identifying students are getting litterboxes in schools, '''merely provide a quote''' from the article saying so. | |||
| :In response to Loki's first point, that quoting anti-transgender activist groups makes The Telegraph unreliable, this is standard journalistic practice. A newspaper giving both sides of the story does not make it unreliable. Loki's standard, that The Telegraph should ''not'' quote any anti-trans activists when covering transgender-related topics, is untenable. The Telegraph does not misrepresent Esses' affiliation by describing him as a therapist, only as a spokesperson for a group of therapists. | |||
| ::In more detail, James Esses is a spokesperson for Thoughtful Therapists. He is passionate about this issue because he was thrown out of his master's program for holding gender-critical beliefs. One does not have to be a therapist to be an activist about therapy. Should the ] be deplatformed because it's chief organizer, ], was fired from his job at Amazon? | |||
| ::In the first article cited by Loki , the article accurately describes Esses as {{tq|a co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists, a group of counsellors and psychologists concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people}} The article does not say that he is a therapist, and it describes his group as an entity that advocates against gender ideology. | |||
| ::The second article provides a quote saying that the tweet {{tq|Remember, trans lesbians are lesbians too. Let’s uplift and honour every expression of love and identity.}} contravenes the ]. While Loki describes this as {{tq|pretty transparently ridiculous}}, ], the ], said in an official position paper from the UN that {{tq|Building on the implicit understanding that the word “woman” refers to biological females, the CEDAW Committee’s reference to lesbian women can only be understood to mean biological females that are attracted to biological females}} Unless Loki proposes to say that the United Nations is also unreliable on interpreting its own treaties, the claim that "trans lesbians are lesbians" does, in fact, contravene CEDAW. | |||
| ::The third article says that Sex Matters is a women's rights group. They advocate for what they see as women's rights, which they don't view as including trans women. At best, this demonstrates that The Telegraph is biased in favour of a gender-critical viewpoint since they're adopting the preferred verbiage of such. This isn't a factual distortion and isn't very ] given that the UN says women's rights refer to ciswomen's rights. | |||
| :On Loki's 2nd point, the statement that trans women are women or that trans men are men is a litmus test for agreement with the ]. It's a commonly-held political position, one held by the ] and the Education Secretary of the UK . Proposing to designate The Telegraph as unreliable on that basis alone is illogical since by that logic we should get rid of ]. But the sources Loki provided don't even authoritatively state that trans women aren't women. | |||
| ::Loki's first source says that {{tq|It means male patients who do not claim to live as women have the right to choose to stay on women’s wards.}} It criticizes the idea that people assigned male at birth who have not received gender-reassignment surgery nor made any effort to physically transition can self-identify as women to be assigned to women's only wards in hospitals; many people who haven't legally transitioned to female can be treated in hospitals in women-only environments. In other words, the Telegraph says that '''people identifying but not-legally-recognized-as trans women are not women'''. At no point does the article "directly allege" that trans women are not women. | |||
| ::Loki's second source says that a 13-year-old socially transitioned without the mother of such knowing. The ], a systemic review of evidence in the field of transgender medicine, points out the same concerns on page 160, point 12.16, and says that socially transitioning young girls could reinforce feelings of gender incongruence. Saying that a socially transitioned 13-year-old might not really be trans is not saying that "trans women are not women" and that is not asserted in the article. | |||
| ::Loki's third source does dispute that trans women are women, but appears to be an outside opinion piece from Richard Garside, who "is the director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies". That's not an official policy of the newspaper, and per ], opinion pieces already have a lower standard of reliability. | |||
| ::Loki's fourth source says that there is a distinction between biological sex and gender, then acknowledges that students ''can'' change gender, i.e. be transgender. | |||
| ::It is telling that Loki did not provide any quotes from these articles despite the claim that they all "alleged directly" this claim. If they make these direct allegations, one should be able to provide quotes for the ones I have refuted. | |||
| :For Loki's third point, the first article just reports that transgender women can produce milk to feed babies and an NHS trust says that this is equivalent to normal breastmilk. Then it discusses how the patient leaflet for the drug used to facilitate this, Motilium, says {{tq|Small amounts have been detected in breastmilk. Motilium may cause unwanted side effects affecting the heart in a breastfed baby. should be used during breastfeeding only if your physician considers this clearly necessary.}} I'm not sure how the claim that trans women's breastmilk is safe is {{tq|a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on}}, when Loki literally said that they "read between the lines" to get to that conclusion and caveated their statement with an "appears to be". If one is going to say that this is the consensus of the medical community maybe provide some citations instead of just assuming things are true because of a dislike of The Telegraph? | |||
| :The second article for Loki's third point quotes Dr. Ross Tucker, a respected sports scientist, saying that the study compared unathletic trans women to athletic cis women. It had a self-selected participant base of 69 volunteers responding to a social media advertisement. The claim is that the study is poor-quality research funded to advance a viewpoint. Loki says that the second article is {{tq|anti-trans activists whining about a study that came to a conclusion they don't like}}, but the people quoted in the article are a doctor + British olympians + the chair of Sex Matters, who all raise serious issues with the study such as a small effect size and the difference in athleticism between the two populations. This is literally what ] tells us to do. {{tq|Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Misplaced Pages should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources.}} | |||
| :Please be more specific on what parts of the articles that are inaccurate. At best, Loki has shown that The Telegraph is biased in favour of a gender-critical perspective. Future comments should be more specific because otherwise they are unfalsifiable generalities <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 04:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::P.S. I'll add on, that in your linked page you acknowledge that your problem with Thoughtful Therapists isn't that it's being inaccurately described, but that The Telegraph uses biased phrasing in favour of it. {{tq|They are a group of therapists with an agenda, quite similar to Thoughtful Therapists, but the Telegraph describes TACTT as "trans activists" when it has consistently described TT as "a group of therapists concerned with/about X".}} | |||
| :: <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 05:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean, it can be and is both. ] (]) 15:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq2|Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, said in an official position paper from the UN that Unless Loki proposes to say that the United Nations is also unreliable on interpreting its own treaties, the claim that "trans lesbians are lesbians" does, in fact, contravene CEDAW.}} | |||
| ::It should be noted that this position paper states the following on it's last page: | |||
| ::{{tq2|The Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, as a Special Procedures mandate of the United Nations Human Rights Council, serves in her individual capacity independent from any government or organization.}} | |||
| ::See also ].] (]) 13:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, since I wrote this already, here's and . ] (]) 21:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] I think that this response, despite being long, doesn't have a lot of substance. A couple of quick points: | |||
| ::First, the ] isn't necessarily about litter boxes specifically but any accommodation. A teacher defending an animal identity and punishing other students for questioning it certainly is an accommodation and the Telegraph repeatedly made this claim in those articles. And regardless of whether it was an example of the hoax, the fact of the matter is that it is definitely and unambiguously false, and the Telegraph repeated it over and over again and never retracted or corrected it. | |||
| ::Second, I specifically do not think that quoting anti-trans activist groups makes the Telegraph unreliable per se. What I'm objecting to is hiding the nature of those anti-trans activist groups, and also quoting them repeatedly ''as experts'', and usually without any reference to pro-trans activist groups at all. | |||
| ::Third, I agree that the way they described James Esses is not, technically, false. But it's clearly misleading because it makes it seem that he is a therapist and Thoughtful Therapists is a reliable professional organization when neither is true: he got kicked out of his program for bigotry of the sort that he is being quoted to repeat, and Thoughtful Therapists is an anti-trans activist group which clearly does not require you to be any sort of psychotherapy professional to be a member given that James Esses is a member. Similarly the way they describe Sex Matters as a "woman's rights group" is arguably not false but clearly misleading. It would be like describing ] as "a well-known doctor": not technically false but clearly misleading. | |||
| ::Fourth, as Flounder fillet said that's Reem Alsalem's own personal opinion and is honestly not directly related here anyway. The claim being made here is ridiculous no matter what Reem Alsalem thinks. The UN cannot violate international law with a tweet. | |||
| ::Fifth, see ] for an exhaustive list of sources on the matter of trans women being women. TL;DR no matter how much you think it's gender ideology or whatever, saying that trans women are men is very much not in keeping with reliable sources. I think your close interpretation of these sources to deny that they are calling trans women men or trans men women is pretty clearly untrue. As briefly as I can manage: in the first article it's the headline and the first sentence among other times, second article calls the transmasculine subject of the article a girl repeatedly, the fourth article calls people binding their breasts "girls". The third article you concede but say is opinion is marked in the URL as news, and not marked as opinion in any way. So it's either news, or the Telegraph is mixing opinion and news, which would make it unreliable generally and not just for trans issues. Being from a writer that does not usually write for the Telegraph does not make something opinion. | |||
| ::Sixth, for my third point you're trying to make us focus on the trees and ignore the forest. (Honestly, I think that's the whole reply, but especially on this point.) Yeah if you ignore that the NHS is officially saying a medical statement you can make it look dubious. You can also make a whole study look dubious if you quote one doctor and a bunch of non-experts. Here at Misplaced Pages, we wouldn't say that a single doctor's professional opinion is even ] but for the Telegraph it's apparently better than a study. ] (]) 16:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The claim that the ] isn't literally about litter boxes is both untrue and irrelevant to the point, which is that The Telegraph did their journalist due diligence. They had a recording where a) the teacher said a student identified as a cat, and b) the school didn't deny that in their initial statement. Only a week later did the school deny the story after intense media pressure, ''but no one other than the school ever denied a student ID'd as a cat''. If your claim is ] or ], show why the fact-checking of the source was deficient, because '''even reliable sources are allowed to make mistakes,''' and the most evidence you have the Telegraph made a mistake is the school's denial after the article came out. | |||
| :::On your 2nd and 3rd points, the purpose of designating a source as unreliable is to prevent using it in articles. Citing a reliable source for what it implies (and does not directly support) can already be challenged and removed from articles per ]. Since you acknowledge that the false claims you've drawn from the Telegraph are only misleading implications, designating the Telegraph as ] or ] is redundant as those claims already cannot be cited. Please give ''directly supported'' claims from The Telegraph that are false and could be cited under our reliability policies if the source was declared ]. | |||
| :::On your 4th point we will have to agree to disagree over whether ] ] is a ] perspective on the ], since you acknowledge she agrees with the claims ] made against the tweet. | |||
| :::On your 5th point, I've explained how articles 1, 2, and 4 are saying that the definition of "trans women" is too wide, not that "trans women =/= women". I'm not going to go in circles on whether taking the position "trans women are women" is a good litmus test to apply to reliable sources, we've both written our views. Article 3 is either a single example of an opinion miscategorized as a news piece (which I believe happened) or it's a regular news article and the only factual error you've pointed out is it saying trans women aren't women. | |||
| :::Your sixth point doesn't explain how the Telegraph was wrong in saying the Motilium patient leaflet contradicts the NHS guidance nor does it address why the Telegraph was wrong in saying that the IOC study had a small sample size and a discrepancy in fitness between the trans athletes and the cis athletes. If the Telegraph isn't wrong, why does quoting these views make the Telegraph unreliable? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 22:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', although I'm open to Option 2. So far, I don't think any of the arguments made stand up to ]'s rebuttal statement. Looking forward to seeing a counter-rebuttal. ] (]) 04:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' I'm uncomfortable sidelining a source based on the lexical analysis of editors as to whether they are or are not accurate in the absence of third-party RS saying they are or are not accurate. Content analysis, as I've previously noted, does not involve pulling examples out of a hat. It's a methodical research process that requires (as a best practice, in case of newspapers) the assessment of two constructed weeks of content for every six months analyzed. That has not occurred here. In the absence of editors showing their OR as to the Telegraph's reliability meets generally accepted research standards, I'd need clear, compelling, and significant evidence from RS. And I'm not seeing that. ] (]) 05:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' There is clearly no presence of a litter box hoax in the linked articles. The Telegraph made a largely accurate report of that situation. The rest of the complaint is simply a protest about the political positions of the Telegraph. Sources have political positions, we can only reject them when they publish false content. The milk thing, again, they don't say anything false, and I am deeply uncomfortable with wikipedia mandating holding a political position that transmen are men and transwomen are women as a barrier for RS. Obviously, the Telegraph has a strong bias when it discusses trans topics, and that is something we should be aware of, just as we should when we read something from the ]. ] (]) 06:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1.''' See my reply above disputing many of the arguments made for lowering reliability. A good argument has been made for bias, but a much weaker argument has been made for reliability concerns. ] (]) 08:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1.''' Biased source for this topic, but clearly reliable (as demonstrated by Chess above). ] (]) 08:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''': In summary, practically of Loki’s third-party sources of the Telegraph amounts to bias, not of unreliability. If sources take a position of X or Y on certain controversial areas, not is not indicative of reliability in those areas. I believe the only instances of true factually errors came from the two IPSO complaints. However, this “evidence” undermines the OP’s argument that the Telegraph is unreliable since the IPSO noted how quickly and responsibly the Telegraph fixed their errors. I brought up how the Telegraph is a noted newspaper of record. This is not to say newspapers can’t make mistakes. Rather, it signifies that for some time—over 150 years in this case—the newspaper has been a beacon of peak journalistic performance. It would take mountains of solid evidence to overturn the Telegraph’s status of a newspaper of record. Such evidence has not been presented. This is a clear slippery-slope RfC that has the potential to overturn many of our other most ironclad RSs—such as the Times and the Economist—into sources equivalent to tabloid media. What a shame that would be. ] (]) 08:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''': Strong evidence has been presented that Telegraph is not ''generally'' reliable on this topic, with its extreme bias leading it to report in misleading way. But I do not yet see enough evidence to consider it ''generally'' unreliable on this topic. My view is that this is a contentious topic where we should only use the very best of sources and/or triangulate reliable but biased sources, and so the presumption should be against using the Telegraph anyway, so I'd be comfortable with option 3, but I think we need a stronger evidence base from other reliable sources before designating it generally unreliable, let alone deprecating it. ] (]) 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. I'm disappointed to see the opening vote on this RfC repeat several points that were rebutted in the RFCBEFORE discussion. {{ping|Chess}} has done a good job of addressing them. Many of the points seem to fundamentally conflate ''bias'' and ''reliability''. We are told {{tq|there is plenty of secondary coverage of the Telegraph's unreliability as well}}, citing several sources, but of those that I could access, they did not actually support a judgement of unreliability (nor are they experts in what Misplaced Pages considers reliability to mean). Rather, they explain that The Telegraph advances a strong POV. I think it's possible to become so embedded in a POV that one comes to view that POV as pure objective truth, and the anti-POV therefore starts to look objectively false. The starkest example of this misunderstanding is in the accusation that The Telegraph has {{tq|alleged directly that trans women are men}}. That is not a statement of objective fact (and neither is its inverse) about which a source can be ''unreliable''. There are multiple POVs available in this topic area, and just because The Telegraph battles hard for one of them doesn't make its statements automatically ''false''. It is entirely possible to use The Telegraph as a source for facts while ignoring its opinions, and those facts are ''generally'' reliable. Generally doesn't mean always. I'm not aware of any actual issues with the use of The Telegraph on Misplaced Pages. We seem to have had no problem reading past its bias and locating encyclopedic information. Nobody has tried to use it to source an article about identifying as a cat. In the absence of solving a real problem, I am concerned that moves towards downgrading this source will be used to solve something very different: the problem of disfavoured POVs existing. ] (]) 14:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think something you say here is the key to all the recent RfC's on news sources and trans issues. {{tq|I think it's possible to become so embedded in a POV that one comes to view that POV as pure objective truth, and the anti-POV therefore starts to look objectively false.}}--] (]) 14:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''': In the discussion earlier I was leaning towards “additional considerations” and I'm not personally a fan of the Telegraph’s spin so I wouldn't lose sleep over Option 2, but I have found the comments about the difference between bias and unreliability persuasive. | |||
| Context: ] and ] | |||
| : Most of the provided evidence hinges on a misrepresentation of the "cat" story. The Telegraph categorically did not promote {{tq| the litter boxes in schools hoax about a British school every day for a week}}. The only Telegraph story offered that actually mentions litter trays points out it is a myth: | |||
| Apologies, I am not familiar with what information is relevant and helpful. ] (]) 05:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : {{tq2| Some of them, such as tales of schools providing litter trays to cater for children identifying as cats, have turned out to be hoaxes, which has made it all too easy to assume that the problem is either a myth or is wildly exaggerated. }} | |||
| :From the listed information, the fact, that the journal has fixed editors and a fixed , the mission statement of "" and "", and the fact, that most contributors are associated with universities, I believe that this is a serious academic source, even though it is focussed on a niche topic and may not be quite as organized as publications by long-standing publishers in the field. I think this is a reliable source which can provide commentary as expected by ] on its subject matter. ] (]) 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :My initial thoughts was "Obviously not", but searching Google books its cited in works published by credible publishers (McFarland, Routledge, etc). It could be reliable per ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I think the fact it's such a niche source (an academic journal dedicated to a specific TV show of all things) suggests that while it's probably not unreliable, it's questionable whether it should count towards the notability of fictional elements from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. ] (]) 18:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:That's special pleading. We don't dismiss topics from journals dedicated to other authors, do we? | |||
| *:Grok gives the following as peer-reviewed, indexed journals of 20th century authors: | |||
| ** '''James Joyce Quarterly''': This journal is dedicated to Joyce's works, offering scholarly articles, reviews, and bibliographies. It is indexed by several databases, including JSTOR and Project MUSE. | |||
| ** '''The Faulkner Journal''': Focused on the study of Faulkner's literature, this journal publishes scholarly articles, book reviews, and special issues on various aspects of his work. It is indexed in databases like MLA International Bibliography. | |||
| ** '''The Hemingway Review''': This journal delves into Hemingway's writings, life, and influence, providing critical essays, reviews, and notes. It is indexed by several academic databases, including Project MUSE and JSTOR. | |||
| ** '''Virginia Woolf Bulletin''' (also known as the "Virginia Woolf Miscellany"): This publication explores Woolf's literature, life, and cultural impact. Although not as widely indexed as some others, it is recognized by the MLA International Bibliography. | |||
| ** '''T.S. Eliot Studies Annual''': This newer publication focuses on in-depth studies of Eliot's poetry, criticism, and cultural contributions. It is peer-reviewed and indexed in academic sources. | |||
| ** '''D.H. Lawrence Review''': This journal features scholarly articles on Lawrence's work, with a strong focus on his novels, poetry, and letters. It is indexed by resources like JSTOR. | |||
| ** '''Kafka Studies''': Although not as universally known, this journal offers critical analysis of Kafka's literature and philosophical themes. It's indexed in humanities databases. | |||
| ** '''Samuel Beckett Today/Aujourd'hui''': Dedicated to Beckett scholarship, this journal publishes articles in both English and French, focusing on Beckett's plays, novels, and other works. It is peer-reviewed and indexed by databases like Scopus. | |||
| ** '''Marcel Proust Bulletin''': This focuses on Proust's extensive oeuvre, particularly "In Search of Lost Time," with articles that explore his influence and interpretations. It's indexed by various literary databases. | |||
| ** '''Thomas Mann Jahrbuch''': This German-language journal studies Mann's literature, life, and cultural impact, featuring peer-reviewed articles. It is well-indexed in European academic circles. | |||
| ** '''Sehnsucht: The C. S. Lewis Journal''': Established by the Arizona C. S. Lewis Society in 2007, this is the world's only peer-reviewed journal devoted exclusively to the study of C. S. Lewis and his writings. It promotes interest in Lewis's literary, theological, historical, biographical, philosophical, and cultural contributions. The journal is indexed in databases like JSTOR, making it accessible for academic research. | |||
| *:I'm sure there may be more. Grok tends to overlook things even when you tell it to be exhaustive; the last one I specifically queried but it wasn't included in the first set. ] (]) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'm not dismssing the journal as a reliable source, I'm just saying that its focus on a particular TV show means that it may not demonstrate notability for fictional elements of this particular TV Show. I would say that this goes for the others sources you conjured using an AI chatbot and their particular purviews. If the particular fictional element is found to be notable I see no reason against using it as a source. ] (]) 19:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::AI chatbot just more or less summarized ]. The above are all legit scholarly journals.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 20:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Actually Kafka Studies don't seem to exist. ''Journal of the Kafka Society of America'' does however.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 20:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm not denying that they are legitimate scholarly journals. It's a question of ]. ] (]) 20:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::DUE is demonstrated by the fact that an entire journal exists about the topic.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 20:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't see why having a journal dedicated to a TV Show means that every minor aspect of its characters and worldbuilding is automatically notable. ] (]) 20:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No more than any minor aspect of CS Lewis characters become automatically notable.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 20:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What is the intended use? ] (]) 21:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Cynically, I'd say ''Slayage'' is evidence that there's a whole lot of academics who liked (like?) Joss Whedon's work and decided to put together a journal so they could write about their favorite fiction and have it count towards their career advancement. But that's still not reason to discount it as a source, is it? ] (]) 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::No but reliability is contextual. Without understanding thd context all we can really say is, "yeah it's a journal." ] (]) 15:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Is reliability even being seriously questioned here? Seriously, has anyone looked at it and compared it to similar academic journals? Because I'm seeing a lot more "Who would have a whole journal on this?" than "This isn't really a peer-reviewed, indexed journal." That is, no policy-based arguments against reliability are being advanced here. ] (]) 00:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::OK I found the context (was on my phone mostly over xmas which is a horrible interface) and I'd say that mention in a single journal is a bit weak for establishing independent notability of a seasonal antagonist in a TV show unless that mention was particularly in-depth. ] (]) 14:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::But that's not an RSN decision; that's an AfD topic. RSN is to debate whether a peer-reviewed, indexed journal is, in fact, a peer-reviewed, indexed journal. If we're agreed that this is, in fact, a peer-reviewed, indexed journal, even if a niche one, our job here is done, isn't it? ] (]) 22:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I limited it to 20th century authors, though, in an attempt to force a more contemporary focus, which is what we're really concerned about here. No one doubts Augustine is a topic of legitimate scholarly inquiry. ] (]) 22:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't really see why, when there are no objections against the content of the magazine, it should not be used for notability. The reason ] in the first place is to only create articles on topics where there really is enough to say. If there ''is'' enough, then why not? ] (]) 15:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I searched for ''Slayage'' and the papers from the AfD in ] after finding it mentioned at ] (how-to guide), ] (guideline), ] (essay), and ] (untagged). Is there a quick way to add up citation counts for ''Slayage'' across its papers? Do journal citation counts estimate impact, and is impact relevant here? | |||
| : The only aspect of the story that actually seems in any doubt is as to whether there actually was a child in the school who did identify as a cat, or whether this was a hypothetical thrown up in the classroom discussion, and it was ambiguous and open to interpretation based on the recorded conversation - and subsequently denied by the school. Everything else is AFAICT pretty factually reported, albeit biased, and audio of the incident was widely available so anyone can confirm this. The "cat-identification" portion is almost irrelevant in the context of the actual discussion, in which a teacher tells a class of students that there are three human sexes, and labels a child despicable for disagreeing as well as suggesting they should leave the school. These are reported accurately, eg.: | |||
| * https://www.whedonstudies.tv/volume-110.html Daniel A. Clark and P. Andrew Miller (Northern Kentucky University) | |||
| : {{tq2| She added that "there is actually three biological sexes because you can be born with male and female body parts or hormones" }} | |||
| ** https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11208910260268275851 – Cited by 17 | |||
| *** Clark, Daniel A., and P. Andrew Miller. "Buffy, the Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority." ''Slayage: The Online International Journal of Buffy Studies'' 3.9 (2001). | |||
| ** (no user profile) | |||
| ** (no user profile) | |||
| *** – Cited by 5345, but seems to be a different person | |||
| * https://www.whedonstudies.tv/volume-41.html Michele Paule (Oxford Brookes University) | |||
| ** https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14669897941185192559 – Cited by 2 | |||
| *** Paule, Michele. "" You're on My Campus, Buddy!" Sovereign and Disciplinary Power at Sunnydale High." ''Slayage: The Online International Journal of Buffy Studies'' 4.3 (2004). | |||
| ** – Cited by 87 | |||
| ] (]) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : {{tq2| The teacher said that "if you don’t like it you need to go to a different school", adding: "I’m reporting you to , you need to have a proper educational conversation about equality, diversity and inclusion because I’m not having that expressed in my lesson."}} | |||
| ==RfC: NewsNation== | |||
| : All of this is true and verifiable and acknowledged by the school: | |||
| What is the reliability of ]? | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| : {{tq2| The school, which does not dispute that the incident happened, said it was committed to inclusive education, but would be "reviewing our processes to ensure such events do not take place in the future". }} | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey (NewsNation)=== | |||
| : So again - the only aspect of the story that is exaggerated is that there was an actual child literally identifying as a cat in that class, which does not seem to be true, but is also - despite the headlines - a minor aspect of the story and nothing to do with the "litter box" hoax at all. Dismissing it as such serves to obscure than the vast majority of the story - as reported elsewhere - was nothing to do with the cat-identification and actually to do with poor handling of a sensitive subject, and it was this handling which prompted a snap inspection. The fact that virtually to the exclusion of the entire rest of the story, and that politicians and pundits made much hay with that, is a universal failure and merely representative of ] to my mind. Additionally, the "rebuttal" is misrepresented - as the Guardian makes clear, the Ofsted inspection did not look at this specific incident, and since the school has already conceded it happened and took action, saying this is "proven false" is, frankly, a misrepresentation. The inspection found that, whatever the failures in this case, they were not systemic. | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light). | |||
| **NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism. | |||
| ***In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the ], Coulthart said {{xt|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including ] and ], all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects. | |||
| ***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}} | |||
| ***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}. | |||
| ***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}} | |||
| ***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former. | |||
| ***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}. | |||
| ***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians. | |||
| **Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs: | |||
| ***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}. | |||
| ***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 . | |||
| :] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (NewsNation)=== | |||
| : Some comments about the other points. | |||
| *For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == techinasia.com == | |||
| :* We decide whether a group is "anti-trans" based on how reliable sources refer to them. Deciding a priori that a group is “anti-trans” and that any source that does not denigrate them as such is “unreliable” is begging the question, and POV. Not only that, this sort of reasoning will act like a ratchet, steadily removing all sources except those that adhere to a preconceived POV. This is a rare, non-fallacious ]. Sex Matters are a registered charity, and if reliable sources refer to them as “women’s rights group” then that is how Misplaced Pages should refer to them, or at the most present different opinionated labels in an attempt to balance a divisive subject. Deciding the Telegraph is factually unreliable for not strongly espousing a particular subjective POV is to elevate one specific POV to the level of fact, and a blanket decision at the source reliability level on that basis will inevitably entrench that POV across the entirety of Misplaced Pages, and lend weight to further RFCs argued on the same grounds. This is a concerning move indeed. | |||
| There is an article about the company here: ]. At some point many articles seem to be written with AI, with the following note by the publisher on those articles: | |||
| :* Irrespective of whether that makes a source unreliable, the complaints about calling trans women "men" don't seem to be supported by the supplied links. | |||
| >🤖 All content is created by our AI Author using various sources and our data for extra context. | |||
| :* On the breastfeeding story - where is a factual error here? And the opener strongly overstates the status of “{{tq|a medical fact that the medical community has come to a consensus on}}” in criticising The Telegraph: | |||
| >🧔♂️ A friendly human checks it before it goes live. More news here | |||
| :: The letter leaked to Policy Exchange is , and no-one disputes its veracity. The letter responds to questions raised over the use of the phrase “human milk”, which they defend as intended to be non-gender biased, as part of their policy on “Perinatal Care for Trans and Non-Binary People”. Then in a specific response to a question which uses the unpleasant phrase “male secretions” they make the claim that induced lactation produces milk “comparable to that produced following the birth of a baby”. They do not outright say this specifically applies to trans women, but this is implied by the five citations. The first four relate solely to lactation induction in females, where such a claim may well be true (though one is a very limited two-person pilot study, and another is a “La Leche League” info page that just references the same citations). | |||
| (see eg. see also ) | |||
| :: However the fifth citation makes it clear they are applying the same language to trans women. . That is, a trans woman, with a partner who had given birth and was at that time breastfeeding - and initially expressing milk too. The participant would deliver samples they themselves had allegedly produced at home - with no supervision or observation - for testing, and the results were limited. | |||
| I assume such articles cannot be used. I wonder about articles that are written before they started using AI such as . There are also paywalled articles written by staff such as that have the following note: | |||
| :: {{tq2| Four samples of expressed human milk were frozen and supplied for analysis. Each 40-ml sample was obtained from full breast pumpings pooled over a 24-hr period, collected approximately once each month, starting 129 days after initiation of domperidone and 56 days after initiation of pumping. }} | |||
| >It takes our newsroom weeks - if not months - to investigate and produce stories for our premium content. You can’t find them anywhere else. | |||
| :: {{tq2| the quantity of expressed milk was low in comparison to what would be needed to sustain infant growth independently}} | |||
| Currently this site is used as a source in 315 articles () | |||
| :: {{tq2| Nutritionally, our participant’s milk was quite robust with higher values for all macronutrients and average calories over 20 kcals per 30 ml. Other important characteristics of human milk, including micronutrients and bioactive factors, were not assessed. }} | |||
| The company seem to have some relationship with ] via their . The business Times syndicates tech in asia's articles via this page: and links to them in their footer. | |||
| :: So based on a totally uncontrolled and unverified sample size of one, obtained under an honour system with no source verification, with inadequate volumes and incomplete nutritional testing, it is wishful thinking to consider that a “medical fact”. This is an atrocious standard of evidence, and an NHS Trust shoehorning this in as part of a response to a policy query is, frankly, bizarre. | |||
| My opinion is that articles written before they started using AI are probably fine, at least from a reliability point of view alone. It may be confusing to allow only premium content however. ] (]) 00:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: What is however misleading in The Telegraph's reporting is that they segue from talking about induced lactation in trans women to this claim: | |||
| :Every article should be checked before using it as a source, as even seemingly reliable sources can be wrong, but anything created by AI should be viewed even more critically. You assessment is probably right. Paywalled content is acceptable, see ] (and another opportunity to mention ] if people haven't heard of it yet). -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{tq2| It also references a 2022 study that found “milk testosterone concentrations” were under 1 per cent with “no observable side effects” in the babies. }} | |||
| ::I would not bother with the paywall vs non-paywall distinction. Let's just draw a bright-line that they are no longer reliable after they started churning out LLM glurge with reliability assessed contextually as per standard practice from before they decided to throw their credibility entirely away. ] (]) 14:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Pop Crave == | |||
| :: What they don't make clear in the source is this was referring to a '''trans man'''. Now, they don't outright say anything false, but arguably by omission let an ill-informed reader assume they're still talking about trans women, so I think this is marginal. But an obfuscated claim like this does not come close to making them "generally unreliable", rather exactly the sort of biased elision that editors need to be wary of with any biased source. | |||
| I know what you're going to say. This is a social media page, and it can't be reliable. But '']'' is also that conducts interviews and breaks news. Pop Crave itself is reliable on Twitter and other sites. | |||
| :: The objection here seems yet again that the Telegraph reported the story at all, not that it was wrong or in any significant way unreliable. And even if it were, when would we cite this article? | |||
| I know there's a small chance of this going through. But I think it's also worth seriously re-examining our social media sources policy. The younger generations are getting their news from these sources way more than any others. That number will only increase as the years go by. And as a result, these sources will become more reliable. We need to get in touch. ] (]) 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : I have no doubt that The Telegraph have their own interest in focusing on and generating such inflammatory stories - but they aren't notably unreliable more than any other biased source IMO. They are biased in what stories they choose to report on and how they choose to present them and what they choose to leave out, but virtually none of what's been presented here amounts to false information. That this cherry-picked handful of coverage spanning years is supposedly the strongest evidence, I find highly unpersuasive. ] (]) 15:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :• '''Option 3.''' The Telegraph has gone far beyond bias and into unreliability, from the above RFCbefore they advocate for conversion therapy. From we have the quote "A school teacher told a pupil she was “despicable” after she refused to accept that her classmate identifies as a cat." from which it is clear that the telegraph says someone at the school identifies as a cat. From we have constant misgendering of a child (honestly I can't remember an article where they respect the gender of a trans child) and the quote "citing the most comprehensive study of the impact of binders to date, which found that more than 97 per cent of adults who use them suffer health problems as a result." which seems to be mentioning where the most 5 reported health problems were backpain (53.8%), overheating (53.5%), chest pain (48.8%), shortness of breath(46.6%) and itchiness (44.9%). I think one could get similar health problems (in terms of severity) from people who consistently wear high heals and possibly at a higher frequency. Another point people seem to be bringing up is that it is normal (and best practice) for newspapers to bring activists or campaigners from both sides on any issue, whilst true the telegraph doesn't do this. They rarely balance with a campaigner or activist from stonewall or mermaids or any number of local groups, somehow they always manage to bring in an activist from Safe Sex Matter, Thoughtful Therapists, Safe Schools alliance, Protect and Teach and more. They also promote the myth that most children with gender dysphoria will desist and are in fact gay in some kind (one example) a myth based on studies that assume any gender nonconformity is the same as gender dysphoria and based on outdated definitions. ] (]) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small> | |||
| ::The claim that anybody has ever identified as a cat appears to be culture war bullshit. https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/01/30/how-furries-got-swept-up-in-anti-trans-litter-box-rumors/ | |||
| ::The Telegraph has on this thoroughly-refuted bullshit. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 18:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Others are free to chime in, but the fact that a source is considered "reliable" on another website -- especially social media -- is of little consequence in the context of determining its reliability on Misplaced Pages. What ultimately matters is how it conforms to policies and guidelines such as ] and ]. Assessing the source on its own merits, I Googled their staff page since I couldn't find it on their homepage (, for those interested), and there is no information provided about these people beyond their roles at the site, which frequently strikes me as the sign of a dubious source. Furthermore, there are no authors listed on any of the articles presented on their homepage, which is not a good sign. All things considered, this really does just look like a social media-type fansite, which in addition to not meeting the criteria of ], would also make it unusable on ] articles. | |||
| *'''Option 3'''. The deciding factor for me is that The Telegraph has presented fringe voices as authoritative, and at times promoted pseudoscience. That pushes it from being biased towards being unreliable. ] (]) 18:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Finally, I will conclude with this: As a young enough person (22, as I write this), I certainly view news from sources that don't meet Misplaced Pages's standards for verifiability and reliability, but that doesn't mean I'm going to cite them on Misplaced Pages. So I don't see using popular sites that younger audiences get their news from as a good idea -- using that standard, TikTok and Instagram posts could be regarded as potentially acceptable for, say, information about living persons. Sorry, but that is just not how Misplaced Pages functions. ] (]) 06:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I concur with JeffSpaceman's assessment. The site does list it's staff, but the bios are the same humorous take on ]. There's no way to assess reliability, which has the markings of it being unreliable. The publishing medium - social media vs. website - doesn't really matter. It's the credentials, editorial oversight, and reputation for fact-checking that matter, and on that there's nothing to go on.--] (] | ]) 16:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] says that for articles about living people you should be {{tq|very firm about the use of high-quality sources}}. Celebrity news and gossip sites are not high-quality sources. Separately interviews can be used for ] statements, as long as it's not overly promotional (etc) and your only quoting the subject and not the comments by the interviewer. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I'm familiar enough with PopCrave to say with confidence there is no world in which it should be used as a reliable source. It's a prime example of churnalism. ] (]) 14:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Pop Crave doesn't have a track record of reliability we would want for a RS, especially in the BLP space. Looking at the bios of some of the authors that I was able to find (Dylan Anthony, their most prolific writer, does not appear to be on LinkedIn). most have little journalism experience, especially with RSs. That being said, they do have some experience, do not seem like grifters, and do get interviews. It seems like their interviews should be safe enough for ] statements if it's not egregiously self-serving. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Since my preferred answer '''"Do not make such over-generalizations''' It should be case by case, and in the context of the text which it is being used to support" is not on the list. And in majority of those cases, the answer is "yes". <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 18:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Option 2''' is also good.<b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 22:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' is the ''Telegraph''s leader column '''today'''. Meanwhile, the ''Telegraph''s columnists include the notorious "gender-critical" activist ] . Look at that page and tell me "this is a reliable source". Oh and then there's and and and (which appears to be false) and this is all in the last few weeks. Seriously, if you're voting "1" here, you're not looking hard enough. ] 18:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{yo|Black Kite}} Did you intend to delete {{u|Chess}}’s comment of 19:33? ] (]) 19:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not being funny, but all of those are just opinions you disagree with, none of it is factually wrong. Your vote here is so far from our policies, I'm not sure if it should even be counted by the closer.] (]) 18:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: "None of it is factually wrong". Even if you were correct, which you aren't, do you think it shows that the newspaper can be trusted on the topic? It clearly can't. ] 19:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well thats the rub isnt it. Our sourcing policies do not require us as editors to personally trust the sources, only that they fulfil the criteria for reliability we have set. I distrust the Telegraph because its a mouthpiece for Tory scumbags, but thats not actually against any of our policies. If only it were. Per Chess, pretty much all the rest of the evidence to me shows bias, but not unreliability (as we have defined it), so I am going to have to regretfully go with option 1. ] (]) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you think there is factual inaccuracy, could you say what it is? Whether I like what it writes (and I usually don't) doesn't make any odds at all.--] (]) 20:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You make the point for us. It's an opinion. A fringe one, that screams out of every single word of coverage on the topic. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 17:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That misrepresents the findings of the ], on top of whatever else is going on there. ] (]) 18:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::] already recommends against using normally reliable news sources to explain complicated medical studies; what does designating The Telegraph as unreliable add here? Even so, I dispute that The Telegraph is inaccurate. The Telegraph's article says {{tq|Dr Hilary Cass warned of potential risks of social transition – when names and pronouns are changed – saying it could push children down a potentially harmful medical pathway when issues could be resolved in other ways.}} | |||
| :::Page 32, paragraph 78 of the Cass Review itself says: {{tq|Therefore, sex of rearing seems to have some influence on eventual gender outcome, and it is possible that social transition in childhood may change the trajectory of gender identity development for children with early gender incongruence.}} | |||
| :::The Cass Review also says on page 164 that {{tq|Clinical involvement in the decision-making process should include advising on the risks and benefits of social transition as a planned intervention, referencing best available evidence. This is not a role that can be taken by staff without appropriate clinical training.}} | |||
| :::It's not a misrepresentation of the Cass Review to say socially transitioning could cause feelings of gender incongruence, and there should be clinical involvement in the decision-making process instead of a child unilaterally deciding to socially transition without any advice. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq2|The SNP government has kept controversial guidance, which calls on teachers to “be affirming” to children who say they are trans and endorses “social transition”, in place despite the recent findings of the Cass review.}} | |||
| ::::Implies a "harder" stance than what was actually stated. This is not the first time, nor the most severe such incident. See and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/10/under-25s-trans-care-must-be-slower-says-cass-report/ (visible URL intentional), where the Telegraph states that the report recommends some sort of restrictions on GAC for under-25s and not just for minors. This is . Additionally, Telegraph coverage of the Cass Review caused problems at the ] article, at the talk page of which the idea for this RfC started.<ref>]</ref> ] (]) 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| :::::{{tq|Implies a "harder" stance than what was actually stated.}} What is the stance that is being implied? As I have said, my understanding of the stance of the Cass Review is that it neither endorses nor rejects social transitioning, and the review treats social transitioning as an active intervention that doesn't have much evidence for or against it. The recommendation is ''not'' to affirm children that their decision is correct, but have a professional advising them on the risks and benefits of transitioning. Clearly you disagree, but you refuse to say how. | |||
| :::::'''If you refuse to say what you believe what the findings of the Cass Review are, it's impossible for other editors to engage with your point and weigh it.''' | |||
| :::::Deciding to criticize two unrelated articles doesn't affect the reliability of the first article, it just confuses the discussion. | |||
| :::::But to address your point anyways, ] says that headlines aren't reliable, so the "visible URL" containing the headline isn't citable in articles anyways (this is the only specific part of the article you bothered to say is unreliable). Additionally, those two articles were published the day before the official release of the report and the day of the report being released respectively. '''] says that otherwise reliable sources can have serious inaccuracies because of the nature of breaking news''', ''especially'' when summarizing a newly-released scientific publication. If you look into what the Cass Review says, on page 224, it says that 17 year olds are getting aged out of their childhood transgender care providers and that {{tq|a follow-through service continuing up to age 25 would remove the need for transition at this vulnerable time and benefit both this younger population and the adult population}}. The creators of the Cass Review later had to clarify that the word "transition" in this context meant transfer, not gender transition. | |||
| :::::That's the only other inaccuracy I could guess you were referring to; and it did recommend that under 25s not be subject to sudden changes in their care. This fits with the word "]" which can refer to taking a longer time to complete an action (in this case the action being a transition to adult services). | |||
| :::::A source having minor errors in an ambiguous situation during a breaking news story doesn't make it unreliable; '''it's already possible to exclude those two articles under ] without designating the Telegraph as unreliable.''' <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::For the sake of not looking insane, I would like to state for the record that I agree with your understanding of the stance taken by the Cass Review final report. Anyways, with the two articles not being relevant to this discussion due to ], this discussion about a nitpick is now meaningless and I concede and drop my point for the sake of not making this RfC swell faster than it needs to. ] (]) 23:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::In your last 4 links, do you plan on including a quote or any specific context about ''what'' is false about those stories? That would be useful in conjunction with reliable sources that describe the specific claims as being false. | |||
| ::Just dumping a bunch of links and asserting that it {{tq|appears to be false}} without any elaboration isn't a very meaningful contribution. You can't seriously say that {{tq|if you're voting "1" here, you're not looking hard enough}} when you haven't done enough research yourself to say with your own voice that a specific article in The Telegraph is false. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'm merely pointing out that a newspaper, which under its ''own byline'' (let alone its choice of bigotry in its opinion columns) posts wildly biased material, is probably not the best one to trust on the topic. ] 19:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So, you've conceded that your evidence does not show that The Telegraph publishes false information. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Don't put words in my mouth, please. There is evidence in ''this discussion'' that the DT posts misinformation on the topic. And if you think that a newspaper that posts stuff like Bindel's, or like on a regular basis (did you look at the link I provided?) can in ''any way'' be reliable on trans issues is simply delusional. Yes, the DT does - very occasionally - print more balanced articles on the subject, but it's very noticeable that they usually still come with an agenda. Judging a newspaper on its own material - and that's material printed under its own byline as well as by its motley collection of "columnists" is hardly a massive leap. ] 07:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}}Thanks for collecting the links. You've got a stronger stomach than I have to be able to wade through that much bile. --] (]) 19:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''': Their reporting simply doesn't show the respect for facts and getting things right that is required. We've seen plenty of examples of them getting things very wrong; I don't think anyone's pointed to them getting things right, though. Like, it's easy to dismiss their coverage as opinion pieces, but if that's all they have, then they're only really sources for opinion anyway (]), which means they're generally unreliable for actual facts. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all ].</sub></span> 18:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' is the sensible answer. I don't see how we can depreciate the whole paper at the moment, although it may come to that later depending on who ends up owning it. Option 2 is arguable but I fear that we would be forever arguing over the details of the "additional considerations" and it's just not worth it. Option 1 is ''entirely'' untenable. It is undisputable that they have published stories that were substantially untrue, where even casual enquiry would have revealed them to be untrue prior to publication. That is enough to make them unReliable. It doesn't matter whether those untrue stories were published knowingly in bad faith. I'm OK with them remaining Reliable on other topics provided that we broadly construe trans issues to include all the strange and disingenuous ways in which people talk about trans people without actually saying "trans people". So, for example, the ridiculous "litter box" bullshit hoax (I struggle to see ''any'' way that it could have been published in good faith unless the entire editorial team was kicked in the head by a horse!) would have to fall within our definition of "trans issues". We recognise that when people say "lizard people" or "global banking elites" they quite often mean Jews. Similarly, we need to recognise that when the Telegraph, and others, say "children who identify as animals", or whatever nonsense codephrase they come up with next, they are talking about trans people in an intentionally obfuscated way and that is fundamentally unReliable writing. --] (]) 19:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Unfortunately based on the evidence here, I think the Telegraph is undoubtedly biased, but bias is explicitly not something that means unreliable. The Daily Mail had a long long history of factual inaccuracies (not to mention just making things up) before we got to the stage where we said it was an unreliable publication. We are not even close to that level of unreliability with the Telegraph. Who knows, there may be plenty of examples of the Telegraphs actual unreliability (as opposed to editorial bias) but I am not seeing them in the discussion or various links above. ] (]) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' During the , which concluded last year, editors were told there was substantial evidence of problems with this source, but the supposed evidence for unreliability wasn't presented. Looking at the supposed evidence this time indicates that it still doesn't exist. From above... "even when the hoax was proven"; it wasn't... there was a later inspection leading to a report that, as ''The Guardian'' source states, "does not directly address the argument between the teacher and pupils, or the question of whether any pupils identify as animals". The ''PinkNews'' source quotes the same recording that ''The Telegraph'' used: "how can you identify as a cat when you’re a girl?" Further analysis of this isn't worth my time – it's a silly story, but not a "hoax". "James Esses is not and has never been a therapist"; the source doesn't say that he is. "Thoughtful Therapists is an anti-trans interest group"; the source describes it as "concerned with impact of gender ideology on young people", which is probably a different perspective on the same thing. Same with "Sex Matters". "the UN..."; I don't see what's factually inaccurate. I stopped there. As last time (and the frequency of the attempts is becoming tedious), there isn't evidence of unreliability for facts. Bias, certainly. And presenting different views, attributed, doesn't mean a source is unreliable. ] (]) 20:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Look, guys, gals and either or else, if we have to have a discussion about every website that has become a ] we've already eliminated half of the sources considered generally reliable a decade ago, and if we consider bias and opinionation to be a damning factor, there's the other half gone. | |||
| :'''Option 3.''' My biggest hesitation is the lack of third party reliable sources labelling the Telegraph as misleading on transgender coverage. I could not support option 4 without that. But it is plainly obvious by the examples provided that the Telegraph is incredibly biased on transgender coverage, and I would prefer basically any other news source when citing sources on topics. The Telegraph routinely flaunts basic journalistic practice, engages in bad faith, and hides context regularly. I don't want them used as a source for this topic. I do not find the arguments for option one convincing - The Telegraph being biased may not immediately mean a source is unreliable, but they regularly post hoaxes as facts. -- ] (]) 20:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''': Apart from the brief comment I'm unsure how users can acknowledge the clear bias in the Telegraph while voting for option 1 instead of 2, I'll briefly note the evidence I've presented in the RFCBEFORE: | |||
| :* The Telegraph has been recognizably homophobic since the 70s, was protested even then based on that fact, and supported ]. | |||
| :* Chess's, ] comment, much like the Telegraph, somehow ignores the context that Thoughtful therapists (formerly the "Gender Exploratory Therapy Association") ''is a pro-conversion therapy group'' (see ]). Chess claims James Esses was fired for GC beliefs, he was fired because his employer asked him to stop publicly campaigning against bans on conversion therapy ''using their organization's name'' - because he holds the ] view that conversion therapy does not include ]. | |||
| :* Here is them running an entire article ] a transgender teenager and complaining that the school didn't misgender them because the parents asked them to. In that same article, they use a euphemism for conversion therapy and misrepresent medical information to claim it's a beneficial treatment. | |||
| :* Here I presented multiple academic papers criticizing the Telegraph's bias, homophobia, and transphobia. | |||
| :* Here I analyzed the Telegraph's reporting on James Esses of "Thoughtful Therapists" and showed that the ] covered it first ''with less bias and misrepresentation'' - unlike the Telegraph, the DailyMail 1) actually provided a definition of conversion therapy 2) noted that Esses tried to convince transgender children they weren't and 3) campaigned against bans on conversion therapy for trans kids | |||
| :* Chess continues to insist that the Telegraph's reporting of the Cass Review was correct: I previously noted the issues, which the Cass Review noted in its own FAQ, chief of which is the Telegraph said the Review called for slower transitions for those <u>under 25</u>, when the review ''explicitly'' did not comment on trans healthcare for those <u>over 18</u> ... | |||
| :'''TLDR''': FFS they platform ] on trans topics all the time (specifically the conversion therapy promoting kind), say patently untrue shit, and academia has agreed they have an anti-LGBT bias ''for decades.'' Frankly, I'm flabbergasted some editors seem to think "journalistic objectivity" means every single article about trans people should quote transphobic quacks (without even getting to the fact the Telegraph disproportionately gives weight to the latter)... ] (]) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist}} I'm not sure what incident between James Esses and "his employer" you're referring to, because as I said in my original comment, he was ''expelled'' from his ''master's degree'' before he could become a therapist. Digging through your comment, I can assume you mean his ''volunteer position'' at ], something I have not brought up at this RfC. | |||
| ::Calling my comment a ] (you linked ] which I assume was accidental) and ] undermines everything you have said, especially since your entire !vote is cited to other comments you've made (which makes it difficult to verify the sources) instead of reliable sources. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 22:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Quoting your original comment, {{tq|Chess claims James Esses was fired for GC beliefs}}. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 22:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] You're right, I made some mistake, so for the record: | |||
| :::* Chess claims James Esses was expelled from his masters for his GC beliefs, neglecting to mention the GC belief in question was the ]. | |||
| :::* I did mean to link ] instead of ] - your comment was over 1,600 words. | |||
| :::My point still stands that you left out the context that he was fired for advocating a form of conversion therapy. You have not addressed any of my other points, only half addressed that one, and those diffs have the sources in them - you are free to click them. If you have more to address, please do so in the discussion section. ] (]) 23:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You can't simultaneously criticize me for posting a ] and say I didn't include enough context. Virtually all of the sources summarize his views as "gender-critical" including the two you linked, so that's an accurate summary. The UK College of Psychotherapists {{tq|also recognises the validity of the professional belief that children suffering from gender dysphoria should be treated with explorative therapy.}} How can his views be ] if they were recognized by the professional organization regulating psychotherapists as being valid? You have not provided any evidence in terms of reliable sources to show that James Esses practices or supports conversion therapy. The most you have in your linked comment is a ] (deprecated BTW, not reliable) article where he advocates against a legal ban on conversion therapy because it would have a ] on psychotherapy. You also have a Misplaced Pages article (not reliable) cited to sources that predate UKCP recognizing Esses' views as valid. '''There is nothing reliable that accuses James Esses or Thoughtful Therapists of promoting conversion therapy.''' | |||
| ::::Anyways, you have now added some more context on James Esses' beliefs. How does that impact the reliability of The Telegraph? You haven't even attempted to answer that question beyond pointing to a single article from the ] that supposedly is more balanced than The Telegraph. Your reasoning is seemingly that for The Telegraph to be more reliable than the Daily Mail, every article ever published in The Telegraph must be of a higher quality than any article ever published by the Daily Mail in its history. That's not how reliability works; ]. '''A deprecated source putting out a really good article now and then doesn't reduce the quality of an article from a reliable source.''' | |||
| ::::I have also said above that regardless of Esses' personal beliefs, quoting him in a news story doesn't mean that The Telegraph endorses his views. They are quoting him to give another side to a debate on transgender issues. Even if James Esses' is unreliable, that doesn't make The Telegraph unreliable for quoting him. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tq|How can his views be WP:FRINGE if they were recognized by the professional organization regulating psychotherapists as being valid}} Ah yes, the UKCP, the only medical organization in the UK to withdraw from the , signed by dozens of medical/psychological/psychiatric bodies, because the UKCP thought it went too far in protecting kids. - When you are the sole medical org disagreeing with the rest of them on the definition of conversion therapy, ya ]. | |||
| :::::We can agree to disagree on whether or not it impugns a source's reliability to publish more blatantly biased pieces that omit information than the ]. You think that's an excusable issue, I think it's a profound indicator of unreliability. | |||
| :::::{{tq|There is nothing reliable that accuses James Esses or Thoughtful Therapists of promoting conversion therapy.}} FFS Thoughtful Therapists is a rename of the "Gender Exploratory Therapy Asociation" - you are free to read the section on ] in the article ]... And if you go through ], you'll find consensus was that the UKCP's position defending it did not outweigh the sources saying it is conversion therapy. | |||
| :::::{{tq|How does that impact the reliability of The Telegraph?}} - In this diff where I compare the DAILYMAIL and telegraphs' coverage, I note {{tq|The Telegraph does not actually mention A) how he treated kids who wanted to transition and called childline or B) how young these too young kids were}}. I also note contradictory and misleading statements the Telegraph makes, such as claiming he was fired for openly expressing GC views, when the issue was they objected to him campaigning mentioning his affiliation with Lifeline. | |||
| ::::: | |||
| :::::{{tq|They are quoting him to give another side to a debate on transgender issues.}} - I suppose we can also agree to disagree whether a newspaper frequently quoting ] ] on articles about a minority impugns it's reliability. ] (]) 03:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You're speculating baselessly as to why UKCP didn't sign the MOU, and nowhere does this MOU say that "gender exploratory therapy" is conversion therapy. Here's the PDF: It calls out {{tq|‘reparative therapy’, ‘gay cure therapy’, or ‘sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts’}} by name, but does not mention gender exploratory therapy. Signing the MOU is neither an endorsement nor a repudiation of the claim that ''gender exploratory therapy'' is ''conversion therapy''. | |||
| ::::::'''You haven't shown anything to suggest that the UKCP didn't sign that MOU because UKCP believes that gender exploratory therapy isn't conversion therapy, or that the UKCP endorses conversion therapy.''' | |||
| ::::::Meanwhile, the Mother Jones article says nowhere in its own voice that gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy. It quotes {{tq|Casey Pick, director of law and policy at the Trevor Project}} as saying that it is, but then it also quotes the UKCP + the interim Cass Report as saying that gender exploratory therapy is fine. So, that article doesn't take a position. | |||
| ::::::If we rank up the evidence, we have someone from the Trevor Project and an inconclusive talk page discussion at ] saying gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy. On the other hand, we have the ] and the interim version of a systemic review saying otherwise. '''Do you have convincing reasons for why the regulatory body is wrong beyond any doubt?''' Because the burden of proof for ] isn't that it's just an ]. You have to show that his views are pseudoscientific quackery, not just controversial, because as you said, {{tq|a newspaper frequently quoting ] ] on articles about a minority impugns it's reliability.}} | |||
| ::::::And I'm unsure if you're interpreting this article correctly. It clearly says {{tq|As his online advocacy around safeguarding continued, he was told not to refer to the charity or his role there}} and later {{tq|The NSPCC, Childline’s parent company, says "We respect people’s rights to hold different views, but volunteers can’t give the impression Childline endorses their personal campaigns"}} The article covers that James Esses believes he was kicked out of Childline for his views, and Childline says it was because he stated his affiliation while perpetuating his views. This isn't a contradiction. '''Either way, his views played a part''', so the article covers that they agree on that point and then goes onto elaborate on where they disagree (Childline saying that it would've been fine to express those views if he hadn't mentioned his affiliation). If you're claiming his views played no part, you're proposing the article say something like {{!tq|James Esses was kicked out of Childline for publicly discussing his employment there}} end of story. This would ignore the core of the piece. | |||
| ::::::And the Daily Mail is unreliable for facts, so the Daily Mail asserting that James Esses said something isn't proof he said that thing. You need to provide a corroborating source to show that what is said in that article is true if you want people to believe it. Even so, the best two aspects of the Daily Mail are that Esses supposedly treated kids with gender exploratory therapy (which has nothing to do with him leaving Childline) and that the Daily Mail gave specific ages. | |||
| ::::::If you're asserting that the Telegraph misled readers by omitting these facts, '''how was the reader misled'''? What false belief would someone have by reading the Telegraph that they wouldn't get by reading the Daily Mail? Because it's not just about saying that the Daily Mail was more interesting to read, you have to show that the Telegraph was ''less reliable'' because it omitted those facts. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 05:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|You're speculating baselessly as to why UKCP didn't sign the MOU}} - 1) they withdrew their signature ''after'' signing it and 2) they're pretty explicit they left over concerns on how it applied to kids | |||
| :::::::{{tq|You haven't shown anything to suggest that the UKCP didn't sign that MOU because UKCP believes that gender exploratory therapy isn't conversion therapy, or that the UKCP endorses conversion therapy.}} - I never said they did.... I said they withdrew their signature because they disagreed with all the other medical orgs signing it on how to define conversion therapy, which is self-evident. | |||
| :::::::{{tq| Do you have convincing reasons for why the regulatory body is wrong beyond any doubt?}} - ] applies, when basically every medical org and academic source says "this is conversion therapy", and your evidence otherwise is 1) a MEDORG that disagrees with the rest of them on what is conversion therapy and 2) a single sentence from a half finished report, then we go with "this is conversion therapy". Once again, read ], which contains plenty of sources. And, you seem to have not noted that per the MotherJones piece, 1) the ] criticized "exploratory" therapy and 2) ] <small>(yes, ''that'' NARTH)</small> endorses it... | |||
| :::::::{{tq|how was the reader misled?}} Apart from euphemizing conversion therapy and neglecting to mention he and TT campaign against bans against it? <small>I want to note for the record I made a mistake, I mixed up GETA/"therapy first" with "thoughtful therapists" in previous comments since the membership/views overlaps so much and they endorse eachother often</small>. Here's a big issue: {{tq|Either way, his views played a part}} - nope, only in one way. The telegraph says, in their own voice in the article's 2nd sentence, "Esses was fired for openly expressing his views". Childline said "the issue was using our name, we offered him the chance to keep campaigning without it". The telegraph implies the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy (''immaterial of what position was advocated''). ] (]) 16:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{tq|I said they withdrew their signature because they disagreed with all the other medical orgs signing it on how to define conversion therapy, which is self-evident.}} OK, so how is that evidence of ]? The background to the decision that you helpfully link now says they only signed because of confusion over the implementation. Specifically, that {{tq|At the time of signing the MoU in 2016, the understanding of the UKCP Board of Trustees was that it only related to over-18s}}, they later learned it applied to all ages, and that {{tq|without the involvement of and full consultation with UKCP child psychotherapists and child psychotherapeutic counsellors, UKCP would not have signed the MoU if it was known to relate to children}}. In other words, they have to consult stakeholders before signing something affecting them. They didn't do the consultation, and now that stakeholders are complaining, they feel the need to withdraw. Not an endorsement or disendorsement of the scientific views of the MOU. '''While they're the odd one out, it doesn't appear to be because of ] views.''' I'll note that they still fully oppose conversion therapy for minors. | |||
| ::::::::Anyways, according to ], Misplaced Pages is an unreliable source, because anyone can edit it and so you're just citing the result of a discussion on a talk page elsewhere on this site. That is why I have repeatedly asked for the underlying sources for your claims, given how contentious this topic is. Despite your repeated assertions that {{tq|basically every medical org and academic source says "this is conversion therapy"}}, you have only been able to provide that article, the ], and now ] (which I missed and is the only medical organization you've cited). I've provided the ]. It doesn't make sense to go in circles on whether gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy since no new information will appear at this point IMHO. | |||
| ::::::::The reason why I asked {{tq|how was the reader misled?}} is because the goal of the ] policy is to prevent false information from making its way onto Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ::::::::'''All of the stuff above matters only to the extent it impacts The Telegraph's reliability''', which is why I asked to see a connection between the Telegraph {{tq|euphemizing conversion therapy}} and an incorrect belief that a reader might have by reading the article. As an example, we heavily discussed whether gender exploratory therapy is conversion therapy. '''Can you provide examples of how The Telegraph would be used to cite a false claim about conversion therapy?''' Keep in mind that ] already recommends against citing the popular media without a high quality medical source to corroborate it. | |||
| ::::::::So far, you've only provided one claim you say is false that could be cited to The Telegraph. It's that {{tq|The telegraph implies the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy}}. But this isn't what the article says, you acknowledge it's an implication you're drawing from the article. Our policy on ] already says contentious material about living persons (along with challenged or likely to be challenged statements) can only be sourced to content that ''directly supports'' the claim made, "directly support" meaning {{tq|the information is present explicitly in the source}}. | |||
| ::::::::'''It's already impossible to cite the implication you're referring to in an article''', so what harm to the encyclopedia is prevented by designating The Telegraph as unreliable? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 00:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::@], I think you've posed the most important question. "What harm to the encyclopedia is prevented by designating The Telegraph as unreliable?" That really cuts to the heart of the matter. ] (]) 00:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::1) There is a discussion section so the survey section doesn't get bloated. If you want to leave a few hundred more words in reply to this, please use it - otherwise I won't respond and make this even more difficult for the poor closer. | |||
| :::::::::2) Since you refuse to click the links at ]: WPATH, ASIAPATH, EPATH, PATHA, and the USPATH say its conversion therapy SAMHSA and the Trevor Project says its conversion therapy. These academic RS say its conversion therapy. Here's one that notes it's been described as conversion therapy and notes there is no evidence whatsoever it is useful or effective. Here are more RS calling it conversion therapy. Here is the ] calling it conversion therapy. And here is a reliable source noting '''<u>] (''the original pro conversion therapy lobbying group'') endorses "exploratory" therapy and works with those pushing it</u>'''. | |||
| :::::::::3) Here's a Telegraph piece saying the UKCP dropped out because of their support for "exploratory" therapy and this led to calls to change the board. Funny enough, it repeats the false claim wrt the Cass Review that "The former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health found that no one under 25 should be rushed into changing gender." (so your breakingnews argument from earlier doesn't apply) | |||
| :::::::::4) I should have said {{tq|The telegraph <s>implies</s><u>outright says</u> the views themselves were the issue, while it's clear it was using his Childline position for advocacy}} - they say {{tq|Last year, he was ejected from his psychotherapist training course – three years in – for openly discussing his fears... weeks later, Childline removed him from his volunteer role as a counsellor <u>on the same grounds</u>}} | |||
| :::::::::5) {{tq|Can you provide examples of how The Telegraph would be used to cite a false claim about conversion therapy?}} - See that per the quote in 4, you could cite the Telegraph to say Childline removed him for "openly discussing his fears" (as opposed to "for campaigning with their name, after they asked him to stop using their name but said he could keep campaigning"). | |||
| :::::::::6) {{tq|What harm to the encyclopedia is prevented by designating The Telegraph as unreliable?}} - we'd keep out distortions of fact, promotion of ], and ] weight towards nothingburgers the Telegraph has blow out of proportion. We could still use the Telegraph, ''if there was a good reason'', but we could acknowledge their publishing on trans topics is tabloidlike at best these days. ] (]) 00:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'll keep this brief as you asked. The only specific use of the Telegraph you say is preventable by designating unreliability is point 4) as point 3) falls under ] and I've argued 4) above. | |||
| ::::::::::Re: point 6), evaluating it on a case-by-case basis would be ] (use sometimes), not ] (use ]), contradicting your !vote. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tq|And if you go through Talk:Conversion therapy, you'll find consensus was that the UKCP's position defending it did not outweigh the sources saying it is conversion therapy.}} | |||
| ::::::A local consensus arrived at by ] trying '''and failing''' to establish ] and ]'s service specification and the landmark ] as FRINGE. | |||
| ::::::Please stop misusing ] in this hyperbolic way. It is exhausting. None of what you're complaining about is FRINGE. The Cass Review explicitly highlighted the weaponisation of discourse around "exploratory therapy" and "conversion therapy" and specifically stated that the continual conflation of the two was harmful. | |||
| ::::::Using any of this longstanding medical dispute over highly contested terminology to argue for the unreliability of a source is well out of scope for this RFC. ] (]) 11:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| How about we agree to encourage practice of good ], and learn to take each article on a given website on a basis-by-basis account? If it is recognised as churnalism or slop, don't use it. If it's an example of helpful content, use it. We live in the ] age of AI garbage. Deal with this conundrum smartly. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' (sorry for the lengthy !vote). u:Loki has made 3 main arguments 1) coverage of the student-identifying-as-a-cat story 2) "going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things" and 3) secondary sources criticising their coverage. Re 1) I agree that they could've done a better job covering this story (see my comment 08:36, 12 May 2024) but if it's the worst thing they've done it doesn't justify a downgrade. Re 2) I think that the provided examples indeed show a bias but nothing more than that. Are you suggesting that platforming anti-trans groups makes a source unreliable? Also, they did not say that James Esses was a therapist in the linked article. Re 3), I've reviewed the article by Bailey and Mackenzie and haven't found where they say that the Telegraph is unreliable or give examples of falsehoods (but I may have missed it). The is from 2021, and has a bit of hair-splitting feel to it (see item 22 in which the inaccuracy is described). Anyway, all British newspapers have had IPSO rulings against them, so by itself it's not a disqualification. Since the whole thing is voluntary, it's actually a positive sign as they have subjected themselves to an external regulator. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is an awful response to give at the ''reliable source noticeboard''. Discussing sources is what is done here, and this person is asking a good-faith question on the use of a source. Your participation isn't required if you're already exasperated for some reason. ] ] 03:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' I do not find the defense of the Telegraph's reporting on the cat identifying controversy convincing. From what I've seen it was obvious that the discussion of the students did not involve someone literally identifying as a cat (it involved a student using that as an example to criticize people identifying as another gender), and I don't think any of the quotes from that discussion support that someone literally identified as a cat when those quotes are taken in context. Whereas The Telegraph reported it as if someone was actually identifying as a cat , and other reliable sources reported it in a much more grounded and accurate manner . Taken with other questionable reporting relating to this topic, I think it should be classified under Option 2, as its reporting may sometimes still be useable.--] (]) 22:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::look, it's exasperating to see literally all pop culture / video games sources going down the proverbial shitter for sakes' of engagement and leverage of AI. most sources have the whispers of decent journalism drowned out behind the great content farm, and it's probably prudent to know how to pick the meat from the shells, so to speak. Yes, it is tiring, and it is sad to see journalism turn sour. If it bothers you to see concern expressed and grievances given, eh. it's reality. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', per Chess and others. As for the cat story, all they say is some varient on students "were reprimanded for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat". This is true; there is a tape recording of students being reprimanded for this, which is a different claim from the one editors above are concerned about, that a student ''did'' identify as a cat. ] (]) 23:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's besides the point. Lament it somewhere else. This is a place people are ''supposed'' to be asking about sources, and your grumbling creates a chilling effect on editors who wish to learn how to go about things the right way. I'm well aware of the state of journalism in 2025, and I don't blame anyone bemoaning it. But there's a time and place for things, and this is not the place for it. It lacks common sense - just as it would if I were to head over to ] and say "''Oh great, yet another question about ]!''" That's...what they do there. If you're tired of fielding questions, do something else. ] ] 16:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Are you aware of the concept of a ] in linguistics? | |||
| ::::I get your frustration. Frankly it is what motivates a lot of my strong and loudly expressed preference for academic work and books published by reliable presses over journalistic content in these discussions. Because, yeah, journalism is in a dire place. Globally. (And I say this as someone who aspired to be a journalist early in his career only to watch the profession die.) I also agree there are certainly degrees here. In fact my antipathy toward ] is mostly motivated from the fact I ''fully agree with you'' that we should be treating reliability contextually most of the time rather than making general statements. | |||
| *:In short, "students were reprimanded for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat" makes all of the following claims: | |||
| ::::However, in this specific case, I'd say PopCrave, as a particular outlet, was never farther up the journalism ladder than the bottom rung. ] (]) 17:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:1. students were reprimanded for refusing to accept a classmate’s decision to self-identify as a cat | |||
| ::::that system I propose is seriously the only way I believe we'll get anything sourcable. Journalism is a lobster, @]. That means it is mostly a shell (useless and non-consumable) and we must look for and dig out the meat (useful and consumable content). I'm not posting to bitch and moan only, I'm trying to hit the nail on the head and I'm providing a method of thought to deal with how to wade through the swamp of garbage journalism. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:2. students refused to accept a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat | |||
| :::::and each site is probably a lobster, so to speak. Each site, some more than others, is a shell, but with careful judgement, substance can be drawn from it. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:3. a classmate decided to self-identify as a cat | |||
| ::::::The "system you propose" doesn't exist yet, and its not appropriate to propose it in the middle of someone's valid question. Go take it to ] or something. Stop derailing this thread. ] ] 17:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:(plus several trivial claims like "the students exist" and "the classmate exists") | |||
| :::{{tq|it's probably prudent to know how to pick the meat from the shells}} I completely agree with this, but your comment doesn't help the OP know how to do that. If your not going to offer advice or knowledge then you're posting to the wrong place. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:This is obvious if you consider a sentence like "The queen refused to accept the prime minister's decision to resign". Obviously this sentence asserts that the prime minister decided to resign. ] (]) 00:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Editors come here looking for advice on how to make a good judgement on a source, so telling them they need to use their own good judgement doesn't help. Answering questions simply as YES/NO is equally as bad, instead try to answer question in a way that helps the OP understand policy and how to make good judgements. | |||
| *::First, your hypothetical differs from the quote; the equivalent hypothetical would be "The king chastised the queen for refusing to accept the prime ministers resignation", which would imply that "the queen refused to accept the prime ministers resignation", and that implication would in turn imply "the prime ministers resigned". The statement remains true regardless of whether the prime minister actually resigned. | |||
| :Also although for some reason people believe Misplaced Pages considers bias or opinion in reliability matters it doesn't, see ] and ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Second, per ] and ], we can only include content that is {{tq|directly and explicitly supported by the source}}, which means we could not use those quotes to support the claim "the prime minister resigned" or "the students refused to accept a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat". Given that we only care about whether a source is reliable in relation to how it can be used in Misplaced Pages, why does it matter? | |||
| *::Finally, my understanding is that it was only known that the classmate did not identify as a cat after these articles were published, and your concern is that they didn't publish corrections. Why, when the actual claim the source makes remains true, would we expect a source to publish corrections regarding an implication of an implication? ] (]) 00:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{tq2|The statement remains true regardless of whether the prime minister actually resigned.}} | |||
| *:::No it doesn't. (Arguably its truth value is indeterminate if the prime minister didn't resign but see ] this is a huge tangent.) | |||
| *:::{{tq2|Second, per WP:OR and WP:V, we can only include content that is directly and explicitly supported by the source, which means we could not use those quotes to support the claim "the prime minister resigned" or "the students refused to accept a classmate's decision to self-identify as a cat".}} | |||
| *:::We absolutely could. Presuppositions are direct and explicit statements. | |||
| *:::{{tq2|Finally, my understanding is that it was only known that the classmate did not identify as a cat after these articles were published, and your concern is that they didn't publish corrections.}} | |||
| *:::Known for sure, yes that's true. Though they obviously could have asked the school about it and avoided this whole situation. | |||
| *:::{{tq2|Why, when the actual claim the source makes remains true, would we expect a source to publish corrections regarding an implication of an implication? }} | |||
| *:::The claim the source makes is false. Presuppositions are claims by the source. You cannot defend a shoddy source because it puts its false claims in subordinate clauses. ] (]) 01:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{tq|No it doesn't.}} and {{tq|The claim the source makes is false}} | |||
| *::::You're assuming that a sentence can only produce one set of presuppositions; that isn't accurate. Take the hypothetical provided above; if we insert a presupposition trigger on the attitudinal verb "chastised", we get at least two possible presuppositions: | |||
| *::::#The queen refused to accept the prime ministers resignation | |||
| *::::#The king believed the queen refused to accept the prime ministers resignation | |||
| *::::So long as one of these presuppositions is true, the statement is true. The same is true of the second order presupposition "the prime minister resigned". | |||
| *::::{{tq|Presuppositions are direct and explicit statements}} | |||
| *::::By definition, presuppositions are a type of assumption - see the article you linked. | |||
| *::::{{tq|Though they obviously could have asked the school about it and avoided this whole situation.}} | |||
| *::::My understanding is they reached out to the school, and the school must not have clarified that a student didn't actually identify as a cat - possibly they didn't know, given that ]. However, even if they hadn't reached out to the school, "failing to get clarification regarding an implication of an implication" wouldn't suggest any reliability issues. ] (]) 02:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::This is literally ] of the ] variety. If we can just start backtracking from any statement in a newspaper article to find logical presuppositions that might be wrong, even the slightest contradiction implies that an article has lied about every fact in the known universe due to the ]. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 02:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Additional comment''': While I was origionally open to the notion that the source was biased, ] has lead me to reconsider this. Editors had argued that the source was engaged in {{tq|targeting and fearmongering}} based on which gender it referred to a child as, and that it was aligned with fringe practioners of gender conversion therapy based on its use of the terminology "watchful waiting". | |||
| *:Additional research has found that the opposite is true. As proven with sources below "watchful waiting" is in fact a highly respected model of care, and the Telegraph was likely following best practices with that article by aligning their reporting with the mainstream medical guidance the child had been recieving. Given how incorrect this argument of bias was I'm no longer convinced by the other arguments; I would oppose adding a note regarding bias to their RSP entry. ] (]) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::"Watchful waiting" is not a (major, anyway) part of the argument that they are biased. The argument consists of them misgendering, deadnaming, and asking anti-trans groups for opinions on nearly every article related to trans people. And that's disregarding . ] (]) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The misgendering appears to fall under the same topic; the gender they used was aligned with the medical advice provided by the treating clinician in accordance with the "watchful waiting" model. | |||
| *:::My overall concern is that the arguments being made for this source being biased are themselves ]. In this case, we were able to prove that - but many of the other claims are not as easy to objectively assess, and it is a very realistic possibility that many of them are just as incorrect as this one was. ] (]) 20:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Still, Loki has presented a plethora of secondary sources as well (see the last sentence in their !vote) that believe the Telegraph's biased against. ] (]) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Looking through those 6 sources, three are from Pink News, which has its own bias on this topic. Of the other three, one is an IPSO ruling which rejects most of the concerns raised by the complaintant (which, interestingly, are similar to concerns raised here by editors about the same article), upholding only one minor issue which it notes that The Telegraph issued a correction for promptly. It doesn't say anything about bias. | |||
| *:::::The "Critical Discourse Studies" article appears to say that the perspective on Mermaids changed to a collectively negative one - and that while the Telegraph led that change, it was aligned with the rest of reliable sources in doing so; {{tq|the majority of coverage ... is negative}}. A source that is aligned with the majority of reliable sources isn't biased. | |||
| *:::::I don't have access to the "Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies" book. | |||
| *:::::As far as I can tell, those sources don't support a claim of bias. ] (]) 07:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Maybe these discussions should be moved to the Discussion section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::While I don't think they're deep enough to warrant moving, I won't object if anyone does. ] (]) 18:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I did just mean any further discussion, rather than moving the whole thread. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::The "Critical Discourse Studies" paper studies in-depth how the Telegraph and most of the British press covered Mermaids with a strong negative bias. Nearly the entire British press is biased, yes, but we have a neutral, British academic standpoint here that directly says the press uses Mermaids {{tq|as a weapon against the very people they seek to support}} and argues {{tq|that the increasingly excessive, negative and polarised reporting around Mermaids is a strategy for indirectly delegitimising and attacking the lives of trans young people themselves}}. If you still don't think this is evidence for how they are biased, I don't know what to say.<br>You also have . ] (]) 18:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Because on Misplaced Pages, "bias" typically means they don’t align with the average position of reliable sources. Both those articles appear to be saying that the Telegraph ''does'' align with that position, and so aren’t biased. ] (]) 18:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Do British newspapers have a monopoly on rs about this topic. Because it seems that (some) British newspapers went out of step with rs. Having a quick look both the BBC and the guardian (just using their website, searching mermaids and ignoring anything not about the charity). I saw that they discuss that the times and the telegraph both seemed to be digging up dirt, and that the charity commission where investigating (and openly said this does not mean any wrongdoing happened). So it seems that a couple of RS went out of step with the rest and then academics criticised this as a 'hit job'. This sounds like bias ] (]) 19:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::{{tq|the majority of coverage, led by the Times, the Telegraph and the Mail, is negative}}. The inclusion of the Daily Mail suggests that they include all tabloids as well, so this may not be the average position of reliable sources.<br>Plus, we're supposed to have a global standpoint. You can't see all this evidence talked about in the overall analysis of headlines in the paper and think that fits the global standpoint of neutrality. ] (]) 02:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::{{tq|fits the global standpoint of neutrality}} I don't know, but my assumption would be it does - no one has presented evidence either way, but I doubt British media is less accepting of trans people than the average when we consider it from a global standpoint and not just an Anglosphere standpoint. ] (]) 02:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::{{tqb|Since the late 2010s, the treatment of trans people in the UK has been <br>an increasing source of controversy, particularly in regards to ]. The ] criticised what it described as a "baseless and concerning" level of ] gaining traction in British society. ] noted an "overall erosion in support towards transgender rights" among the general public by the early 2020s, and while ] found that most Britons supported trans people getting protections for discrimination, support for ] in the UK was amongst the lowest of the thirty countries they studied.|source=]}}So at least according to our standard of NPOV, they are all biased against trans people. ] (]) 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Unfortunately, the Ipsos survey is limited to 30 countries, mostly Western or otherwise progressive on these issues; in Africa it only included South Africa, in Asia it only included South Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Japan. | |||
| *:::::::::::Further, even within the six metrics of the Ipsos survey, the United Kingdom was closely aligned with the average on three, and even on the other three it wasn't significantly off - roughly 10% less support/more opposition. | |||
| *:::::::::::I tried to find a true global survey, but was unable to. ] (]) 07:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::] (an offshoot of Marxism) is without a doubt one of the most leftist subsets of academia there is. Something being in an academic journal does not mean it's neutral or even scientifically based. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 18:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::The article in ''Critical Discourse Studies'', an academic journal that per ] constitutes one of the best sources for Misplaced Pages to cite, reports that the organization called Mermaids {{tq|is a British charity that supports trans young people and their families to explore their gender identities in freedom and safety}} that is a {{tq|reliable source of information and advice}}. The article goes on to describe how in the Telegraph's coverage of Mermaids, {{tq|parents are positioned in opposition with their trans children, and in opposition with Mermaids}} (contrary to the academic article's scholarly assessment of the charity generally supporting trans people ''and'' their families, rather than generally against their families), and how the Telegraph gives an impression of the organization as {{tq|as powerful, dangerous and controversial}}. This goes beyond mere opinion; the Telegraph does not merely say that it dislikes Mermaids but moreover advances coverage that presents Mermaids contrary to what one finds about the organization in academic scholarship. This (in combination with numerous other examples such as those that Loki exhaustively (proverbially speaking) gathered and ) ground my conclusion that the Telegraph is generally unreliable for the topic of trans coverage. That editors reject this evidence and wax long about nothing substantively being the matter at all is a choice that I suppose they may make as they like. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::# The article is a primary source. {{tq|When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves}} | |||
| :::::::::# It presents it in a negative light without saying anything actually false. Claiming that Mermaids is actually leading troubled teenagers down wrong paths isn't a falsity as it's an opinion. | |||
| :::::::::I've sampled Loki's examples and discussed them ]. You're welcome to add on to the discussion about them there. ] (]) 03:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Does any of this really add anything new to the RFC? Once again I urge that you make any new comments in the discussion section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * {{ec}} '''Option 2'''; it seems pretty clear that they have a decently strong bias, but I remain unconvinced that this bias impacts their factuality or reliability in a meaningful enough way for gunrel. Cheers, ] (] • ]) 02:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' – it's gone far beyond just bias in my view, and the Telegraph, at least in this subject area, is firmly in the realm of disinformation. The thought-terminating cliche of "it's reliable because it's always been reliable" isn't helpful here; if we were analysing a source that did everything the Telegraph is doing here but didn't have the pedigree, it would be deprecated pretty damn quickly. ''']''' (]) 03:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1'''. Ignoring all the reportage on trans-related matters because some of it may be considered unpleasant by a few editors is antithetical to the interest of providing information to the general public and Misplaced Pages reader. ''The Telegraph'' (Daily/Sunday) has -- if a handful of writers and columnists don't sing the tune some editors like to hear, well then ... too bad, so sad. ] ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black">Ol' homo.</span> 07:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* But here lies the question. ''Why'' use a newspaper with such a determinedly anti-trans viewpoint when there are multiple reliable sources that ''don't'' have that baggage? We wouldn't use a newspaper that was openly pushed racism or religious bigotry such as Islamophobia (hello ''Daily Mail''). I can't help thinking that, even at Misplaced Pages, "gender-critical" views are the last piece of bias against groups that it seems to be OK to have. ] 07:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*:That’s a question of ], not reliability - and it is better assessed on a case-by-case basis. ] (]) 07:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' I've already explained in the earlier discussion and would go further and say The Telegraph is generally unreliable for any topic that has become the focus of its editorial culture warring. It has zero interest in fact checking and accuracy on these topics. The fact that so-called reliable sources influence WP:WEIGHT gives me additional concern because the Telegraph isn't just biased, but is determined to publish anti-trans stories on a continuous basis out of all proportion to proper journalism on the state of our country or planet. We'd have blocked User:Telegraph for WP:NOTHERE a long time ago. They are not here to publish journalistic facts on these issues like we expect of a reliable news story, but are at the level of some kind of wingnut blog. -- ]°] 08:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' No source will be 100% unbiased on any topic but I see no substantive evidence to persuade the Telegraph is biased on trans issues. But even the framing of this as being a 'trans issue' rather than a women's and girls' rights issue lends undue and unnecessary bias to this RFC right from the start. ] (]) 10:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* Now ''there's'' an interesting comment, as its subtext is exactly what the ''Telegraph'' does on regular occasions - insinuates that trans rights and women's rights are incompatible, despite that being obviously untrue. ] 10:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*:The rights of (non-trans) women and trans people can be at odds, like the rights of any two groups. For example, if you think that a male-born person who looks exactly like a typical man, declares himself a woman without making '''any''' external change (surgery, hormones or even makeup and dress) to look like a woman, has a right to use women's bathroom then it might be at odds with the right of women to feel comfortable in their bathroom. ] (]) 10:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::* And of course, by using the most extreme example possible (how many times has this *actually* happened?) you're doing exactly what the anti-trans culture warriors at the ''Telegraph'' are doing as well. As can be determined by reading their transgender articles linked to above, it goes far further than bathrooms, which is only a small part of the issue. ] 11:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::*:I don't know how many times it happens. I don't even know in how many places such a person as I described would actually be allowed legally in women's bathrooms. It was a hypothetical. What is your position on this question by BTW? But in any case that example shows that trans rights taken to the extremes, can be at odds with women rights ] (]) 11:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* Precisely - "taken to the extreme". On that basis, the rights of ''any'' group could hypothetically clash with the rights of a given other group. But what the ''Telegraph'' and and its collection of culture warriors are doing is trying to limit trans rights without ''any'' criteria, purely because of their status as trans people. How do they do that? Well, with tropes like the bathroom one and the ones about what kids are taught in schools (like the one mentioned above, often spectacularly false). It's insidious and - along with its sudden fondness for climate change denial - it's not worthy of what ''used'' to be a well-regarded newspaper. ] 12:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*:Can you show an example of the Telegraph saying that trans rights should be limited without ''any'' criteria, just because they are trans? I don't think I saw examples for this in this discussion, though as it's grown so long so fast I could have easily missed them. ] (]) 13:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* , though some are far worse than others. This is what happens when you employ a "gender critical" extremist. But it doesn't ; every one of those articles is 10 days old or less. ] 18:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' I, too already explained my position in earlier discussion, though the accumulation of evidence since has persuaded me to drop a peg further down from my original !vote of "aditional considerations apply". Bias per sé is not a problem, but it is a problem if it leads to issues with factual reporting. I think the way "not caring about the facts" is expressed in the telegraphs regular reporting is mostly(!) through imprecision, but imprecision is still a form of inaccuracy. If a paper presents a story in a way that is intentionally misleading the audience, it is being unreliable, even if ''technically '' no counterfactual claims have been made. A lie by omission is still a lie, in this case. Proper editorial process also means making sure you're not presenting facts in a way that is misleading, and I think that's the part of the process where the telegraph fails the test. Regarding some of the comments above: while columns can't be used for factual claims and newspapers can't be used to support medical information without attribution anyway, I contend the following: A. most of this topic area's problems are based in a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of medical information; B. Nothing stops a paper that misrepresents medical information from also misrepresenting other information, and C. in a similar vein, a newspaper not caring about the accuracy of information in columns can still be a sign of a paper not caring about the accuracy of information, generally. In conclusion, I don't think the telegraph's editorial standards survive scrutiny. EDIT: to add another point I recall making in the RFCBEFORE: I notice a lot of "1" voters reference deprecation. I tend to think there's a world of distance between deprecation and the thing actually being suggested by most other editors in the discussion. --] (]) 11:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3'''. The problems with the ''Telegraph'' in this subject area are obvious. The folks in favor of Option 1 haven't (so far as I've seen) answered what ought to be the obvious question: ''why'' and to what end would you want to cite the ''Telegraph'' on trans issues? ] ] 12:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ** It is possible that one may cite the ''Telegraph'' because per ]: {{tq|the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight}}. ''']] (])''' 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:There are fundamental questions about notability and how we refer to subjects that depend on how they are referred to by assessing coverage in the majority of ], even if we don't actually cite those sources to construct the article. In this specific area there is a huge amount of controversy and polarisation, with epithets like "anti-trans" and "woke" and "transphobe" and "far-left/far-right" and "TERF" thrown around willy nilly. By making The Telegraph generally unreliable, or even deprecated, its coverage cannot then lend weight to legitimate debates about where the most neutral tone lies. | |||
| *:This is particularly important given specific lines of argument made by the opener about tone and which POVs it chooses to seek comment from. In one specific named example, if the charity Sex Matters is deemed "anti-trans" '''by editors''', and thus that a source engaging with them ''is a basis for deeming that source unreliable'', then that is going to irreparably skew all coverage of that charity in any page where coverage may conceivably appear. Any source which offers quotations from representatives of this charity can - and will - be challenged. Seeing as these debates of "unreliable on trans issues" have not restricted themselves to The Telegraph, but also encompass other sources like The Times and The Economist, I urge extreme caution about the wider impact of this. | |||
| *:* Telegraph quotes group x | |||
| *:* Assert that ''truly'' reliable sources don't quote group x because they are "baddies" | |||
| *:* Ergo Telegraph is not a reliable source | |||
| *:Its a kind of no-true-scotsman ratchet. Any source which does not outright dismiss certain disfavoured groups as "anti-trans" could by this logic end up "unreliable" - and thus one particular POV will be insurmountably entrenched. ] (]) 16:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Is this article declaring the ] a 12th c. baptistry a reliable source for the tower?? == | |||
| *'''Option 1''', bearing in mind that this is for sources which are {{tq|'generally reliable’ ‘in most cases’}} and that '{{tq| It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements}}'. It will always be necessary to distinguish between statements of fact, and expressions of opinion: this applies to all sources, not just the ''Telegraph''. The objections to the ''Telegraph'' in this RfC are based on its opinions – no satisfactory evidence has been produced that its factual reporting is unreliable. ] (]) 14:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' - in my view, {{u|Astaire}}, {{u|Chess}}, and {{u|Void if removed}} have, in detail, persuasively rebutted Loki's initial claims of unreliability. The rest of the evidence raised by other users seems to be lacking. Particularly, opinion articles are not an excuse to render news articles unreliable, for example, we list ''The Wall Street Journal'' as generally reliable, and this refers to their news articles, not their questionable opinion articles or questionable ]. In any case, we should not use any opinion articles for facts. ''']] (])''' 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' I cannot consider a situation in which we would want to use the Telegraph for an article on trans issues. It has a clear, fringe, bias against trans people and is, at the end of the day, just a newspaper. For anything actually notable a better source can always be found. Let's never use this one. ] (]) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:How would the ] edit filter know The Telegraph is being cited on a transgender-related topic? It isn't technically possible to implement deprecation for a single topic area. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 22:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Unfortunately, deprecation in a single area is not currently possible. Deprecation is for sources that {{tq|fail the ] in nearly all circumstances|title=WP:DEPRECATED}}, and The Telegraph meets it in non–transgender issues circumstances. ] | ] 23:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. I'm open to logical arguments along the lines of it being overly sensationalistic and tabloidish and needing of more scrutiny and possibly putting it in a lesser category, but the arguments above are more of the sort "it doesn't agree with the properly favored views as handed down by Gender Study departments in academia, so obviously it's not a reliable source." It's on a slippery slope that's destined to lead to demands for other news outlets, even quite respectable ones like ] (of London) and ] to be deprecated if they dare to depart from the party line. Try installing the "Shingami Eyes" plugin in your browser; it's an eye-opener, revealing what is labeled "transphobic" these days. Hint: Both the London and New York Timeses are in red there, as well as ]. No dissent is brooked. If the ideologues have their way, only ] and queer theory academic papers will be acceptable sources. ] (]) 21:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Correcting myself... on a re-check, it appears Shingami Eyes isn't actually putting either the London or New York Times in red any more, though ] is, as is ] and ]. ] (]) 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Shinigami eyes is a plugin that anyone can access that allows people to vote sources positive or negative. There's been lots of discussion even within the community that know about it about it's accuracy and about how because anyone can vote this accuracy is extremely dubious. That you're trying to use this as a point in a slippery slope argument that could be used against making any source unreliable is just a plain rubbish arguement. As for the first point a lot of people are arguing that, alongside embracing fringe positions, the telegraph has started to publish more tabloidy misinformation (I'm honestly shocked any UK paper reported on the cat incident) and advocate for conversion therapy. ] (]) 23:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3'''. Being biased does not make a source unreliable, though since their extreme bias on this topic is probably the least controversial aspect of this discussion, that's a good place to start: update the RSP entry to be clear about that. However, the extent to which The Telegraph has let that bias get in the way of factual reporting and lead them into distortions and inaccuracies (as has been been discussed to death in the pre-RFC thread and again, above, in this one) is unsettling. Whether they're ''so often'' unreliable as to make defaulting to scepticism / 3 the best approach, or simply defaulting to caution, to something like 2 or even a '1 but be cautious', is something reasonable minds can (and clearly do!) differ on. For my part, I conclude based on the evidence presented that for the topic area this RFC is discussing their journalism is sufficiently shoddy (inaccurate or misleading in such a way that if we source statements in articles on it, we'll find ourselves having to correct them later when reliable sourcing becomes available), sufficiently often, that it generally can't be relied upon: i.e., option 3. ] (]) 22:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Reliable reporter of facts. The cat story allegation has been exposed as a beat up. Other objections are ]. ] (]) 22:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC). | |||
| *'''Option 2 (or 3)'''. It's abundantly clear from this discussion that The Telegraph (a publication that has been on a slow downward trajectory quality wise for some time) is at the very least considerably biased with regards to transgender topics, to the extent that inline attribution of their views should be required as a minimum. How much this bias impacts their reliability is complicated and seems non-uniform - sometimes it has resulted in distortion and misleading presentation that is firmly in unreliable territory, at other times it's merely partisan framing that is exactly the sort of thing that "additional conserations apply" is designed for. In short, in this topic area, it is neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable but rather it is sometimes reliable and sometimes unreliable so we should never be using the Telegraph as our only source and should evaluate its reliability on a case-by-case basis. ] (]) 00:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''', or option 2 possibly extending to other topics such as climate per Colin. I'm not sure how everyone else is assessing things here, but imv the ''Telegraph'' of today is not the same ''Telegraph'' that broke the MP expenses scandal. It may have had a {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} for well over a century, but like Horse Eye's Back it seems to be giving a good go at changing that. I don't know, maybe it's too soon, so far the extended negative commentary has largely been confined the {{em|opinion}} pages of other publications. But then, is reputation not the opinion of your peers? I don't see the fact that their reputation is due to misleading information rather than outright falsehood and fabrication to be a defence. It affects reputation all the same, if perhaps less so. We have a pattern of, if not deliberate disinformation, then at least a wilful disregard over spreading misinformation. Such a source would be questionable where other sources exist, and care should be take in other cases. This is not (and should not be) a prohibition on including their opinion, due weight permitting, though in-text attribution may be necessary. ] (] • ]) 10:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', same as the source as a whole. First, we have long said that bias doesn't mean not reliable. We certainly are happy to cite sources with a strong biased that is the opposite of the one discussed here. The original claims used to say Option 3 have been thoroughly address by {{u|Chess}} and others. {{u|Barnards.tar.gz}}'s comment about people becoming so embedded in a POV as to that POV as objective fact was also an important observation here. Finally, {{u|Void if removed}}'s comment about trying to declare source that cites a disfavored source (16:07, 4 June 2024) is also a very legitimate concern with respect to violating NPOV over time. Like many of the media articles on this topic, we should treat all of these with caution and care but the justification for any sort of global downgrade of this source on this topic simply isn't supported by the evidence presented here. ] (]) 12:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', as per the rest of the newspaper. 2 at a push. I'm afraid I'm not seeing a great deal more than an opposition to the newspaper's political positions here. ] (]) 13:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per Queen of Hearts with the consideration being to prefer alternate sources due to its bias. I would be uncomfortable citing them, but many above such as Void have demonstrated that arguments on factual unreliability remain unconvincing. ] (]) 14:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Also per ]. I don't see the Telegraph presenting anti-trans slander as fact. ] (]) 19:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Looking at the first three points at ], excluding the Cass review coverage, which have already been commented on by Void et al:<br />This applies to many sources here. As said before, misgendering is definitely bias, but not factual inaccuracy.{{tqb|Makes directly false claim that XXY or XYY "does not alter a man's biological sex"}}Erm, how is that false? From the National Health Service and many other sources quoted in our own articles, {{tq|Klinefelter syndrome (sometimes called Klinefelter's, KS or XXY) is where boys and men are born with an extra X chromosome.}} Same thing for XYY.{{tqb|claims binding is significantly more dangerous than it actually is}}The said symptoms all exist. Giving undue weight with true information is bias, not inaccuracy.{{pb}}{{tqb|misleading about breast binding}}As Luna correctly pointed out above, this ({{tq|breast ironing is illegal as a form of female genital mutilation}}, {{tq|more than 97 per cent of adults who use suffer health problems as a result}}) is indeed quite an example of distortion presented as news and fact. However, I don't think these particular statements tip the scales enough to move the source into GUN area.{{pb}}{{tqb|citing Maya Forstater as a reliable source on the issue}}It cites her as the leader of a political campaign group and quotes her relief while linking her name to an article about her statement made with JK Rowling. I don't see how that presents her as a reliable source. ] (]) 22:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{tq2|As said before, misgendering is definitely bias, but not factual inaccuracy.}} | |||
| *::Misgendering an individual is certainly a factual inaccuracy. If I called you Dave Liu that'd obviously be false, right? | |||
| *::In the particular article you're talking about I'll grant you it's less clear because the person in question is underage, and therefore can't legally change their name or gender. But in principle it's the sort of thing that any reliable newspaper would correct if they got wrong. | |||
| *::{{tq2|Erm, how is that false? From the National Health Service and many other sources quoted in our own articles, "Klinefelter syndrome (sometimes called Klinefelter's, KS or XXY) is where boys and men are born with an extra X chromosome." Same thing for XYY.}} | |||
| *::Both of those are listed on ]. I'm not claiming that they make a man into a woman or anything like that, just that the medical consensus is that they can "alter a man's biological sex". (Though you're right that I should have been more clear about that.) | |||
| *::{{tq2|It cites her as the leader of a political campaign group and quotes her relief while linking her name to an article about her statement made with JK Rowling. I don't see how that presents her as a reliable source. }} | |||
| *::It doesn't say "political" campaign group, and in fact doesn't give any information about the nature of the group. It just says "campaign group". It also quotes her opinions at length without a rebuttal and clearly in a way that endorses what she says. Shortly thereafter it quotes a "think tank" that is actually a major conservative think tank, again without saying it's conservative. | |||
| *::And I'll note here explicitly that the things she says are pretty obviously not true? Like, no, trans-friendly language hasn't "created widespread confusion" or "harmed patient care". ] (]) 02:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{tqb|If I called you Dave Liu that'd obviously be false, right?}}thanks for the morning laugh {{smiley}}. Well, if a reliable source decides to call me Dave while acknowledging my real name, I don't think that should count towards excluding the source for its davery.{{tqb|the medical consensus is that they can "alter a man's biological sex".}}I'll admit that I'm not familiar on the topic, but I'm not sure about that. said that there wasn't consensus on whether Klinefelter's was intersex and says that XYY are "'supermale'" "men", narrating how it led to doctors dropping terms like "intersex" and labeling everything as ] instead. I can't find consensus tat these are all considered different sexes.{{tqb|It just says "campaign group".}}Well, to me, the only meaning of that is a political action group. I don't see how that lends its way towards being intended to mean "expert in gender".<br />(and I still think undue weight is bias, not inaccuracy. I'm sure that we can find a good portion of sources contrary to the Telegraph's biases, especially if the outcome of this were to prefer alternate sources.){{tqb|no, trans-friendly language hasn't "created widespread confusion"}}Such is enough to confuse these bigoted brains, of which unfortunately there are many. ] (]) 11:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1/2''' they seem to have a clear editorial view on the issue, which should possibly be considered when using it as a source. But the "deprecation" proponents do not make any compelling argument; the fact the Telegraph has opinion columnists who don't believe "trans women are women" is not an argument for deprecation. ] (]) 16:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Much of what you've said could be interpreted as a strawman - having opinion columnists with an opinion is indeed not an argument for deprecation, but almost nobody is arguing for deprecation, and their issue isn't that the opinion columnist have an opinion it is that facts are being distorted and/or misleading presented to favour/promote that opinion. ] (]) 17:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: I don't think it is a strawman. Loki (the proposer) is saying this should happen because {{Tq|examples of the Telegraph going beyond simple bias and directly saying false things about trans people or trans issues ... They've multiple times alleged directly that trans women are men or trans men are women}}. Several other "deprecation" votes list platforming of "quacks" or "gender-critical activists" as motivation for their vote. ] (]) 17:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I don't think replacing "deprecation" with "generally unreliable" changes the argument in any way. ] (]) 18:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I think the larger problem is the "the telegraph has opinion columnists who don't believe" statement, these points are generally made in the telegraph's news sections and are statements made by the columnists (not just their beliefs) ] (]) 13:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2/3''' per Thryduulf, with particular support for the {{tq|inline attribution of their views should be required as a minimum}} suggestion. I'll also echo the {{tq|update the RSP entry to be clear}} comment by -sche. ] (]) 23:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' I'm convinced by the arguments of Chess and Void if removed: Loki's examples show, at best, that ''The Telegraph'' has a certain perspective or bias on these matters – which is ] – not that it is unreliable on the facts. Chetsford has also made an excellent comment which has undeservedly flown under the radar: | |||
| ::{{tq|I'm uncomfortable sidelining a source based on the lexical analysis of editors as to whether they are or are not accurate in the absence of third-party RS saying they are or are not accurate. Content analysis, as I've previously noted, does not involve pulling examples out of a hat. It's a methodical research process that requires (as a best practice, in case of newspapers) the assessment of two constructed weeks of content for every six months analyzed. That has not occurred here. In the absence of editors showing their OR as to the Telegraph's reliability meets generally accepted research standards, I'd need clear, compelling, and significant evidence from RS. And I'm not seeing that.}} | |||
| :I don't trust reliability assessments based on a single editor (who will naturally have their own biases) unsystematically compiling a list of examples. (1) They're just too easy to consciously or unconsciously skew and (2) it's a level of scrutiny ''no'' major source would withstand. – ]''']''' ] 03:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1 or very good 2''' regarding everything that can be cited (as something that is not MEDRS), I'm seeing framing and reporting in poor taste and bias, but no clear indication of unreliability. Some additional concerns regarding due and framing are valid, but not enough to significantly impact reliability to the degree were editorial discretion cannot be trusted to exclude the minimal number of articles that should not be cited or only cited with attribution. ] (]) 08:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Not sure if that makes the vote one or two, and it probably shouldn’t have to be said, but: depending on coverage, additional considerations should apply to BLPs, with the phrasing being along the lines of “additional caution should be applied when using the source about living people” ] (]) 20:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Option 4'''</s><small>(changed my mind, elaborating below)</small>. Loki has proven that ''The Telegraph'' should NOT be used on trans issues. "Bias is fine for a RS"? Really? Maybe if it's stuff like a newspaper supporting a sports team over an other, but not when it comes to basic human rights. ''''']''''' <sup>(] / ])</sup> 03:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Changing to '''option 3'''. Maybe deprecating the ''Telegraph'' entirely for their (admittedly awful) reporting on trans issues is a bit much, considering they can be okay on other issues. ''''']''''' <sup>(] / ])</sup> 09:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yes, bias really is fine for an RS. Read ]. – ]''']''' ] 14:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Indeed, but not the point; the issue is that a biased source such as in this case should not be used to state something in Wikivoice, especially if it is the sole source. For example, instead of "X is a fact" it should say that "AB, writing in the ''Telegraph'', claimed that x is a fact". ] 14:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Our ] on the matter is we already shouldn't be treating seriously contested assertions as facts in any case, not just those which writers in ''The Telegraph'' may make. So I agree with you we definitely should be attributing perspectives on controversial issues or contested assertions – but this should be ordinary practice, not ''Telegraph''-specific. – ]''']''' ] 11:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::When it's actively harmful? No, a bias isn't fine. ''''']''''' <sup>(] / ])</sup> 17:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::(1) Writing an encyclopedia requires we write neutrally – giving all perspectives their due weight, including perspectives we consider harmful. | |||
| *:::(2) I'm not comfortable having you, me or any other editors making binding calls on what perspectives count as harmful. It's far too easy for conscious or unconscious animosity towards a source's perspective to seep in and bias our assessments. – ]''']''' ] 11:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::There’s a difference between including all significant viewpoints and uncritically including misinformation. “Homosexuality is evil” is a notable opinion, but we don’t put it in the same “weight class” as the scientific consensus that homosexuality is natural and harmless. ] (]) 21:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::It is well-known that news articles should not be used to source science details and can only source science reactions at most. I also don't see how the Telegraph treats opinions as fact. ] (]) 23:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:If bias on trans issues disqualifies a source, I guess Pink News should be marked unreliable, then. ] (]) 01:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::When has Pink News said anything documentedly false about trans issues? ] (]) 02:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The , , for one. ] (]) 03:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Settling libel claims in the UK is not convincing, since the UK's libel laws are tilted very heavily towards plaintiffs. ] (]) 06:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I am not familiar with Pink News as a source, but on a quick search I found : | |||
| *:::{{tq2|The review also claimed that, while '''research suggests that hormone treatment “reduces” the elevated risk of suicide''', there is “no clear evidence” that social transition has any positive or negative mental health outcomes.}} | |||
| *:::This statement is inarguably false. See pages 33 and 186–187 of the : | |||
| *:::{{tq2|86. It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion.}} | |||
| *:::{{tq2|Some clinicians feel under pressure to support a medical pathway based on widespread reporting that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk. This conclusion was not supported by the above systematic review.}} | |||
| *:::{{tq2|15.43 In summary, the evidence does not adequately support the claim that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk.}} | |||
| *:::This kind of falsehood is what should be presented to call into question a source's veracity—not casting aspersions or equating bias with unreliability, as has largely been done here. ] (]) 22:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Article from April 10, ]. ] (]) 22:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::RSBREAKING is a warning to editors to be cautious when including breaking news. It is not an excuse for the sources we use to be inaccurate. ] (]) 22:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{tq2|WP:RSBREAKING says that otherwise reliable sources can have serious inaccuracies because of the nature of breaking news.}} -from a post by User:Chess in this RfC ] (]) 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Inaccuracies in breaking news stories impact a source's overall reliability less than other types of inaccuracies. But they should have an impact all the same. The Pink News example I cited is particularly egregious. Not only is it directly contradicted by multiple parts of the Cass Review, it clearly shares wording with the first quotation I gave from the review ("suggests", "hormone treatment", "reduces", "elevated risk"). So the PN writer likely read this basic, easy-to-parse sentence from the review and somehow reported the complete opposite. | |||
| *:::::::Regardless, we are getting off topic since this is not a Pink News RFC, so I will stop here. As it pertains to this RFC, the relevant point (that has been made more eloquently by Chetsford and others) is that cherry-picking negative examples does not provide a true picture of a source's reliability, particularly when these examples are cases of disfavored framing or phrasing rather than actual inaccuracies. ] (]) 00:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::In practice, when dealing with the popular media's summary of breaking medical news, their articles have problems. You can easily find examples from any newspaper summarizing some new medical research related press release that fail to understand basic facts of the science. | |||
| *::::::For this reason, we already discourage the use of breaking news in articles when a better source later on is available. Ditto for the popular media without corrobation from more academic RSes. | |||
| *::::::This is relevant because the examples presented of The Telegraph being unreliable can already be removed under our existing policies as we already have "additional considerations apply" in those areas. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 02:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::In addition to what Flounder has said, I also think quoting the summary only is a little misleading, since the Cass Review mentions a full systematic review which does find that gender affirming treatment reduces risk of suicide and then dismisses its conclusions for methodological reasons. | |||
| *::::Or in other words, the Cass Review did find research that suggests gender affirming treatment reduces suicide risk. That wasn't the conclusion of the report, but they do report on the other research that does come to that conclusion. ] (]) 00:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::That interpretation not only pushes the bounds of believability in terms of how we commonly understand language, it would actually make this sentence worse—going from sloppiness to outright misinformation by failing to report the Cass Review's findings. It is also contradicted by the next clause in the sentence, which is clearly discussing the review's conclusions and not the research itself. | |||
| *:::::If someone tried to state in wikivoice that "research suggests that X treatment has Y effect", citing a systematic review that discarded that research for being low-quality, they would be shut down immediately. ] (]) 00:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am {{em|inclined}} to suggest that ''PinkNews'' should use in-text attribution in many if not most cases, but that ], I have not looked at it in ''sufficient'' detail to make such a statement. It's a little odd it's tagged green but the blurb says additional considerations apply. ] (] • ]) 15:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{re|Dtobias}} The whole reason why this RfC is happening is because editors on ] don't like The Telegraph and want to strip out citations to it, in many cases with Pink News. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Well, when you put it that way, this whole thing looks like a tendentious POV-push time sink. ] (]) 19:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Are you kidding? Colin, the editor making that edit, been arguing with everyone else for the '' reliability'' of the Cass Review! He's also one of the main editors behind ], so the idea that he's some sort of POV-pusher is absurd (and despite disagreeing with him on the underlying issue there I have defended him against accusations he's trying to push some sort of anti-trans POV). ] (]) 21:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It was more started because people disliked how the previous RFC was conducted (from what I gather there were 3 similar one at the same time and accusations of canvassing). The "spark" was the telegraphs awful reporting on the Cass review, mainly misinformation about how the follow -up service will be done. Also of note is that currently that page has 1 reference to pinknews and 2 to the telegraph so any supposed povpushing has been very ineffective.] (]) 19:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Could you elaborate on the misinformation The Telegraph has provided about the Cass Review?{{pb}}(Also, I think you meant "had no point" instead of "has been very ineffective".) ] (]) 20:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::They consistently misinterpret the recommendations of Cass for transgender people in the ages of 17-25, according to the telegraph, Cass says these people should go to a different service to over 25s. In actuality it if one received care before they were 17 they are initially seen by a "follow on" service. As well as there seems to be some confusion as to the provision of hrt to these 17-25 year olds. | |||
| *:::::(I was making a small joke that if editors were povpushing and replacing the telegraph with pinknews, those editors have done a very poor job of doing so considering the references) ] (]) 20:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Can you please cite the exact article text from the Telegraph that you say is a misinterpretation? I cannot find evidence to support your claim that {{tq|The "spark" was the telegraphs awful reporting on the Cass review}}. There is a discussion in the Cass Review talk page archives with the title ], but there is no justification for this demand other than vague claims that it would be "extremely inappropriate". If that was truly the spark for this RFC, why has it not been mentioned anywhere in the discussion so far as evidence for the source's unreliability? ] (]) 21:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::{{tq2|why has it not been mentioned anywhere in the discussion so far as evidence for the source's unreliability?}} | |||
| *:::::::hit ctrl+f on your keyboard and type "Cass". ] (]) 22:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. The Telegraph is a long-established, serious, mainstream British newspaper, with the editorial content mildly to the political right. Sure, you can no doubt find an article or series of articles where the reporting does not support your viewpoint, because the reporter either selected a different range of sources or drew different conclusions. Or sometimes reporters even make errors in reporting the facts. But this is true of any newspaper reporting on any topic; we all know that a newspaper article produced to a deadline may not be the whole truth. I consider the Telegraph generally as reliable as any British newspaper, and I find it infeasible that its reporting on trans issues is any different. The other options proposed here are attempts at censorship for political ends. ] (]) 09:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tpq| The Telegraph is a long-established, serious, mainstream British newspaper}} none of that is relevant. The Telegraph has a long history, and as multiple people on all sides of this discussion have pointed out, until a few years ago it was a high quality, very reliable source. However it has been going slowly downhill since then. What matters is whether it is reliable ''now''. Just because it hasn't fallen off a cliff like e.g. Newsweek did in 2013, doesn't mean that quality has not been declining. {{tpq|I consider the Telegraph generally as reliable as any British newspaper, and I find it infeasible that its reporting on trans issues is any different.}} The reliability of British newspapers spans a huge range from stalwarts of reliability like The Times to publications like the Daily Mail that is not even reliable for past content in its own publication. The Telegraph is still ''generally'' reliable (although not as much as it used to be) for most topics, but despite how infeasible you personally consider it much evidence has been presented that, at the very least, additional considerations apply to this topic area. ] (]) 11:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::In case you are misunderstanding my wording as "as reliable as ALL British newspapers", no, I meant as reliable as the best-quality British Newspapers such as the Times and the Guardian. I don't notice any particular decline in its quality and nor do I note general agreement in these comments about that. ] (]) 13:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], you consider ''The Times'', a newspaper that went out of its way to deadname ] (, ), to be one of the best British newspapers? I guess even the "best" are awful when it comes to trans issues. ''''']''''' <sup>(] / ])</sup> 20:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If deadnaming makes a source unreliable to you, then enough said; but listen to yourself! ] (]) 06:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A little bit up on this page, I was asked to come up with actual factual falsehoods perpetrated by Pink News if I was to assert that it shouldn't be seen as a reliable source due to its bias. I could ask the same of you with regard to The Times; "deadnaming" does not constitute factual falsehood as the name was accurate, and the question of whether they should have printed it or not is a matter for debate under moral philosophy, not a matter of whether they are saying false things. ] (]) 22:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Another aspect has struck me. When a right-leaning newspaper like the Telegraph has an article relating to Misplaced Pages, I have been shocked and disappointed by the stong antipathy towards us expressed in the readers' online comments, emphasising our supposed left-leaning bias and unreliability. I don't know where this opinion comes from, and probably much of it is uninformed. But in some way "proscribing" a respected right-leaning source like the Telegraph is exactly the sort of flagship action that will confirm these people in their distrust of Misplaced Pages's neutrality. I think that some editors here are mainly concerned to make this a political statement, but it will be counterproductive in persuading those with whom you disagree, and completely unnecessary because in any case we should always be aware of any source's limitations. For Misplaced Pages to remain credible, we do need to consider a broad range of mainstream opinions. ] (]) 06:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is a difference between expressing a mainstream opinion and presenting falsehoods as fact (explicitly or misleadingly). There are no shortage of sources that express anti-trans opinions without venturing into unreliability. ] (]) 09:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is extremely not our job to persuade anyone of anything. In fact I'm fairly sure persuading people is in WP:NOT somewhere. As for alternative opinions, GUNREL doesn't prevent attributed opinion (we shouldn't have unattributed opinions anyway) and I don't believe there should be any room on this project for alternative facts. ] (] • ]) 15:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 (Option 3 for BLP material)''' reviewing the above that's not just bias, that is bad reporting (so bad, there are confused accounts even above), also for much of this topic, we should never use a newspaper for almost anything, and further individual's lives require much more care under WP policy. ] (]) 14:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - there are plenty of sources available that publish neutral information on this topic; we can safely avoid one that, per the sources presented already, publishes information obviously intended to advance a particular point of view, and publishes outright conspiracy theories as though they are factual. Furthermore ''The Telegraph'' is not a source of expert opinion on this topic, there's no reason why Misplaced Pages needs to publish anything that they say about it. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 19:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *: {{ping|Ivanvector}} What {{tq|outright conspiracy theories}} are you referring to? ] (]) 07:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>Option 2/3, , Thryduulf put it very well.</s> '''Option 3'''. I think Loki and others have established that they promote quackery on the subject; a source that promotes quackery is, by definition, at least generally unreliable (so, option 3, not my earlier "2/3"). This isn't about political disagreement. ] (]) 09:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC) <ins><small>edited 13:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)</small></ins> | |||
| *'''Option 1/2''': I am not convinced by the arguments to designate "generally unreliable", but the bias is evident. I am not familiar enough with RSN's procedures to decide whether that warrants "additional considerations". ] (]) 12:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', per Chess. --] ] 16:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', per Chess and others. ] (]) 16:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3'''. I wish the presentation of this matter had more clearly differentiated examples of the ''Telegraph'' having an anti-trans editorial stance from the equally numerous examples of said publication resorting to unethical practices in furtherance of that stance.{{pb}}I advise to pay the most attention to the cases listed at ], where many such examples may be found. Points of note include the ''Telegraph'' consistently using quotes to skimp out on journalistic integrity and put forth untrue and unverified statements, e.g. the milk article; and the case of James Esses, whom they consistently quote implying he is an expert, which he in no way is.{{pb}}In all of the ''Telegraph''{{ '}}s coverage I have reviewed, there arises a certain common thread: the use of misgendering language and terms like "transgender ideology" in the publication's own voice. While some may argue that the choice of terminology is a matter of preference, I think otherwise. ] the term "transgender ideology" implies that such a thing exists, which is not in accordance with any actual research. See also ]. Use of misgendering language similarly makes a claim about gender that is far outside what is accepted as fact, vide ] and ]. Some may say that what gendered words to use about someone is subjective; that, however, implies the existence of some knowable objective truth outside of the consensus of reliable sources. ] <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- ] (])</b> 18:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:You state that one must not claim that objective truth exists, and you also state that the ''Telegraph''{{'}}s statements are contrary to truth, which seems rather contradictory. Ah, but you're ''not'' saying that "objective truth" says that one set of language is correct and another set is not, or that there's no such thing as "transgender ideology"... just that ''reliable sources'' say that and Misplaced Pages must fall in line. But then when some sources say otherwise, you use this as evidence that they're ''not'' reliable. Seems like a ] fallacy, and a circular argument. ] (]) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::According to the above logic no reliable source could ever be deemed unreliable (as everything a reliable source says would be reliable). What Maddy seems to be suggesting is the balance of sources says that misgendering is a refusal to acknowledge the fact of trans people as their gender and because of this the telegraph publishes against fact (but I'll stop putting words into their mouth). ] (]) 19:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Care to provide any RS describing ] as anything other than a nebulously defined buzzword to attack transgender people? | |||
| *::If it helps, unreliable sources that define it include: | |||
| *::* ] - {{tq|Transgender ideology claims that each person has a ‘gender identity’ (an internal sense of gender) which may or may not align with their biological sex. ... Underlying this movement is a radical form of self-determination, with its roots in Gnosticism. Subjective feelings overriding objective, biological, genetic reality. Ultimately, it seeks to completely destroy the distinction between men and women that God in his wisdom has created.}} | |||
| *::* ] in the ] - {{tq|This is gender ideology—the belief, not backed by any meaningful empirical evidence, that we all have an ineffable gender identity, knowable only to us.}} | |||
| *::* Fun fact, all medical organizations and human rights group acknowledge the existence of gender identities, which have been evidenced by conversion therapy failing to work on trans people. | |||
| *::* ] - They don't define it, just take it for granted people will be mad when they make the title {{tq|Transgender Ideology Hurts Kids}} and suggest conversion therapy as an alternative {{tq|The most helpful therapies do not try to remake the body to conform with thoughts and feelings—which is impossible—but rather to help people find healthy ways to manage their tension and move toward accepting the reality of their bodily selves.}}\ | |||
| *::* The ] doesn't define it but sure as hell want you to fight it! After all {{tq|As the new school year begins, parents are discovering that transgender ideology and policy has taken hold in schools across the country}}. | |||
| *::* ] vaguely defines it as the think they want to charge people with sex offenses for - {{tq|Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children ... Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered}} | |||
| *::] (]) 20:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{re|Maddy from Celeste}} Again, instead of just handwaving that {{tq|many such examples may be found}}, it would be helpful to provide ''specific quotes'' from these examples. For most of the examples, I'll assume you're just referring to Loki's previously refuted examples (so I'll point to the comments I made earlier), but the term "transgender ideology" has not yet been discussed. So, I'll ask, '''do you have any examples of The Telegraph using the term "transgender ideology?"''' It is impossible to judge The Telegraph's usage of the term unless you provide examples of it being used in context. I see {{u|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist}} has brought up examples of ''other'' sources using the term, but no examples of The Telegraph. | |||
| *:In order for The Telegraph's usage of the term ''transgender ideology'' to be an issue, you have to show that they're using it in an unreliable way. Control+F on Loki's page reveals the only non-opinion article by The Telegraph using the term "trans ideology" to be this one, so I assume that's the one you meant: As far as I can tell, the piece doesn't define "trans ideology" in any of the extremist ways that YFNS cites. The only specific example of trans ideology in the linked page is the use of the term ] instead of ]. It would seem to me that the type of person that uses the term "trans ideology" would agree that the term chestfeeding is an example of that, so it doesn't appear The Telegraph is ''inaccurately'' applying the term. | |||
| *:I'd also ask whether or not usage of ]s (see: every newspaper calling everything ]/AI) ever been a reason to declare a source unreliable? The ] policy exists to ensure citations aren't used to support false claims. It seems to me you're saying that "trans ideology" is just a vaguely defined and ultimately meaningless ]. If the term is devoid of meaning, nothing can really be cited from a source's usage of it. So, I'd also ask, '''are there any examples of The Telegraph being used to cite false information about the term "trans ideology"?''' Or is this just hypothetical, in which case, what are you seeking to prevent by declaring The Telegraph unreliable? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Y'know, . | |||
| *::They do use the phrase in articles but usually they're either quoting or implicitly quoting someone else, see and . Neither of these are good articles, though: they clearly exist to smuggle dubious opinions into the mouth of a quote. | |||
| *::Like for instance, . Is that opinion based in fact? Very much no, it repeats a bunch of debunked pseudoscience like ]. And they do no fact-checking whatsoever of this opinion. It's not news, it's not a noteworthy opinion, the opinions expressed are verifiably false, and they don't bother to fact-check them at all. ] (]) 04:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{tq | Debunked pseudoscience}} and {{tq | the opinions expressed are verifiably false}} are hyperbole. As The Cass Review says "{{tq | This is potentially the most contested explanation}}" - that doesn't make it debunked pseudoscience, and your exaggeration here exemplifies that. | |||
| *:::: | |||
| *:::{{quote frame | The argument, initially emerging from interviews with parents of transgender youths, effectively runs that a social contagion fuelled by social media leads to peer group-GD, reflecting a social coping mechanism for other issues. '''The polarisation of the subsequent debate will be familiar to all''', with many experts and scientific bodies critical of the research and concept. '''However, others recognise the need to thoroughly investigate one of the few offered explanations for the recent demographic changes.'''}} | |||
| *:::Branding entirely legitimate POVs taken seriously by MEDRS as "debunked pseudoscience" when they are very much unsettled questions is improper. An RFC like this should be based on actual, provable misstatements of '''fact''' not differences of opinion. Was there actually a child who identified as a cat in a classroom? Provably, no. Is peer contagion of gender dysphoria a contributing factor to ? MEDRS disagree, but on the whole it is treated as controversial, as-yet unknown and worthy of study, and very much not "{{tq | debunked pseudoscience}}". | |||
| *:::Additionally, the claim you point to is irrelevant because ''we would never use The Telegraph as a source to establish this as fact'', but what you seek to do here is exclude it as source generally on the grounds it ''lends credence to a POV you consider false'', and handwaving at the ] page to back that up. This is tantamount to saying: a local editorial consensus is fact, ''and any source that disagrees is not reliable''. That is a dangerous route indeed if permitted. ] (]) 12:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' per Colin] (]) 19:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per Chess. ] (]) 02:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - Per many examples presented here, The Telegraph stubbornly refuses to accept new information, perspectives, and research. Alone that would be a ''2''. When a source elevates active misinfomration and harmful hate speech, as The Telegraph now does, we should stop giving it the benefit of the doubt. Too much of the defense of this paper here seems to be based on inertia instead of Misplaced Pages policy. Coasting on past accomplishments and stodgy British Connservatism - name a more iconic duo. ] (]) 04:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per Chess and Barnards.tar.gz. I also think there should be a moratorum on "WP:RELIABLE source on trans issues" RFCs. IIRC, they've all failed and for good reason. - ] (]) 06:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - per the numerous examples shown by many users above; Maddy summarized well that the Telegraph using terms that are commonly used as anti-LGBT rhetoric in their own voice implies an issue on the topic and we have many other more reputable news sources on the topic, so removing coverage from the Telegraph isn't a big loss to Misplaced Pages as we can lean on other RS that manages not to disparage people while reporting on them. ] (]) 14:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1''' per Chess and others. ] (]) 12:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC). | |||
| * '''Option 3''' - per all the sources above of the issues . ] (]) 13:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''', per Loki and other sources above — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> <small>(he/him; ])</small></span> 19:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' per the sourcing and ]'s terrific input here but also per what's got to be an exhausting amount of good work by ] at playing devil's advocate. Arguably, it's worked ''too'' well because this thread has gotten input from editors who, despite being known for their intelligence and who certainly do not have reputations for transphobia, sadly seem to have been swayed away. But no matter: a healthy majority of participants here are getting better ''in real time'' at advocating in favor of human decency and against abuse of transgender people and it's thanks (mostly) to Chess, who I believe would not stand for any sort of mistreatment of those different from them. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">'']]]''</b> 03:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:What leads you to believe that Chess is arguing against his true position for some demagogy reason? ] (]) 12:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Same reason that I appreciate City of Silver for acknowledging that their central point is a) The Telegraph is transphobic, b) people that are against declaring it unreliable are (possibly unintentionally) supporting transphobia and c) we should ] by declaring The Telegraph as unreliable because d) a !vote declaring it unreliable is {{tq|advocating in favor of human decency and against abuse of transgender people}}. | |||
| *::The role of a ] is to strengthen an argument by pointing out factual errors, despite my agreement with your underlying value system. Since you're acknowledging that I have an {{tq|exhausting amount of good work}}, I assume you agree that I addressed all of Loki's factual points and really, our comments disagree on whether or not banning an anti-transgender source is a good method of fighting transphobia. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' - it’s generally reliable, although biased. Are there other sources that are better for reporting on trans issues? Yes. ] (]) 10:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Would you support an Option 2 that recommends using alternate sources? ] (]) 12:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::No need… Instruction creep. ] (]) 12:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::RSP isn't a page that's intended to be read in its entirety, so I don't see how CREEP applies here. If we have consensus to prefer sources other than the Telegraph, I think it's best to reflect it in a place accessible to newcomers. ] (]) 12:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::We can always replace one reliable source with another we think is even better. You don’t need to specify that this applies to the Telegraph. It applies to ''every'' source. ] (]) 17:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::The problem is, there is no existing documentation on whether editors consider Telegraph less reliable. This RfC aims for much more than a per-page consensus. There's also precedent of putting such words at RSP to no negative effect, and this would probably benefit newcomers. For example:{{tqb|'''No consensus''' on reliability; '''rough consensus''' to use the sources with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources.|source=sole line of ]}}{{tqb|The Washington Times is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available.}} ] (]) 19:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::] links to wikiproject Middle-Earth. ] (]) 22:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Weird. It's supposed to be ]. ] (]) 00:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''option 3''' - per springee. ]]] (]) 12:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) <small>Editor was {{diff2|1229739352|topic banned from gender related disputes}} for this !vote and subsequent comments. ] (]) 06:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *:I said option 1. ] (]) 12:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::i know. ]]] (]) 12:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Could you elaborate on that? ] (]) 12:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::as a rule of thumb, anything springee supports is right-wing pov pushing. ]]] (]) 12:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::This sounds borderline ]. ] (]) 12:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Whether it is or it isn't an ad hominem, it clearly isn't a nuanced position arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence presented. ] (]) 13:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Ltbdl seems generally rude, flippant and uncommunicative in their edits and ignores advice and warnings. I’d recommend either ignoring or reporting them. ] (]) 15:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::A formal warning was given 2 hours after my reply, and he expressed guilt. I think if one were to discuss it, it should be somewhere else instead of this section. ] (]) 16:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Option 3''' I’m just going to throw in my 2 pence (cos it’s British, get it) and say that, no, a conservative-leaning non-expert publication from a country where transphobia is widespread and mainstream even among nominal liberals is not reliable on transgender topics. ] (]) 15:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::The UK is one of the least transphobic countries in the world, see . Are you suggesting that we shouldn't use media from ~180 countries in which the situation is worse? ]<sub>]</sub> 16:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::That article is about the legal rights and opportunities, not necessarily how the public treats the subject. See the last paragraph of ]. ] (]) 16:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::And trustworthy as that travel blog filled with caveats is, I present the ] 2024 report which says (among ''many'' other criticisms of the UK): | |||
| *:::* {{tq|Anti-LGBT hate speech remained common (see here, here, and here). Following his visit to the UK, the UN Independent Expert on SOGI (IE SOGI) expressed deep concern about the growing toxic and hostile environment that LGBT and particularly trans people face in the UK, attributing much of the hate to politicians and the media. In this environment, the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) continued to fail trans people this year (see under Equality and Non-discrimination)}} p 161 | |||
| *:::] (]) 16:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If you're citing UN Independent Experts, note that ], the ], takes an opposing view on these issues. Also note that the UN investigation against the EHRC resulted in a finding that they should retain their status and had not violated any UN rules. At any rate, if you're arguing strenuously for a source being unreliable because it reflects views that are "widespread and mainstream even among nominal liberals", then perhaps you are the one whose views are "fringe"? ] (]) 17:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Sorry, can you quote where Reem Alsalem as said anything about the growing transphobic climate in the UK and where this climate is coming from. Also one country can have a widespread view and that view be fringe, that should be non negotiable. ] (]) 18:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::She certainly disagrees with what should be labeled as "anti-trans": 'She has been on the receiving end of two open letters signed by NGOs and women’s groups, accusing of her being “anti-trans”, an allegation she forcefully rejects. “Why is it so problematic for women, girls, and also men, to say, ‘This is important; many of our needs emanate from being female, or male, and there are certain instances where it’s proportionate, legitimate and perfectly necessary to keep a space single sex’?” While “that doesn’t apply to everything in life”, it is important, Alsalem believes, for prisons, women’s shelters and sport.' ] (]) 23:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Ok, so she has nothing to comment on the fact that is rising transphobia in the UK and therefore does not take an opposing view on those issues. Otherwise you would have said something about that instead of quoting from an opinion piece ] (]) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::In ], {{tq|Reem Alsalem said it "would potentially open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a gender certificate and the rights that are associated with it".}} This person that studied in Cairo, Egypt, holds one of the views condemned in this RfC, which is that The Telegraph was wrong for publishing an article with the views that that males who identify as men can enter women's only spaces by claiming to be women. | |||
| *::::::The standard that {{u|Dronebogus}} proposes and YFNS seemingly endorses is interesting. Would DB support declaring ] as unreliable on transgender topics because ] What other sources can we ban from the ]? | |||
| *::::::'''The substance of your !vote is that we should ban this source because it is from a transphobic country'''. This is a position that would be called ] if it was taken on any country other than the ]. And ILGA's reports on LGBTQ rights that YFNS cites have been criticized for that exact reason by academics. Either you think the ] is uniquely transphobic in a way that countries with legally mandated conversion therapy are not, or your rule would ban uncivilized (read: non-Western) countries from opining on transgender issues on Misplaced Pages. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 00:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::1) Is there evidence that ] is unreliable on trans topics? The UK Media has been criticized as transphobic and biased, that could be true regardless of the laws there. Do not conflate "the media has a recognized bias in this country" with "I just don't like this country's laws" | |||
| *:::::::2) This article raises good points, but you're missing a key one. It doesn't say ILGA is wrong, just that it left out the context of how Western imperialism shaped global homophobia/transphobia and didn't criticize the Western powers enough. If you're arguing the UK is the victim of western imperialism, and issues with transphobia in the media there should be discounted on that basis, then I really don't know what to say. | |||
| *:::::::3) The UN expert on LGBT topics still criticized the UK media. Attacking ILGA's reliability is silly, as that's not the source of the claim. | |||
| *:::::::4) That BBC article you linked for Alsalem notes {{tq|This was disputed by a separate independent UN expert on gender identity, who said the legislation would bring Scotland in line with international human right standards.}} and {{tq|Liz Throssell, spokesperson for the UN high commissioner for human rights, backed the view of }} who agree this hypothetical of men pretending to be trans women is a non-issue. | |||
| *:::::::5) Also, the irony of saying the UK is a victim of trans cultural imperialism even as it overrode Scotland's gender recognition reform is palpable. | |||
| *:::::::<small>Every day, I tell my friends the funniest arguments I've seen on Misplaced Pages - the UK is the victim of trans cultural imperialism is hands down the winner.</small> ] (]) 16:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I'm addressing the point that The Telegraph is unreliable because it's {{tq|from a country where transphobia is widespread and mainstream}}, which is the only rationale in Dronebogus' !vote. If you agree that standard isn't enough to declare a source unreliable, I'm going to assume you don't stand behind that logic and so this discussion is no longer about that !vote. If you want to provide your evidence that all British media is unreliable for trans topics for different reasons than Dronebogus, I invite you to start a subthread in Discussion and I'll engage there, especially as you've repeatedly told me to take stuff to the Discussion header. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 21:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I don't think "it doesn't violate any UN rules" should be used to evidence that the UK media has low transphobia. ] (]) 18:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Um, ] and pals? Anyone? Even the Guardian, the bastion of British progressive journalism, occasionally platforms transphobic viewpoints. Even some British Wikipedians have expressed the belief that obviously transphobic opinions are well within the ] both on and off wiki. So yes the UK has an endemic transphobia problem. ] (]) 21:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Perhaps some of these people disagree with your opinion on what is "transphobia"? As does the tribunal in R D Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Center, which found the labeling of the claimant as "transphobic" to create a hostile environment for people with gender critical beliefs: 'MW then goes on to say “Transphobia exists in our organisation as do other prejudices”. The clear implication of this is that the claimant is transphobic. She then goes on to invite AB to file a formal complaint. In the view of the Tribunal this was clearly unwarranted behaviour which was linked to the claimant’s philosophical belief. It clearly had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for the claimant. She was being called transphobic and a promise made to a colleague that they would no longer have to work with her.' ] (]) 23:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::As a crumb of context, the defendant had asked how to misgender a transmasculine worker named AB (who ], the CEO, told could file a complaint), and campaigned for the right of service users to make discriminatory requests of the service (IE, that people should be able to specify they don't want to be seen by transgender women) at a clinic that's been trans-inclusive for over a decade. Frankly, my reaction about hearing about this case weeks ago was to wonder what's next: "I only want to be seen by white women" gets ruled a protected belief that clinics have to respect? ] (]) 15:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That is a gross misrepresentation of what the tribunal determined happened in this case. For anyone who is interested in the facts, the full judgment is here . ] (]) 16:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{tq|Much of the tribunal centred on a disciplinary process that began after Ms Adams sought clarity on how to respond to an abuse survivor who wanted to know if a support worker who identified as non-binary was a man or a woman.}} | |||
| ::::::::::{{tq|The tribunal ruling noted that Ms Adams' view was that people using the centre should have a choice over who they receive support from on the basis of sex}} | |||
| ::::::::::{{tq|Ms Adams has since gone on to work for ]}} (a clinic founded by ] which does not hire or serve or transgender women) ] (]) 17:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::{{tq| it reflects views that are "widespread and mainstream even among nominal liberals"}} ''in a certain country''. These are not mainstream views anywhere else. They are globally ]. | |||
| *:::::]s article notes how UN officials responsible for overseeing LGBT rights and human rights think she's anti-trans, and hundreds of feminist groups worldwide agreed. The UN's definitions of human rights for LGBT people (which include self-id) directly contradict her positions. ] (]) 15:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I don't think this continuing back and forth is adding anything to the RFC, I suggest moving any further comments to the discussion section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', since we're going with bolded !votes, but I'd broadly repeat what I this was discussed. It's generally reliable in a newspapery sense. Newspapers select what stories they want to print, and how they want to write them, based on their audience, and the Telegraph has a... particular type of audience. I don't believe they are any less reliable than newspapers are in general, which is to say it's not great a source for all sorts of assertions; maybe I'm really saying 'Option 1.5', because other considerations always apply when dealing with newspapers. ]] 16:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', I've kept an eye on this conversation for a while, and I've seen nothing compelling to suggest that the Telegraph should be deprecated in any way. This has mostly turned into a discussion of whether or not editors '''like''' the Telegraph's reporting on trans issues, but you don't have to like what an RS says for it to be an RS. ] (]) 18:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per ] etc. - I'm not comfortable mandating RS to hold certain political positions either, and that's basically what this discussion is. ''''']''''' (]) 18:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2''' I don't think it has been shown that the Telegraph is a (edit: generally) unreliable source, but it has been shown to be transphobic and biased on LGBT issues. Additionally, my understanding is that it should never be used as ], an area in which many of its issues with reporting on trans issues arise. It should be treated as a right leaning, generally Anti-LGBT, source same as you would treat sources that center pro-LGBT activist voices. ] (]) 20:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *: I am updating my original vote to just solidly option 2 after some consideration. I think that articles like which only quote anti-trans orginizations and the government official in question are obviously biased. It includes inaccuracies such as saying that the council "have also been criticised by gay rights activists", when who they mean is the LGB alliance who are considered an anti-trans organization and are not respected by 99% of other gay rights organizations. I still believe these articles could be used in balance with opposing view points and with other more neutral sources, but this source on this topic should be considered quite biased and used carefully. ] (]) 21:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{re|Gnisacc}} - you missed that the Telegraph did quote a Westminster City Council spokesman {{tq|The council supports festivals and celebrations…}} other than quoting Stuart Love, the council’s chief executive. ''']] (])''' 00:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The autho rhas emailed me demanding it be added to the Newport Tower article as it has been peer reviewed.] press.... Other non-peer reviewed papers of his can be found here. ] ] 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per summary by Chess. Biased, but not unreliable. ] (]) 03:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1 or 2''' per Chess and Queen of Hearts and others. I think that, if nothing else, this is yet another for the pile of case studies that RSP is silly and reductive; clearly it is biased, so it is dumb to make an official entry on the official list of official officialness saying it is "green" or "yellow" or "red". It is neither of those things: it is a newspaper. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 05:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per Chess' and Billed Mammal's rebuttals and per Void if removed's and Sweet6970's comments, weak evidence of general factual unreliability, the "cat case" is not enough even for option 2. ] 07:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option it is biased but not unreliable'''. I guess you can call that option 2 if you want. I think (among others) Dr. Swag Lord and Jmchutchinson were right to point out that this is a fairly standard newspaper (of record); the editorial staff don't all leave the room when they find out the article is about this one specific topic. I also think that the claims that they publish ''incorrect statements of fact'' on this topic seem to be ''substantively untrue''. They didn't "promote the litterboxes in school hoax", and don't appear to have even have made any incorrect statements of fact here (thanks BilledMammal/Chess), so it is unfortunate to have led with this example. The other evidence is generally about which opinions they present or which people/organisations they quote. That goes to bias, which they have, not unreliability. If this question was just "are there better sources we can use to write about the ]?" The answer is yes, but unfortunately that wasn't the question, so here we are. ] (]) 08:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per Chess and others. There has been zero evidence of actual unreliability. Some people do not like the fact that they report on factual stories with evidence (the child ''was'' disciplined for that reason, even if the reason itself was untrue), simply because those stories don’t support their personal narrative. Luckily, Misplaced Pages transcends (or is supposed to) personal narratives, and does not consider editors’ personal agreement with sources when determining if they are reliable or not - and there has been zero actual evidence of factual errors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 18:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', per the reasoning provided above by Chess and others. I do not dispute that the Telegraph is biased on this topic, to the point that it all but takes a stance against transgender issues. However, I do not think the cited examples against the Telegraph amount to the paper being unreliable in that topic area. There's a difference between being unreliable and being biased—and you'd be hard-pressed to find any newspaper that is ''not'' biased in any way. One needs to keep ] in mind when writing about controversial topics, and I don't think restricting a source solely based on its bias is a particularly good way to accomplish this. (That said, with regards to trans issues, if less-biased sources exist for a certain statement, I would use those rather than the Telegraph or any other biased source.) – ] (]) 20:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' - per the claims of dishonest reporting and fabrication mentioned at the beginning of this discussion being themselves mistaken, as noted by a multitude of others. No problem mentioning they are biased, as that seems clear from reading the links provided, but that hasn't impacted the accuracy of reporting. ] (]) 02:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' We're already well-suited to deal with issues of bias, which do seem to be present here. I certainly disagree with the Telegraph on some key things, but no evidence has been presented questioning reliability (as opposed to bias) and getting quotes from opponents or people charged in an article is standard, ethical journalistic practice, not something to be avoided. ] (]) 06:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Just to be clear, one of my objections is that they get quotes from supporters and not opponents, and often disguise that the supporters are activists instead of neutral experts. ] (]) 13:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I can read just fine, thank you, but I reject that as significantly backed as a claim on a systematic basis. You've had your say already. ] (]) 23:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' I've searched for the reported criticism of the Telegraph on this issue and for me per ] it looks insufficient to discard the source. BBC, for instance, was , but its reliability on the issue still stands, AFAIK. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think BBC is a bit apples-to-oranges. I mean, one, it’s just a single article; two, as I mentioned even the ''Guardian'' sometimes runs a transphobic piece; and three, the BBC isn’t really supposed to have an explicit editorial stance, but in any case it’s certainly not “synonymous with right-wing” like the Telegraph. Tl;dr I think British mainstream media has a problem with transphobia in general, but the British right is ''especially'' bad. ] (]) 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah, the reason I made this RFC about the Telegraph and not about the BBC or the Guardian or even the Times is that the Telegraph is orders of magnitude worse than any of them. | |||
| *::The BBC is guilty of a lot of ] on trans issues, and occasionally does make factual mistakes, but is still obviously generally reliable. Notably they corrected the worst parts of ], which is more than I can say for the Telegraph. ] (]) 17:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I dunno, the Times seems far worse to me. From editing reporting on Ghey just to remove references to her being a girl to CNN claiming it only published negative articles in their sample. ] (]) 19:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The only question for this discussion is whether the Telegraph is unreliable. Whether the Telegraph is or isn't the worst, or whether other sources are or are not (also) unreliable for trans issues are not relevant here. If you (or anyone else) believes that other sources are unreliable you are free to start a new discussion about them (although it might be wisest to wait for this to conclude first, and a discussion of more than one such source is unlikely to achieve consensus). ] (]) 20:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I say this from compiling evidence on both, though admittedly the Times has a paywall so I didn't read nearly as many of their articles. The Telegraph's bias on this issue is really palpable just from reading them, while the Times is notably more subtle about it. The secondary sourcing is actually more conclusive on the Times, but I figured that the "just go read it" factor weighed in favor of starting with the Telegraph. | |||
| *::::Not sure how much that helped: on the one hand, there definitely is a consensus for bias here, at least. On the other hand, a lot of the negative votes are asking for secondary sourcing, which assuming good faith is more clear for the Times than for the Telegraph. ] (]) 22:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::A consensus for bias doesn't even make a source ]. The big ] says {{tq|Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution.}} <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 05:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::There's plenty of sources with a note at ] saying they're biased on certain issues. And of course, sufficiently strong bias can impact a source's ability to report the facts. ] (]) 09:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Indeed, while bias and reliability are not the same thing, they are not completely independent of one another. Three extracts from RSP: | |||
| *:::::::*Cato institute: {{tpq|Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed. }} | |||
| *:::::::*Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR): {{tpq|Though its articles are regularly written by subject-matter experts in economics and are frequently cited by reliable sources, most editors consider the CEPR biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed. }} | |||
| *:::::::*CNN: {{tpq|Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.}} This shows a consensus that bias ''can'' negatively affect reliability. | |||
| *:::::::] (]) 10:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Bias ''can'' affect reliability, but you haven't shown that The Telegraph's bias ''does'' affect its reliability. Biased sources can be ] (CNN), ] (Cato Institute, CEPR), ] (Electronic Intifada), or fully deprecated. So, if all you can show is that {{tq|there definitely is a consensus for bias here}}, that's a consensus for a note at RSP. You need to show how The Telegraph's bias is so strong, '''it is no longer able to perform accurate fact-checking because it starts lying to fit its narrative,''' and therefore designating The Telegraph as ] or below will stop lies from getting onto Misplaced Pages. | |||
| *::::::::Nobody here has shown that. It has been shown that The Telegraph has a narrative and regularly quotes people that criticize transgender rights for their opinions, describing anti-transgender rights groups with terms favourable to their POV (gender-critical) and pro-transgender rights group with terms unfavourable to their POV (transgender ideology). The Telegraph also heavily emphasizes facts that fit their belief system, such as transgender women's milk potentially being unsafe and scientific issues surrounding trans women in sports. They also frequently say the definition of a "trans women" is too broad. None of these can be cited for untruths. | |||
| *::::::::The primary example of a bad fact-check alleged this entire RfC is the story about a student at ] who was reprimanded for not respecting another hypothetical student's identity as a cat. The only dispute is '''whether or not a real student actually identified as a cat''', because nobody is disputing that the student was reprimanded. | |||
| *::::::::I've already discussed whether or not that really was a bad fact-check, but even if it was, one week of coverage on a singular story for a paper with an over 168-year history is not enough to demonstrate unreliability. | |||
| *::::::::Brandmeister said {{tq|I've searched for the reported criticism of the Telegraph on this issue and for me per ] it looks insufficient to discard the source}}, which agrees that bias can influence reliability. If you or Loki want to engage with the substance of the !vote, provide ''your'' summary (as I just did) of the examples so far of how The Telegraph's bias influenced its reliability, instead of just proving that it's theoretically possible for bias to influence reliability. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Honestly, I'll concede that most of the time the Telegraph is smart enough to avoid saying stuff that's clearly false in its own voice. But it does say things all the time that are technically not false per se but are very misleading: see for instance , where the claim that this study is wrong would be quite dubious, but the claim that it's been criticized (by anyone anywhere) is technically true. (And this is a thing the Telegraph does all the time, like I wouldn't be surprised if they put out an article like this every single day). | |||
| *:::::::::And some of the time, much more frequently than other news orgs, it goes further and actually does say dubious or even clearly false things in its own voice. When it does so, it almost never issues corrections of any kind. Some examples, in addition to the Rye College one we're all aware of: | |||
| *:::::::::* . That's very dubious: it's at minimum pretty clearly not a fact, and is probably just false. It's not really true that women's rights have come under threat by gender ideology. It's dubious that ] is even a real thing; we redirect it to a section of ], where we cite several academic sources that call it a conspiracy theory. | |||
| *:::::::::* . The Dutch parliament called for more research into puberty blockers, which is only dubiously calling for restrictions. Belgium, as far as I'm aware, has done nothing yet: the article doesn't say they did anything about Belgium calling for restrictions, only that a few doctors have and that a party that might win elections in the future might also. | |||
| *:::::::::* has been . Most notably: | |||
| *::::::::::* The Telegraph is definitely wrong that the Cass Report is a "report on the dangers of gender ideology": it's a series of systematic reviews about treatment of trans children. Also, as shown above, "gender ideology" is regarded by academic sources as a conspiracy theory, so it's concerning that the Telegraph is endorsing it. | |||
| *::::::::::* The Telegraph is also definitely wrong that ] is a regulatory body. It's a professional organization. Membership is optional. It has no regulatory authority at all, not even the way a bar association might. | |||
| *:::::::::] (]) 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::{{tq|Honestly, I'll concede that most of the time the Telegraph is smart enough to avoid saying stuff that's clearly false in its own voice}} grants that it can't be used most of the time to cite untrue facts, since ] prevents us from using misleading implications. The only non-cat example you provide of a fact that could be (hypothetically) cited is in your third article about how UKCP is a regulatory body, because it already can't be used for medical content per ]. | |||
| *::::::::::The first article on whether transgender people are a threat to women is opinion leaking into an article (i.e. bias); it says a book {{tq|new book reveals that women’s rights across the world have come under threat}}. This only implies that the opinion of the book is true, and implications can't be cited. The only way this could get cited is in the reception section of an article on the book as an example of what The Telegraph believes the book says, which in my opinion would be fine. | |||
| *::::::::::You're saying that the second article makes claims about medical guidelines, so per ] there's no scenario in which we're only citing The Telegraph for that. Even then, the second article says {{tq|Belgium and the Netherlands have become the latest countries to question the use of puberty blockers on children}}, which isn't calling for a restriction; it's only asking whether a restriction is appropriate, so it's not inaccurate. | |||
| *::::::::::On the third article (with the rebuttal by Therapists Against Conversion Therapy and Transphobia, not Hilary Cass), claims about the Cass Review would have to be substantiated by the review per ] so The Telegraph's opinions can't be cited on their own. Even then, whether or not gender ideology caused medical practitioners to disregard a lack of evidence for healthcare in children is open to interpretation, the rebuttal by your advocacy group only asserts that this is false with no evidence. | |||
| *::::::::::I won't rehash the discussion above of the term "gender ideology", so I'll only note that I don't believe you established they were endorsing an untrue conspiracy theory by using the term. | |||
| *::::::::::Anyways, the only fact The Telegraph could be cited for is that ] is a regulatory organization. While ] has a voluntary membership, it's still a ] per their website. They register psychotherapists, enforce a standard of ethics on its members, and can conduct disciplinary hearings to remove those that don't comply with ethical guidelines. It's like how the ] can take complaints and regulate newspapers despite being voluntary to join. Can you provide a neutral source (not one currently trying to remove the board of trustees of UKCP) saying the UKCP isn't a regulatory body? | |||
| *::::::::::The other 3 disputed points by TACTT is it being unhappy with language such as "coup attempt", the accusation of "bullying", and that it "turned a blind eye to the safety of children". Only the term "coup attempt" was used by The Telegraph in article voice. The other two points are in a quote from the Chairman of the UKCP who said {{tq|I will not allow the UKCP to be bullied into turning a blind eye to the safety of children.}} <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 06:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Maybe these discussions should be moved to the Discussion section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::It's not apples to oranges when your vote contemplates declaring all of the British media something other than reliable on transgender topics. Asking whether the BBC is reliable under the standards of this RfC is a ] <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 21:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/2''' The ] is certainly overly biased on this topic to the point of being irrational at times, but so is ]. I have noticed that the ] has declined in quality in recent years, but I have noticed that for a lot of reliable sources since the start of the pandemic. For topics like the ], I would prefer other sources, but I wouldn't fully rule out the Telegraph. ] (]) 08:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', too much instruction creep. We don't need carveouts for every single topic where a source may be subpar compared to their usual work. ] (]) 11:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Astaire, Chess, and others have thoroughly rebutted the claims on unreliablity here. Moreover, I rebutted some of these claims myself in the earlier pre-discussion to this RfC. ] ] 19:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Per BilledMammal. --] <small>]]</small> 23:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option 2''', per my usual view of it depends on what test the cite is intended for, what the ] is. It certainly is a major venue and seems a reasonable source from prominence and availability. I don't see any reason to believe that it is always wrong to mandate exclusion always and forever, nor that it is perfectly right and comprehensive, nor that something appropriate for every line is always there, so ... it just depends on what the article text in question is. Cheers ] (]) 01:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Per ], {{tq|News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact}}. ''The Telegraph'' is a well-established U.K. broadsheet with a long reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and investigative reporting. U.K. print media is quite an opinionated market, but I fundamentally don't find the proffered evidence as convincing against ''The Telegraph''{{'}}s general reliability within the narrow scope of transgender topics when it's got quite a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy generally. The publication may have a conservative lean, but that fact doesn't move the needle here in light of the publication's broader reputation and editorial integrity. — ] <sub>]</sub> 02:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Just curious: have you actually seen a copy of the Telegraph in the last four years? ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I have in a library, but they don't circulate many copies where I am. Which may be a shame, as The Press Awards and awarded them Front Page of the Year for broadsheets, so the print editions might have more value add over the digital form than expected. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::FWIW, ] of someone voting for general reliability in the last RFC, then getting gifted a subscription to the Telegraph and apologizing because the problems with this source are so obvious upon reading it daily. ] (]) 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:This RfC isn't about The Telegraph's "broader reputation and editorial integrity". It is about a ''specific'' topic. ] (]) 20:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Correct! But as I just don't find the evidence provided against reliability in this topic area ''specicially'' to be convincing (Chess's reply is quite thorough in listing why), and the general reputation of the newspaper is quite good, I think it's reliable in this area. "Coverage of X topic area is ]" is sort of the default case when we have a ] newspaper, ] aside. — ] <sub>]</sub> 19:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' Per BilledMammal and ]. The Telegraph is a strong RS and highly regarded. I do hope this isn't another go after a conservative-leaning source. I just see a simple case of ] here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 10:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3'''. News reporting in the Telegraph may theoretically be considered reliable, if you can find it. But little, if any, of their coverage of culture insurgency issues is actually news: it's editorial, or at the very least heavily editorialised. It's not possible to read a single story without being acutely aware of the official editorial line. I concur with others above as to the extent of the evidence. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 18:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1''' per ]. A source having a bias doesn't make it unreliable, and there is a lack of evidence showing this source to be unreliable. ] (]) 20:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2'''. It is a biased source, and that bias disqualifies its usage to establish due weight in an article. It should be avoided for potentially controversial BLP claims relating to transgender topics, and likewise for any science-related claims. (Much of that already falls under ], but that's often ignored when it comes to the intersection of science and politics, mostly because people interested in following core content policies generally find themselves unwelcome in the topic area of contemporary politics.) If there are certain straightforward claims that do not fall into either of those two buckets and do not create DUE issues—maybe, that a notable trans person was born in a certain year, or that a trans advocacy group is incorporated in a certain country—then sure, although usually some less biased source can probably be cited for the same claim. But its overall hysteria as part of the UK's great moral panic about trans issues makes it unsuitable for anything more complex than that. And if that seems unfair to conservatives, I would say the same about ''The New York Times''{{'s}} coverage of guns, to pick a hysteria on the other side of the aisle. Part of Neutral Point of View and Verifiability is using sources that have a basic grasp of what's being discussed. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *: ]; {{tq|A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view.}} ] (]) 06:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' for trans issues because of its propagation of the "litter boxes" hoax.] (]) 05:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per the numerous rationales already provided. Biased reliable sources are perfectly acceptable. Misplaced Pages does not exist to push the point of view that being transgender is an inalienable human right (FYI, a POV which I myself hold but what I think doesn't really matter here). We are supposed to provide a balanced view of a subject based on reliable sources, not cherry pick the sources we agree with. Eliminating every source we disagree with will only further make Misplaced Pages unreliable, untrusted and inaccurate. If two sources, one left-leaning and one right-leaning, mentioned a controversy regarding a right-wing politician with the left-leaning publication being heavily critical and the right-leaning one being heavily supportive, should I merely include the left-leaning source's arguments in an article, completely ignore the other POV, and revert any attempt to introduce the right-leaning source? Of course not, ] requires both sides to be covered. I see absolutely no reason why trans issues should be any different to any other topic covered on Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 11:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per Chess, BilledMammal and others. OK, they are WP:BIASED, but I'm not persuaded that they are also unreliable. WP:NPOV requires coverage of all the significant views - I think this is a significant POV and our articles about trans issues would be less balanced if it were excluded. ] (]) (]) 15:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per BilledMammal and Gitz6666. If having a prominent, common POV on this issue (and I’m not convinced the even Telegraph does have a bias) is disqualifying, then… well it doesn’t matter, because it’s not. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 17:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:If you can't see that the Telegraph has a bias then I'm not certain you have actually looked at the evidence. It is arguable whether the bias the Telegraph has is or is not sufficient to render it's coverage of the topic unreliable, however even those most vociferously arguing for option 1 are not denying the existence of bias. ] (]) 18:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{tqb|It is arguable whether the bias the Telegraph has is or is not sufficient to render it's coverage of the topic unreliable}} | |||
| *::Even if the Telegraph was biased, that is not true - ] is clear that we achieve NPOV by balancing the bias in sources, not by excluding sources that have a POV we disagree with. ] (]) 18:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It is possible for a source to be reliable despite having a strong bias because it doesn't let it's bias get in the way of factual reporting. It is also possible for a source to be unreliable due to having a strong bias because factual reporting is seen as less important than the bias. RSP includes multiple examples of both. Those !voting for option 1 believe the first possibility above applies to the Telegraph, those supporting option 3 believe the second is a more accurate description of the Telegraph. Those supporting option 2 believe it's not clear cut. ] (]) 18:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{tqb|because factual reporting is seen as less important than the bias}} | |||
| *::::In which case the issue isn’t bias, but factual unreliability - which has not been demonstrated here, as implicitly conceded by the editors arguing it is unreliable solely because of what they see as bias. ] (]) 19:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Factual unreliability due to bias is an issue of both factual unreliability and of bias - and bias alone ''can'' be the reason fora source being unreliable. Whether it has been demonstrated here is a matter of opinion. ] (]) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{tqb|bias alone ''can'' be the reason fora source being unreliable}} | |||
| *::::::Can you link the policy that says this? As far as I know, the ] say the opposite. ] (]) 19:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Not "unreliable" as a Misplaced Pages term of art, factually unreliable. Bias alone can be the reason a source cannot be relied on for facts. That's not a statement about Misplaced Pages policy, that's just a fact. ] (]) 19:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::We’re going in circles, so I’ll finish my participation in this chain by saying: | |||
| *::::::::#If a source can’t be relied on for facts, you can prove it by showing where it gets facts wrong. You can’t prove it by showing (or claiming) that it is biased. | |||
| *::::::::#We determine whether a source is unreliable for use on Misplaced Pages by assessing it in the context of our policies. !votes that assess it in a different context should be given no weight by the closer, per ] | |||
| *::::::::] (]) 19:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::The edit-notice you get when you edit this page (], though you might not see it using the reply tool) says very prominently that {{tq|Bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution.}} Your argument, aside from not being based on policy, ''directly contradicts'' global consensus that is so widely agreed upon it is intended to be broadcast to every editor at this noticeboard. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 23:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::You'll just have to imagine that my view is both informed and not aligned with yours. I don't think evidence that an outlet platforms a particular point of view, or platforms authors with a bias, suggests that the outlet itself must share in that point of view or bias. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 20:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::If that is what you believe is the reason for people believing the Telegraph is biased then you either haven't read or haven't understood most of the evidence presented. ] (]) 21:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::{{tq|1=You'll just have to imagine that my view is both informed and not aligned with yours.}}<br>That's my assessment of the evidence. Maybe you can settle on "Zanahary just doesn't understand what he's seeing" (in which case, please explain it or keep it to yourself), but I've read it. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 21:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :For reference the tower is ] The answer is no. The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming. Even academic presses slip up sometimes and Istanbul University Press is frankly quite a bit distant from Rhode Island such that I would be cautious about the level of rigour of its fact checking (if any) on the topic. ] (]) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion (Telegraph on trans issues) === | |||
| ::In addition to this, the author is retired from the U.S. Navy and a student of aeronautics, while this paper involves a great deal of cartography, religious history, etc. In other worlds, far outside of the author's field, even if there was some question about its reliability. Looking at the non-peer reviewed papers, I see that the author also believes the ] is legit. ] (]) 15:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], that WP article has an entire section on ], so it's not clear to me that "The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming" is a reason to exclude this hypothesis. Given that context, what does it means to be a RS for a fringe theory? A source may be reliable for the existence of the fringe theory but unreliable otherwise. | |||
| ::It's unclear to me whether this chapter is truly peer-reviewed. It appears in an , and the editors are on the faculty of Istanbul University, but it's not clear to me that they have expertise in this area, whether they reviewed all of the chapters for accuracy or only for things like pertinence and organization, or if they sought any outside review for any of the chapters. Their Google Scholar info: , . The book was just published, and I couldn't find any reviews for it. What the author of the chapter "demands" is irrelevant. ] (]) 20:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The question is, does this source add anything to the "Norse hypothesis" such that it is worth adding the article to include it? I think the answer is no. There's no evidence that this paper has had any impact on the wider discourse surrounding the tower. ] (]) 20:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I haven't read the paper, but the abstract says "Two Turkish cartographers, the earliest being Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-1310), and later, Piri Reis (c. 1465-1553), illustrated the North American Baptistery on their respective cartographic works." I know nothing about the "Norse hypothesis" and so cannot judge whether this is something new; the current WP text makes no mention of Turks, but perhaps that's just a matter of what was judged to be DUE. The book link above says that the book was only published last week, so at this point the chapter cannot possibly have had any impact on wider discourse. ] (]) 22:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Peer review is only as good as the peers in question... Istanbul University and history have a rather fraught history when it comes to Turkish nationalist historiography (which I would fit this under given the elements of Turkish exceptionalism). We have a long history of disregarding those views because academics outside of Turkey do (especially as it concerns claims of Ottoman voyages of discovery, the Kurds, and the Armenian Genocide). ] (]) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :No, obvious crank. I would take it as evidence that Istanbul University Press is not reliable. I imagine he was stationed at the base in Newport and got interested, but he should seek professional training in history and learn to read some relevant languages before leaning in on a claim this unlikely. There's really nothing in his article except some maps so extremely magnified that they don't resemble anything in particular. ] (]) 01:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Pinkvilla == | |||
| ::I don't vote here because I don't have time to study the sources about the reliability issue. But I have 2 comments to make: (a) It was said in other discussions that option 4 is technically not possible for specific issues because of the filter. So it seems to be irrelevant. b) the question of whether trans men and women are men or women is not a factual question, but rather a question of definition. Factual questions are if certain people feel they are a man or a woman, if they have a penis or a vagina, XX or XY chromosomes, etc. But the question of which of these criteria should be used to decide who should be called man or woman is not a factual question, but rather a semantic/legal/linguistic question of definitions. The meaning of the words "man" and "woman" is a social construct. And in fact many progressives think that the binary division to "man" and "woman" is wrong, and we should look at sex and gender as a spectrum. ] (]) 10:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * This is likely going to be a continuous RFC with many editors voicing their opinions. For the sake of ever getting a close can I suggest keeping the replies to a minimum in the survey section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 09:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been flagged as an unreliable source, and there is growing consensus around its exclusion from the list of acceptable sources on ]. Previously dicusssed (see ], ]). Due to concerns about the site's editorial standards, accuracy, and potential biases, I propose to dicussss the credibility of Pinkvilla. The aim is to ensure that Misplaced Pages articles are supported by sources that meet higher standards of reliability and credibility. Pinkvilla itself states that the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data. However, it asserts that the numbers are generally reflective of the box-office performance of the films in question ().] (]) 09:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Procedural question: It's less than two years since the last RfC on this where the consensus was overwhelming for option 1. Can I check if there are things that have changed since then or other reason to relitigate? Not completely clear from the arguments above. ] (]) 11:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you think there's a difference between the box-office numbers in Pinkvilla and their general articles? Could one be considered reliable and the other not, or is this looking at the site as a whole? ''']''' (]) 20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Having watched the last full RFC, and the RFC on this specific issue that happened shortly afterwards, their were several participants who felt the RFCs were rushed into. This meant they couldn't present their arguments properly, I'm guessing this is part of the reason for the extensive discussion at ] before this RFC was started. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:{{tq|the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data}} it probably shouldn't be cited then. ] (]) 23:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :Reliability discussion took place previously ] putting it as one of the best sources for movie related news and box office collections. ] (]) 07:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Viva == | |||
| :Can anyone point to a ''good'' article on trans subjects in the Telegraph? Because ] can always be called to allow use of a generally unreliable source, but what are they bringing to the table that makes them a reliable source? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 8.8% of all ].</sub></span> 18:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here's one I grabbed today. It covers a transgender judge and her resignation. Here's another one also published today. I'm going to assert that these are good because they cover the story in a balanced way and the assertions they've made are true. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The first one is definitely better than average for the Telegraph but it still contains minor factual inaccuracies. The one I noticed immediately is that it says that the Cass Review {{tq|warned against giving hormone drugs to under-18s and rushing children identifying as transgender into treatment they may later regret}}, when it did no such thing. It said that there was not enough evidence to support ''puberty blockers'', not hormones, and recommended that the NHS should only prescribe them to trans kids as part of a study. | |||
| :::The second one is bad mostly because it's not news. It's a news article about a tweet, and not a tweet by a significant figure but JK Rowling arguing with people on Twitter again. It makes few factual claims and they're hard to fact check because they're almost all quotes or policy positions of various parties. But even reporting on this indicates significant bias. ] (]) 20:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"I don't think this is news" is not an argument against something being RS. As for the , it recommends {{tq|The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review recommends extreme caution. There should be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18. Every case considered for medical treatment should be discussed at a national Multi- Disciplinary Team (MDT).}} This is an entirely reasonable paraphrase of {{tq|warns against giving hormone drugs to under-18s}}, there is a clear difference between "warns against" and "forbids". And the report clearly states the evidence for the safety or otherwise of hormone therapy for teenagers is lacking.] (]) 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] flies seasonal flights from ] to ], yet neither airport lists them in their articles. The flights are bookable on Viva's website. Is this considered a reliable source to add Viva to Nashville, or will this news article which briefly mentions Viva's presence in Nashville also be needed? | |||
| We're not even that many days into this discussion and I already see a few of the same names popping up over and over. Echoing something which someone said in another recent discussion on this page, I would like to gently suggest to everyone that if you haven't persuaded your conversational partner after a couple back-and-forths, it seems unlikely either of you will persuade the other after ''more'' back-and-forth, and it might be more fruitful to just step back and say 'OK, we disagree on this'. (Some of the people doing this are voting option 1, some are voting option 3; this is an omnidirectional plea...) It's in your own interest, not only to have more time for other things, but to avoid getting accused by each other of bludgeoning, a thing which people in heated discussions have historically been wont to accuse each other of. ] (]) 03:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Unfortunately, some editors love to hear the sound of their own voice. There's no cure for conceit and self-importance. ] ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black">Ol' homo.</span> 07:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| For some context here's what it would look like: | |||
| *'''Comment:''' how do we feel about specific BLP coverage? Is there any past discussion about cases were the source was a) allowed to be used for BLP and b) shouldn’t be? ] (]) 20:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Airport destination list | |||
| | 3rdcoltitle={{Abbr|Refs|References}}|3rdcolunsortable=yes | |||
| | ] | '''Seasonal:''' ]<ref>{{cite web|title=New flights are coming to Nashville International Airport in 2025: Here’s where they’ll take you|website=WKRN|url=https://www.wkrn.com/news/local-news/nashville/new-flights-are-coming-to-nashville-international-airport-in-2025-heres-where-theyll-take-you/|date=December 30, 2024|access-date=January 2, 2025}}</ref> | <ref>{{Cite web|title=Aeropuertos internacionales|url=https://www.vivaaerobus.com/en-us/our-destinations/airports|access-date=January 2, 2025}}</ref> | |||
| }} | |||
| The ref in the rightmost column is always from the airline itself and indicates that the airline does fly to the airport. The ref after the destination (]) is sometimes included to verify individual routes and is not always required if the route is not disputed by anybody. Sadly, there are not many good sources talking about Viva's BNA-CUN route in detail, so I may have to use the news article from WKRN I showed earlier which only mentions it in passing, even though it also says ] flies to Cancun from Nashville, which they stopped several years ago. | |||
| So this is my question: Is Viva's website, a primary source, alone able to prove that they fly from Nashville to Cancun and thus be included in the articles, or is a secondary source, WKRN or not, also needed? ] (]) 15:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Perhaps someone here can answer how common it is that Misplaced Pages treats a source as reliable except for a particular topic. What are other examples? I ask because it seems implausible to me that the newspaper editor says to their reporters that they consistently expect the highest standards of journalism, etc., except when it comes to trans matters when you can make up any old lies and we won't complain. I don't think that there will be journalists at the Telegraph who are specialising in trans matters; they will be covering a broad range of other topics also, so it would be strange if their behaviour was inconsistent between topics. OK, I could imagine that the editor of a propaganda channel like Russia Today might say to keep things honest except as regards Russia, but the Telegraph does not have any special focus on trans matters, so why should they treat it differently? Of course it seems more likely to me that the attention on trans coverage at the Telegraph arises not from a difference in how the Telegraph deals with this topic but from the focus and viewpoints of some of Misplaced Pages's editors. It would help to show that up if it turns out that these kind of topic-restrictions are unusual for mainstream media. ] (]) 11:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:There are multiple sources listed at ] that have different reliability ratings for different topics, e.g. Fox News, Huff Post, Insider and several other entries that note more caution is needed in certain areas. ] (]) 11:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thanks, that's valuable to know. I didn't spot any topic quite as specific as trans in that list, but it makes sense that some of those titles are considered unreliable about politics, for instance. ] (]) 16:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Do we have any precedent for designating a source with different reliability for something as narrow as "trans issues" though? I am wondering if this is a precedent we want to set. ] (]) 08:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I suppose it depends in part whether you regard "trans issues" as narrow, but to my mind it is a precedent worth setting. If a sources is reliable or unreliable only in a narrow area we should (not) be using in that specific area as this will bring the greatest benefit to the encyclopaedia. ] (]) 08:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I agree with Thryduulf. It's not even that narrow even though it's the narrowest topic so far. ] (]) 11:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I'm not even sure it is the narrowest. Cato Institute's listing at RFP says (in part) {{tpq|Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on ]. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics.}} and that's from 2015. ] (]) 12:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *More than once in Option 1 !votes there has been a claim that Option 3/4 !votes amount to requiring RSes to hold a certain 'political position' or 'political opinion'. However, this misrepresents many Option 3/4 !votes, which express not concern about support/opposition for X or Y law, or A or B party (which would be political positions) but instead about inaccuracies, misinformation, and deviation from academic consensus about trans existence and experiences (i. le., matters pertaining to reliability, accuracy, etc.). The claim by various Option 1 !votes that the Telegraph merely has a POV or bias is troubling because it reduces information to opinion, as if academic interpretations in science, sociology, and more have only as much weight as an opinion about, say, whether Kirk or Spock is the better character.{{pb}}In any case, I encourage the closer to remember that ] (and not necessarily their length either). ] (] | ] | ]) 19:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Many support Chess and Void's rebuttals of claimed informational inaccuracies, which don't appear to have been addressed.<br />Additionally, a critical contention point is whether misgendering counts as a POV or informational inaccuracy. Most non-option-3 !voters believe that it's the former. ] (]) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{tq|which don't appear to have been addressed}}: They have been; see Loki's post beginning {{tq|I think that this response,}} {{tq|despite being long}} etc. ] (] | ] | ]) 20:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::That's debatable; much of that reply lacks substance. Of the five points they make in that comment only the first addresses reliability rather than bias, and that point is contradictory and makes little sense. | |||
| *:::In that point they argue that the "student identifies as a cat" story is akin to the litter box hoax because the litter box hoax doesn't solely relate to litter boxes but accommodations for ] generally. Even if we set aside the debate about whether reprimanding students for refusing to accept an individual identifying as a cat is an accommodation, that aspect isn't actually in dispute - it's an accepted fact that that the students were reprimanded by the teacher for this. | |||
| *:::What is disputed is whether: | |||
| *:::*A student identified as a cat | |||
| *:::*The Telegraph claimed that a student identified as a cat | |||
| *:::It appears, although isn't conclusive, that no student identified as a cat (Rye College has denied it, but the Ofsted report was silent on that question). However, the belief that the Telegraph claimed that a student identified as a cat is based on a misunderstanding of presuppositions; see ]. ] (]) 20:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::And either way, even if they did get that wrong, I don't think that's enough. Plus Chess replied to it anyway. ] (]) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I have found Chess—who continues to bloat the survey section rather than use the discussion section—unconvincing, so we seem to disagree and that may have to be that for now. ] (] | ] | ]) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{tq|Additionally, a critical contention point is whether misgendering counts as a POV or informational inaccuracy.}} | |||
| *::Since it has been raised by a few editors I wanted to quickly address this point. Individuals have both gender and sex and on a purely factual basis it is equally correct to refer to an individual by either. This means that misgendering a transgender individual isn't a factual inaccuracy, but a choice to use sex rather than gender. Of course on a moral basis gender should be used - but that isn't relevant to source reliability. | |||
| *::Further, it appears that the Telegraph generally doesn't misgender individuals, . When they do it typically seems to be under exceptional circumstances, such as in where clinical advice was to not affirm a teenager's gender. Usually, we would consider a source deciding that it knows better than an individuals treating medical professional to be evidence of unreliability; it would be unreasonable and unjustifiable for us to decide that the opposite is true in this case. ] (]) 02:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::First, this is pretty clearly sophistry. Pronouns are not a reference to biology and this is obvious every time you don't look in someone's pants before you refer to them. | |||
| *:::Second, if you insist on continuing to make this argument: even the sex of a trans woman is not unambiguously male, assuming you're talking about an actual biological state and not essentialist ideology masquerading as biology. A trans woman could have a female-typical hormonal system (and therefore female secondary sex characteristics like breasts, softer skin, and lower upper body strength), a vagina, and no ability to grow facial hair or produce sperm. Not all trans women do, of course, and no trans woman has female-typical chromosomes, but surely you see why this makes arguments that the Telegraph is just going by biology pretty silly. | |||
| *:::(I agree the Telegraph doesn't always misgender individuals, but it does much more often than other similar sources.) ] (]) 04:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::@], you say "...and no trans woman has male-typical chromosomes". Can you clarify or elaborate on that? ] (]) 04:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Typo. ] (]) 05:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Unless you're saying that trans women aren't biologically male, then your argument seems based on our POV rather than on factual inaccuracy. ] (]) 04:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::: I am in fact saying that. Trans women are neither unambiguously biologically male nor unambiguously biologically female. If you were a doctor evaluating a patient for a condition where sex was medically relevant, and your patient was a trans woman, you would have to ask them about their specific history of hormones and procedures, and then make a decision based on what specific condition you're thinking of. ] (]) 05:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::: While some academics do hold the position that human sex is mutable, looking at recent scholarly articles they are still in the minority. We can't consider a source unreliable on the basis that they hold a mainstream view. ] (]) 06:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::This is absurd. If pronouns aren’t attached to sex, then there is no reason we should not, as a society, move to “they” exclusively, rather than “he” and “she. In fact, many languages do that - they do not have different pronouns and simply have one “third person pronoun”. But English does not - we have two. By saying that they’re not based on sex, that’s simply absurd - the concept of “gender” was equivalent to sex for the vast majority of history, including in the pre-english languages that formed these dual pronouns. | |||
| *::::Let me be clear - I support transgender rights more than a lot of people in my country. But it is absolutely not beneficial to that cause to try and make claims like “pronouns aren’t sex, they’re gender”, especially when a significant minority (if not majority) do recognize that historically, they were because of sex. Regardless, Misplaced Pages is not the place to make these kind of arguments - ]. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 18:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Pronouns aren't sex, they're gender. Drag queens usually use "she" pronouns, for one, and for two if you think they're about sex then you should be looking in the pants or testing the chromosomes of random people on the bus. ] (]) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I would like to add that the "clinical advice" your saying the telegraph followed by misgendering a child is in fact conversion therapy as discussed above. ] (]) 15:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Do you have reason to believe that beyond {{diff2|1223108818|a comment}} by ], who claimed that the source was referring to conversion therapy because it used the term "watchful waiting", which they said was invented by an American-Canadian fringe advocate of conversion therapy? | |||
| *::::If not, you should know they were mistaken. It was developed at one of the largest transgender clinics and research institutes in the world, the ] in the Netherlands, and is a {{tq|highly respected model of care worldwide}}.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ehrensaft |first1=Diane |title=Gender nonconforming youth: current perspectives |journal=Adolescent Health, Medicine and Therapeutics |date=25 May 2017 |volume=8 |pages=57–67 |doi=10.2147/AHMT.S110859 |doi-access=free|pmid=28579848 |pmc=5448699 }}</ref> | |||
| *::::The terminology is also , with most being highly supportive of it. There is no reason to believe that the child was being put through conversion therapy, or that the Telegraph was doing anything other than following medical guidance aligned with mainstream practices when they referred to them as a "she". | |||
| *::::This is emblematic of the issue with this RfC; the issues raised about the source are not ones of reliability but of disagreement with their POV. This is also leading me to start questioning the notion that the source is notably biased; if examples like this are representative of the other arguments presented for bias then they are in fact solidly mainstream. ] (]) 19:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::As the child in question is a teenager (near the start of the process) he has almost certainly started through puberty. The watchful waiting model says that if these issues persist into the onset of puberty to intervene. Whereas conversion therapists use watchful waiting as a kind filibuster tactic, the ignoring of the actual model and doing anything to delay any kind of transition points towards conversion therapy rather than actual good care. ] (]) 20:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Sorry when I say "near the start of the process" above I mean near the start of the article (around 2019). Sorry for any ambiguity ] (]) 20:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' If this RfC results in a consensus of GREL, do we support adding a note to prefer other sources, per e.g. ]? I'm assuming the closer will note that many agree that the Telegraph is biased against trans issues. ] (]) 19:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I’m not an expert on MEDRS, but shouldn’t this be excluded anyway, regardless which mainstream newspaper published it? ] (]) 19:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yes, it would be a violation of MEDRS to attempt to use a newspaper/other non-medical source to represent the results of a study. That said, I haven’t looked at this specific link (it doesn’t work well on mobile) to see if the link Aaron has provided is truly an “egregiously misleading presentation”. If it is, it could be considered in determining their overall reliability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 19:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It’s from @] at 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 19:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So basically, in a news article, they have a mother raise concerns about breast binders to a school citing a certain study. They follow up the sentence with "97% who use experience health problems" to imply that her concern is valid, while the 97% figure cited includes all problems, such as "itchiness", regardless of severity. ] (]) 19:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::, I'm not convinced the Telegraph article is a problem. While sources like The Telegraph aren't reliable on medical topics anyway per ], what we would expect from a reliable source in that topic area is they accurately reflect the source without distorting it with their own contributions, even when they think those contributions are self-evident. In this case, the source says that {{tq|97% reported at least one of 28 negative outcomes attributed to binding}} and doesn't consider the severity of the outcomes; we can't expect the Telegraph to go beyond that. | |||
| *::::But even if they had, the impact would have been minimal, as excluding itchiness would likely have only changed the headline number from >97% to >95%. The difference is insignificant, and in my opinion couldn't amount to {{tq|egregiously misleading presentation}}. ] (]) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I would not call that “egregiously misleading presentation”. Itchiness is a medical problem if it occurs post medical intervention. Is it slightly misleading in that it doesn’t specify that it’s any health problem including minor ones? I disagree it’s misleading at all, but I’ll concede it’s a small amount of misleading based on that. But it’s not egregious. Non-severe medical problems are still medical problems. And acting like they aren’t is simply a representation of POV pushing - patients have the right to informed consent and WP should not sugar coat information regarding the sequelae of treatments. If 97% of people experience at least some form of small problem (or big problem) from it, that’s a valid statistic to present in WP. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 20:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I think it's misleading because when I think of health problem, I'd think of consistent pain (especially after now wearing it) or nausea etc, not "has some pain whilst wearing" or whatever. From a medical study it is important to consider these it's just when used in general speak it can be misleading. If I said I was too warm because I wore a fleece, would people say that's a health problem. ] (]) 20:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::{{tqb|Itchiness is a medical problem if it occurs post medical intervention.}}{{tq|Survey participants were asked ‘Have you experienced any of the following health problems and attribute them to binding?’ and selected yes or no for each outcome.}} ] (]) 00:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::To be clear, I don't think binding is a purely medical intervention - but some people do use it as a means to change their outward appearance to lessen their feelings of gender dysphoria. This makes it no different than, say, using KT tape for post-workout "healing" (even though that's still scientifically up in the air if it's actually beneficial for the vast majority of people using it). It's not a drug or a procedure, but it is something someone's doing for purported medical benefit - and so if they have experienced other problems related to binding, that's perfectly valid to consider a problem. In fact, I'd argue that by claiming that their claims are irrelevant (that they experienced itchiness severe enough to report it in a survey), you're diminishing the potential health concerns of it and trying to push the POV that it's safe without providing all the information. WP is an encyclopedia - we do not push a POV, we simply report on the facts, and the study identified some problems you may not consider problematic for ''you'', sure. But that doesn't mean it's an invalid statistic, and to claim a source is unreliable for trying to ensure its readers understand that 97% of people had some problem they themselves found was related to binding... that's simply trying to censor a source because it presented information you don't like. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 06:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{ec}} MEDRS is only relevant to medical claims, but not everything related to medicine is a medical claim. While the specific comment linked does reference a medical claim, not everything from the cited article would be. | |||
| *::Regarding {{tpq|I'm assuming the closer will note that many agree that the Telegraph is biased against trans issues.}} any close or RSP summary that doesn't, at minimum, mention the large number of editors who believe that it is biased with regards transgender topics is not one that accurately reflects this discussion. I know I'm biased, but I genuinely can't see how a finding of option 1 without qualification could be arrived at. ] (]) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::It is, but it's odd for this. Would one consider the statement "most people who were high heels find them painful" a medical statement, would talking about changing pronouns in secondary schools count (after all social transition can be a thing). These 'soft' medical claims are an interesting area and I'm not sure where I would put them personally and these kind of things the telegraph do seem to be unreliable for. ] (]) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::By my reading of ], technically speaking "most people who wear high heels find them painful" would definitely be a statement covered by ], and arguably almost anything about trans people might be covered due to the presence of ] in the DSM. | |||
| *:::However, needless to say this is not how most editors interpret this in actual practice, and I think if you tried to push it you'd get a lot of pushback. ] (]) 01:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Wasn't certain where to put this but more evidence on only platforming one side comes from their recent coverage of the general election. Both the conservatives and Labour have released their manifestos and the telegraph covered their positions on conversion therapy and respectively. Notable is the only groups asked for comment are Sex matters, Christian Concern and LGB alliance. All these groups advocate for no further conversion therapy ban. The only description on any of these groups is that Sex Matters has a chief of advocacy and one of sex matters or Christian concern is a charity. The argument being made here isn't that a rs shouldn't platform these people, it's that the telegraph is '''Only'''platforming this side. ] (]) 20:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::But are they platforming this one side with fact checking and accuracy? If so, then reliability isn’t the issue. ] (]) 20:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I mean they uncritically platform the view that a supposed ban would be harmful (brave coming from Helen Joyce who said that happily transitioned people are a huge problem for a sane world). She also says that most children convinced of an opposite sex identity grow out of it during puberty, this is just flatly untrue and based off of research considering any gender nonconformity as gender dysphoria. ] (]) 21:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Also even if you think they are fact checking and accurate, WP:due becomes a huge issue because suddenly on the matter of conversion therapy: sex matters, Christian concern and LGB alliance are more important than anyone with actual qualifications. ] (]) 21:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::] is not a standard we hold sources to, it's a standard we hold ourselves to when summarizing reliable sources. That's because ''we'' are not supposed to decide what is due, we are supposed to defer to what the sources see as important opinions. You're interpreting ] in reverse, which is that you get to decide what opinions are important, and then judge what sources are reliable based on who they platform. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 04:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You're right in terms of including stuff in an article. I should have probably formulated this better. When we use the telegraph as a rs to decide due, we now have this scenario where the above people are the important opinions. This is the consequence of the telegraph being an rs. ] (]) 11:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Like it or not, the Telegraph does represent the opinion of a sizable group of people. ] (]) 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Nobody is arguing to exclude that opinion - there are plenty of other sources that represent it in a manner that is not misleading to the point that multiple independent sources question its reliability. ] (]) 17:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Luna said {{tq|When we use the telegraph as a rs to decide due, we now have this scenario where the above people are the important opinions.}}, implying that these opinions shouldn't have due weight and should be excluded. ] (]) 20:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::It's quite the opposite, according to the telegraph all other opinions need not being mentioned (except maybe a token mention that they exist). So only these opinions would be due (otherwise the others would have been included) ] (]) 20:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::A POV can never be excluded by the INCLUSION of a source. A POV can only be excluded by the EXclusion of a source. This is because wp:due is never determined from using only one source, but by using ALL rs collectively. The argument you're making would mean we'd have to declare Pink News unrel too, since they also exclude views, but in the other direction. ] (]) 21:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::To clarify, what IP is saying is a summary of ]: We only decide whether to include a viewpoint based on how many reliable source <em>do</em> mention it. The Telegraph excluding viewpoints that other reliable sources already cover enough won't cause these excluded viewpoints to lose their DUE. ] (]) 18:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::I think there is an argument to be made that because due is decided based on a balance of sources, one source being too far out of balance (and consistently being so) could affect reliability. However I know that I have not shown that above and to show it one would require a lot more research ] (]) 19:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::{{outdent|2}} You need a ton of reliable sources not including it to have it excluded due to DUE. ] (]) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::What sources are you referring to? | |||
| *:::::::::If you're referring to the sources provided by Loki, excluding the three from Pink News, none appear to question reliability. In fact, the IPSO report rejects some of the claims of unreliability that editors have repeated here. ] (]) 07:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Well, judging by the placement of their comment, I think they're adding to the argument to add a note to prefer other sources due to bias. ] (]) 23:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Your sources don't actually support your claim. In the first article, The Telegraph quotes Labour (a political party and a group advocating for a conversion therapy ban) at the end: | |||
| *::{{tqb|Anneliese Dodds, the Labour chairman, said on Wednesday: "After six years of broken promises, the Conservatives have dropped their commitment to ban so-called conversion therapy. This is a craven failure to outlaw abusive and harmful practices. Labour will ban conversion practices outright."}} | |||
| *::In the second article, the newspaper provides the entire manifesto of the ] and quote them throughout. I suppose you'll say The Telegraph should've quoted a third-party group that isn't a political party, so I'll ask, why isn't quoting Labour enough to satisfy the need to provide both sides? The Telegraph certainly biased in ''how much'' space they allocate to gender-critical activists but their articles do not entirely exclude views contrary to such. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 05:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I don't think you hear the opposing view, just that there is an opposing view. I'd also disagree with throughout for the labour article (it's in one place but it is a short article). ] (]) 11:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::OK, so your claim isn't that The Telegraph doesn't include any mention of opposing views, it's that they don't provide as much emphasis on them as they should? <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 18:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::They treat it the same way we would treat a fringe view, mention it exists and nothing more. They've gotten 3 non experts and treated them like experts (no mention of all 3 groups being advocacy groups, just that sex matters has a chief of advocacy). I think treating clearly non fringe views as fringe and clear members of advocacy groups as potential experts is worrying. ] (]) 19:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Reliability is about whether statements are true or false. Wall Street Journal readers want to know how the upcoming strike will effect investors and how management deals with it. Nation readers want to know how it will affect workers. ABC News readers want to know how it will affect them, the consumers.It doesn't mean that some of them must be unreliable, it's that they apply different weight. Editors then determine the overall weight in reliable sources and reflect what they say. They should not then purge every outlier. ] (]) 01:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Seems like a issue. ] (]) 02:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Booking systems aren't reliable, as the details my be different anytime you check. Doesn't the airline publish a list of it's flight destinations? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Notifications (Telegraph on trans issues) === | |||
| ::It does. https://www.vivaaerobus.com/en-us/our-destinations/airports ] (]) 19:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Shortcut to survey: ] | |||
| :::That would be reliable in a ] way. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Pinging everyone who participated in ]. In order to avoid the ping limit, this will be broken up among multiple posts. I also intend to notify the following Wikiprojects: ], ], ], ]. If I missed anyone or anywhere, please feel free to notify them yourself. (Also if you did not get pinged and your name is down there, please tell me, because that probably means I exceeded the ping limit.) ] (]) 01:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| : {{u|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist}}, {{u|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}}, {{u|Masem}}, {{u|LunaHasArrived}}, {{u|Hydrangeans}}, {{u|BilledMammal}}, {{u|Remsense}}, {{u|Barnards.tar.gz}}, {{u|Boynamedsue}}, {{u|Simonm223}}, {{u|Licks-rocks}}, {{u|FortunateSons}}, {{u|Aquillion}}, {{u|Silverseren}}, {{u|Black Kite}}, {{u|Chetsford}}, {{u|Snokalok}}, {{u|Spy-cicle}}, {{u|Crossroads}}, {{u|DanielRigal}} | |||
| :{{u|Springee}}, {{u|Skyshifter}}, {{u|Fred Zepelin}}, {{u|Alaexis}}, {{u|JPxG}}, {{u|OwenBlacker}}, {{u|Colin}}, {{u|Sceptre}}, {{u|Carlp941}}, {{u|K.e.coffman}}, {{u|Cortador}}, {{u|Tristario}}, {{u|Bobfrombrockley}}, {{u|DFlhb}}, {{u|Adam Cuerden}} | |||
| : {{u|Alanscottwalker}}, {{u|TFD}}, {{u|Void if removed}}, {{u|Chess}}, {{u|NadVolum}}, {{u|Raladic}}, {{u|Philomathes2357}}, {{u|North8000}}, {{u|Maddy from Celeste}}, {{u|Pyxis Solitary}}. ] (]) 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{re|LokiTheLiar}} - per ], for a successful ping, you need to add new lines of text, plus signed by adding <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end of the message. ''']] (])''' 09:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Grr. Okay, I will redo the pings soon. ] (]) 11:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Fixing pings: {{u|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist}}, {{u|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}}, {{u|Masem}}, {{u|LunaHasArrived}}, {{u|Hydrangeans}}, {{u|BilledMammal}}, {{u|Remsense}}, {{u|Barnards.tar.gz}}, {{u|Boynamedsue}}, {{u|Simonm223}}, {{u|Licks-rocks}}, {{u|FortunateSons}}, {{u|Aquillion}}, {{u|Silverseren}}, {{u|Black Kite}}, {{u|Chetsford}}, {{u|Snokalok}}, {{u|Spy-cicle}}, {{u|Crossroads}}, {{u|DanielRigal}} {{u|Springee}}, {{u|Skyshifter}}, {{u|Fred Zepelin}}, {{u|Alaexis}}, {{u|JPxG}}, ] (]) 16:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{u|OwenBlacker}}, {{u|Colin}}, {{u|Sceptre}}, {{u|Carlp941}}, {{u|K.e.coffman}}, {{u|Cortador}}, {{u|Tristario}}, {{u|Bobfrombrockley}}, {{u|DFlhb}}, {{u|Adam Cuerden}} {{u|Alanscottwalker}}, {{u|TFD}}, {{u|Void if removed}}, {{u|Chess}}, {{u|NadVolum}}, {{u|Raladic}}, {{u|Philomathes2357}}, {{u|North8000}}, {{u|Maddy from Celeste}}, {{u|Pyxis Solitary}}. ] (]) 16:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * {{ping|Red-tailed hawk|Masem|Korny O'Near|Gitz6666|The C of E|Tamzin|Crossroads|Sideswipe9th|MarioGom|Ficaia|Bowler the Carmine|Seraphimblade|The Four Deuces|Jayen466|Rhododendrites}} Notify editors who participated in the ], excluding editors who have already participated here or have been blocked/topic banned. Apologies if I missed anyone or accidentally pinged anyone who should have been excluded. ] (]) 23:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Notifying @], who was not notified despite seeming to meet BilledMammal's criteria. ] (]) 01:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Notifying @] and @] for the same reason. ] (]) 18:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::And @], who opened the previous RfC. That should be all. ] (]) 19:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Korny O'Neal is topic-banned from GENSEX. Also, several people in that list I've already pinged above. ] (]) 03:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Is a book on "banishing belly fat" a RS for ice cream manufacturing? == | |||
| ===Proposed moratorium (Telegraph on trans issues)=== | |||
| presents the startling headline "Avoid Antifreeze" when referring to ice cream brands that used propylene glycol (PG) more than a decade ago as a texture-control ingredient for commercial ice creams. In small amounts, PG has been used in thousands of prepared foods since the 1980s (including ice creams and frozen desserts), is universally considered ], and is regulated under law by several national food safety agencies (]. | |||
| As this is once again drifting towards the inevitable and obvious conclusion of "biased but reliable", can we please have at least a 2 year moratorium on threads on the Telegraph and trans issues? We get that a lot of users think the opinions of many Telegraph writers are despicable, but there has been no evidence of factual inaccuracy presented over two threads and thousands upon thousands of words. This is an insane time sink, users would be better off improving articles than constantly fighting a culture war at RS noticeboard.] (]) 18:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support three years''' - but apply the moratorium to all discussions about whether British sources are reliable for transgender topics. The nominator has made it clear they wish to hold similar RFC’s on other British sources, but RFCs last year held that those sources were reliable and given this result it’s clear that another RFC on those sources will only waste the communities time. ] (]) 18:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :]. As consensus in RFCs entails more than a straight vote, this discussion requires a careful close that considers how to weigh arguments based on evidence and grounding in policies and guidelines. Numerous participants (full disclosure: myself included) aver that evidence of distortions and unreliability is there, ]-esque replies and ] from Option 1 !votes notwithstanding. ] (] | ] | ]) 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, the arguments presented by the option 3+ are all the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable". There's really no basis in our policies for that. I don't see any bludgeon on either side here, could you maybe suggest who you mean?--] (]) 19:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|the arguments presented by the option 3+ are all the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable". There's really no basis in our policies for that}}: This misrepresents plenty of the option 3+ arguments. They do not universally, as you claim, focus on matters of opinion. Plenty, including OP's and my own, point out assessments of the Telegraph by reliable sources (such as scholarship published by academic presses like ] and ]) that find its accuracy on trans coverage wanting. Loki collected and shared numerous examples of articles where the Telegraph makes errors in its coverage of trans topics. The claim that ''all'' option 3+ arguments are merely claiming that {{tq|"nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable"}} is only true if one reduces findings and consensuses in relevant academic fields to mere opinions. Meanwhile, numerous option 1 arguments circle around the same point that bias isn't necessarily reliability. It's true that bias doesn't necessarily lead to unreliability, but that doesn't on its own mean a biased source ''is'' reliable.{{pb}}{{tq|I don't see any bludgeon on either side here, could you maybe suggest who you mean?}}: I suppose the first example that comes to mind is Chess, who's contributed around ''7,000'' words to the discussion across more than 30 comments (counting in the ] and ] sections. ] (] | ] | ]) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm surprised Chess is the first example to come to mind, considering that Loki (on the "Option 3" side of the debate) contributed a similar number of words across 47 comments. ] (]) 01:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is my opinion that ] is too often misused. BLUDGEON is about repeating the same arguments in replies across many commenters like spamming, not responding to others without repeating the same arguments already brought up at length. I don't see how anyone here is bludgeoning. ] (]) 01:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Loki made approximately approximately as many comments (I counted 35 from Chess and 37 from Loki) but contributed ~4,000 words (counting the Survey and Discussion sections). Chess wrote nearly twice as much. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Even when limited to the "Survey" and "Discussion" sections, though I don't know why we would limit, you're missing some from Loki; they contributed ~5,000 words (calculated by copying and pasted all of their comments from those sections into a word document). | |||
| ::::::I think you're missing my point - if there was bludgeoning from some Option 1 editors, then there was also bludgeoning from some Option 3 editors, and it is inappropriate to focus just on the former. However, I agree with Aaron Liu that no one appears to have been bludgeoning. ] (]) 02:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|I don't know why we would limit}}: Including text contributed after those two would artificially inflate the Loki's word count because of all the pings that Loki made so as to appropriately inform relevant editors. So I counted just comments and copied text just from Survey and Discussion, which are the thread sections this thread section (Proposed moratorium) is principally talking about. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Could someone link to the Taylor & Francis thing? I can't seem to find it. The Bloomsbury book linked to by Loki is limited to a preview, and the don't contain anything other than reports of bias. ] (]) 01:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::. It doesn't say what they think it says, though - it makes no comment about reliability, and even on bias only says that it is aligned with the rest of the British press. ] (]) 02:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've seen that, but I mistook the giant Routlege logo (which apparently also says it's part of T&F) to be the sole publisher. 🤦 Thanks. I'd agree that these sources do not talk about reliability. ] (]) 02:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::<small>Reply on ''Critical Discourse Studies'' centralized to ]. ] (]) 03:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::], I would like to register my objection at your characterisation that my statement on this topic is {{tq|the same "nobody who holds this opinion could be reliable"}}. My computer is currently broken so that is all I will say on the matter. ] (] • ]) 08:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm seeing no clear consensus for any option, and no "inevitable and obvious conclusion". Involved parties should refrain from trying to influence the closer towards their point of view. '''Oppose''' any moratorium on discussions that present new evidence. ] (]) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The current vote count puts option 1 about 20 votes ahead of option 3+, and most of the option 2 votes are essentially "it is biased, but largely factual", which is what everybody who has voted option 1 says. The quality of arguments for 3 that are actually based in policy are exceptionally low, as last time. As for "attempting to influence the closer" to stop constant repeating of this nonsense... well, I don't think that is against any of our policies.--] (]) 19:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::In case you need a reminder, this is not a vote. When you actually read the comments many (but not all) in support of both 1 and 2 are saying it's biased to the point that you need to be aware of it and explicitly consider how it affects issues like balance and reliability - if you read only the Telegraph's presentation you could very easily end up being mislead as to what actually happened or what opinions about a thing are from nutjobs and which are from impartial experts. That's textbook "additional considerations apply". ] (]) 20:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's not a vote, but 20 more people thinking one thing than another is a reflection of a fairly strong consensus.] (]) 20:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you treat bolded words as the sole evidence of what people think that might be true. If you read what they actually say (i.e. treat it as something other than a vote) then that's not necessarily so. ] (]) 21:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, "the people didn't understand their votes" is unlikely to make it into the closer's summary. People who choose option 1 are saying it can be used in our articles for factual information and attributed opinions where due.] (]) 21:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Obviously "people didn't understand their votes" is unlikely to make it into the closers summary because (most) people haven't cast votes, they have expressed nuanced opinions that may or may not include some words in bold. The job of the closer is to read the entirety of all the opinions expressed (not just the bolded words) and, based on those words and the relative strength of the arguments made, come to a conclusion about what consensus the discussion arrived at. ] (]) 22:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Is anyone suggesting that one ought to read only the ''Telegraph'''s accounts of the issue and never anything else? Getting a well-rounded view is best achieved by reading multiple sources with different biases and points of view. ] (]) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Ehhh, I'd rather have it per-editor instead of per the entire area. According to RSP (and links among some of the rationales), the last RfC was in 2022, two years ago. That RfC also had a lot less BEFORE, research, and arguments presented. This RfC unfolded quite differently. Until a ton of people decide that starting new RfCs that parrot the exact same arguments here is a good idea for them, I'd '''oppose''' a moratorium. Unless there is quite active harm done, I'd rather the rules to allow for the most scenarios, like if The Telegraph got bought out by the Daily Mail. I '''strongly oppose''' BilledMammal proposal for a hold on <em>all</em> British sources, especially not for 3 years. We do not know what the future holds, and I'd rather we block Loki from this page if it comes to that. ] (]) 21:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::FYI, this moratorium wouldn’t stop an RFC being held on the Telegraph’s overall reliability, such as if it was bought but the Daily Mail. ] (]) 21:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good point, thanks. Still, there are events much more plausible that could cause the Telegraph's factual reporting's reliability in just the transgender area to take a nosedive. ] (]) 21:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oy, why me? I voted in the last RFC but didn't start it. ] (]) 22:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Part of BilledMammal's argument for the moratorium is your intention to hold more RfCs, trickster. ] (]) 02:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wouldn't on other sources if the Telegraph can't get through (because the Telegraph is way more blatant about this than any other paper), and I wouldn't hold another one on the Telegraph without new information sufficient to convince people who weren't convinced by the evidence above. | |||
| ::::Or in other words, I'm not stupid. The definition of insanity is to try the same thing and expect different results, after all. ] (]) 03:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Obvious '''oppose'''. Clearly there has been additional evidence of unreliability, as many more people have been voting options 2 or 3, and vastly more people have been acknowledging some degree of bias. ] (]) 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: I would like to also point out that the conclusion last time was ''not'' "biased but reliable", it was just "reliable", so there has ''already'' been a change in outcome here. ] (]) 22:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Every source is biased. Period. Biased but reliable is thus ultimately no different from reliable (without acknowledging the bias). You are on a crusade to have "biased" recognized as "unreliable", and that's your right - but you cannot claim that editors acknowledging biased makes it anything other than "reliable". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 23:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There are ''many'' sources on ] that have a note about their bias. It's also a fairly frequent outcome here that a discussion is closed with a "reliable but editors think it's biased" or "no consensus but editors think it's biased", which is what leads to those notes on RSP. ] (]) 01:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And you're assuming there needs to be a note. From my reading, the consensus seems to be that while it does have a bias in ''what'' it covers, that there isn't a significant bias in ''how'' it covers it. You are on a crusade to get sources that aren't uber-friendly towards transgender persons removed from Misplaced Pages. And you are falling afoul of ] by continuing to bludgeon other editors until they permit you to do so. That's not permissible, and shouldn't be. This RfC has had so many people opine on it and virtually all possible relevant things that the Telegraph has reported be discussed - and nobody - not even you, should be permitted to continue opening discussions until you get the result you want - unless significant further evidence comes to light in the future - but not the past. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 02:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A bias in what it covers is a bias in how it covers it a la ]. Nearly all !votes above operate under the assumption that the Telegraph is biased in its coverage of trans topics.<br>And as I said ], I don't think anyone is bludgeoning here. ] (]) 03:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::UNDUE applies to the content of WP articles, not to our sources. In fact, UNDUE was referenced by multiple people supporting Option 1/2 - we cannot simply ignore a source because it is biased in the things it chooses to cover. And again, bias in what a source covers does ''not'' mean it covers the things it chooses to cover in a biased manner. Many of the supporters of option 1/2 have also clarified that they do not believe the bias in choice of what stories to cover should impact the discussion. You may think nobody is bludgeoning, but I didn't even say that. I simply said that it's clear that some editors are on a crusade to continue RfCs until the outcome they desire happens. That's not bludgeoning by definition, but new discussions should not be created over and over again to get the outcome one desires. If new evidence comes out in the future, fine. But the past has already been presented and discussed multiple times now (including the above), and at some point ]. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 03:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::What I'm saying with <q>] UNDUE</q> is that covering the partial truth <em>is</em> biased coverage in every way and does not stop the source from being marked as biased on RSP.<br>{{tqb|You may think nobody is bludgeoning, but I didn't even say that.}} You directly claimed to Loki that {{tq|you are falling afoul of trying to right great wrongs by continuing to bludgeon other editors until they permit you to }}, unless you didn't mean to refer to his conduct in this discussion. I doubt that this discussion would not dissuade Loki to repeat the same RfCs; this is also his first. I'm sure that we have existing processes to stop people from instantly just trying to repeat the same thing again.<br>Also, I !voted for NREL with a reminder to prefer more unbiased sources if possible, not "ignoring" it. ] (]) 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :There were two rushed RFCs on the Telegraph that left some editors unsatisfied. I hope that this one gets a clear close that, barring the seemingly inevitable closure review, brings at least some clarity to the issue. I would be against a moratorium, but I would hope anyone starting a new discussion would understand that editors could have little patience for it unless new and clear problems have arisen. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support but unnecessary''' - there's already procedures for removing or speedily closing discussions that don't produce any new evidence. There is no need for a moratorium, but the noticeboard (as well as other places) should be watched by editors, and quickly closed if they are not presenting any actual evidence of misconduct/falsehoods that hasn't already been discussed to death here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (]/]) 23:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem is that this whole thread is not based on evidence of falsehood either, but of bias. So we risk having another complete waste of time in 6 months based on, I don't know, a comment piece by Christopher Biggins and a news article collecting mean things said on twitter about JK Rowling.--] (]) 05:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This noticeboard is for the discussion of reliable sources, not other editors. So far apart from one off the wall comment this obviously contentious discussion has been quite civil. Yet somehow this particular thread has quickly turned to editors sniping at each other. To be blunt knock it off. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Is the "belly fat" book a RS for ice cream manufacturing? The book is sourced in ] about one ice cream brand. What purpose is served by mentioning PG - a common GRAS ingredient - using the "belly fat" book as the only source? ]. ] (]) 17:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===References=== | |||
| {{Reflist-talk}} | |||
| :Are you linkng the right work? ] is a respected publisher, so the work you linked isn't self-published. The author, ], has a history in publishing about health issues. If you are linking the right work, it's not self-published and would be reliable for the use of the additive and why it's added. Whether those details should be included in the article or not is a matter to discuss on the articles talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Dani Cavallaro == | |||
| ::There doesn't appear to be any history of Random House vetting or having peer-review on topics of ice cream manufacturing or regulatory law on ingredients - that was the point of the question. It's a stretch to infer Zinczenko is a health guru, as he has no history of science education or peer-reviewed publishing on food law or manufacturing practices, and . The Zinczenko book seems to be only an ] for diet advice, leaving open the question: can it be RS for ice cream manufacturing? ] (]) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It isn’t self published. Whether it reliably supports a specific statement in a specific article is a different issue. There is more to reliability than just who the publisher is. ] (]) 21:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Random House is a reliable publisher, Zinczenko is a journalist, not a scientist, so I'd say he's reliable for trends and stuff in that vein, but not for scientific or medical conclusions. So when it comes to propylene glycol I think he can say that it's an ingredient, and even that some people think it's unhealthy, but not ''how'' or ''why'' its unhealthy. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I never said he was a heath guru, and why would he need prior scientific publishing to say what ingredients happen to be used in icecream? Sources need to be of a quality to match the content that they support, icecream ingredients don't require that someone have citations on PubMed. If this was used for medical or health claims then it wouldn't be reliable, but it's not being used for that. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Help us understand what purpose is served by isolating propylene glycol as one minor ingredient among many using a non-expert book as the source? In frozen desserts manufactured in 2013 (propylene glycol appears to have not been used by any major ice cream manufacturer since), it was one of some 12-20 ingredients, and by law, could not be more than 2.5% of the total ingredients mix. FDA food labeling stipulates that ingredients are , where propylene glycol would not be in the top 5 of ingredients by volume. Highlighting one additive with this book as a source creates a false impression to the casual reader that there may have been a health risk or manufacturing problem due to propylene glycol (which is why I searched PubMed and ]). As a manufacturing method no longer used, what purpose to the encyclopedia does it have being mentioned with a 12 year old source that fails to say it was safe? ]. ] (]) 22:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You appear to be arguing about whether it should be included, which is a separate matter from reliability. The book makes no claims, and isn't used to support any claims, about health implications of consuming the additive. It's reliable that the ingredient was included in icecream at that time. Again whether that should be included is a matter for the articles talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I agree. I think there's a reasonable argument that it doesn't need to be included. It's outdated and not a very important detail. I don't think the source is the reason why, though. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{u|ActivelyDisinterested}} and {{u|AndreJustAndre}} - appreciate the fair comments which seemed to suggest an ]. ] (]) 06:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu == | |||
| Regarding author ], there has been discussion recently about Cavallaro being a reliable source or not. See links to discussions: | |||
| *{{sectionlink|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 76#Dani Cavallaro}} (October 2023) | |||
| *{{sectionlink|Talk:Angel's Egg#Focus shift: Dani Cavallaro}} (June 2024) | |||
| *] (June 2024) | |||
| * | |||
| Regarding ''Angel's Egg'', there appears to be a local consensus not to cite Cavallaro. If Cavallaro is questionable as an author, then there should be a wider consensus about whether or not to cite them. They are cited multiple times elsewhere on Misplaced Pages as shown in the search results . | |||
| The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C): | |||
| Does the author meet ], judging from their publications, those who have cited them, those who have critiqued their works (positively or negatively), and the criticism leveled against them? (On the last point, should criticism be from reliable sources? Are the criticism pieces reliable to consider here?) | |||
| * '''A: Geni.com''' | |||
| * '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley''' | |||
| * '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav''' | |||
| :Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles. | |||
| :They should be: | |||
| * '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ]) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2) | |||
| ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) === | |||
| Thanks, ] (] | ]) <sup>(])</sup> 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * A: See "Geni.com" at ]. | |||
| :Thanks for opening this discussion; the reliability of this author has been something I've considered for a while, and was reminded of when ] brought it up again at '']''{{'s}} ]. There are {{URL|1=https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22Dani+Cavallaro%22|2=multiple academic reviews}} of her work which I believe are a good place to start when weighing opinions on her writing. I'm quite busy off-wiki right now, but should have a chance to look through them in more detail next week. I don't think consideration of the blog posts written about her would be appropriate in this discussion. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> <small>(])</small> 19:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * B: See ], in particular ], where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @]. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC. | |||
| :Thanks for opening this. The website / blog in question () published a two-part critical about Carallaro in 2014. Looking at the site, it does appear to be written by scholars for scholars and, according to their , is used as a resource by multiple universities. It would therefore appear to satisfy ] if we only consider reviews by reliable sources when evaluating Carallaro. ] (]) 20:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about the last sentence of ]? ''"'''Never''' use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."'' While it's not being used as a third-party source within an article, it seems to be used as one to evaluate this person. Unless I'm not reading it right? I guess I am in the mindset of using agreed-upon reliable sources to qualify or disqualify a source. ] (] | ]) <sup>(])</sup> 20:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's also worth noting that Mikhail Koulikov, who writes the ''Anime and Manga Studies'' blog, is not an anime and and manga expert, but earned a master's in library science<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.animemangastudies.com/about/about-us/ |title=About Us |work=Anime and Manga Studies |date=2 March 2014 |access-date=2024-06-04}}</ref> and is apparently employed as an analyst at a law firm.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=f29fp58AAAAJ&hl=en |title=Mikhail Koulikov |publisher=Google Scholar |access-date=2024-06-04}}</ref> While he has published some academic work on anime and manga, they're mixed in with work on several other topics. I don't believe this website is a reliable source in general, and should not be used to assess the reliability of Cavallaro's work. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> <small>(])</small> 21:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>Notified ]. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> <small>(])</small> 23:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :In blog post PhD and university lecturer Jacqueline Ristola dismisses Carallaro's work as "rudimentary", "hidden under the shambles of academic jargon", and accuses her of plagiarism, including '''rephrasing portions of Misplaced Pages entries'''. Ristola also praises the post from Anime and Manga Studies. Again, this is just a blog post from a subject-matter expert. ] (]) 23:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The plagiarism point was brought up by {{URL|1=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13598427-clamp-in-context|2=a GoodReads commenter}}. The Misplaced Pages text was added to the ] article in ] in May 2010. ''CLAMP in Context'' (]: 978-0-7864-6954-3) was published in January 2012, and I confirmed the excerpt the commenter mentions is indeed in the book. This is pretty damning evidence of close paraphrasing from Misplaced Pages. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> <small>(])</small> 23:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Indeed, I think we are done here. I would support formal ] due to the high risk of ] and other copyright violations. ] (]) 23:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd like to get input from RSN regulars (if there is such thing). It seems like a major step to strip all references to one author out of Misplaced Pages completely. ] (] | ]) <sup>(])</sup> 00:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think that full deprecation might be jumping the gun a little since this discussion is not an RfC, nor is it exactly well-attended. However, I agree that a deep dive of her work is likely unnecessary to come to a consensus on its reliability. The plagiarism above proves even (seemingly) uncontroversial factual statements cannot be relied upon, and {{URL|1=https://people.uwe.ac.uk/Person/MarkBould|2=Mark Bould}}'s comments on her 2000 book ''Cyberpunk and Cyberculture'' ("disturbingly dishonest", "more interested in neatly patterning synopses of assessments and investigations made by other critics than in conducting its own"<ref>{{Cite journal |title=A Half-Baked Hypertext |journal=Science Fiction Studies |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/4240933 |last=Bould |first=Mark |date=2000 |issue=3 |volume=27 |pages=520–522 |jstor=4240933}}</ref>) indicate that her analyses aren't much better. I'm in favor of designating her bibliography as '''generally unreliable''', discouraging editors from adding citations and phasing out existing ones where applicable. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> <small>(])</small> 01:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I love ]'s films, so I wanted to find more sources, and was delighted someone had written a full print book on his films so I began to read it. After a few chapters, I found the book laden with jargon and convoluted writing which didn't sit right. I did some searching, and indeed other people were raising questions as to who this person was, whether they were qualified to write at all, and failing to find even basic biographical information (the most we can get is 2 sentences on a publisher website). One major critique is that she mostly , and yes, indeed I double checked her references and it was true then it all clicked. This alone is enough to not use her books, as the sources she cites would never be considered a reliable to begin with, and would never be acceptable in an academic book. | |||
| :Taken together, the publisher and author have not proven that they are experts to begin with (as the burden lies with them), and I would support a complete ban. I consider her works low quality and removed them from the Oshii articles that I could find, but she's cited in other pages as well. ] (]) 01:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems like we have a consensus that her bibliography is at least generally unreliable. If there's no objection, I'll add a note to ] and start tagging existing references with {{tl|Unreliable source}}. ] (]) 17:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've gone ahead and done that, and I've gone through the first 40 or so articles in ], cleaning up where possible and tagging with {{tl|Unreliable sources}} where not. I'd appreciate the help of other discussion participants as there are a lot of them to get through. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> <small>(])</small> 21:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would actually really appreciate it if work to replace the sources was done. In one case she provided a reference for an interview done in 2007, I could try to directly cite that with help finding the book or w/e. - ] (]) 21:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Is this on a Studio Ghibli–related article? I currently have access to a couple of her books and can help with some of that work. I'm going to be doing a lot of that anyways for some of my project articles. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> <small>(])</small> 21:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The more you examine, the worst it gets. She cites and quotes Misplaced Pages several times in '''' which is a huge problem as well. accuses her of plagurizing online sources that she relies upon. says her work is "unreadable" with "purple prose" while citing online reviews as if they were scholarship. | |||
| :You see the same critiques over and over again with anyone who has read her work with a critical eye. Combined with no confirmed biographical background (not even confirmed to have any degree at all), a complete ban as unreliable is warranted as this isn't an isolated case with one or two books but a trend of consistent poor scholarship with her work. How does this happen? It just flies under the radar and only a few people are interested enough to dig deeper. | |||
| :For English language sources on older anime series, it can be difficult, but we should still strive to improve the sourcing for these kind of articles. ] (]) 17:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for sharing those links. There seems to be general agreement in this discussion that all citations to her work on Misplaced Pages are to be replaced or removed; a few of us have gotten started on that process already, and I'd appreciate your help with tagging or cleaning up the list of articles ]. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> <small>(])</small> 17:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::She also wrote books on fine art as well as literature, medieval history, feminist thought, and Japanese animation? She has written way too many books, way too quickly, on way too many topics to be an expert on all these unrelated topics. | |||
| :::Some of the citations that use her books are minor, or just cite her analysis, but a few pages she's used extensively and would require major re-writes including several GA articles. For better sources I made a topic on this: ] ] (]) 21:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello there. I'm not an expert. Just here to say that in the case of ''Neon Genesis Evangelion'' Dani Cavallaro appears to me as a good source. Nothing spectacular, but honestly I never in my 10-years-long experience of writing here ''about NGE'' seen an error in her analysis, a plagiarism or inaccurancies. I want to be clear: I do not feel competent enought here to express a strong favorable opinion on her as a RS ''for now'', but at least in basically the only field I work here on Misplaced Pages - again, NGE - I read her books on the arguments literally thousands of times, and her presentations of the series, the authors interviews and views, Japanese context, production notes and so on are accurate. Far, far more than your average Academic from ''Mechademia''. Academics on ''Evangelion'' are sometimes alienated and without common sense: they do everything but checking the actual sources like Anno, Tsurumaki interviews, ''Evangelion Chronicle'' or even the basic ''Red Cross Book'', but prefer to mention other academics instead of actually study the series, its context and the interviews of the authors. I strongly and firmly defend Cavallaro at least on this series. ] (]) 20:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hey ], unfortunately it's going to take quite a bit of proof of any of her good work on ''Evanglion''-related topics to overturn the severe issues presented by other editors in this discussion; your word on her writing is not sufficient. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> <small>(])</small> 21:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Unreliable doesn't necessarily mean always wrong, just that it's academically sloppy and not to the level of a source we should be citing. It leads to issues where you can't validate information she's presented, even if it's possibly correct. Just two examples. On ] her book is cited for a Miyzaki quote, and checking her book, she sites a fan webpage. Said page does not explain where it came from, who translated it or when which means I cannot verify any of it. It means that small errors become impossible to cross reference and weed out over time. These fan sites shouldn't be cited on Misplaced Pages, and someone who cites them being used for a source also shouldn't be cited. It's effectively just self-published fan source laundering where these sources get "washed" and look more respectable. ] (]) 22:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|TeenAngels1234}} reverted my Cavallaro removals and tags in NGE-related articles. Like {{u|TechnoSquirrel69}}, I also have to insist on her unreliability on all subjects, your subjective good experiences notwithstanding. ] (]) 06:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Subjective good experiences" is a very misleading, if not false, statement. ''Limited'' and ''very good'' - to use an euphemism - experience, maybe: I write just on NGE, guys, so I can not speak for Ghibli or other works Cavallaro wrote about as I said, sorry. I'm agnostic on them, at least for now. So, yeah, ''limited'', but not subjective: her thousands of pages on NGE are ''extraordinarly'' good, informative and accurate, especially compared to other academics. It's not a matter that Cavallo's works are just vaguely OK and enough accurate. I do not mention the first source I find on the matter, and I think anybody that ever read a NGE article I contributed to can see I'm ''very'' selective on the sources. Cavallaro has a 20-pages NGE-related chapter in her book ''Anime Intersections'' as well. I can mention some example to prove my point. What kind of evidence should I give? BTW. @] and Charcoal feather: you have ''all the right'' to express your concerns. You are ''far'', far more into Misplaced Pages than me probably. I think I kept all the templates on the NGE articles: it's your right to express doubts and discuss here on Cavallaro, sorry if I could have looked aggressive or too drastic. ''Mea culpa'', sincerely. I just re-inserted Cavallaro notes ''for now'', since, again, I'm not the Wikipedian who uses the first source, and if I used Cavallaro until now there's a reason. I'm not gonna start a Crusade on her; if the consensus is that ''all'' the references have to be removed ''sine qua non'', I will remove it. Most of the articles have 1, 2 or 3 notes from Cavallaro books at most, you know, it's not a big deal. For now, I just want to keep your legitimate templates. What evidence you want? I have to quote some passages from her books and reviews on the matter as well? ] (]) 09:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@]: Like I mentioned earlier, you need to show how "{{tq|1=her thousands of pages on ''NGE'' are {{em|extraordinarly}} good}}" (emphasis original), not just that you believe it to be the case. Do other academics who publish on the subject acknowledge Cavallaro as a high-quality writer on ''Evangelion''-related works? If so, why? Should that evidence exist — and I don't think it does — we would still have to weigh those opinions against the demonstrable risk of coming up against text containing copyright violations and verifiably false or misleading information. Please also note that continuing to revert other editors removing citations to her work may be viewed as ], as you are doing so in contravention of an established consensus. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> <small>(])</small> 14:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] Once someone has shown that they violate basic standard rules of scholarship, they can't be trusted. The kind of behavior outlined above would get her into serious academic problems if she did this for under-graduate essays for example and that kind of behavior should not be tolerated for professional writers either. Her books appear to be written with speed in mind so that she can pump them out quickly, rather than on quality, and to pick niche topics that few others have written about like anime, ], or ]. | |||
| :::::Since she's been heavily cited on some pages and it means those pages will require heavy amounts of re-writing but it's ultimately for the best. Also I think there's a consistent pattern of poor quality sourcing that plagues many anime/manga articles. This would be the first step towards rectifying that issue. ] (]) 20:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::These 4chan-like greentexts are cringe. Anyways. | |||
| ::::::@] Your answer is meaningless. ]. Consensus can change. I'm now part of discussion, which I did not read previously. I respected you, since I did not revert everything and kept the templates; you have to equally respect me now that I'm discussing here and do not insinuate I'm editwarring. I am now part of the new eventual consensus. | |||
| ::::::During the years Cavallaro looked to me as a respectable author regarding NGE. I'm gonna just briefly analyise just her ''Anime Intersection'' NGE chapter doing a comparison with sources that Wikipedians listed as Reliable Sources for a reason. INB4: thanks, I know that a comparison ''per sé'' does not means much, but it's an argument bigger than its singular parts and if you will see just the singular part and not the general scheme here you are missing the point. For example, she is one of the few writers to mention the fact that Anno wanted to do an OVA before the movies ''Death and Rebirth'' and ''End'' (''Anime Intersections'', p. 54). The first time I read, since no Misplaced Pages article or ANN news or Western academic ever mentioned this, I was confused. But it is something that , a person whose claims are ignored by every "respectable" academic and source listed in ], discussed in his commentary. Her book was published in 2007, a time in which, as you can see from EvaGeeks, people believed that Evas were created after the Barons of Hell, but she actually mentions the actual inspirations of Yamashita (ibidem, p. 57). She is the only one English writer who mentions and seems to know ''Der Mond'', ''Die Sterne'' (p. 61), even the ''Groundworks of Evangelion'' and the ''Filmbooks'' (p. 57), when people like Napier in her books mentioned in the ] says that the series was released ''in 1997''. While Napier in ''Science Fiction Studies'' said that ''Evangelion'' presents a “Gnostic notion of apocalypse” (p. 425, like what?) and the otherwise useful ''Mechademia'' – listed in WP:A&M/I - has a weird analysis about Zoe-Lilith-Eva Gnostic triad and its impact on the series (?) and other ''supercazzole'', to use an appropriate Italian term for academic bullshits, she in 2007 was one of the few academics who touched grass and actually mentioned Tsurumaki comments on religious symbolism (''ibidem'', pp. 57-59). She is one of the rare academics to mention, even if briefly and quite vaguely, Aum Shinrikyo, which proved, as said by the unknown – by academics – Azuma, as an enormous influence on NGE. In the same page at least she mentioned Azuma and the possible inspiration by Godard. Her productions note on 3D use and Production IG involvement (p. 64) at least shows that she probably read the theatrical pamphlets, maybe even other Oguro materials: in any case, this proved that she ''at least with NGE'' did not write books with speed in mind "so that she can pump them out quickly". I bet my entire existence that ''Mechademia'' academics, Napier or Broderick or whoever you want do not even know what Ombinus Japan (p. 68) is. She is the only Western academic as far as I know who knows at least who Otsuki is and quotes his interviews (p. 67). And I'm mentioning just one of the Achille's heels of Western academics: the inability to actual study the series ''in its context'' and at least have a vague idea of who the author actually is or wanted. Something that, trust me, other "Reliable Sources" do not have. BTW. Nothing of what I mentioned was on Misplaced Pages in 2007: not even in the , or the - see the oldids. Nor in other websites of NGE - not in EvaMonkeys, not in EvaOtakus, nothing in Japanese websites as well. Far from being the most reliable source on NGE, her prose is not exactly the best and she is more like a reporter than an analyst who theorizes things on the series, I think she's a respectable source for NGE. | |||
| ::::::For a period I thought she was not so respectable because she briefly mentions in her ''The Art of Studio Gainax'' chapter on NGE series the "]" to Anno, which were considered a myth by myself until Anno actually mentioned them in the official production documentary on the last ''Rebuild'' installment and I read Oguro materials - like the Japanese ''Eva Tomo no Kai''. When that documentary was released on Amazon Prime, even ''the only possible error'' that I thought she mentioned proved right. Now. I'm not exactly sure she actually read the ''Eva Tomo no Kai'', but mention me just ''one'' academic before 2020orsomething that did all of this, with all the knowledge of NGE production and not academics ''supercazzole'', and I bet I'm gonna do a pilgrimage to Pompeii Virgin Mary. ] (]) 21:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You're writing long winded replies while ignoring the key issues. In ''The Art of Studio Gainax'' she cites Misplaced Pages on including the ] page which brings up issues of ] which specifically says "''Also, do not use websites mirroring Misplaced Pages content or publications relying on material from Misplaced Pages as sources.''" She also uses heavy amount of self-published anime fan sites as sources, which is also a major issue. ] (]) 22:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::....OK. So, compliments, you are missing my point. An annoying answer - you probably can not perceive it - especially considering I just actually answered to your comment: her chapters ''on NGE'' are not "written with speed in mind so that she can pump them out quickly, rather than on quality", as I showed you. I repeat: at least ''on NGE''. So I proved you wrong. Anyway. I have now ''Anime Intersection'' on my desk, and ''at least'' regarding NGE she's just advising to read it as "potential companions of this study", but not using it as a source (p. 56). She basically list Misplaced Pages and other websites in her bibliography as such: "potential companions of this study". I had the full ''The Art of Studio Gainax'', but not now, but it looks to me - I can be wrong - that at least one of the four instances you mentioned is the same (p. 226), and ''idem'' for the URL to the Misplaced Pages "mindfuck" page - she's possibly linking an article just to help the readers to see what a mindfuck is and other uses of this technique. Regarding the ''Rebuild'' part: yes, she mentions Misplaced Pages among other things. My point is: are you sure you gonna literally delete every helpful and accurate analyisis from her just because in a 52-pages analysis on the series more accurate than 99& of RS she said in a two-sentences paragraph "according to Misplaced Pages"? Do not get me wrong: I'm not questioning ], and I still myself said that I have doubts about her being the best source, to say it with an euphemism, considering these Misplaced Pages mentions. I'm not gonna mention that passage on Misplaced Pages for all the gold of this world, and I did not. I'm saying, using common sense: if this author proved very accurate and more serious than 95% of the A&M/I on NGE, and if nobody mentioned in the NGE-articles her "According to Misplaced Pages" ''two'' sentences, are we seriously deleting all the other serious NGE analyisis I mentioned she provided? I bet that even CBR.com mentioned Misplaced Pages in its pre-2023 articles, but it still is ] as a ''situational'' source. IGN is also listed as a ], but ironically in this Italian article it mentions . For all of this, I strongly oppose this, and I think the best is to keep her as situational. ] (]) 11:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Citing and quoting Misplaced Pages is just one problem of many and in ''Anime Intersections'' she quotes or cites Misplaced Pages a whopping six times. These are not mere mentions, but instead direct quotations or citations. In case there's any doubts: | |||
| :::::::::*"As the Misplaced Pages entry for A Scanner Darkly explains," (pg 101) | |||
| :::::::::*"As the Misplaced Pages entry for the program points out" (pg 195) | |||
| :::::::::*"As documented by the Misplaced Pages entry for the franchise" (pg 196) | |||
| :::::::::It's a general pattern of bad sourcing. She cites an interview on a , which was translated from Chinese to English, which even has a disclaimer that it's for entertainment purposes only. I am not sure if the translation is accurate, or even what or where the original interview is to be found. Another time she cites a Geocities page which I can't even find an online archive of, for the source of a quote by ]. Presumably it was some kind of Japanese publication which was then translated by the fan or taken from somewhere. The , but none of the subpages. The same quote is produced on the and guess what? There is no explanation where it came from! You see the problem with this? You run in circles trying to find the source for these quotes. And you should only give a translated quote if it was done by a professional translator from a major publication because we can trust it, versus an amateur translation. | |||
| :::::::::I could spend hours finding issues with her scholarship, and the more that I look, the more issues I find, but I digress. There's a lot of these sloppily written books published on niche nerd interests like video games or anime, and we really should hold standards of scholarship. Though, truth be told, some of the sources she cites are perfectly fine, such as '']'', or '']'', or '']''. So why not just cite those directly and cut out the middle man? ] (]) 22:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I repeat. I'm not gonna read in depth articles full of spoilers on other anime, sorry, but just discussing NGE. I support her as situational just and just for NGE - I have no competence to judge her on other matters. ] (]) 09:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Apologies for the delay in responding here; it's been an incredibly busy week for me. I'm going to concur with {{noping|Harizotoh9}} on this one; the fact that Cavallaro mentions this or that is not entirely relevant to our discussion here. {{em|You}} might be impressed by the detail of her research, but there are legitimate reasons that other scholars may not be citing the various interviews you mentioned — not the least being that they might consider them relatively unimportant, or that they may be prioritizing writing their own analyses instead of quoting other works. Harizotoh9 also brings up a good point: if you'd like to cite interviews or other primary sources, there's no need to use Cavallaro as a middlewoman, they can simply be cited directly as long as they comply with Misplaced Pages's guidelines. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> <small>(])</small> 18:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::She's just grabbing whatever online source she can find and because it's paraphrasing fan sources, it will quite often be correct. For the above quote by Ikuto Yamashita, she cites a now dead website, and this is being used ''] ''page right now. So as of now I can't verify this quote at all. If I had to wager a guess, I would say the quote is likely real and is sourced to some sort of Japanese guidebook. But I don't know that, and I certainly don't trust she did due diligence to double check it, or assure the quote was accurately translated. We need to have standards and to start somewhere. ] (]) 06:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I personally agree ''100% with you'' on "if you'd like to cite interviews or other primary sources, there's no need to use Cavallaro as a middlewoman". That's what I always supported and said. The problem is, Techno: recently a user said that direct interviews were not enough for the NGE Angels article. So I have to mention other secondary indipendent sources, like Cavallaro, to keep it as a GA. See the talk page. That's why, as I said, I used her for NGE articles just for 2 notes per article ''at most'' until now. I'm ''very'' confused about Misplaced Pages in these days. BTW, if I am not mistaken, that Yamashita quote simply comes from the VIZ official manga translation: I verified that quote a long time ago. I can give you the Japanese text, the English VIZ translation, there's no problem. ] (]) 09:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I confirm: Yamashita's quote comes from the VIZ manga translation. It's literally in the NGE manga, at the end of the volume. ] (]) 09:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You're looking at it primarily through the eyes of a fan, which is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages, which operates on rather rigorous scholarship standards. The many many issues outlined above show that Cavallaro's scholarship is sloppy and low quality, if not paraphrasing and plagiarism. Ergo, she should be exercized from any article she's cited even if it's several GA articles related to Evangelion and Studio Ghibli. We are supposed to go backwards from the sources to the article and our viewpoints don't matter because we don't actually write the articles but summarze reliable sources. For an example, I expanded the '']'' article with several English print magazine sources, and I know damn well the movie is a whole plot reference to '']'' but not a single source I found mentions that, ergo it's not in the article. ] (]) 01:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Preliminaries === | |||
| :''*"She got in to the English programme at Westminster, when it was run by Dani Cavallaro,"'' | |||
| :I now have some honest to goodness third party source on her life and background. I checked the wayback version of the Westminster site from 1998, but the site was very basic back then without any information on faculty. So it seems she ran the ] department at Westminster University in the mid 90's. Likely means she has a masters or phD in ]. There's likely some web page on the wayback machine somewhere giving a faculty biography. Her first book was a collaboration book on Fashion published by Bloomsbury appears to be a legitimate book when she was employed at the university and became a freelance writer on anime later. ] (]) 00:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you google this name there seem to be a lot of people named that (and from a few years ago wondering who the heck this person was due to having no visible online footprint). Is this the same person?? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 02:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I get the feeling that stuff like this is the real Achilles' heel of Misplaced Pages, where we are forced to maintain a sort of perfunctory deference to academic sources, insisting that bloggers are inadmissible because they aren't serious enough... even when the academic sources are themselves citing those same bloggers. I mean, do you need to have a PhD to figure out which ''Keion!'' is the coolest?<ref><math>tsumugi > sawachan > ritsu > mio \gtrapprox ui > (azunyan \approx nodoka) \gg yui</math></ref> For something like, for God's sake, animé opinions, I really don't see what we get by citing a book of some person's opinions, when someone like https://karmaburn.com/ a) has better opinions and b) is more rigorous in the first place -- I am quite sure that among Misplaced Pages editors we have sufficient expertise as well -- we might as well allow ourselves to use it,<b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 02:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not about who has the "best" opinions, because that's purely subjective, but to create an objective overview of reliable sources which means avoiding self-published sources like blogs at all costs. Cavarallo's works have the surface level appearance of proper academic books but are extremely lacking. Academic books published by ] are considered some of the best sources, because they're written by experts with heavy amounts of peer review. Below are two examples of such works which discuss anime media or anime fandoms as examples: | |||
| ::* '''' ] (2002) | |||
| ::* ''''. ] (2012) | |||
| ::] (]) 19:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{rlt}} | |||
| :Probably need to add the website to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be ]. --] 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Symposium on Applications and the Internet Workshops (SAINT) == | |||
| ::AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a ]. But it could be a good follow-up. ] (]) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. ] (]) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC?  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Could I get a third opinion on this source recently added to ]? The grammar and some of the claims in the cited paper struck me as bizarre, but I am unfamiliar with the symposium: | |||
| ::These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::<strike>I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.</strike> --] (]) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey A: Geni.com === | |||
| * https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1620054 | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * https://ieeexplore-ieee-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/document/1620054 | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''.<strike>'''Question'''. Isn't it already deprecated?</strike>--] (]) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks, ] (]) 23:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''' A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley === | |||
| :Conference proceedings are bottom-level references, journals and proper books are better. They're better than blogs, but not by much.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 11:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::And more specifically, that's a workshop paper - it's not part of the main conference, and was probably written as an overview of a short presentation or discussion. Looking at the full text, the author's classification of licenses is not quite as nonsensical as the abstract makes it sound, but it's (at best) now 20 years out of date. The economic point it makes is not developed in detail or based on references. I wouldn't use it as a source. ] (]) 01:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment'''. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--] (]) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The abstract here is really one of the least coherent paragraphs of text: {{tq|Licenses of open source software (OSS) are quiet various but can be categorised into three. That is GPL (GNU general Public License) like, LGPL (GNU Lesser general Public License) like, or MPL (Mozilla Public License) like. Although there are numbers of licenses, most of OSS projects are accepting GPL or GPL compatible. In reality GPL is one of the most effective powers for distribution; self-reproduction system in it. More over it also has economic "positive network externality". This mean that open source software is better for basis of social infrastructure.}} | |||
| :'''Deprecate''' Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Uh... what? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 18:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "'''the source is generally prohibited'''". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) ] (]) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Welcome to Japanese researchers trying their best to write in English.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 18:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation. | |||
| :::I mean, it's more than a grammar issue, the "categorized into three" thing makes no sense -- what about apache, mit etc (which I'm pretty sure are more used than MPL)?? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Deprecation of this source will ''reduce'' the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They explain what they mean immediately after. GPL-like licences, LGPL-like licenses, and MPL-like licenses. | |||
| ::::Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Either they aren't aware of MIT/Apache/etc.., or they consider them to be GPL-like / LGPL-like / etc.... I haven't read the full paper, so I don't know which of the two they mean.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 21:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again. | |||
| :::::::Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Generally unreliable'''. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) ''Generally unreliable'' is the one which says this: {{tq|"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"}} I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would ''only'' allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be ''prohibited''. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at ] shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he ''knows'' {{xt!|may be of little factual significance}} at face value just because he finds them "]" ({{xt!|but is reproduced by way of interest}}), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't ]. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. ] (]) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the '''Generally unreliable''' category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then ''only as far as we have to''. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Generally reliable''', in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav === | |||
| == Huffington Post on American politics == | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. ] (]) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--] (]) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as {{xt|genealogy.eu}} and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :'''Comment'''. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the ], Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate'''. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; . --] 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site . And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)=== | |||
| Currently HuffPo is ] at ]. This was based on a ] whose close and comments focused very much on the bias of the outlet's American political coverage. Recent practice here has been to focus on false reporting, rather than biased reporting, when evaluating a source. Is there any appetite for a new discussion? ] (] / ]) 19:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--] (]) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the current yellow/no consensus rating is appropriate. The Huffington Post is consistently biased. Name an issue in American public life, and I can tell you what the Huffington Post "thinks" about it, without consulting the paper. That's not good. For someone who is not deeply grounded in American politics, that bias could be misleading. However, I still think the paper is perfectly usable as a source in many contexts. I don't think changing it to either GENREL or GUNREL would be an improvement. ] (]) 19:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know if this affects anything, but reportedly some employees from ] were shuffled into HuffPost when the former shut down last year. Though who knows how many were shuffled rather than laid off anyway. ] (]) 07:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Huffpo is such a terrible online blog/site, and I really don't like it. It should be removed from every article. ] (]) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You're right, FFF; bias, even consistent, is not a good reason to downgrade reliability. Attribution also doesn't require ]; we have a few green-listed sources at RSP where attribution is encouraged. HuffPo does original reporting; for example they've recently done some very solid journalism on internal Biden admin deliberations regarding Middle-East policy, for which they've been praised by journalists working for "green" (]) outlets; and I saw no issues with the articles from a journalistic ethics standpoint. ] (]) 10:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::DFlhb and by extension FFF are correct here regarding bias vs. reliability; IMO the distinction to be made here is between Huffington Post's original reporting, which tends to be quite good and doesn't appear to have reliability issues; and Huffington's Post's non-original reporting, which does. For example, I've been published on HuffPo as a "Contributor" based on licensed re-publication of my work on other sites (like Quora) that would *not* meet ] standards. But in contrast, seems fine. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I honest-to-God think we should just remove the colors from the table so we are forced to read the text and risk using our brains to interpret what the consensus is about the sources. It seems like common sense that you would not write, uh, {{tq|Democrats are better than Republicans and experts say you should vote for them.<sup></sup>}} or vice versa and cite it to HuffPost or Fox etc even if they are reliable for other stuff. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Franklin Open == | |||
| == allmovie.com now using film descriptions and actor biographies from Misplaced Pages == | |||
| I would like to know what is known about "Franklin Open" (). It claims to be peer-reviewed but charges $1900 to publish an article. Should we count this as an RS, or should its articles be treated as self-published? (Apologies if it's already dealt with somewhere — I searched and couldn't find it.) --] (]) 22:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The website allmovie.com, which previously contained independent summaries of films, and actors, has, apparently in the last month or so, switched to short summaries based on Misplaced Pages entries, headed "Description by Misplaced Pages". This would seem to make it an unsuitable source for these articles, but it's not clear how pervasive the change was (are there still some articles that are usable?) Can anyone throw light on what the changes have been, before its rating as a Reliable Source is changed? ] (]) 22:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed that there needs to be a larger discussion again; Allmovie is used on about 10,000 articles, they've restructured their internal data so most existing links do not work, and they've dropped a lot of content like reviews and non-wiki descriptions. On a quick glance, the mirroring appears to be a massive copyright violation as they are not using the material under the correct license, nor are they crediting the authors as required. "Rhythm One" no longer owns this farm, it was purchased or transitioned somehow to "Nataktion LLC" in May of 2020. This seems to just be a very small, straight-up marketing company that is cutting material under license (from some other data stream) and cramming as many ads as possible on each page. It may be best to have separate discussions on Allmusic and Allmovie, as there still appear to be staff reviews on Allmusic. ''] ]'' 13:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think AllMovie is usually an external link template. If it meets ] (which I believe it already did anyway), we can remove that template en masse. But if it's used in article bodies, is there a way to ensure archiving for when it was reliable before? ] (] | ]) <sup>(])</sup> 14:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If ] and ] need to be removed from EL (and eventually deleted as these aren't citation templates), then they should be sent to ] so the correct bots can help. ] (]) 10:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's published by Elsevier on behalf of the Franklin Institute. So not self-published.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 04:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Enough other sites use Misplaced Pages as a source that there's a great danger of circular references when they site Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages cites them... wasn't there an XKCD comic about that? (Yeah, .) ] (]) 14:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::But the question is, is the stuff peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? --] (]) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Like any other Elsevier/Franklin Institute journals. Reliable in its area of expertise, which is mostly engineering and applied mathematics.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 05:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Well, here's the thing. They published a paper with no meaningfully new content on the so-called ], . This thing should never have gotten past peer review, not because anything in it is ''wrong'' per se, but because it's not a novel contribution (and is also not a survey). It's a bunch of trivial calculations, put together well with nice illustrations, but with an overall conclusion that is not remotely new. | |||
| :::: So this makes me wonder about their standards, and whether they should be treated as a predatory journal or something similar. --] (]) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]s are completely standard, expected, uncontroversial aspects of nearly all ]s, including ''Franklin Open''. If a journal can't charge for subscriptions or article access, it needs to make at least some money through APCs. Does this discussion concern the journal itself and every article it publishes, or rather a single article regarding monkeys and typewriters? If the latter, then the qualifications of the authors and which salient points of the paper merit mention should be discussed on article talk pages per ], ] & ]. Not all articles ever published warrant stuffing into every Misplaced Pages article about a topic, no matter how much individual Wikipedians may slobber over the authors, and thousands of perfectly reliable and decent-quality articles should not be cited per ] and ]. But I'd almost always place more importance on published academic journal articles, even if I dislike the methods or conclusion, over the quibbles and beard-strokings of Wikipedians. ] (]) 23:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Per the scope of the journal "Original manuscripts and special topic issue are welcome as well as multidisciplinary topics or application-oriented articles, reviews, surveys, and '''educational articles'''." (emphasis mine) There's zero issue with a journal publishing an educational article with routine calculations and no new conclusions. You said yourself the illustrations were nice. What's the reliability concern here?  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 08:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What? reliable journals publish educational articles all the time and they're preferable to novel hypotheses and research. ] (]) 08:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It doesn't seem to be an educational article. The authors seem to ''think'' they're making a novel contribution. --] (]) 04:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Even if that is the case why would this have any bearing on the reliability of the journal? ] (]) 04:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Well, it might not, or at least not very much. In my opinion they should not have published this particular article, and I think that reflects badly on them, but of course that is going to happen from time to time. I was trying to find out what was known about the journal, specifically whether it was predatory or predatory-adjacent, and I did that because I didn't think a reputable research journal would publish this. But it seems that that was not the issue. --] (]) 04:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Twitter == | |||
| :Good find. I think there needs to be a RfC regarding Allmovie. I've been dubious about it's reliability for actor bios even before it started using bios from Misplaced Pages as it had the incorrect DOBs listed. And there used to be fact sheets at the bottom of the actor pages. The actor bios on TVguide.com had the same things. So it looks like Allmovie was copying/pasting stuff beforehand. There actually hasn't been an official consensus on whether or not it's a reliable source. But even that doesn't stop it from being ref spammed on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 11:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for bringing this up. Another issue I noticed during a ] is that the ratings on there are ''extremely'' questionable. It looks like they give every (released?) film a rating, even when they clearly haven't had someone watch it. For example, try looking up any ]. I arbitrarily chose , , , and , and all have star ratings on there. ] (]) 07:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I want to raise a concern about ] or known now as '''X'''. I'm planning to nominate a list to ] and some awards are cited as a tweet from a Philippine Record Label, ], and some cited on YouTube but originally from a significant subscribers (1 Million plus subscribers) and have a Official Artist Channel and can be treated as a reliable source per ]. So, is it okay to cite a tweet directly from record label because some awards aren't covered on a news article, which is only acknowledged on their social media. | |||
| == Orlando Figes == | |||
| P.S: I added a discussion just in case some reviewers have a disagreement on citing a tweet. ] ] 01:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{lat|Orlando Figes}} | |||
| :From your description alone, it sounds like you're asking if Star Music's tweets about (themselves or their bands) winning awards can be cited as sources? If that's the case, the tweet would be a self-published, primary source, and inherently self-serving. So no, I wouldn't consider that appropriate. Reliable, independent, secondary sources reporting on the awards are what makes them important. | |||
| Please see the Talk page on my entry, Orlando Figes. Archive evidence has come to light (the Stephen Cohen Archive at Princeton Uni. Library) that should be admitted as a reliable primary source (indeed, the only reliable source) about the role of Memorial in the cancellation of the Russian publication of my book The Whisperers in 2012. The evidence contradicts the reports in the press which suggested that Memorial was officially involved in the cancellation. This is not true, as confirmed by the head of Memorial, Roginsky, in a letter to Stephen Cohen, which also makes it clear that the "Memorial" report was in fact the report of a single researcher. This is also not reflected in the wikipedia entry. I have been told by the active editors that the archive evidence is not considered reliable by Misplaced Pages policy whereas an inaccurate newspaper report on the role of Memorial IS a reliable source. This is obviously absurd. I am posting this here in the hope of a resolution before considering my legal options. ] (]) 14:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :If I've misunderstood your question, can you give us some examples of the tweets and how they would be used? ] (]) 01:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This is not, how it works here. We prefer secondary sources over primary: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors." (from ]) Best course of action is to find a better secondary source and persuade other editors the old source is outdated. Note legal threats (even veiled ones) may lead to a swift block (]). ] (]) 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] one of their post is here , they recognized the awards for the Best Inspirational Secular Song at the 46th Catholic Mass Media Awards, and this is only the piece of sources i searched. ] ] 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Speaking on the archive in Princeton, I understand that any content placed by an expert to a public domain is already a publication, obviously of ] nature. Hence, one ''can'' use it per ] and ] if it helps to clarify something and the author is a well known expert, such as ], telling something in the area of his expertise. It does not mean we should use it (such materials are typically undue), but I think we can. ] (]) 16:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::the ] a Featured list was cited from a Facebook too cause they considered it. and ] cited this on ref 28. So, I think needed to be considered to since it was awarded. ] ] 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The problem isn't really Twitter/X or Facebook, it's that you want to use a post by the record label about an award they received. That's inherently self-serving, which means we should avoid using it. | |||
| ::::The Facebook sources at ] were posted by Awit Awards (still a primary source, but not the recipient) and the Philippine Movie Press Club (a secondary source, though I wonder how reliable they are), so I'm assuming that's why they were included. Personally, I think both of those should be removed until they can be supported by better sources, but that's just me. ] (]) 02:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Woodroar}} I think it can be considered? because {{tq|The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.}} The claim made in the post is specifically about ] under the record label Star Music, which is not considered a third party in this context. | |||
| :::::{{tq|The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim}} | |||
| :::::The award mentioned is neither excessively self-serving nor extraordinary (such as a prestigious recognition like the Grammys). Instead, it is a straightforward of Bini achievements. ] ] 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Of course it's self-serving, it's about an award that one of their bands received. As far as the claim about third parties, I hadn't considered that. But Star Music's tweet ''does'' involve claims about third parties, both the group Bini ''and'' the organization Catholic Mass Media Awards. | |||
| ::::::As others have pointed out, there are also NPOV concerns. Alongside reports from reliable, secondary, independent sources, it's ] to include an award sourced only to a self-published, primary tweet from the record label. ] (]) 15:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*I would say that coverage of winning an award is obviously {{tq|unduly self-serving}}. As I said below, we're not just relying on the source for the statement that the award was given but for the implication that it is worth noting; we can't rely on the recipient for that! --] (]) 21:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If an award isn't covered by secondary independent sources, how is it BALASP on the page? ] (]) 02:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::exactly. Had it recieved media coverage, it would've been notable and due for inclusion. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with the sentiment overall for due weight in articles, but this is a list after all. Per ], a high-quality list would; {{tq|"comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items"}}, suggesting that all items would ideally be included in the list, even if not a requirement. I'm inclined to agree with opinions above that documenting an award you have received is not ''unduly'' self-serving, even if publishing such information is entirely self-serving. I otherwise don't agree with the argument that publishing an award won is effectively unwarranted. The question should be more about the awards themselves, for example if the awards were meaningless or irrelevant then sure it would be unwarranted. Give the awards referenced above, the ''Catholic Mass Media Award'' by the ], I'd say it's questionable, but otherwise there are enough secondary sources reporting on them even if not widespread, even if not those in question it seems. ] (]) 13:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Twitter, when cited that way, is ], which carries several restrictions; it's also obviously ]. One key thing is to avoid such about-self cites for anything self-serving - things companies post on Twitter are often promotional in nature and therefore potentially self-serving. "We intend to release this at date XYZ" would be something we could cite to Twitter. Winning an award, unfortunately, is almost certainly self-serving and therefore is probably something we can't. Note that even if you're absolutely certain they're not making it up, you're still relying on them for the implicit statement that this award is ''worth noting'', which they are obviously not a good source for. And similarly, even beyond that, it raises ] issues - if there is no coverage of the award anywhere except by the recipient (who is obviously not a neutral party and could therefore be expected to highlight even exceptionally marginal things, providing little weight to them), this makes it hard to justify as worth including. --] (]) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == is infobae reliable? == | |||
| == Is there any reason to think The Indian Express is unreliable for this deleted edit? == | |||
| i found this source while doing a GA review for ] (for the jan backlog), and im not sure about its reliability. the source did not have an author name, which could be a read flag. | |||
| See [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Blackout_challenge&diff=prev&oldid=1227635674 with an edit summary "Removal of contradiction. Choking is older than the internet, and the internet was not invented by tiktok as the media from stolen territories insinuate. Moreover, the source is unreliable." The source is The Indian Express which RSNP says is generally reliable. And “stolen territories”? | |||
| The editor is ]. ] ] 19:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Whether it's unreliable or not (it's probably OK), there are plenty of better sources . And the editor concerned is talking gibberish, there's probably a CIR issue here. ] 19:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*I've reverted three edits that removed sourced content, and warned the user pretty sharply. ] | ] 19:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC). | |||
| ::@] At the moment almost all of their edits have been reverted, and I've asked what " the media from stolen territories insinuate." in two edit summaries means. ] ] 12:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::No response. ] ] 19:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Reliable''' and ]. '']'' is a ] that regularly covers Internet culture as one of its many topic areas. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 19:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. i read the previous discussion, and it said that it is widely used in the spanish wikipedia. also, researching its wikipedia article did NOT work out well. ] <sub><small>]</small></sub> 07:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] as an author for refs in ] == | |||
| :It seems reliable. SandyGeorgia, who has worked extensively with FAs, noted ] that the site is reliable. Sammi Brie, who also has experience with FAs, mentioned its reliability ]. I would take their word. ] (]) 11:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Could Harold Perkin and his ''The Third Revolution: Professional Elites in the Modern World'' be considered a reliable source about ]? The book could be found , the relevant part on pages 138-139. According to Misplaced Pages article about Perkin, he is considered a respected scholar, but in a different field. He is not an expert on Azerbaijan or Heydar Aliyev, never published any specialized researches on this topic, and only makes passing mentions of Aliyev in his book. General topic of the book is not Aliyev or Azerbaijan, but "''the rise of a global professional society since the Second World War''". In the paragraph about Aliyev, Perkin makes completely false statements, such as this: | |||
| :I read it from time to time and it has always seemed generally reliable. A bit clickbaity with a lot of pop culture stories but no real accuracy issues. ] (]) 17:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Per the ], mainstream news organizations are assumed to be ] absent evidence to the contrary. As , ] is a mainstream news organization. Despite tending to than '']'' and '']'', I have not found any patterns of concern that would warrant considering Infobae less than generally reliable. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 17:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Far Out Magazine == | |||
| Quote: ''Aliev thrust himself to the head of the Azeri People’s Front, and was elected to the Supreme Soviet of the republic in time for independence in 1991''. | |||
| Would ] be considered a reliable source for music and the arts? ] (]) 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In reality, Heydar Aliyev never led ], who were in fact his political opponents. Apparently, Perkin mixed ] (whose actual surname was also Aliyev) with Heydar Aliyev, which shows that Perkin had no real knowledge of the subject. Generally, the two paragraphs dedicated to Aliyev read more like yellow press than a serious research, and contain other unrealistic claims. | |||
| :Only RSN-comment I could find on it here: ]. I can't find an "about"-page. Currently it's used on WP quite a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be. ] (]) 08:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In my opinion, if a source shows clear lack of knowledge on the subject, and makes false claims, it cannot be considered reliable on that particular subject. In addition, according to ]: ''Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible''. This I believe is clearly the situation with the Perkin's book. ]] 08:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Comments at ] indicate caution is called for. ] (]) 08:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I make it a point to remove this source whenever I see it because of the fact that, beyond the ] concerns noted on the talk page linked above, many of their articles seem to republish content from years ago, while titling them to make it sound as if new insight has come out recently. For a few examples as of late, see , , and are all examples of this website recycling content from other, more reliable sources that can (and should) be cited instead. For all I know, there may be minor instances where this site can be used, but I'm familiar enough with Far Out Magazine to say that, for the most part, their content is clickbait churnalism, and in particular, should not be used for information about ]. ] (]) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Credit to ] for explaining the unreliability of this source ]. ] (]) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. I think Grandmaster should've linked the relevant talk discussion in their post here, no? Otherwise, how editors would know the context of what we've already discussed? | |||
| :Anyway, please see the discussion about Perkin: ]. | |||
| :Obviously he's a reliable source; being an esteemed historian, his book is also published by established ] with a peer-review process. The surname confusion quote in the page 139 that Grandmaster cherry-picked to invalidate Perkin isn't even included in the wiki article of ]. Also the confusion doesn't come from Perkin himself but from The Independent news article that confused the two Aliyevs, so Perkin shouldn’t be blamed for when he was misled by another source. | |||
| :And as if Perkin's credentials aren't enough that he's a clear ] published by an established publisher with a peer-review process, there is an actual review of Perkin's book too (that Grandmaster omitted mentioning here), praising the book for being well written and an excellent reference for political science and history: | |||
| :*“''The book is lively and well written. Surely controversial and thus worth reading. As an essay targeted to the public at large, it is a work of culture and finesse. It will make an excellent reference for one of those undergraduate discussions that so usefully open or close a political science, history, or even economics course.''” | |||
| :And as if this wasn't enough, there is another book which verifies the same things Perkin said (the things that are actually cited in the ] article), like the sex services info which is confirmed in this other book too: | |||
| :*"''Among these volunteers, there were women, and the organization's property holdings solved the problem of secret rendezvous for them and their men friends. This was perhaps the key sense in which these flats were 'secret'. Using his official position, Geidar Aliev would encourage his 'volunteer' helpers to make love to him. One of them went along with it but then changed her mind and kicked up a fuss. This was after Stalin's death, and the terror of what had been Beria's outfit eased for a while.''" | |||
| :It should be noted that after I provided the Vaksberg book basically verifying what Perkin said, Grandmaster tried to discredit Vaksberg and his book too with ] commentary , but to no avail because ] is not accepted on Misplaced Pages, and to top this off, there is an actual positive book review for Vaksberg and his work as well, it even praises the Azerbaijani chapter in particular: | |||
| :*''the most interesting chapter is the one on Aliev and the Azerbaijan mafia. The recent civil disturbances involving the surviving communist leadership, the Aliev mafia and the popular front leadership becomes more comprehensible after Vaksberg's analysis.'' | |||
| :Basically after all of this, seemingly having no further replies to my arguments, Grandamster brings the discussion here to this board because apparently Grandmaster wants "third party opinions" , even though we already had a third party in the talk discussion (]) who also disagreed with Grandmaster's personal views . ] (]) 11:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I forgot to link the discussion at talk of the article, apologies for that. Otherwise, Perkin actually took all the content about Aliyev from Vaksberg, which Perkin himself acknowledged, but due to not being familiar with the subject Perkin mixed up the facts. And as I wrote above, Perkin made only a passing mention of Aliyev in 2 paragraphs of the book that is generally dedicated to a different subject. ]] 15:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{la|Heydar Aliyev }} | |||
| :::Over at the article talk page, you were asked to provide sources. Your not doing so here makes it seem that this is a personal issue based upon OR. --] (]) 17:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Do you need a source that Heydar Aliyev did not lead Popular Front? We have articles about ] and ], and you were provided a few sources at talk. If that's not enough, here's more. | |||
| == Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary? == | |||
| ::::Audrey L. Altstadt. Frustrated Democracy in Post-Soviet Azerbaijan. Columbia University Press, 2017. Quote: | |||
| Are the sources in these two articles primary or secondary? ] and ]. The book provided is just a collection of parliamentary records, elections, terms served etc. an example is here: ] (]) 08:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''The Popular Front was formed in secret meetings of academicians and literati during 1988-89. Some of its members were already known as dissidents, including the fifty-year-old Abulfez Aliyev, a historian who worked in the Academy of Sciences' archives. He had formerly worked as a translator in Egypt and taught at Baku State University, then was jailed in the mid-1970s for anti-Soviet activity. He emerged as a leading personality in the Popular Front and was dubbed the "messenger" (elchi). His family name, a very common one, was later replaced with "Elchibey" (adding the honorific "bey" to the title). At the first congress of the Popular Front in 1989, Elchibey was elected the organization's chairman. Among the other leaders were men and women in their mid-thirties, including Etibar Mamedov, Isa Gambar(ov), Leyla Yunus(ova), and Zardusht Alizade, all of whom later founded political parties''. | |||
| : Those articles are sourced to contemporary newspapers, which would be secondary sources; one of which, the ''New Zealand Herald'', is included in the "perennial sources" page and categorised as "Generally reliable". ] (]) 10:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **Newspapers are interesting to discuss because their classification evolves with time. Historians usually classify recent newspaper reports as being secondary, but ''old'' reports are classified as primary (this is because the sources used by the newspaper have been lost, and so the newspaper becomes the earliest available record of the events… with more modern sources based on that old newspaper). ] (]) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Reliability isn't the issue here. It is if the sources are primary or secondary. Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, and Berkeley considers contemporary newspaper articles as primary sources: ] (]) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == AdWeek == | |||
| ::::This is from Thomas de Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War. NYU Press, 2003: | |||
| Would ] be considered a reliable source in terms of advertising campaigns? ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''The year 1989 began quietly in Azerbaijan before accelerating to a terrifying climax. On 16 July, the Popular Front began its second phase of activity by holding its first congress and electing as its new chairman Abulfaz Elchibey, the man who would later become Azerbaijani president in 1992. Elchibey was a former dissident and scholar of the Middle East who, even his critics conceded, had great personal honesty and moral authority''. | |||
| * AdWeek is a perfectly reliable advertising trade magazine. ] (]) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The thing is public relations notices aren’t usually considered reliable for companies. ] (]) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::As an established trade magazine, I consider ''AdWeek'' ] for topics related to the ]. ''AdWeek''{{'s}} , which consist of a small number of articles published under {{code|adweek.com/press}} between 2017 and 2022, are ] ] that are ], and should not be considered the same as ''AdWeek''{{'s}} standard content. Are these press releases the public relations notices that you are referring to? — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 05:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Langweiledich.net == | |||
| ::::I can cite many more sources about Abulfaz Elchibey being the leader of PFA, if needed. ]] 23:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you. | |||
| :::::Following the instructions for this noticeboard, what claim currently being supported by a Perkin reference are you questioning? --] (]) 16:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm questioning reliability of this source for this particular article in general. ]] 08:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Then you're probably wasting everyone's time. --] (]) 17:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is indeed a mistake that no one with a passing knowledge of Azerbaijan would make. Considering that Azerbaijan is not the topic of this book, I wouldn't use it for anything Azerbaijan-related. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I came across being used in the ] article to support this claim: | |||
| == The International Crime of Genocide: The Case of the Tamil People in Sri Lanka == | |||
| {{tq|In 2023, users of the ''Touhou Project'', '']'' and ] subreddits collaborated to recreate "Bad Apple!!" on ] ] canvas, during its 2023 event.}} It's in German, so I can't really judge the reliability of this site myself - would it be considered a reliable source? ]] 22:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It's the self-published blog of Maik Zehrfeld. There's some advice about self-published sources here ]. I don't think it would be considered reliable, best to find a better source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Can the publication '''The International Crime of Genocide: The Case of the Tamil People in Sri Lanka (Report)''' , published by the ] authored by Lutz Oette in December 1997 can be considered a reliable source for use in Misplaced Pages? It doesn't seem listed in Lutz Oette list of publications in his profile at ] and the Tamil Information Centre seems to be an advocacy group. ] (]) 07:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] == | |||
| :@], Lutz Oette is a professor of international human rights law and this publication in particular has been cited in other reliable sources such as "" (p. 272) and "" (p. 157) both published by well-known academic publishers. Given the author's credibility and the report's notability, it can be used on Misplaced Pages too, with the publisher name explicitly attributed if need be.---] (]) 10:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Petextrodon}} It's important to note that an appearance in a list of references from a reliable source does not demonstrate reliability. A reliable source can say "Reports like are completely wrong on this point." and then list in their references. It's not enough that the report appears in the bibliography because it really matters how the publication is mentioned in the books.{{pb}}I haven't checked for these particular books for how they mention this report, so I'm making no specific comment on this Oette reference. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 10:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Right. My point was that it has external coverage by RS for its notability so it's not some fringe publication.---] (]) 10:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My point is that it could still be fringe and/or unreliable. Those two books could just as well say "Fringe voices such as say that the Earth is a cube". You'd need to pull up how the report is actually mentioned in those books, ideally with a quote. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 11:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For example, there are academic books on misinformation where a source's listing in their bibliographies should not be used as evidence of being reliable or non-fringe! — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 11:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I get that. But the author himself is a notable and qualified authority on the matter. Dispute seems to be about the publisher "Tamil Information Centre" which can be characterized as pro-Tamil. The book is found in several university libraries: https://search.worldcat.org/title/822544097 ---] (]) 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If the publisher "Tamil Information Centre" is pro-Tamil, then it can't be an independent source. Furthermore, are we talking about the same Oette here? Professor Oette doesn't seem to acknowledge this report in his works . Hence this looks neither independent nor reliable.] (]) 15:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] Yes it's the same Oette who has shown a longtime interest in the Tamil human rights issues. In fact, Seoighe (2017) that you recently removed thanked him in the Acknowledgements. Works mentioned in that website are relatively recent. The report in question is from the 1990s. In any case, Tamil Information Centre can be explicitly attributed if needed.----] (]) 15:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@], I disagree. There is no link established between Professor Oette and the Tamil Information Centre publication. You yourself stated that the Tamil Information Centre is Pro-Tamil. How can a bias source be used for such a serious accusation such as Genocide. ] (]) 15:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::"There is no link established between Professor Oette and the Tamil Information Centre publication" | |||
| :::::::::What do you mean by that? Are you saying the publisher just lied about the authorship and named a random public figure who could then sue them for libel? It makes no sense. I don't know much about Tamil Information Centre but they look like a Tamil rights advocacy organization. I didn't cite the report for the publisher but the competent authority on the matter. Publishers can be explicitly cited. Even reputable human rights groups are technically advocacy groups.---] (]) 15:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Where does it say that? ] (]) 16:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::You have to be more specific. Also, NGOs like ] and ] are considered reliable here despite them also advocating a particular policy thus not fully politically neutral: both have publicly advised Tamils to renounce separatism for example. Reports by the Tamil Information Centre are also cited by other reliable secondary sources: "" (p. 207) I see several more in google books. If it's enough for a Oxford University Press publication, then Misplaced Pages can handle it too.---] (]) 16:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{od|::::::::::}} I think one can reasonably take this to be the same Lutz Oette as based on the "About the Author" on the third page of the report. He is now a professor at an established institution but was not then (he was a recent graduate at the time of publication). He does not include this report in his publications and writes the report ''as the Tamil Information Centre'': {{tqb|Based on the findings of this study, the Tamil Information Centre (TIC) urges the government of Sri Lanka to comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in particular Article I, V, and VI.|source=}}As such, I do not think the reliability of this particular report should be ]. It is a report published by the Tamil Information Centre, written from the perspective of the Tamil Information Centre, and as reliable as the Tamil Information Centre. It is certainly reliable for the point of view of the Tamil Information Centre (]), but what needs to be determined is: | |||
| :*Whether it is reliable for statements of fact beyond "the Tamil Information Centre wrote a report that said ____". | |||
| :*Whether any inclusion of the Tamil Information Centre's report is ]. | |||
| :Hope that helps. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::There has been a misunderstanding here. The report has been authored by Lutz Oette, which is '''explicitly''' mentioned in the introduction, it is the '''afterword''' by the publishers 'Tamil Information Centre' which is referring to the preceding study by Oette. Furthermore, the TIC explicitly thanks Oette for authoring the study in the 'acknowledgements'. The 'Tamil Information Centre' definitely cannot be taken as the authors of this study. ] (]) 22:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::]: {{tq|Any exceptional claim requires ''multiple'' high-quality sources.}} ] ] 19:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::What's the extraordinary claim being made? OP didn't mention a specific claim (which makes it more difficult to answer OP's question, since reliability can vary by context). ] (] | ] | ]) 20:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Lutz Oette, an international law specialist, examined the reported cases of enforced disappearances of thousands of Tamils between 1984 and 1997 and stated that they fell within the definition of genocidal acts." This is the line on the Misplaced Pages page ] which the report is being cited for. It is already being explicitly attributed to Lutz Oette and not being said as a statement of fact in the Misplaced Pages voice. I see no issue with its inclusion. ] (]) 22:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@], this is used to make to claim {{tq|Lutz Oette, an international law specialist, examined the reported cases of enforced disappearances of thousands of Tamils between 1984 and 1997 and stated that they fell within the definition of genocidal acts.}} in ]. This is an extraordinary claim. ] (]) 13:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is not an extraordinary claim, it's a fact, Lutz Oette did state this. It would potentially be an extraordinary claim if it was said without attribution in the Misplaced Pages voice, which it is not. It has been explicitly attributed to Lutz Oette as his opinion, not said simply as a statement of fact. ] (]) 16:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If the claim under question is that ''Oette said this'', then it isn't an extraordinary claim if the source ''is'' Oette (or a publication Oette wrote), unless it's unusual and exceptional for Oette to consider these enforced disappearances a genocide—has Oette contradicted this in other publications?{{pb}}If the claim under question is that genocidal acts were perpetrated against Tamils, is that extraordinary either? Simply searching for "Tamil genocide" quickly yields '']'' (Clarity Press, 2009) written by ], also a specialist in international law. ] (] | ] | ]) 17:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Interesting point, my first attempt was to verify if this publication ''was'' written by Lutz Oette and it doesn't appear on his official profile or Google scholar profile (when I checked). I also noticed that Oette has written a lot on the Sri Lankan Civil War in his formal work, however I couldn't find any reference to genocide (did anyone else have any luck). 13:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 13:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed with ], this appears to be a selft-published report of the TIC and as by ], TIC is biased. ] (]) 14:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Second everything {{u|MarkH21}} in . is a ] by TIC, which can be used only as a source for their views with proper ], and only if those views are ]. ] (]) 20:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Lutz Oette is the author, and TIC is the publisher. It is not self published. TIC are not a legal scholarly group and do not have the capability to author a report such as this, they are merely the publishers. In any case if there is any doubt on the authorship, Lutz Oette could be directly contacted to clarify. ] (]) 22:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Lutz Oette is a Professor of International Human Rights Law in ] are reputed authority in Human Rights.] (]) 20:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Since there are scholarly sources that reference this work, we can be pretty sure that there was no fabrication and Oette did make this statement back in 1997. | |||
| :Whether it can be used on Misplaced Pages is a matter of ]. Is he the only one who held/holds this opinion? ]<sub>]</sub> 19:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Lutz Oette is an authority on human rights and is the is the Director of the Center for Human Rights Law at SOAS, University of London not only in Tamil issues but also in other issues .] (]) 20:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article. | |||
| :These seem to be fairly recent. What was his authority in 1997 when this report was published? ] (]) 14:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:<br> | |||
| == RfC: Sources for ] == | |||
| 1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and<br> | |||
| 2. {{tq|1=Yemeni state-controlled media outlets}} wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets") | |||
| Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article. | |||
| <!-- ] 06:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1721368871}} | |||
| {{rfc|hist|bio|reli|rfcid=5D2313F}} | |||
| These two sources, among many others, are currently being used in the ] article. | |||
| *{{Cite book |last=Rodgers |first=Russ |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nOxXXwAACAAJ |title=The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah |date=2012 |publisher=University Press of Florida |isbn=978-0-8130-3766-0 |language=en}} | |||
| *{{Cite book |last=Rodinson |first=Maxime | authorlink=Maxime Rodinson|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ttPdDwAAQBAJ |title=Muhammad |date=2021 |publisher=New York Review of Books |isbn=978-1-68137-493-2 |language=en | origyear=1961 | translator-last1=Carter |translator-first1=Anne|series=NYRB Classics}} | |||
| Should both be replaced with other sources, thereby deeming these two sources unreliable? — ] ] 05:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ]: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used. <br> | |||
| :'''Oppose''' - Russ Rodgers' book is published by the ], and our ] policy states that "{{tq|Books published by university presses}}" are among "{{tq|the most reliable sources.}}" Rodgers is the command historian of the US Army and an adjunct professor of history. There are currently only two biographies of Muhammad written by ]: this Russ Rodgers' book and Richard A. Gabriel's book published by the ]. I believe their perspectives are crucial given that Muhammad's life after moving to Medina was filled with battles, including the ] (which ] from featured article status, apparently in part due to a lack of sources from military historians ). Rodgers' book has also been cited and reviewed positively by various other reliable sources (not just random blogspots or websites). As for Maxime Rodinson, he was for many years a professor at the ] at the Sorbonne and, after working several years in Syria and Lebanon, supervised the Muslim section of the ] in Paris . Some reviews of his book include . — ] ] 05:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ]: This is the version that Jav wants to keep | |||
| ::I think these sources are RS per wikipedia's definitions. If anything, attribution would help to put some context if not an obvious claim.] (]) 06:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see any problem with these sources. University of Florida Press and New York Review of Books are highly reliable sources. ] (]) 10:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''': Any claim that appears exclusively in one of these two books should not be included in the article without in-line attribution. These are popular works that don't generally engage with primary sources; there is no reason to believe that they make unique claims because of unique information. Muhammad is the subject of thousands of books. Very rarely is it productive to discuss claims in terms of their sourcing in such an article, because anything that deserves inclusion will be replicated across many valid options. You guys seem to be fighting over specific content. Each conflict should be an RFC on the Muhammad talk page (post notices wherever) with however many sources, arguments exist for each side. Don't waste everyone's time trying to win narrow and presumably well-sourced content disputes by end-running on process. ] (]) 13:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The UF Press book doesn’t look like a pop-history coffee table book. ] (]) 01:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand): | |||
| Muhammad was a historical figure, like Napoleon, Buddha, ], Joan of Arc. As such, the highest quality material we should be using are academic books published by historians because they are written by experts, and go through extensive peer review, and are written a very neutral and factual manner. Thus they typically represent the best sources. If you look at FA quality pages on figures such as ] or ] they extensively use university press published works. The second book is published by the ], which is a publisher I am less familiar with and am not sure about the quality, but it appears to be less academic. So it may present slanted information. On any article with any kind of hotly debated or controversial topic, we should rely more on the highest quality sources (typically academic books by university presses) more and more. ] (]) 07:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved: | |||
| * | |||
| ''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think New York Review of Books or ] was the original publisher of '']'', that was probably something French. ] (]) 09:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in ''The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast'' (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. also seems to be a relevant document. ] (]) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Close RfC''' We have absolutely no context on why the books might be unreliable at the first place. I have read Rodinson and his views, though scholarly, are now-antiquated; so, it becomes a question of DUE. ] (]) 10:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|1=There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle}}<br>]?<br>{{tq|1=citing Portuguese records}}<br>That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above ''']]''' 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>'''Replace''' - Russ Rodgers is a U.S. army military historian and not an Islamicist or any authority on ]. The University Press of Florida is indeed a reliable source but as Harizotoh9 noted, we should use the highest-quality sources as possible. Rodgers' most famous book is Nierstein and Oppenheim 1945 about World War II and he has written only around 3 books related to Islam. As i highlighted on the article's ], people like ] (an Israeli political scientist who is known to be an anti-Arab and Islamophobic person), Russ Rodgers (a U.S. Army military historian), Ram Swarup (an Indian leader of the Hindu revivalist movement), William E. Phipps (a ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are nowhere close to ]. This article should contain the work of classical Islamicists and Orientalists such as ]. I'm actually surprised how dedicated orientalists like Watt have so less citations now than people like Bukay, Rodgers etc. FA articles such as ], ], ], ], all of whom are controversial figures between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims, but nevertheless these articles are written neutrally neither from a Shia point of view nor a Sunni point of view and having reliable orientalists and Islamicists such as ], ], ], ], ], ] and not anti-Arab political scientists, Hindu revivalists or U.S. military historians. ] (]) 11:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)</s><small> {{smallcaps|Sockstrike}} <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿ ] (] ])</span> 21:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--] (]) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Bossip == | |||
| * '''Comment'''. As others have said, the New York Review of Books is not the original publisher of Rodinson. The book was originally published in French in 1961 and subsequently published in English (translation by Anne Carter). The New York Review of Books has reprinted the book. I've updated the citation to clarify the situation. I can't speak to its reliability, but sixty years is a long time in academic publishing on a major topic. ] ] 11:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * These sources have been the subject of contention since late 2023. For context for those unfamiliar, back in 2023, Kaalakaa decided to rewrite the Muhammad article, using primarily the two books mentioned in this RfC for references. On the talkpage, the reaction to Kaalakaa's rewrite and to these sources has been mixed to say the least. I don't really think anybody other than Kaalakaa would object if the article was reworked to rely less on or remove these sources, but the fundamental issue is that nobody seems to be able/willing to do this (I don't feel comfortable doing this due to lacking in depth knowledge of the source material) leading to people just arguing in circles. Does anyone have recommendations for recent up to date scholarly biographies of Muhammad? ] (]) 12:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Nourerrahmane|M.Bitton|R. Prazeres}} might have thoughts. ] (]) 12:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Bad RFC''' This completely ignores both the instructions in the noticeboard header and the edit notice. Discussions should take place before starting an RFC. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Discussions have taken place, examples include | |||
| *:*] | |||
| *:*] | |||
| *:*] | |||
| *:*] | |||
| *:An rfc doesn't seem like a glaringly WP-bad idea. ] (]) 13:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Sure, but no discussions at this board. ] (]) 13:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Is that a "must"? Anyway, ]. ] (]) 13:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::That's better, still, looking at that and then this, seems more like a discussion that ought to be at the article talk page, along the lines of what are ] for the subject. ] (]) 13:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::This matches my opinion, this appears to be about what sources to use and what content should be included in the article.<br> Also the question of this RFC {{tq|Should both be replaced with other sources, thereby deeming these two sources unreliable?}} is a non sequitur, using different sources in the article would not 'deem' these sources as unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Discussion of sources by all means, don't need an RFC for that.] (]) 13:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Russ Rodgers' claims "about military history" may or may not be reliable (since he's a military historian), but whatever he has to say about other scholarly subjects regarding Muhammad is obviously irrelevant. Maxime Rodinson's book was published in 1961, which makes it unsuitable for claims that have since been superseded and redundant for everything else. ] (]) 17:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Replace''' Rodgers because it's a ] source. The OP is the only person in past discussions on ] who considers the Rodgers book reliable, because he assumes, wrongly, that merely being published by a university press is a rubber-stamp of reliability, and that parroting the words from ] is justification for including it. That is emphatically not the case. While publication by a university press is a good indicator of reliability, it is by no means infallible, because ] deliberately. This is one example. Rodgers is the only source available for certain extraordinary claims about Muhammad, and extraordary claims require extraordinary evidence, such as multiple corroborating sources. He seems to be more of a hobbyist author with an interest in history, and his book is ignored by academia with very few citations to that book. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *:Just for an information, @Hydrangeans appears to have shown that @Anachronist's ] contradicts the sources used in it . And @Just Step Sideways and @AndyTheGrump agree that the essay "{{tq|belongs in user space}}" . @AndyTheGrump also put @Anachronist's understanding of ] into question . Furthermore, if one looks at the ], many statements cited to Rodgers also have supporting sources. Moreover, that Rodgers' book has also been cited and reviewed positively by various other reliable sources (not just random blogspots or websites). So this seems to be yet another instance of @Anachronist misunderstanding our policies and guidelines, aside from what has been listed . — ] ] 08:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': it is important to distinguish three kinds of reporting in these, and all other sources about the prophet Muhammad: | |||
| **Objective statements that are not disputed (eg Muhammad ordered raids on Meccan caravans) | |||
| **Objective statements that are disputed (eg Muhammad recited the ]) | |||
| **Subjective statements (any statement that seeks to pass any kind of judgement on Muhammad) | |||
| *It goes without saying any statements that fall in the latter two categories should always be attributed and not stated in wikivoice. Whether these statements belong in the main article ], or subarticles like ] depends on weight and editorial discretion about what constitutes encyclopedic material.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*'''Comment''': On the second kind of report, It does seem like Rodgers at times misrepresented the primary sources he quotes. One example is, On page 145, he uses a statement by members of Banu Qurayza: | |||
| *:'''"We have no treaty with Muhammad"''' | |||
| *:as proof that no treaty had taken place. His source was Sirat Ibn Ishaq page 453. But when actually reviewing Sirat Ibn Ishaq, it is made clear that this was a satirical statement. To use it as actual historic proof for his narrative seems quite like deliberate distortion. ] (]) 06:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hello. I am debating on improving the "]" article for a possible ] nomination. I have a question about a potentials source. Would '']'' be considered reliable and high-quality enough for the FAC process (or for Misplaced Pages in general)? I would be using the following source: . The page says that the site has earned awards in the past and has been mentioned in various reliable sources. I am hesitant about it as ''Bossip'' is a "gossip" website. Apologies if this site was already discussed before, and thank you for any help and insight on this. ] (]) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose - vague RFC, no specified flaws and no proposed edits shown''' - WP should mention all the major views and these appear to be prominent ones. The RFC has just not shown an article cite where any of the ] principles are deficient, let alone such sweeping removal for 100+ cites, nor any basis to believe there are replacements for those 100+ cites. For example, in one place is a mention that Rodgers infers something and in that ] it seems obvious that a Rodgers book is the best cite. Without reasons to change and without actual edits proposed I'd say clearly no. Try one-by-one and not a vague unfounded want. Cheers ] (]) 00:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Rodgers' views are far from "prominent", in fact they stand out as extraordinary claims unsupported by other sources. ~] <small>(])</small> 01:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks marginally reliable to me. Like it's not great. But by the standards of pop culture media it's not as bad as it might be. ] (]) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose'''. I'd have to read both books, and be more familiar with general scholarship about Muhammad, to really have a strong opinion. But the books both have the imprimatur of respectable publishing houses. They look very usable. Even if they express minority-held views, they're still of value, because showing our readers multiple scholarly points of view on Muhammad is a good thing, not a bad thing. If the concern is that the books are over-cited in the Muhammad article, I think it's better to achieve due balance by adding more sources, or by putting more information in the article from previously-cited sources, not by removing sources. ] (]) 01:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for the response. That is fair. I had a similar opinion about to be honest. If I do decide to work on this article in the future, I may use other sources first and then see if this one would even be necessary in the end or not. For the purposes of a FAC, which has stricter requirements for sources, it may not be the best option for that context. ] (]) 19:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *With respect only to the Rodgers source, the author bio blurbed by the publisher got me wondering what being a "command historian for the US Army" means, which led me to which indicates that for the most part they're history PhDs and only some are mentally handicapped. I didn't find many reviews of Rodgers 2012, but by a self-described "Islamicist" found it impressive and better than expected if sometimes speculative, and specifically praised its incorporation of hadith materials. The Rodgers source is TWL-accessible and while the ten-page bibliography feels scant at first blush, apparently the entire enterprise is a more accessible extension of an earlier Rodgers work, '''' (2008), which according to the publisher's blurbed reviews, has excellent sourcing, which we can believe the author did not forget about entirely in the course of the production of the 2012 book.{{pb}}Having said that, this whole RFC feels off, with a framing intended to produce blanket approval for the sources listed, where the issue in practice appears to be an imbalance of sourcing (my bystander take, having not edited articles citing these sources, unless perhaps in forgotten gnoming). Add to that an arbcom case request (my route to here) filed by the RFC initiator against an editor who has taken issue with the use of these sources, and my feeling is mostly '''bad RFC'''. ] (]) 11:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :What exactly would 'Before she was the illest female in her Dillard’s department, Amil was the illest in all of Hip-Hop, making $40K/guest verse as the Roc’s first lady? Riiiiiiiight.' be used to source? ] (]) 20:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Oh incidentally I was not able to confirm anything about University Press of Florida's peer review process a decade and a half ago, although Internet Archive have a fairly complete snapshot of The earliest snapshot of their editorial board is Then, as now, they have several historians on the board, including at least one named chair, which I always like to visualise as a literal named chair. Of course, that any of them concentrate in mediaeval Islamic texts is an improbability, but anyway I'm not sure if I have a point to make. ] (]) 12:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: It would be used as a negative review for the song as it is criticizing Amil's lyrics. ] (]) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' There are plenty of academics who devote their careers to studying Muhammad, and even more historical specialists in the field of the Middle East in Late Antiquity. Russ Rodgers is not one of them. His work seems to be well-regarded, so it's probably good to use for the narrow field of analyzing Muhammad's military command, but little else. I wouldn't call it unreliable, but it's overused in our current article. The Rodinson source shouldn't be used at all. Historical knowledge and methods have changed a lot since 1961, there's no reason to use a source that old except in the few fields where nothing more recent has been published. ] (]) 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah. The use of slang isn't the issue here. Reliability isn't a register of specific vocabulary. I suppose the question would be whether, Amil was, in fact, making $40,000 per guest verse previously. Should they be reporting that factual statement accurately and should they have a decent history of accuracy in reporting and clarity in corrections when they make an error then the rest is just aesthetics. ] (]) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It wouldn't be reported in the article as a factual statement. The "$40,000 per guest verse" bit is part of the song's lyrics and would be addressed in that context, not as an absolute fact. ] (]) 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems pretty odd if not outright illogical to use a gossip website if you're going to bring this to FAC. The typical reviewer there expects the '''''cream of the crop''''' of sources, not tabloid gossip. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Read some of the articles on the site and it's overly unserious and pretentious BS; my advice is to not use this source. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Okay. Thank you for the response. I agree with your assessment. I have removed it from the article. I am honestly not sure why I used it in the first place. I just thought that it would be beneficial to open a discussion about it here to get further feedback. I believe my question has been answered, and hopefully this can be used to help any other editors in the future. ] (]) 02:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Science-fiction fanzines == | |||
| == erenow.org == | |||
| Pages at erenow.org are . When I tried to view one of those sources, I got some odd website behavior that made me think the domain had been hijacked. I can't find archive.org versions of all of those cites. Before I remove the ones that I can't replace with archived urls, could someone else validate whether there is really a problem with that domain or it's just me? ] ] 15:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm seeing no issues with the website. I followed the links in the first five articles in the search results at your link, all without any problems. I searched the site using it's internal search engine for "Canada" and "Malta" and viewed the first three hits for each, again without any problems. I didn't check whether the articles verified what they were being used for, but the title did match in all cases where it was given. ] (]) 22:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the double-check, @], I must have browser issues or malware unrelated to the site. ] ] 22:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just in case, I've gone through and made sure archive.is has a copy of all 14 (although I've replaced 1 with a copy of the book at the Internet Archive library). Archive.org seems to be forbidden by the site's ] but archive.is doesn't respect that so it works. ] (]) 00:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggested additions == | |||
| Suggested additions to reliable source list | |||
| * ] (I was surprised it wasn't already there?) | |||
| * ] (also Aussie) | |||
| * ] (UK) | |||
| * ] | |||
| ] (]) 18:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Unless someone is disputing it, there is a presumption of reliability for well known newsorgs. ] (]) 18:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@], the ] list isn't a "reliable sources list". It just captures community consensus for sources that have been repeatedly questioned/discussed. ] ] 18:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As Schazjmd said, generally we don’t add things without there having been a discussion. RSP isn’t a complete list of RS, but an index and summary of previous discussions. | |||
| :In the case of France24, they are generally reliable but I did recently read a pro-Azerbaijan spin piece from them. No one’s perfect. | |||
| :Cheers, ] (]) 01:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Reliable sources from Africa == | |||
| Our perennial sources list seems to be missing an entire continent? They're are several huge English speaking countries in Africa, e.g. South Africa, surely we can find a few sources to include? ] (]) 18:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :They're assumed reliable if they have a reasonable editing policy and seem to be talking sense. They're only put in RSP if there's been questions about them a few times. ] (]) 18:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :See ] and ]. ] (]) 19:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem is that English Misplaced Pages has a lack of editors who are familiar enough with those sources to be able to make a determination. It's a known problem when writing articles about Africa among other under-represented regions. If you're interested in helping to correct this systemic bias, one good place I can think of to start is with WikiProjects. A bunch of the larger ones maintain lists of what they believe to be reliable sources for their topic area, such as ]. These don't have any official standing, but they're often a good starting point for discussions. It might be worth reaching out to either ] or other country-specific WikiProjects to set something up, since they have editors who understand and are interested in those regions and might be able to help come up with a list. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 18:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == The Mindway Corporation == | |||
| A friend of mine recently remarked that all mention of this organization seems to have been scrubbed from the web. Curious, I looked for them on Misplaced Pages, and found that archived webpages from them were used as refs on articles related to '90's industrial/electronic band ]. This is the context I would have expected, but Mindway Corporation was a fan club that sort of developed into a cult centered around the band. They probably should not be being used a source even for simple things like track listings, which I assume would be available elsewhere. (note that there are a few other organizations with the same or similar names that do not seem to be related to this group) ] ] 22:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Blue Virginia for ] == | |||
| Blue Virginia is a popular political blog covering Virginia politics written by Lowell Feld (arguably a subject-matter expert in Virginia politics) since 2005. I view Blue Virginia as a reliable (albeit biased) source that is self-published by a recognized expert so requiring ] in certain uses. | |||
| In addition to content written by him and a team of writers, they also provide daily news roundups with granular updates added by Feld in the comments (see for example, yesterday's ), arguably a limited form of coverage. These comments are used extensively in Virginia political articles as citations for endorsements (see for example, ]). | |||
| ] requires that for endorsements by individuals, they should "only include endorsements which have been covered by ] ] sources". | |||
| While Blue Virginia/Feld is reliable and (in most cases) independent of the candidates/endorsers involved, is simply reposting endorsements is sufficient coverage to meet the ] standard or should such endorsements be removed? | |||
| (FWIW: I think ] should be adjusted so that endorsements from notable figures in a district can be included with reliable sourcing even if not independent, but I am not sure how or where to go about getting consensus for such a change.) ] (]) 14:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Field appear to be an subject matter expert per ], so would be reliable for non-BLP content. I don't see that simply reposting endorsements would be secondary coverage. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm a bit skeptical on using Blue Virginia () for BLP content. Its stated goal is to be a ] with the goal of electing a specific type of Democrat. It could be run by an SME (I don't have time to dig in on that). But, even if it were run by an SME, "X endorsed candidate Y" is ''almost always'' going to be making a claim about a living person when the endorsement is in the context of a U.S. House race, so that sort of exception seems inapplicable here. | |||
| :If the website is merely re-hosting some sort of press release, then one could reliably cite the original press release as such, and use <code>via=</code> field to identify the source. But the existence of a release is not sufficient for inclusion under ], which requires that {{tq|Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been ''covered by reliable independent sources''}}. After all, {{tq|simply reposting endorsements}} is plainly not independent coverage of the endorsement itself. | |||
| :<small>(As an aside, if a single partisan political group blog is the only place covering a particular endorsement—even if the endorsement was made by a notable person—it's probably not something that belongs in an article for reasons that proceed from the principle of ]. That being said, such a determination may well be outside the scope of the reliable sourcing noticeboard and might be better handled on the talk page of ].)</small> | |||
| :— ] <sub>]</sub> 03:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Daily Tribune == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| I am concerned with the reliability of this source https://lifestyle.tribune.net.ph/nhcp-celebrates-90-years-gears-up-for-centennial/ | |||
| Kindly comment whether the source is reliable or not. Thanks | |||
| Best ] (]) 16:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The source is used in the linked article https://en.wikipedia.org/Bataan_Provincial_Building ] (]) 16:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The Daily Tribune appears to be a standard ], the lifestyle section may not have as much editorial oversight as the news section but I see no reason it shouldn't be reliable. I do wonder if the content it's supporting in the article is due, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the building. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Predatory journal for ] == | |||
| {{User|Elspamo4}} keeps reinstating a citation to a predatory journal in ], e.g. . | |||
| The so-called "American Journal of Environmental Engineering" (why an American journal would accept a Qatari submission is already a red flag) is published by ], one of the more horrendous predatory publishers out there. | |||
| This is not a reputable source, nor a peer-review outlet, and the defense , does not make this paper reliable. | |||
| I move that this paper is purged from Misplaced Pages, just like any other SAPUB papers, per ]. | |||
| If it's true that the Doha Corniche "role as a gathering place, often referred to as the "urban ]", is integral to Doha's identity and social fabric", then there will be other, actually reliable sources, that will talk about it. | |||
|  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 20:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I've decided to self-revert since you raise a very good point that a non-predatory source should be easily found for such general statements about a prominent landmark. I won't re-add this reference or journal. ] (]) 21:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see if this is a predatory journal. I see some blog websites talking bout SAP, but not better sources on it. Perhaps I am missing something. If it is predatory, it does not hurt in finding another source like a magazine or article saying similar things. It is getting harder to track these publishers.] (]) 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::SAPUB is obviously predatory . It's a junk outlet with fake impact factors. There's a reason we have them on our edit filter list.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 21:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there a reason why a source by a subject-matter expert published predatorily is not considered reliable, when an expert’s self-published source is? (Not necessarily related to this particular case). <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 15:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Theoretically a SME could publish in a predatory journal and be considered reliable, it would be judged as a self-published source. So per ] they would need to have been published as a SME in the relevant field by other reliable independent sources first. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == metalshockfinland == | |||
| Is the site a RS for heavy metal and/or biographies of musicians? The source of the dispute rests in ] where an editor argues the source is a “respected source of info” and it is . ] (]) 22:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As an aside, as I'm unsure on the reliability question, the particular article mentioned in the AfD is an interview so wouldn't count towards notability as it's not independent of the subject. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == liverpool daily post == | |||
| is this source reliable? it is used for a dyk nom and according to its respective article, it is a tabloid. more info ]. thanks! ] <sub><small>]</small></sub> 08:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :From 1966 and for football coverage I'd say yes, it was one of the two local newspapers in Liverpool at the time. I wouldn't say the article referenced counts as the type of 'tabloid journalism' Misplaced Pages is concerned about. ] (]) 08:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it's reliable generally speaking. Not a tabloid in the sense of our rules.--] (]) 21:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == PubPeer as (additional) source == | |||
| ] is a postprint peer review website with ]. It came up four times in the archives . | |||
| This discussion ends with ] saying: "Clear exclude unless this gets picked up by other sources like ] or something like an expression of concern is published." | |||
| Earlier, ] also wrote : "When academics complain about peer review I don't think that it is a rejection of review entirely, it is simply that having a public review of a paper where many people can contribute like PubPeer is better, rather than only a few reviewers." | |||
| A concrete case in which this source has come up again is a BLP of an academic : a journal has issued an official statement of redundant publication and there is more information on PubPeer, posted by an anonymous user, but which is verifiable. Someone at ] suggested asking advice here. Perhaps @] can weigh in? | |||
| My reading is that this particular ''combination'' of sources is sufficient (after all, what more sources can one expect to find in a case like this?), which aligns with the archived post, but is there consensus on this? ] (]) 10:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As explained to you by mutiple editors at BLP/N, PubPeer is ruled out by ] and the original journal statement is ruled out by ]. It is true that "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source", but you don't have the reliable secondary source which is essential for this debate to even begin. ] (]) 10:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] suggested asking about it here, which is what I did. PubPeer has come up a few times, so it would be helpful to have a general view on this, also for other cases. ] (]) 11:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::]: it looks like you have a resounding NO ] on two fora. Sorry for the delayed response; work is nonstop and this little farm needed me more. Cheers! ] (]) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :My opinion is the same as last time. Comments made in PubPeer are self-published and not appropriate as sources. It is not enough for sources to merely exist, they must demonstrate that the issue is significant enough to warr mentioning in the bio.ant ] (]) 12:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Not reliable as it's user generated content, so it can't be used for any verification purposes. This is doubly so for BLP articles, where even ''if'' it was reliable it would still be unusable per ]/]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with the posters above, PubPeer is anonymous/pseudonymous, self-published user-generated content. I dont see any way in which this could be a ] even if some accounts can be linked to well known people. Basically no, PubPeer cannot be used as a source. --] 11:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == The South African (3rd time of asking) == | |||
| ''(Restored from unanswered archived)'': I have a question about ] as a reliable source. and it seems they have directly copied from our ] page. I remember last time I came across this, it resulted in an RFC that led to depreciation (]). So I'm fulfilling ] and asking here if we should consider it a RS if its hosting plagiarised content? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 18:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * A lot of their web content looks AI-generated. The "Furry Fun Fact of the Day" is not exactly fun, because it's about ]. And no human puts an exclamation mark on "''However, feline distemper has an unexpected quirk – some cats who survive the initial infection become lifelong carriers!"''. Unsurprisingly, at the bottom of the article ... "'''Artificial Intelligence assisted in compiling this article.'''" Meanwhile, a lot of the other "stories" are tabloid gossip and trivia . Probably needs a discussion to deprecate. ] 18:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **I suspected as much {{ping|Black Kite}}. That is why I wanted to hear from others because if it wasn't for RFCBEFORE, I'd have started a depreciation RFC right away. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 19:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: '']'' == | |||
| <!-- ] 23:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1721689276}} | |||
| {{rfc|media|rfcid=0D26DE0}} | |||
| What is the reliability of '']''? | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| -- ] (]) 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * {{linksummary|timesofindia.com}} | |||
| * {{linksummary|timesofindia.indiatimes.com}} | |||
| === Survey (''The Times of India'') === | |||
| *'''Option 3''' There's nothing to indicate the prior issues with paid coverage and bias have been cleared up, and the Munger article indicated a considerable lack of fact-checking - if it's AI-published, that's a cardinal sin of news media. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 22:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've removed my "/4" with respect to it being a paper of record, but I'm sticking at 3 - regardless of how widely-read it is, AI generation and/or poor fact-checking don't speak to reliability. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2''' ''Times of India'' is the world's largest English-language newspaper, and the largest in India. It is has some occasional problems, but there has been no systematic evaluation to show the problem is so severe as to eliminate 10s of thousands of citations on Enwiki. Most ToI links predate ChatGPT. -- ]] 00:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2''' As per GreenC.The Times of India has been published since 1838 and it is a ] there are only 2 Indian newspapers which can claim so.It has been India's most reliable newspaper for large part of the time. It is politically neutral not aligned to the right or the left unlike most other Indian newspapers. There are occasional problems, but there has been no systematic evaluation to show the problem is so severe as to eliminate 10s of thousands of citations on English Wiki.It is also India's most trusted English newspaper.] (]) 01:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Our article on TOI gives examples of promoting political coverage in exchange for pay--they may not have an explicit partisan affiliation to any one political party, but that doesn't mean they're neutral. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' This is an invaluable source. As other editors said, it's the largest English-language newspaper in the world, and the largest in India. I'd have to see a lot more bad things from them to consider option 3, and option 4 is completely off the table for me. ] (]) 04:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' I have to echo the above. Its usually been fairly good with its standard of reporting given its status but it does appear that recently there have been a few AI articles that have slipped under the editorial radar. Certainly nothing major to warrant depreciation but it is something worth keeping an eye on. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> ''']''' (])</span> 06:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' In the ] the TOI was judged to be somewhere between Option 2 and Option 3, mainly because of its poor fact-checking and the fact that it regularly runs paid advertorials and sponsored content that are not admitted to be as such (see ]). None of this appears to have improved at all, and when you add the issue of AI content into the mix then I can't see how it can be trusted, certainly for anything contentious. ] 09:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *It's cases like this where I wish there was an option 2{{1/2}}. Broadly speaking it is definitely pushing limits (in a bad way), but does not fit very well into the definition of general unreliability for some of the reasons laid out above. I think leaving it in '''option 2''' and assessing case-by-case makes better sense, though perhaps some sort of GUNREL post-''X'' year should be considered. ] (]) 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' I don't think it puts past citations in danger or requires deprecation, but the embrace AI when combined with the other problems puts it "over the top" for me. I would endorse Curbon's idea just above me about post-X year, but we'd have to debate just what X should equal, and until that's sorted out, I prefer discretion. ] (]) 16:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2/3''' - I agree with the general criticisms that have been voiced by others. The paper may be a historic paper-of-record in India, but as documented by our Misplaced Pages article about it, it's also arguably a big part of why English-language press in India is so terrible, whether through its embrace of corrupt pay-for-play practices or through anti-competitive pricing that drove away its competition (and now it's adding AI to the mix, apparently). In a sense it's a free-market mirror image of the situation we end up in with ''Xinhua''--it's one of the best major journalistic sources in the country, but that doesn't mean it's actually reliable or impartial to the extent that we would generally expect a newspaper of record to be. I have primarily encountered TOI's coverage of the Indian entertainment industry, and its average article on such topics is abysmal to such a degree that their content is typically indistinguishable from PR. That having been said, due to its readership, its opinions and perspectives will likely be DUE in many contexts to a degree that arguably outstrips its reliability for Wikivoice claims. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' for the time being, retaining the current considerations. It has many faults but also has useful uncontroversial content as well, imv ] (]) 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. The Times of India has a history of dodgy fact-checking, but hasn't quite sunken into tabloid territory. I think it's an alright source for uncontroversial information. However, it should not be used for anything contentious that isn't independently backed up. ] (]) 18:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. It has some dodgy qualities, which should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 20:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''', leaning ''Option 4''. If they can't even be bothered to do a simple fact check about Munger currently being alive or not, I'm not sure why we'd even use them as a source at this point. I understand they're the large newspaper as explained, but this is getting silly. They've almost fallen to the level of tabloid media where they make up stories about Elvis being alive. AI generation (declared or not) being published as fact is shameful. ] (]) 01:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2/3'''. While many of its old articles are good, it has become pro-government in the recent years though it still published about a number of incidents which the ruling government may not like. I don't see any reason to change the current consensus for this outlet. <span style="font-family:'forte'">] <b>(])</b></span> 10:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option #2''' The consideration for verifiability is expertise and objectivity with respect to the text which cited it. Also in our system which has a flaw in this are, the same classification is used for wp:weight in wp:npov and so knocking a major source in this area would also create a POV distortion. Which leads to that I'm against nearly all blanket deprecations/ overgeneralizations. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 10:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' The issues with undisclosed advertorials is already known and documented, an issue not confined to TOI or even the Indian news media. The AI issue becomes another problem to watch for, but I don't think it's enough to mark all it's content as unreliable. Caution should be used, and articles evaluated on a case by case basis. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Markets for news media the world over are being squeezed, so AI and the more profitable types of advertising (such as undisclosed advertorials) are becoming more prevalent. It's something editors will need to keep in mind when evaluating such sources, and make sure to double check anything exceptional or unexpected. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion (''The Times of India'') === | |||
| : {{small|{{re|Amigao}} Would you like to make this discussion a formal ]? If so, please apply the {{tl|rfc}} template immediately under the section header per ], and place a copy of your signature immediately after the four options to ensure that the RfC statement is {{xt|"neutral"}}, per ]. If not, please remove "RfC:" from the section heading. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 22:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :: Done. Thanks, {{u|Newslinger}} - ] (]) 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Previous discussion ] and at ] identified various issues with ''The Times of India''. Mostly recently, on 31 May 2024, TOI published an stating that the late ] (who died in 2023) was alive and making donations. Whether AI-generated or not, there was no fact-checking going on here and the article remains live as of this time stamp. - ] (]) 20:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The ''Times of India'' article claims that the published information was obtained from {{xt|"a report in the Insider"}}. Assuming that refers to '']'' {{rspe|Business Insider}}, which was rebranded as ''Insider'' from 2021 to 2023, the corresponding ''Business Insider'' article is , which states that {{xt|"Robert Hale Jr., the CEO of Granite Telecommunications"}}, was the actual person who made the donation to ] graduates. Hale is also described as the donor by {{rspe|Associated Press}}, '''', and many other outlets.{{pb}}As an example of inaccurate reporting, this reflects very poorly on ''The Times of India''. Munger's name is mentioned in the article 13 times and he was described as {{xt|"the vice-chairman of ]"}}, which shows that there was no confusion about Munger's identity. The article looks like a ] from a ]. I'd like to see if there are any more examples of this kind of error on TOI that establish a pattern of relying on ] reporting. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 00:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC) {{small|Edited 10:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| : {{small|Notified ] — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 10:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| == The Catholic Pope and the Canadian House of Commons == | |||
| If Pope Francis says there was a genocide at residential schools in Canada -- largely run by various Catholic orders -- and the House of Commons unanimously declares that there was was genocide at residential schools in Canada -- largely funded by the Canadian government -- is this RS enough to say that there was genocide at residential schools in Canada? ] (]) 19:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC): | |||
| :Not necessarily? It would be a bit odd to cite an off-the-cuff statement from a Pope on his plane and a House of Commons resolution for a claim of historical fact. But it is possible to use them for a statement like {{tq|both ] and the ] have described the events as genocide}} or something like that. There should be better sources if we're going to put it in WikiVoice. — ] <sub>]</sub> 19:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Both are opinions, and so should be attributed in text AS opinions. That said, both are noteworthy opinions that should be mentioned in the text. ] (]) 19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::''The legislative branch of government'' was unanimous. How does a branch of government have a personal opinion? But talk amongst yourselves. I need to go do some stuff. Btw the sources are not the problem. CBC and CTV are both respected newscasters. There are literally hundreds of others. And then there was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the medical officer in charge of the schools who was forced out of office for thinking there was a problem with so many children dying preventable deaths. What would a better source look like? ] (]) 19:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Government's declarations don't make historical fact, going down that route opens up all kinds of problems. What of declarations from the Russian, Turkish, or Sri Lankan goverments, or is it just governments we argue with on issues we agree with. This isn't the solution to deal with those that would deny the facts. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Their statements are potentially due with attribution, depending on RS coverage. However, we should (as always) prefer high quality peer reviewed texts from scholars. ] (]) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok. Journal articles it is. How many do you need and apart from peer-reviewed, do we care in what discipline? I'll crank up JSTOR tonight. And the requirement is that they describe this as a genocide? There are lots of those out there also. Scholar gives me 64,100 hits, but some of them will be about residential schools in the US. I really do have to go right now though. But in Canada, this is incontrovertible fact, over which the federal government is currently paying reparations. There really is no both-sides to this. ] (]) 20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I’m not familiar enough with the relevant discussions to make a definitive statement, and this would like be a question of due weight or title policy, not a question of reliability regarding some sources. What are you trying to do? ] (]) 20:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Based on certain podcasters and astroturf magazines, articles on the topic attract a constant stream of editors who insist that this did not happen. That the schools were just bringing civilization to backward people and everyone died all the time anyway in the 19th century. (Maybe, but a lot faster and younger in the schools). Editors who disagree are chided for being rude enough to think that a genocide might be a genocide. I am trying to discover how to get en-wikipedia to look at the sources on this. The usual reaction is to assume that this is a FRINGE notion when in fact it is Sandy Hook set against a historical background of institutionalized racism. It may need an RfC I guess, but I started here. My thinking was that the Catholic Church considers the pope infallible on Church matters. But I see why everyone is saying peer-reviewed. However I don't know how much more done the deal could be if the perpetrators agree that it happened. My ride is here and tapping his foot. ] (]) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I wasn’t aware of that, it’s rather unfortunate. I’m not sure on what measures already exist, but perhaps amping up the contentious topic restrictions might cut down on the worst disruptions? | |||
| ::::::You will probably need an RfC, particularly if you’re going for more than “x considers y to be z”. However, assuming there is a plethora of indisputably reliable sources, the rest is out of scope for this board. | |||
| ::::::PS: I’m not an expert on the catholic rules, but as far as I recall, ] is a bit more complicated than that. ] (]) 20:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not especially familiar with the topic myself but if the best relevant scholarship agrees it's genocide, then this would be genocide denialism you're dealing with and you can notify the fringe theories noticeboard to discussions pertaining to it (]). I would say the statements by the Canadian government and Catholic Church are relevant, but I'm reminded of something mentioned on our page about the ]. It mentions that the Rwandan constitution gives a death toll significantly higher than scholarly consensus. So that's probably a good illustration of how government statements can't necessarily be relied on too heavily as a source in themselves even when they're trying to make amends for a past genocide. ] (]) 02:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Good suggestion. I hadn't thought of that. ] (]) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Does westernstandard.news seem like a good source for this topic? I have my own opinion but I would prefer to hear yours. The sentence is: {{tq|In a statement, the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc First Nation reiterated their focus on the scientific work required but declined to discuss the $7.9 million allocation.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Services |first=Western Standard News |date=2024-05-09 |title=No bodies found after spending $8 million searching for bodies at Kamloops Residential School |url=https://www.westernstandard.news/news/no-bodies-found-after-spending-8-million-searching-for-bodies-at-kamloops-residential-school/54429 |access-date=2024-06-03 |website=Western Standard |language=en}}</ref>}} ] (]) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| I see the question of science fiction fanzines has come up many times in the archives. My question is fairly simple. Writer and translator Philippe Hupp, the founder of the Metz science fiction festival, sent a letter to ''PKD Otaku'', a sercon fanzine that is notable in the PKD community and is often referred to by PKD scholars, but is admittedly obscure in the grander scheme of things when it comes to reliable sources. (pp. 4-6), Hupp goes into some historical detail of his relationship with ] and how he was able to get him to speak at the festival in 1977, and provides important historical documents (correspondence, photos) that is reprinted with permission by ''PKD Otaku''. Currently, I'm citing this letter in an article about the festival to say some basic facts about the history. While Hupp and Metz have been covered by numerous reliable sources in France and elsewhere, I believe this kind of exclusive historical detail has only been revealed in ''PKD Otaku''. Is it acceptable for me to carefully cite this info from Hupp (it is, after all, about him and his relationship with PKD) and point to ''PKD Otaku'' as the source? The article I am working on, ], is currently on GAR, and it has been pointed out that this fanzine may not meet the criteria for a RS. It does have two editors, however, but I think it is safe to say it is self-published like most fanzines. It would be a shame for this historical information to be ignored. What is the best course of action? If it isn't acceptable to use as a primary source, I've thought that a brief mention of it in a footnote might be okay. Please let me know your thoughts. ] (]) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC: Social media analytic websites (e.g. ]) == | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1721351386}} | |||
| {{rfc|soc|media|rfcid=E059D9B}}<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>What is the reliability of social media analytic websites such as ], , and for verifying an online influencer's statistics? (Prior discussion at ])<br/><ul><li>'''Option 1: ]'''</li><li>'''Option 2: ]'''</li><li>'''Option 3: ]'''</li><li>'''Option 4: ]'''</li></ul><span id="LunaEclipse:1718744936969:WikipediaFTTCLNReliable_sources/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — <span style="background-color: #8ace00;">] <span style="color: black;"><sup>(])</sup></span></span> 21:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :If it's the only source available, and the facts are not controversial, and cited as being from Hupp's account of things, it seems fine to me. ] (]) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option 2''' For anything that can't be verified by the primary sources ('estimated revenue', 'views over time', 'subscription rate changes', or any kind of ranking) they shouldn't be considered reliable. This type of data is of value to the social media site (YouTube, Twitch, etc) and they wouldn't give it away, so third parties doing so should be considered cautiously. For anything else there is no reason ''not'' to use the primary sources, as they are likely to have more up too date and accurate information. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe it meets that criteria, however, I will revise it further to make sure that it does. ] (]) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option 3''' - I'm unconvinced that the methods are transparent enough to take these numbers seriously, nor am I convinced that our reliable sources are relying on these data. Opaque data sites should be guilty until proven innocent. I don't think they should be deprecated either; I believe there are exceptions and fringe cases where it does make sense to use them, but I'm just not confident that it's wide enough go for the next tier up. | |||
| :] (]) 23:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option 3''' but leaning ''Option 2''. These sites don't have the reputation the Alexa Internet did, but I have no reason to doubt they're making stuff up. Without any sort of discussion or critical review of their methods, I can't accept their rankings as the benchmark Alexa was. ] (]) 01:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Beebom.com == | |||
| == Al Jazeera - frequent factual errors == | |||
| I reviewed about half of the 76 articles (excluding videos, opinion articles, and live updates) that Al Jazeera submitted under their tag during the past two weeks. I included every error I identified, regardless of significance: | |||
| Beebom has been in a few discussions previously about reliability but they've had few responses. I'm asking about their reliability after in ] where their opinion is being used as fact ]. Issues below also make it difficult to establish reliability via ]. | |||
| * and | |||
| *: Claimed that {{tq|fourteen children were killed, as well as nine women}}. While this matches the initial figures put out by the the al-Aqsa hospital, this is false. The hospital issued an update hours later, correcting the figures to nine children and three women. | |||
| *: The first of these articles was likely published before the update was issued, but we would expect a reliable source to issue a correction. Further, the second was published ''after'' the correction was issued, and ''after'' . | |||
| * | |||
| *: Claims the Second Intifada {{tq|started off largely nonviolent}}. This is false. It began on 28 September 2000 when Ariel Sharon visited Temple Mount, and on the first day 25 Israeli police officers were wounded, and least three Palestinians. The second day it escalated further, with widespread rioting that left seven Palestinians dead and three hundred wounded, along with 70 Israeli police officers. | |||
| * | |||
| *: Claims that before fighting begun while Israeli forces were still moving into position Israel started bombing the area, {{tq|hitting the busy market the hardest}}. They also say that the intent was likely to {{tq|spread as much panic as possible, as well as inflict maximum casualties}}. This is false: The problematic nature of this falsehood is exacerbated by the partisan spin they put on the story in regards to the intent. | |||
| * | |||
| *: Incorrectly claims that on Misplaced Pages edit wars are considered vandalism, along with other similar mistakes. | |||
| * | |||
| *: Claims the GDP of the G7 is $40.27 trillion, making up 40% of global GDP, with the source being www.g7italy.it. The site contains no claims about GDP, and the real figure appears to be , making up . This contains two issues; publishing incorrect information, and making false claims about the source of the information - in this case, the latter is far more concerning. | |||
| * | |||
| *: Claims the Palestinian Ministry of Health (aka ]) says that 15,000 children have died. This is false; . Few sources have reported the 15,000 figure, but it appears to have instead come from the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education and Higher Education. (, ) | |||
| * | |||
| *: Claims Hamas {{tq|accepted an Egyptian-Qatari proposal}}. However, after this was initially announced, and well before this article was published, | |||
| * | |||
| *: Claimed South Africa {{tq|has condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine}}. This is false; South Africa has . The closest it came was a demand that Russia "immediately" withdraw issued at the start of the invasion, but that is not a condemnation, and even if it were it would mean that this statement is "merely" highly misleading. | |||
| * | |||
| *: Claimed Israel {{tq|closed the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt}}. This is technically true, but it is highly misleading; Israel shut the crossing when they first took control of it | |||
| * | |||
| *: Claimed Israel has {{tq|sealed shut the vital Rafah border crossing with Egypt}}. This, unlike the similar statement above, is false; the border is "sealed shut" because of Egypt, not because of Israel. | |||
| This suggests that at least a third of Al Jazeera's articles on this topic have factual issues, although the total is likely to be much higher as I expect I missed most errors even within the articles I did review. | |||
| I'm not familiar enough with Beebom to know their overall reporting but I've come across issues. | |||
| It is possible that some of these are included because of errors on my part rather than on Al Jazeera, but unless most are I don't believe we can't consider this source reliable in this topic area; there are too many errors, and too many significant errors. ] (]) 12:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * They don't have a masthead so I don't know who their writers are or what their expertise is. The most they have is an with a few higher roles not in editorial and then two editors without any information. This makes it difficult to establish their level of independence and editorial control. A previous RS discussion pointed out some of their content being written by "Beebom Staff" which is still the case but not often. | |||
| ===General discussion=== | |||
| * Their are limited and don't disclose important information. For example, they don't state a separation of ads from editorial. They don't mention here the affiliate programs they're in or the sponsorship deals they do. They don't mention their Beebom Gadgets storefront where they sell phones and make videos on them. However, they disclose having an Amazon affiliate program in their . But they don't disclose the other "affiliate partners" they use. These issues brings into question conflicts of interest which they don't have a policy on. Alongside other basic guidelines like a corrections policy or how they handle accepting samples (if they do). | |||
| * Regarding the last two, I can see multiple reliable sources claiming that the Rafah crossing is shut because of Israeli military activity there (i.e. ), or at the very least report that this is what Egypt claims is the case, or that Israel and Egypt blame each other for the situation. So that one certainly isn't as cut and dried as "It remains shut because of Egypt". | |||
| **A 2016 interview explains that they make money from sponsored posts and partnerships. This isn't included in their editorial guidelines. I bring it up since they feature this interview on their About Us page, but Misplaced Pages blocks links to the interviewer's site, YourStory. | |||
| * Also in the "''Claims the Palestinian Ministry of Health (aka Palestinian Ministry of Health - Gaza) says that 15,000 children have died.''", I can find no reference to that claim in the link provided. | |||
| **They as "#sponsored" 5 years ago but stopped. It seems they now use a byline named "Partner Content" for those articles. But they don't mention anything about a sponsorship or partnership in their latest article under this byline. Nor is there anything about this in their policies. So I can't confirm if they do this for all paid content or not. | |||
| * Also, are we really ragging on a source because they don't understand how Misplaced Pages bureaucracy works? ''Most'' RS don't, we've seen that repeatedly over the years. ] 12:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I tried looking into their gaming coverage after seeing them on the ] page and found a where they deliberately lie. The headline is, "Black Myth: Wukong Is Now the Most Played Steam Game of All Time", which they almost immediately state isn't true. While also stating "Yes, Black Myth Wukong is now the most-played Steam game of all time!" This makes me question their overall fact checking and reliability when they lie in a news headline. | |||
| *: Regarding the last two, outside of headlines (which, per ], are unreliable), the Washington Post source doesn't claim that Israel closed the crossing; it merely says it was {{tq|closed}}, and that {{tq|The United States, Egypt and Israel are in talks to reopen the crossing}}. | |||
| *: Regarding the Palestinian Ministry of Health, look at the infographic in the section "What did Israel do in Gaza?" | |||
| *: Regarding Misplaced Pages bureaucracy, I did consider that the least concerning, and was tempted to exclude it - I only didn't because I decided I should provide everything I found, and allow editors to decide for themselves what is and isn't significant. ] (]) 12:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{Moved discussion to|]|2=] (]) 13:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :A substantive and lengthy discussion, ], only a couple months ago, did not lead to any change in WP assessment of this source. It included this early comment from opener: | |||
| :"We’ve seen this before with Al Jazeera; in the last discussion I presented evidence of them declining to retract false claims about the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion after fresh information emerged.This isn’t the behaviour we expect of a reliable source; we don’t expect them to be perfect, but we do expect them to be transparent and own up to their mistakes. I think it’s past time to consider Al Jazeera as "additional considerations apply", at least on the topic of the Israeli-Arab conflict." | |||
| :Given this background, it would seem desirable that opener set a formal RFC on the question. ] (]) 12:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given that this is the first systematic review of the source in this topic area I felt informal initial discussion was better than jumping into an RfC, in line with ]. It has also been suggested we should consider it on three topics: | |||
| ::#Israel-Palestine conflict | |||
| ::#Topics related to the Qatari government | |||
| ::#General topics | |||
| ::Since only the first of these has had such a review I don't think we are ready for an RfC. ] (]) 12:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I can't find much mention of Beebom aside from their own social media on google. Even after removing their social media, I can't find anything. ] (]) 02:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion of specific examples=== | |||
| ====Rafah Border Crossing==== | |||
| {{Moved discussion from|]|2=] (]) 13:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| * Yes, the literal headline of the WaPo article is "''With Rafah crossing closed by Israel...''", but the article doesn't contradict that. I still can't see a figure 15,000 in the infographic, though I am behind a heavy firewall so something might be getting blocked. ] 12:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *: If it helps you find it; the figure is in small text, beneath large text saying "37,202". | |||
| *: The article also doesn't support it, and if you look at articles like Egypt makes it clear it is refusing to open it; {{tq|The Rafah border crossing critical to aid deliveries into Gaza from Egypt cannot operate again unless Israel relinquishes control and hands it back to Palestinians on the Gaza side, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said on Monday.}} ] (]) 12:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: "The Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt has been shut since Israeli troops seized its Palestinian side in early May". ] (]) 12:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::: That's true; it was closed after Israeli troops seized the Palestinian side. The coverage in that article is limited to that; it makes no claim about who closed it or why it is still closed. The issue with Al Jazeera is that it does make such a claim, blaming Israel, but sources make it clear that the reason it can't reopen under the current circumstances is because Egypt won't let it. | |||
| *::: However, the entire discussion seems to be getting bogged down over this one example; even if I am incorrect about it and it is a genuine matter of dispute, there are many others. ] (]) 13:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::: It then says that there are talks between US, Israel and Egypt to reopen with no progress. | |||
| *::::Seems like a simple cause effect, if Israel had not taken the crossing, it would be open now. ] (]) 13:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::That's the article provided by Black Kite. And yes, that's true, although reductionist and misleading - but Al Jazeera didn't make the claim, it made the claim that Israel had {{tq|sealed shut the vital Rafah border crossing with Egypt}}. | |||
| *:::::Regardless, I'm going to step back from discussing that specific example now; I don't think we're making progress, and I don't want us to get too bogged down in that one that we forget about the others. ] (]) 13:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Do you have a source that says Israel has not sealed shut the border crossing? You said it was false and that it was Egypt but provided no source. ] (]) 13:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::So much for stepping back. I've split this out so that at least it shouldn't be too distracting. | |||
| *:::::::Including the two I've already provided: | |||
| *:::::::# | |||
| *:::::::# | |||
| *:::::::# | |||
| *:::::::# | |||
| *:::::::# | |||
| *:::::::# | |||
| *:::::::# | |||
| *:::::::There is no way to accurately interpret this as Israel is solely to blame, and has "sealed" the crossing. Reviewing these additional sources it could be interpreted as multiple parties, including Israel, are to blame - but that isn't the claim that Al Jazeera made. ] (]) 13:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :What a waste of editors time. Reading https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-69012303 I suppose there is a row over who is to blame at the Rafah crossing. But honestly considering what has happened at the other crossings controlled by Israel are we actually supposed to believe Israel isn't effectively blocking this one as well? In that BBC article it talks about a full blown famine in northern Gaza. ] (]) 12:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::My call - all of this is WP:RECENTISM. It’s a war zone. That certain crossings or areas are currently inaccessible isn’t surprising or noteworthy. Next week it will be some other crossing or some other area. NOT NEWS! ] (]) 12:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Reasonable call on the face of it but...this is all linked to the aid/starvation issue -> no crossings = no aid = starvation. ] (]) 13:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:38, 7 January 2025
Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 910, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462
Additional notes:
Shortcuts- RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
- While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
- This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.
Indie Vision Music
Indie Vision Music has been used as a reliable source for Christian music articles since at least 2013 (that's the furthest back I can trace its usage, and it's a revision by me when several editors including myself were overhauling WP:CM/S. We were double-checking each other's work, and discussed many of the sources, but we didn't feel the need to exhaustively discuss every source.)EDIT: see this talk discussion --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC) At the time, Indie Vision Music had a Misplaced Pages article, which then was later deleted - something I supported, but in that discussion I mentioned that I deemed it reliable, just not notable. For a lot of Christian music, it is an invaluable source as often, especially in the indie and metal genres. There's scant coverage in more generalist publications outside of the CCM/Christian rock/Christian metal niche, so it's often one of 3 or 4 sources in which one can find accessible coverage. Graywalls asked me to bring this here because they are unsure of the reliability of the site. It certainly has a reputation for reliability, as it is referenced/utilized by reliable sources such as Cross Rhythms (this - 2015, this - 2018, and this - 2018 as examples; this from 2016 is about the record label operated by the media outlet, but it explicitly calls the site "well regarded"), The Phantom Tollbooth - 2005, Manteca Bulletin (here, 2010), Arrow Lords of Metal - 2022, referencing a 2013 interview article and HM (here in 2013, here in 2013, here in 2022). I've excluded reprints of press releases for these examples. Cross Rhythms and HM are among the most reputable and well-known sources for Christian music, the latter being the prime journalism outlet regarding Christian hard rock and metal music.
The site founder, Brandon Jones, and another writer, Lloyd Harp, both also write for HM as well (Jones since 2017 and Harp since at least 2009 2007) and thus have credentials outside IVM. There are multiple writers for the site besides those two individuals, which I believe satisfies the having a writing and editorial staff. The concern from Graywalls is, I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) the professionalism of the team and if the site owner practices actual editorial oversight over his writers (to quote them, "If you and I were both auto enthusiasts who track race together and we buddy up with you being the writer and me being the editor, that's not sufficient to make our web zine as a WP:RS with editorial oversight "). Though there are multiple staff writers, especially over the past two decades, Brandon lists himself for contact and doesn't list the writers. So I can understand part of the concern. I will note that there is one writer who is also a member of several bands (they might also be a Misplaced Pages editor and thus at this juncture I won't name them so they're not outed - it was actually that COI that prompted Graywalls to bring up the issue of if IVM is reliable), and thus of course would be unreliable for coverage of those bands, same as Doug Van Pelt, the founder of HM, is unreliable for coverage of Lust Control (because he's a member of it), except for as statements from the band themselves. Given the above reputation, I don't personally see warrant for this suspicion. IVM functions the same as other online metal sources deemed RS, such as No Clean Singing (which is predominantly a team of three) and MetalSucks. The blog format is how most of these sites function now, including HM. Indeed, Brandon Jones mentions in his site bio that the site wasn't always a blog format and they adopted that structure for the site because that was what became practical in the mid-2000s. The site also operated/s a record label, but that I'm considering separate issue as that doesn't establish reliability. I'd also stress that any artist published via the Indie Vision Label would thus present a COI with IVM news/review coverage of that artist and should not be used other than for statements about the artist themselves.
The TL;DR - Indie Vision Music has been used on Misplaced Pages for over a decade, has multiple writers under a site owner, has been used by other, more mainstream sources as a source, even called by one of them "well regarded", and both the owner and another writer write for a magazine that is a prime source for the subject niche. However, another writer has a COI with some artists, the website operated/s a music label which could have some COI issues with specific artists, and an editor has questioned, due to the one COI issue and the blog structure of the site, whether actual editorial oversight is practiced.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- The real question comes to is the editorial process compared to that of the Time Magazine, or is it more along that of two well known and popular, but generally unusable Forbes Contributors and Huffington Post contributors sources?
- Many of the writers in IVM articles are band members, rather than professionally trained journalists.
- Things to be addressed here are:
- What sort of things can it be relied on for factual accuracy?
- Is it of any use at all for establishing notability and if so, for what?
- 3family6 said it's reliable because it's in the Christian Metal list, but they did acknowledge they are more or less the lone curator of that list, so that list should perhaps be seen similarly as a blog or a personal website. Graywalls (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- to clarify, currently I'm essentially the sole contributor, that was not the case 10 years ago when the list was created. And I last found the discussion, see below
- Ah- I found the talk page discussion where this source along with a lot of others were added. multiple editors were involved and approved that listing--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is what the site's staff page looked like when it was added to WP:CM/S. I'm pinging editors who were either involved in the discussion of adding the sources (which included IVM) or who have otherwise been - or are now active 11 years later - in WikiProject Christian music (and who are still active - sadly, a couple accounts got banned for socking unrelated to this issue): TenPoundHammer, Toa Nidhiki05, Royalbroil, TARDIS, The Cross Bearer. I'm also going to reach out to Brandon Jones about the editorial policy (without mentioning this discussion), and see what he says.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @3family6:, The RS/N specializes in evaluating sources. I don't know why you've pinged five users you hand picked. It's kind of WP:CANVASSish in a recruiting kind of way especially when you hold one particular position on the matter on hand. Graywalls (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I already explained why I pinged these editors. Most of them were involved with curating the sources list, which included IVM. I don't know what their opinions on this issue are. It's not Canvassing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @3family6:, Going off a bit on a tangent, but it seems to me sockpuppetry seems rather prevalent among music focused editors. Sometimes, it's necessary to go back and discount inputs from sock form consensus. Graywalls (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is in a large part precisely WHY I tagged editors who were involved in that discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- @3family6:, The RS/N specializes in evaluating sources. I don't know why you've pinged five users you hand picked. It's kind of WP:CANVASSish in a recruiting kind of way especially when you hold one particular position on the matter on hand. Graywalls (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging Invisiboy42293, Booyahhayoob, and TrulyShruti as they are also currently active and are part of the Christian music WikiProject. I also will post a notice of this discussion there so other active editors I have missed might still be notified.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Selecting people enthusiastic, probably part of a somewhat cohesive group who share common views may foster more groupthink. Graywalls (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- People in the subject area are informed. Per WP:CANVASS "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." It's ridiculous to say that people who are interested in the topic and edit it should be precluded from important discussions about what constitutes reliable sources regarding that subject. Especially given the import that the outcome has, one way or the other.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I believe it's like notifying hand picked known railfanning people from WikiProject Trains and asking whether certain railfanning websites are reliable and expert sources. You chose an area of your enthusiasm and you handpicked a set of people from (relatively niche) Wikiproject group, as opposed to general music. I'm not surprised the responses so far have been from people you have hand notified, and of predictable input. Graywalls (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I also posted in WikiProject Albums, I'll ping some editors from there in a day or two if they haven't responded. The niche is why I notified editors from that project, as they're familiar with the sources. I'll post a notice to the general music WikiProject as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- and I posted to Projects Journalism, and Magazines. Graywalls (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Yeah, I was trying to think of relevant projects, especially since this hasn't gotten any eyes apart from the users I tagged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- and I posted to Projects Journalism, and Magazines. Graywalls (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I also posted in WikiProject Albums, I'll ping some editors from there in a day or two if they haven't responded. The niche is why I notified editors from that project, as they're familiar with the sources. I'll post a notice to the general music WikiProject as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I believe it's like notifying hand picked known railfanning people from WikiProject Trains and asking whether certain railfanning websites are reliable and expert sources. You chose an area of your enthusiasm and you handpicked a set of people from (relatively niche) Wikiproject group, as opposed to general music. I'm not surprised the responses so far have been from people you have hand notified, and of predictable input. Graywalls (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- People in the subject area are informed. Per WP:CANVASS "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." It's ridiculous to say that people who are interested in the topic and edit it should be precluded from important discussions about what constitutes reliable sources regarding that subject. Especially given the import that the outcome has, one way or the other.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Selecting people enthusiastic, probably part of a somewhat cohesive group who share common views may foster more groupthink. Graywalls (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I also notified WikiProject Albums.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Important clarification: The band member mentioned by me and Graywalls above no longer writes for the site (not naming them because they might be a Misplaced Pages editor and I don't want to out them).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the caveats 3family6 provided here are broadly acceptable. Obviously a subject isn't reliable when discussing itself or connected topics, but HM and IVM broadly are excellent source - HM in particular, which is without a doubt an absolutely indispensable resource for Christian rock and metal. So I think, with those specific caveats, it's an acceptable resource. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Responding to 3family6's ping: Truthfully I haven't been active on Christian music Misplaced Pages in quite some time (personal reasons plus my interests drifted elsewhere). That said, I am familiar with Indie Vision Music, both as an editor and just casually, and in my experience they're pretty solidly journalistic when it comes to Christian music. I don't know of any reason not to use them as a source in this field. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging these editors from a related discussion to see what they think: Saqib, Axad12. The COI editing from User:Metalworker14 included this source (IVM), as well as HM. The latter has no association with the issue, whereas one former IVM author, who hasn't written for the site since 2017, since 2018 has a COI with some bands and their work was used by the paid editing for Metalworker14. Does this taint the entire source, or would the source be unreliable even if this specific issue hadn't occurred?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- This looks like any other dime-a-dozen unreliable music site, self-published by amateurs with no apparent training or background in music criticism, no editorial policies, and only known by other niche or local outlets. I see no reason why we'd give their viewpoints any weight, either for reviews or for consideration of notability. I'll also note that I wasn't canvassed here. Woodroar (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Lloyd Harp has a decade of experience or so at HM it seems to have come on to IVM more recently. Regarding the other authors I don't know of previous work. Brandon Jones founded IVM and only more recently has joined HM.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- @3family6:, you've mentioned sharing of writers as an indicator of reliability, but I am not sure if that's true. Writers don't write whatever they want and they are expected to write certain things to the publication's standards.
- Although it says to evaluate case-by-case, we're generally discouraged from using contributor articles on Forbes. Such freelance writer sharing isn't uncommon but doesn't turn the source into reliable category. One example article https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrolli/2019/10/17/metallica-scores-biggest-global-rock-event-cinema-release-with-sm/ their profile says
I am a music and entertainment reporter who specializes in pop, hip-hop and heavy metal. I cover numerous festivals, interview local and national touring musicians, and examine how artists' personal brands and social media antics affect their art and their earnings. My work has appeared in Billboard, Paste, Consequence of Sound, Noisey and the Daily Dot
but just because that person wrote it doesn't mean it can be treated as an equivalent of a Billboard or Daily Dot article. - Another source, such as HubPages and their now defunct sister projects like Delishably and ReelRundown did have editorial oversight and editorial policy but with specific purposes and they're rated based on AI evaluation, moderator reviews and "search traffic" over a long term. Those are MONETIZED articles and the purpose is to drive traffic so that hosting service can maximize ad revenue. The simple presence of editorial oversight doesn't make it reliable. So, what remains to be determined is the editorial process of IVM. Is it more like Forbes contributors, Hub Pages and like or comparable to Billboard, Consequence of Sound or National Geograpics? Graywalls (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please read the context, Graywalls. I was responding to this statement
self-published by amateurs with no apparent training or background in music criticism,
. For one of the writers, this is not true, as he has an extensive background with a reputable magazine. You already brought up your point about Forbes contributors, you don't need to do so again.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)- I was providing an actual piece written by someone with respectable experience so there's a specific example. It's not just a simply rephrased version of the same thing I said which appears to be what you may have been implying. Graywalls (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- That is a fair point, I appreciate that these are much more fleshed out example. But that's not the point of this particular part of the discussion. What was in discussion here is the professionalism of the writing staff, particularly prior experience. And it's a mixed bag. To your point, yes, just because they're a professional writer doesn't mean that they aren't essentially self-published in some cases. Still, the professionalism of the writers is a useful tool for determining reliability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was providing an actual piece written by someone with respectable experience so there's a specific example. It's not just a simply rephrased version of the same thing I said which appears to be what you may have been implying. Graywalls (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please read the context, Graywalls. I was responding to this statement
- Lloyd Harp has a decade of experience or so at HM it seems to have come on to IVM more recently. Regarding the other authors I don't know of previous work. Brandon Jones founded IVM and only more recently has joined HM.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- My feeling is that the recent discussion at COIN (here ), which ultimately resulted in Metalworker14 being blocked as a primarily promo account, indicates the problems that can be encountered in small scenes (whether they be music scenes or other relatively small groups of enthusiasts).
- When a user who has a range of potential COIs starts to edit Misplaced Pages under a pseudonym, evidently the undisclosed nature of what they are doing will create issues. However, whether that necessarily casts a cloud over their work off-wiki is a different question.
- My feeling is that material created within small scenes is primarily for the benefit of fans - who are probably aware of the possibility of some form of COI existing (whether that be direct financial COI or individuals reviewing the work of their friends, etc.). Fans are, I'd suggest, untroubled by such issues and are grateful for the fact that dedicated coverage exists at all, created by individuals who are also enthusiasts. Whether the material is of a nature that an encyclopaedia ought to be depending on, however, I am inclined to doubt.
- Really we are probably in the realms of fanzines, i.e. where editors are likely grateful that material has been submitted at all and significant editorial oversight is potentially lacking. Axad12 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was asked to comment here rather than at the notice at RS/N, and this extensive discussion has suggested my priors on this issue are still the case: this is a standard mid-level independent source on a specialized musical topic, and 3family6's comments indicate that its writers have the level of musical expertise and training that any other music rag would have. They are not investigative journalists, but rather critics evaluating based on a background in an understanding of musical style and history - which is what you get from most staff who write for e.g. Pitchfork, Allmusic, Popmatters, or Dusted. I don't think the use of the source by one troublesome editor casts doubt on the source generally, and I'm inclined to buy the argument that the writers IVM carries that also write for HM has some weight (since HM is reliable). We'd want to exercise COI caution for any artist directly associated with Indie Vision's label or a musical release from a staff member, but that's not a cause for general concern about the source. Chubbles (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting to hear back from the website/Brandon Jones about the policy, but, I was able to determine that they do issue corrections and edits: , , , . So that's a good sign of editorial oversight and ensuring accuracy.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I meant to post this here, not the WP Music, but posted there by mistake. Looking at https://www.indievisionmusic.com/author/brandon-j/ it sure seems like a self published source. My personal take on it is that it can't be used to support notability. These small time bands are not competing against each other but rather supporting each other. The blogosphere of these band blogs is an echo chamber of like minded bands boosting and praising each other publicly to collectively raise themselves. It's like friends and family writing references for each other. If they offer correction notices, it's better than not doing that, but people do that even on Misplaced Pages pages with strike out. It's not a one man show, but still a blog. Editorial process that only consists of fixing grammar/spelling and suppressing contents of liability concerns prior to publishing isn't really much of editorial oversight. Graywalls (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- First, let me address the part about "like-minded bands": Indie Vision Music isn't a band, it's a website, and for awhile was also a record label. So far, it's been shown that one author was in some bands. Authors are allowed to also be musicians, there's nothing wrong with that. And that writer has not written for the site since 2017. "boosting and praising each other publicly to collectively raise themselves." - that's not correct, as the site will give out negative reviews (this one, for example). "Editorial process that only consists of fixing grammar/spelling and suppressing contents of liability concerns prior to publishing isn't really much of editorial oversight." What are you referring to here? Hypotheticals aren't useful. Please substantiate them. The correction examples I found and listed above are more than that. Does the review process involve more than that? Maybe yes, maybe no. You are speculating here that they don't actually fact-check. This could be a group blog, which, yes, is an example of a self-published source. Or, this could be a site with an editorial process. We know it has a reputation and is used by others. The question is about the editorial process, since that isn't public knowledge.
- Now, as to Brandon Jones and self-published sources, Brandon Jones is the publisher but also writes for the site. Other writers for the site, it's not an issue - they're the writers, he's the publisher, so they aren't self-published. But, are articles by Brandon Jones self-published? I think I asked about cases where a publication owner and publisher writes material for that publication years ago, I think in reference to Doug Van Pelt of HM or John DiBiase of Jesus Freak Hideout. I couldn't find that discussion, and so I brought this to the WP:V talk page. As I asked there, Like, for example, if Ian Danzig writes an article for Exclaim! (which he owns and publishes), or HM's founder and publisher Doug Van Pelt or Jesus Freak Hideout's owner and publisher John DiBiase write articles for their respective websites, or A. G. Sulzberger writes a story for The New York Times, are those articles self-published sources only or are they considered reliable, independent published sources? And basically, it depends. There's actually two current, very active discussions on basically this and more broadly related questions about orgs where the publishing process is internal to the organization (as opposed to an external entity, for example, Blabbermouth.net being hosted by Roadrunner Records). And there doesn't seem to be a consensus. I think a lot of it depends on the editorial process. On that point, with Indie Vision Music, I think there's two distinct eras to that site on this issue. From 2006 to 2020, the site had a managing editor, Josh Murphy. That adds a layer of editorial process, both for the site and for Brandon Jones. But, conversely, how much is that editorial control independent when it comes to Brandon's writings, as Brandon will be the one publishing them? That still seems to be a pretty close relation. I don't know if there's an answer here. I think that having a managing editor does indicate an actual editorial process from 2006 to 2020 at least. I still haven't heard back yet what the policy is at present. I don't know if I will get a response (which I don't think proves things one way or the other, it just leaves that question unanswered). I'm wondering if perhaps Brandon's writings from 2017 onward (that year being the year he was hired by HM) are self-published material from a reliable expert in the field, whereas the other writers are not self-published.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- From what I've seen, RSN discussions tend to find that anything written by the site runner would be considered self-published. For example, see the WP:RSP entry for Quackwatch. The editor, Stephen Barrett, is an expert on quackery but because he basically runs the site, we often can't use his pieces per WP:BLPSPS. That's not a problem with other authors at the site, because their work would proceed through the normal editorial process (i.e., Barrett). Woodroar (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, that's what I was thinking. Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Evaluating the presence/absence of editors is easy enough, but evaluating their effectiveness and reliability is the tricky one. They could just be a website with contributors and editors from various bands each given various titles. As another editor mentioned, we have to differentiate professional editors vs a group of volunteer band members with no formal training in journalism running a glorified blog. Graywalls (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- On that metric, then, Indie Vision Music is reliable. Volunteer professional staff is expressly allowed. The site publisher has been operating the site since 2000, and since 2017 is a professional writer for HM. A current writer has written for HM since 2009. The only band member I'm aware of is one, now former writer. And band members are allowed to also write music journalism, there's no wiki-guideline prohobiting this. So, how do we evaluate the effectiveness of the source? This is where WP:USEBYOTHERS comes into play - we can check if it has a good reputation. And, as I demonstrated above, the copy of IVM is referenced or republished by other established reliable sources, and a reliable source calls IVM "well-regarded".--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- @3family6:, As has contents from NYPOST or the DAILYMAIL, both of which are red in ]. So, I wouldn't rely much on USEBYOTHERS. Graywalls (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you disagree with WP:V, then hold an RfC at Village pump. This isn't the venue.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- You brought up one point, and I addressed that point. Graywalls (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I brought up that point because WP: USEBYOTHERS is one of the two primary means of determining of a source is reliable (the other being an editorial oversight process). If you disagree with USEBYOTHERS, then by all means bring that up at an RfC.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm disagreeing in your interpretation and application. Graywalls (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I brought up that point because WP: USEBYOTHERS is one of the two primary means of determining of a source is reliable (the other being an editorial oversight process). If you disagree with USEBYOTHERS, then by all means bring that up at an RfC.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- You brought up one point, and I addressed that point. Graywalls (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you disagree with WP:V, then hold an RfC at Village pump. This isn't the venue.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @3family6:, As has contents from NYPOST or the DAILYMAIL, both of which are red in ]. So, I wouldn't rely much on USEBYOTHERS. Graywalls (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- On that metric, then, Indie Vision Music is reliable. Volunteer professional staff is expressly allowed. The site publisher has been operating the site since 2000, and since 2017 is a professional writer for HM. A current writer has written for HM since 2009. The only band member I'm aware of is one, now former writer. And band members are allowed to also write music journalism, there's no wiki-guideline prohobiting this. So, how do we evaluate the effectiveness of the source? This is where WP:USEBYOTHERS comes into play - we can check if it has a good reputation. And, as I demonstrated above, the copy of IVM is referenced or republished by other established reliable sources, and a reliable source calls IVM "well-regarded".--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- From what I've seen, RSN discussions tend to find that anything written by the site runner would be considered self-published. For example, see the WP:RSP entry for Quackwatch. The editor, Stephen Barrett, is an expert on quackery but because he basically runs the site, we often can't use his pieces per WP:BLPSPS. That's not a problem with other authors at the site, because their work would proceed through the normal editorial process (i.e., Barrett). Woodroar (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of a topic as far as we can determine them.
How is my usage contrary to that? I haven't relied solely on USEBYOTHERS. I've argued that this in tandem with editorial oversight is how reliability is determined.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Chubbles, what do you think in light of the question that Graywalls raises here and that I've tried to address. Do you think the site is still reliable, in light of this?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Of course I do, but I'm not the one you need to convince - he is. Chubbles (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was wondering what your reasoning is here and why this is more than just a group blog.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think that Graywalls is setting an unnecessarily high bar and making unnecessary presumptions about the nature and motives of music criticism and journalism (here specifically, but also generally). Most music publications would fail under his definition of an independent source - which is precisely his point; I believe he is convinced that the vast majority of popular music coverage on the site isn't worthy of the site, and this is one step in that effort. I'm confident that, say, Pitchfork, Popmatters, Stereogum, or Brooklyn Vegan would also fail his criteria; they are also "group blogs" in exactly the same way he means. If the standard of a reliable source for popular music is the journalistic equivalent of The New York Times, we will have precious little music to write about on Misplaced Pages. Chubbles (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for that explanation--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here but also generally, Chubbles and I rarely see eye-to-eye on things though but most of our disagreements are over the notability of record labels. I firmly believe they're companies and are not expressly exempt under music related SNG, therefore should be held to NCORP, but they believe record labels articles should be permitted to remain with unnecessarily low bar. Yes absolutely, journalistic equivalent of NYT is expected for record labels, like any other articles subject to NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is not about record labels. You are correct that NCORP applies, but that's not relevant here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here but also generally, Chubbles and I rarely see eye-to-eye on things though but most of our disagreements are over the notability of record labels. I firmly believe they're companies and are not expressly exempt under music related SNG, therefore should be held to NCORP, but they believe record labels articles should be permitted to remain with unnecessarily low bar. Yes absolutely, journalistic equivalent of NYT is expected for record labels, like any other articles subject to NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for that explanation--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think that Graywalls is setting an unnecessarily high bar and making unnecessary presumptions about the nature and motives of music criticism and journalism (here specifically, but also generally). Most music publications would fail under his definition of an independent source - which is precisely his point; I believe he is convinced that the vast majority of popular music coverage on the site isn't worthy of the site, and this is one step in that effort. I'm confident that, say, Pitchfork, Popmatters, Stereogum, or Brooklyn Vegan would also fail his criteria; they are also "group blogs" in exactly the same way he means. If the standard of a reliable source for popular music is the journalistic equivalent of The New York Times, we will have precious little music to write about on Misplaced Pages. Chubbles (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was wondering what your reasoning is here and why this is more than just a group blog.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Of course I do, but I'm not the one you need to convince - he is. Chubbles (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Chubbles, what do you think in light of the question that Graywalls raises here and that I've tried to address. Do you think the site is still reliable, in light of this?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- 3family6, you keep bringing up HM and USEBYOTHERS as if it's a slam dunk case, but I don't think it is. When niche sources share authors with and are cited by similar niche sources, that's not evidence that they're reliable—it simply means that they've created a walled garden. You compared HM to No Clean Singing and MetalSucks above, but No Clean Singing has more than 3x the number of Facebook followers, and MetalSucks has 25x as many. Before this discussion, I'd never heard of Indie Vision Music or HM, and I've been listening to metal for more than 3 decades. (Not to personalize this discussion too much, but after checking your User page, longer than you've been alive!) I'd even consider No Clean Singing to be pretty insignificant as far as sources go. It's also a niche source, but not as niche as "metal but ALSO Christian". Woodroar (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Those might be something that might belong to the same web ring in the pre-Facebook days. Graywalls (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- USEBYOTHERS isn't necessarily a slam dunk. My objection to Graywalls was because I had the impression of them blanket dismissing that usage rather than engaging in the examples given. Yes, DailyMail is used by others, but it also has a mixed reputation and demonstrated consistent issues with bias and inaccuracies. Such a poor reputation hasn't been demonstrated in the case of IVM - that an editor doing undisclosed paid editing also used a source that was deemed accepted prior to them joining Misplaced Pages doesn't disqualify a source.
- Now, as to the sources used, HM was just one of several references - there's also the less niche CCM Magazine and Cross Rhythms, as well as the Manteca Bulletin, and a reference in Lords of Metal (might still be niche, but isn't the Christian metal niche). I find it a bit interesting that the heavy metal reviews/coverage is the majority of the examples I could find, as IVM is more of an indie music site than specifically metal.
- Regarding HM, it probably was a lot more significant before I was born and when I was a very small child, when Stryper was still big and a mainstream act. The publication does regularly interview mainstream artists such as Alice Cooper and Trans Siberian Orchestra. Still, yes, Christian metal is niche, apart from the big 2000s metalcore wave, and Christian extreme metal is so niche and online-based (apart from in some Nordic countries) that a recent book noted the fact of its obscurity to scholars. That HM is for a more niche market doesn't make it less reliable, and a 2018 discussion at WikiProject albums agreed that it is reliable as well. My point with NCS (which discussion on this noticeboard concluded was unreliable - I have changed my mind and agreed with that assessment, based on the evidence) and MetalSucks or numerous other RS is that they are structured the same way. I haven't really seen an argument that demonstrates how IVM is unreliable other than it being a more niche source than those. I wouldn't be as liberal as Chubbles, perhaps, in assessing sources, but I don't see why unreliability is being presumed outside of the issue with how the source was used in COI ways on some select articles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is a hypothetical example of where USEBYOTHERS justification would be inappropriate. The vlog referenced is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eFIaubn24E That video was a tip that to the story in a WP:RS source Bon Appetit https://www.bonappetit.com/story/best-vodka-taste-test. If we go along with 3family6's idea of application, we'd consider Meagan After Dark YouTube an acceptable source, because some of their content was used by Bob Appetit. I'd say citing IVM directly would be along the line of citing that MAD vlog directly. Graywalls (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Context is important. As the heading on this page says. This discussion should be in the context of particular claims / types of claims that it is supporting and whether it is suitable to support those claim/uses. North8000 (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've realized that this would have helped. The uses of this source are primarily for music journalism - news reporting about bands, music reviews, and retrospectives/music history.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's a start. But we should take a look at the structure of this conversation. Graywalls is seemingly arguing for blanket exclusion of this source. My thought is that is unlikely, and in any case, per the heading of this page, this would not be the place for it. The heading of this page says to include the specific article and text which it is supporting. Maybe a good start would be to give a specific example. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'll give some examples. Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's a start. But we should take a look at the structure of this conversation. Graywalls is seemingly arguing for blanket exclusion of this source. My thought is that is unlikely, and in any case, per the heading of this page, this would not be the place for it. The heading of this page says to include the specific article and text which it is supporting. Maybe a good start would be to give a specific example. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
North8000, these are the ways I've either used it myself or have seen it used:
- To verify band membership and releases by bands
- Interviews
- Album/song reviews and criticism, including supporting factual BLP claims (who is/was in the band or on the album, for example)
- Music history (I'm currently working on an article in my sandbox that I've used it for this, such as this and this example.
- Hypothetically, it could be used as a primary source for music released on its record label. I haven't encountered that usage on Misplaced Pages yet, but it might be out there.
With usage No. 1, what I think prompted all this, is Graywalls noticed that Metalworker14 (now banned for UPE) had included articles related to and including Symphony of Heaven, and some other articles, that were written by Mason Beard from Symphony of Heaven and some other bands. Beard was/is working for a promotional company as well. Thus in those cases, citing that author, and possibly IVM in general, is definitely COI, even though Beard hasn't written for IVM since 2017 and didn't join Symphony of Heaven until 2018.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- IMO #1 is fine if the veracity in the info isn't doubted. #2 isn't a use, it a type of source/source content. #3 looks good for uncontroversial factual claims. I don't know enough about the site to comment on #3 regarding reviews/criticism. #4 IMO looks good for uncontroversial factual history. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- #2 I should have been more specific. Use as a source of critical opinion and discussing and categorizing musical style of artists, and of making factual claims about artists and band members.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Critical opinion of some non-professionally trained band member author from some random highly non-notable run of the mill vanity band is severely UNDUE for inclusion in any capacity at all. Graywalls (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I could see, and might endorse, not using that specific author.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- #2 I should have been more specific. Use as a source of critical opinion and discussing and categorizing musical style of artists, and of making factual claims about artists and band members.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm still getting the impression that it's just one man webmaster, and contributors deal, so along the line of user submitted moderated blog who makes the host/don't host decision. It says at https://www.indievisionmusic.com/contactus/ they got rid of their PO box. Actually it doesn't even look like they even had a proper office. There's no indication it's more than a label name, a webmaster, and contributors and I see no indication of it being a proper publisher. Graywalls (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The group blog/webmaster-contributors argument could be argued with many of the RS on WP:A/S - do you want to open a discussion about those?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Any consensus reached there is a local consensus and wouldn't override the broader consensus that would form here. Graywalls (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Some of those have had consensus from here. Again, do you want to open up a broader discussion about any websites which do not have an entity as the publisher separate from the site itself?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- There is, coincidentally, actually one such discussion open right now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I discovered that. I commented in a couple spots, regarding that question.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- There is, coincidentally, actually one such discussion open right now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Some of those have had consensus from here. Again, do you want to open up a broader discussion about any websites which do not have an entity as the publisher separate from the site itself?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Any consensus reached there is a local consensus and wouldn't override the broader consensus that would form here. Graywalls (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Graywalls, if you're interested, I asked over at the Grey Literature RfC about this issue of websites published by one or two individuals.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Indie Vision Music
Is Indie Vision Music - Contact/staff - Contact/staff from 2006-2020 a generally reliable source for music-related journalism?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Indie Vision Music has been used as a reliable source for Christian music articles since this 2013 talk discussion, At the time, Indie Vision Music had a Misplaced Pages article, which then was later deleted - something I supported, but in that discussion I mentioned that I deemed it reliable, just not notable. Graywalls is unsure of the reliability of the site. It is used by other RS, such as Cross Rhythms (this - 2015, this - 2018, and this - 2018 as examples; this from 2016 is about the record label operated by the media outlet, but it explicitly calls the site "well regarded"), The Phantom Tollbooth - 2005, Manteca Bulletin (here, 2010), Arrow Lords of Metal - 2022, referencing a 2013 interview article and HM (here in 2013, here in 2013, here in 2022). I've excluded reprints of press releases for these examples. Cross Rhythms and HM are among the most reputable and well-known sources for Christian music, the latter being the prime journalism outlet regarding Christian hard rock and metal music. The site founder, Brandon Jones, and another writer, Lloyd Harp, both also write for HM as well (Jones since 2017 and Harp since at least 2007) and thus have credentials outside IVM. There are multiple writers for the site besides those two individuals. It seems to function similar to other sites deemed RS, such as MetalSucks, Chronicles of Chaos, Metal Injection, Stylus Magazine, and other online-only publications.
The concern from other some editors is that the site operates similar to Forbes contributors and is thus unreliable. Though there are multiple staff writers, especially over the past two decades, Brandon lists himself for contact and doesn't list the writers. There also is a case where one former writer contributed some articles about bands that he was personally involved in or was a member of. Also in the above discussions, there's a concern that the website is very niche and so interested in promoting niches zines that secondary coverage independent from the artists is not a concern.
Additional concern I discovered after posting the above:
IVM also had a writer, Eric Pettersson, who started with the publication when he was in high school (he continued regularly for the publication until 2011).
I also will note that the current site does not have any of the news articles published prior to October 2016, and reviews and interviews prior to August 2006 were brought over to the new site format and no longer bear the original date stamp.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm seeing 5 8 options, which I've listed below:
- Option 1: Yes, generally reliable for use as a source of critical opinion and discussing and categorizing musical style of artists, and of making factual claims about artists and band members, as well as interviews. Any coverage of the site regarding artists from its own label, or from authors who are members of or otherwise closely affiliated with the artist they are discussing, are only reliable as primary sources as they otherwise have conflict of interest.
- Option 1b: Generally reliable as articulated above, except for any coverage from author Mason Beard.
- Option 1c: Generally reliable as articulated above, but with discretion to exclude authors whose professionalism is questionable (such as Eric Pettersson, at least before 2010; and maybe Mason Beard).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2: Generally unreliable for any secondary coverage, reliable for interviews (as interview subjects can be sources about themselves).
- Option 3: Reliable for critical opinion, discussion, and categorizing musical style, but not reliable for any statements of fact about living persons.
- Option 4: Only coverage by Brandon Jones from 2017 onward, or from Lloyd Harp, is reliable.
- Option 5: Only reliable after 2006, and with discretion for individual writers.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 5b: Same as option 5, but also generally unreliable for secondary coverage after 2020.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Invalid RfC but, while I'm here, Unreliable for everything. Indie Vision Music is an extremely niche self-published fanzine, with USEBYOTHERS limited to other extremely niche fanzines. The complaint that only 3 or 4 sources in a walled garden cover these subjects is evidence that these sources are in the extreme minority and UNDUE. Meanwhile, the "similar" RS sites mentioned above are orders of magnitude larger and are themselves widely cited by actually reputable sources outside their niche subject. Besides that, the given options for this RfC only appear to include the opinions of editors who were repeatedly canvassed to the above discussion, and largely ignore editors who weren't canvassed. Woodroar (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Almost everything you claim here is untrue. "Unreliable for everything" is an option. If your objection is that I excluded interviews, interviews are considered primary sources and thus the site can't be unreliable for that usage, per guidelines on primary sources. I also specifically mentioned yours and other editors concerns above about it being a niche source that that caters to fans and thus can't be regarded as being factually accurate or good for notability. And lastly, Lords of Metal is a Netherlands based general metal music website completely unrelated to the Christian scene as far as I've been able to tell over the years; Manteca Bulletin is a newspaper
of recorddating back to 1908, so definitely not a nice Christian music scene source; and Cross Rhythms is a long-standing UK-based publication that also was print-based, deals with the whole gamut of Christian music including artists like Natasha Bedingfield and classical musicians, and the site runners and editors are separate from the overarching company that publishes the site (if that was also a concern). If you think IVM is unreliable, that's fine, but you shouldn't need to then make false statements to justify that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)- A newspaper of record is many orders of magnitude larger than anything we're discussing here. The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, those are newspapers of record. These are much smaller, regional publications that are as good as fanzines in that they cover everything that is happening locally, typically in a positive, promotional fashion. That Manteca Bulletin article could easily be a template for any "Local
BoyBand Makes Good" story. Interviews at these types of outlets are just as bad. They're like a talk show, asking softball questions, letting the subject promote whatever they want or get out their talking points. We're an encyclopedia. We shouldn't be relying on these kinds of sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)- The article lead described it as a newspaper of record, which is why I referred to it as such. However, the description section describes it as a community newspaper, which seems more accurate. However, they definitely are an RS, and even if it's a local paper, your "walled garden" claim of only niche sources referencing IVM is still demonstrably false.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- And this is starting to approach WP:BLUDGEON Graywalls (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- My response to Woodroar?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- The way in which approach each time there's dissenting opinion, generally speaking in this discussion. Graywalls (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to go there, the same could be said regarding yourself. We're both the overwhelming majority of the comment here. Regarding Woodroar's statement above, I could have argued far more, but I opted to let it rest, for the reasons elaborated in that guideline. I actually wasn't aware of that linked guideline, but already was trying to approach this discussion in a similar spirit. To be clear, I've been presuming the RfC as a fresh discussion, as the previous one had stalled (if we want the tally, excluding you and I and people I pinged and/or who came from notices on WikiProjects, it was 1 in favor of how the source is generally used (North8000), and 1 against any usage (Woodroar). If we include people who responded to my notices, it was 3 in favor of general reliability, 1 of which has been at least partly rescinded per discussion in this RfC, and 1 against (Axad12) (so a total of 2 for, 1 against, 1 effectively stricken.). After North8000's and your comments and my replies to those, the discussion stalled for 4 days (and discussions are archived here after 5 days). I was hoping that this RfC would be a fresh start, but it doesn't seem to have been that but just the same three re-hashing the same arguments (apart from the discussion with Toa Nidikhi05 regarding the student writer). I personally am not responding to anything more unless it's comments from someone else or is new information.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- The way in which approach each time there's dissenting opinion, generally speaking in this discussion. Graywalls (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- My response to Woodroar?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- A newspaper of record is many orders of magnitude larger than anything we're discussing here. The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, those are newspapers of record. These are much smaller, regional publications that are as good as fanzines in that they cover everything that is happening locally, typically in a positive, promotional fashion. That Manteca Bulletin article could easily be a template for any "Local
- Echoing Woodroar here. Graywalls (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Graywalls, you've brought up WP:FORBESCON, which I think is one of the most relevant hypotheticals you've posed. Presuming it is such a situation where the editorial oversight is minimal, Options 2, 3, and 4 are all consistent with that, dependent on what level of expertise we're presuming of the contributors. While Woodroar might not have heard of HM and Doug Van Pelt, the 110,000 print and over 2 million online subscribers to Christianity Today have had multiple opportunities over the years to have heard, and that's just one publication of many which have talked about or referenced HM. There's also academic coverage of that publication. I can provide examples if requested, but a quick Google search should confirm what I've stated here. Given that, why would you still lean to complete exclusion (Option 2) rather than Options 3 or 4?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Almost everything you claim here is untrue. "Unreliable for everything" is an option. If your objection is that I excluded interviews, interviews are considered primary sources and thus the site can't be unreliable for that usage, per guidelines on primary sources. I also specifically mentioned yours and other editors concerns above about it being a niche source that that caters to fans and thus can't be regarded as being factually accurate or good for notability. And lastly, Lords of Metal is a Netherlands based general metal music website completely unrelated to the Christian scene as far as I've been able to tell over the years; Manteca Bulletin is a newspaper
- I did find this example from 2007 of a former writer for IVM (2005-2011) had started writing for the site when he was in high school. So the professionalism of the writers definitely seems to vary.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Toa Nidhiki05 - you've said that you consider this publication reliable. You also on my talk expressed concern about another source (The Phantom Tollbooth) seeming to be amateur. Given this above instance of a high schooler writing for IVM, does that change your opinion at all? 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily opposed to the use of high school or college aged students as long as the reporting is of high quality (student papers can actually be good resources - I think I used one in the article for 10) - but it's very unusual for a credible website to use them. This definitely impacts how I view this site, or at least the quality of average contributors. Toa Nidhiki05 15:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Toa Nidhiki05 - you've said that you consider this publication reliable. You also on my talk expressed concern about another source (The Phantom Tollbooth) seeming to be amateur. Given this above instance of a high schooler writing for IVM, does that change your opinion at all? 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Both this and going back and seeing archived versions of the site as it was in the mid-2000s, I am questioning that at least at that time if it is a reliable source. I think it's important that this is a year after Murphy joined as an editor. So I'm wondering if, if it's not entirely unreliable, there should be a cutoff of it being unreliable before certain date. or at least that contributor not reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking through his resume, he doesn't seem to have done any other music journalism, and his other journalism all student journalism. So nothing afterwards to suggest he became a more professional writer. He does seem to perhaps be a subject expert as a tour guide for Reading, Pennsylvania, but that's a completely different subject area.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Toa Nidhiki05, do you have a recommendation that you would suggest regarding the reliability of this source? 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking through his resume, he doesn't seem to have done any other music journalism, and his other journalism all student journalism. So nothing afterwards to suggest he became a more professional writer. He does seem to perhaps be a subject expert as a tour guide for Reading, Pennsylvania, but that's a completely different subject area.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've added more options, and updated the statement to reflect what I subsequently found regarding the student staff writer.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Both this and going back and seeing archived versions of the site as it was in the mid-2000s, I am questioning that at least at that time if it is a reliable source. I think it's important that this is a year after Murphy joined as an editor. So I'm wondering if, if it's not entirely unreliable, there should be a cutoff of it being unreliable before certain date. or at least that contributor not reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
For reference, the ways that this source is used typically used is for news about artists and album reviews, both of which also are presumed to contribute to an artist's notability. I'm also using it for an article I'm building in my sandbox (about Christian death metal) to discuss the history and stylistic evolutions of some bands as that relates to Christian death metal. Specifically, these articles: , , , , , , .--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not about a certain questionable author, but rather they seem to casually allow run of the mill people to write for them making them more or less similar to Forbes Contributor articles. Still not having their editorial policy is a red flag. So, my take on this is that it's a freaking blog with no bearing on raising notability score of others. Graywalls (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Concern about them letting run of the mill people write for them is concern about a questionable author, or authors, in this case. I think you need to reread FORBESCON. The issue with Forbes contributors is not the writers, it's the editorial policies. Forbes contributors *can* potentially be reliable as expert self-published sources, provided they are not being used to make BLP statements. So by that standard, Lloyd Harp would be fine to use, and arguably Brandon Jones since 2017. There's a reason I provide that as an option: because I was taking your Forbes contributors comparison seriously. But there's two concerns: The quality of the writers, which I agree varies, and the editorial policies. We don't know that there isn't a lack of editorial policy. But we haven't been able to confirm that there is. I've never received an email back. Either way it's a bit of speculation. You are convinced that they don't have one, but we can't say that for sure, especially since prior to 2020 they had a head editor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Another potential comparable situation to how IVM functions is WP:NEWSBLOG. This was the consensus for About.com music contributors - reliability is contingent on their professional experience, and a table was created for ease of tabulating which writers are professional and which are not. IVM isn't necessarily comparable to this situation, but it might be, and I think that's another relevant consensus.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- And you haven't been able to produce published editorial policy for IVM. Graywalls (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I literally just said this above that I haven't heard back. Which means it could exist, or might not. that they had an editor suggest that there was some type of process. What's at issue here is whether it's robust or not. Could you explain more of what you mean by "published editorial policy"?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Example: https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html Graywalls (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, that's what I thought. I wish there was such a public statement. And that would probably have made both this and the previous discussion unnecessary.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done)
- Example: https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html Graywalls (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- I literally just said this above that I haven't heard back. Which means it could exist, or might not. that they had an editor suggest that there was some type of process. What's at issue here is whether it's robust or not. Could you explain more of what you mean by "published editorial policy"?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- And you haven't been able to produce published editorial policy for IVM. Graywalls (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
So, my take on this is that it's still a glorified blog/webzine, or a subpar magazine. "Used for over a decade" may not have substantial meaning. RSP red sites like IMDb, Discogs, Find a Grave, FamilySearch have been used for a long time too and even though they shouldn't be used and as you've probably noticed, some highly unreliable junk sources persisted in metal articles too. Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems usable, need some CONTEXT. I will go with no change to it being open for usage as RS, as it is available enough and there doesn't seem to be any reason or need to give it a categorical rating. I’d tend to evaluate any cite depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without context can be really valid. In this case I just don't even see a specific source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports that is causing concern. So I don't see a wider concern or need for wider evaluation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Al-Manar
This has been open for six weeks and there's been only one !vote in the last six days.By straight head-counting, first order preferences are: Generally Reliable (1), Additional Considerations (8), Generally Unreliable (11), Deprecate (5).
Some Option 2 !voters opined that it is generally reliable but should be treated with caution (or not used at all) when reporting about contentious topics or anything related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Some Option 3 !voters stated it would be fine to use for WP:ABOUTSELF (including reporting official statements of Hezbollah), while Bobfrombrockley (who !voted Option 3) said it "might be usable for some uncontroversial facts" such as sports reporting, which at least four of the 11 Option 3 !voters agreed with to such an extent that they merely offered WP:VAGUEWAVEs toward BobFromBrockley's comment without offering any comments of their own. Finally, our generally agreed description of Option 3 includes a carveout for ABOUTSELF, of which I took note.
All of the above, seems to indicate that:
- There is no consensus that is is generally reliable,
- There is no consensus that it should be deprecated,
- There is a consensus it should not be used for contentious topics or anything related to the Arab–Israeli conflict,
- There is a consensus it can be used for WP:ABOUTSELF, which includes official statements of Hezbollah,
- There is neither a consensus for nor a consensus against its use for uncontroversial topics, such as sports or lifestyle coverage
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What is the reliability of Al-Manar?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
- Amigao (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Previous discussion, per WP:RFCBEFORE. The Kip 03:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
LinkSearch results Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Survey (Al-Manar)
- Option 3, per comments from Amigao, Alaexis, and BobFromBrockley in the prior thread. It seems to be a comparable propaganda/disinfo outlet to Al Mayadeen, which we deprecated several months ago, but with a handful of instances (i.e. the soccer player info brought up by Chess, or WP:ABOUTSELF reasons) where it may be somewhat appropriate to use. The Kip 03:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- If and only if this ends up option 2, which would be problematic in itself, the RSP entry should make a clear distinction between justified usage (ex. non-controversial events in Lebanese life and society) and problematic usage (ex. conflicts that Hezbollah is a direct party to (Arab-Israeli, Syrian civil war), etc). That should be the absolute baseline, considering newer precedents set with the Jewish Chronicle and other sources that have some valid uses but are systemically unreliable with regards to the conflict. The Kip 19:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Many of the comments from Amigao, Alaexis, and BobFromBrockley in the prior thread have been rebutted as misrepresenting Al-Manar. I encourage users to click through the links and see for themselves.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Having clicked through the links, I continue to endorse my position and disagree with the rebuttals' rationale. The Kip 19:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Would also like to emphasize the verbatim re-reporting of articles from RT and TASS, both GUNREL/deprecated sources, that's been pointed out below. The Kip 19:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 per The Kip. ~ HAL333 05:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2. I'd pick 3 for pretty much anything relating to conflicts in the Middle East or other contentious issues. But things happen in Lebanon other than war. Al-Manar's Arabic section has a decent amount of information on uncontroversial aspects of Lebanese society. I would like to see more evidence about how Al-Manar is used to support false claims onwiki before a full GUNREL !vote. Right now, GUNREL means blanket removal for a lot of people. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 - it's very blatant propaganda. The English content is also just quite sloppy and amateurish. Just glancing at a few front page articles,
-
the Hitler of our time, Benjamin Netanyahu
-
the Zionist invaders are incapable of facing men of God directly
(in their own voice, not marked as opinion or anything) -
Israeli police will question Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief of staff over blackmailing of an Israeli occupation officer
- implies wrongdoing (maybe unintentional from a bad translation?), never mentioning that this was ruled out by a police investigation - Regularly accuses "Zionist media" of lies with no details, e.g. this vague accusation of a "fabricated report" by Maariv.
-
- There's just a complete lack of professionalism; RT is better in many ways. — xDanielx /C\ 06:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- no comment (I don't want to violate BLP).
- nothing wrong with an opinion that is shared by hundreds of millions. Yes, in their own voice (it's not Misplaced Pages).
- the usual news reporting (nothing wrong with that either).
Regularly accuses "Zionist media" of lies
So? it's not like the Zionists don't have a very long history of lying. M.Bitton (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)- Such statements of fact in their own voice demonstrate zero regard for journalistic objectivity.
- Reliable sources will not imply wrongdoing based on allegations (again it might be a sloppy translation, but either is bad), and will correct false accusations when someone is cleared by an investigation.
- "the Zionists" is not an entity; Maariv is an entity and a fairly reputable newspaper. But the point is that reliable sources will offer some kind of substantiation when making serious accusations. Here it's not even clear what exactly they're claiming is fabrication.
- — xDanielx /C\ 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- They don't need to be pretend to be objective when describing those who are exterminating their people (with the help of those who pretend to be neutral).
- So called reliable sources such as the NYT, literally fabricated a story to help Israel. By you standard, we should deprecate NYT. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @XDanielx, The Times of Israel frequently calls Hamas members as "terrorists", a subjective term, so I'm not sure why its unprofessional for Al-Manar to refer to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as "Zionist invaders"? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was more getting at
incapable of facing men of God directly
. Professional news orgs will have at least some modicum of journalistic objectivity and would never write such things in their own voice. — xDanielx /C\ 18:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was more getting at
- Option 2 per Chess. Obviously should not be used anywhere near I/P, but may be marginally reliable for things in Lebanon outside of that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3. I believe they are generally unreliable, due to multiple examples of disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories. Comparable sources might be as The Cradle, al-Mayadeen and IRNA, all of which I believe are designated gunrel. Option 2 might be worth considering, if phrased stringently, as the source might be usable for some uncontroversial facts about e.g. Lebanese sport or the statements of Hezbollah and Hezbollah-aligned politicians, but presumably (a) those could be sourced from better places (Lebanon has some decent free press) and (b) might be permissable uses of an unreliable source anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 per Chess. I don't see anything that would justify option 3 (if the word "generally" has changed meaning recently, then we need discuss the so called "reliable sources" that have been caught misrepresenting the events, or worse, fabricated stories, such as the NYT). M.Bitton (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I want to point out that, with the exception of Al-Jazeera, pretty much every source listed at WP:RSP from the Arab world and Muslim world is listed as GUNREL or MREL. We really need to check our WP:Systematic bias.VR (Please ping on reply) 18:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I believe there is more to it than systematic bias. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The nature of RSPN means we're much more likely to discuss crap sources than good ones. And given many if not most governments in the Arab/Muslim world are not fond of freedom of the press, it should be no surprise that most entries here lean on the unreliable side. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is that right? Mada Masr? Lebanon Daily Star? L'Orient-Le Jour? The New Arab/Al-Araby Al-Jadeed? The National (Abu Dhabi)? Asharq al-Awsat? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- None of those are on RSP, which is what VR said. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is a point against systematic bias against A/M reliable sources. RSP is a bunch of planes with holes in them, some of which made it out to be considered reliable for another day. If A/M sources were being regularly, unfairly challenged, there would be more green entries. Safrolic (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree in that I think it says something that every time we have brought a non-Israeli middle eastern source to RSP it has been declared MREL or GUNREL, except Al Jazeera, which had an extremely large contingent of editors wanting to declare them GUNREL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I misread. My point is several Arab sources which are heavily used on Misplaced Pages have not been designated unreliable, undermining the argument for systematic bias. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is a point against systematic bias against A/M reliable sources. RSP is a bunch of planes with holes in them, some of which made it out to be considered reliable for another day. If A/M sources were being regularly, unfairly challenged, there would be more green entries. Safrolic (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- These all appear to be Western-aligned and/or liberal newspapers, some with serious financial COIs. I do agree that it's a bit imprecise to say Misplaced Pages's systemic bias is against Arab/Muslim sources as a whole, but the fact that many of the Arab/Muslim sources considered reliable are funded by and/or supportive of Western aligned MENA oil and real estate interests is illustrative of exactly the systemic bias problem that @Vice regent points out. The systematic downgrading of sources critical of Western and Western-aligned perspectives makes Misplaced Pages more biased and unreliable, and less legitimate to a non-Western audience. Even if the camp of pro-Western sources is broadly more reliable than Russian or Chinese or Iran-aligned sources, excluding the reporting and viewpoint of those sources extensively makes Misplaced Pages blind when pro-Western sources lie or make an error, which they often do because all media does. Unbandito (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- None of those are on RSP, which is what VR said. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Media in the Arab and Muslim world has a systemic bias. It really shouldn’t be surprising that media in countries with poor freedom of press often governed by autocrats is disproportionately represented among sources considered unreliable. A deluge of bad sources from a region of the world is not reason to relax our standards when assessing sources from the region. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe there is more to it than systematic bias. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 per above. Despite people throwing links in the section below it hard to find evidence of systematic disinformation in the past 20 years. Reporting that Putin said X (in quotes) doesn't constitute disinformation. Being biased against certain Lebanese politicians (most RS have a certain partisan bias) doesn't make it unreliable. VR (Please ping on reply) 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 per BobFromBrockley pretty much word-for-word. That is, some form of option 2 could be viable if very stringent, but the list of topics for which this source is generally unreliable would probably be too long to be manageable. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Idk what number it would be, but I would only use it for something internal Lebanese and non-controversial or for attributed views to Hezbollah's media outlet. Either 2 or 3, whichever fits that statement best. nableezy - 23:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 based on the comments from BobFromBrockley and Amigao. There appear to be many instances of sharing disinformation, including from clearly unreliable sources like RT. Plus the fact that it is banned in many countries. Alenoach (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Al-Jazeera is also banned in many countries. Politicians shouldn't get to decide what is or is not reliable.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 per Bobfromblockley Andre🚐 00:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 I don't see how this is better than Al Mayadeen or RT. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2, where the "additional considerations" include not presenting its assertions related to the conflict as factual in wikivoice. Zero 04:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2-3 based on Chess and others. Should not be used around I/P topic area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 (4 for I/P and Jews only) based on the arguments presented, specifically regarding the spread of misinformation/disinformation and hateful conspiracy theories. I think some use as aboutself/for national politics per Chess and co may be a reasonable exception. Use in regards to Israel and Jews (very broadly construed) should be completely avoided. FortunateSons (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3, per above. --NAADAAN (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 per BobFromBrockley. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 1 for non-controversial issues such as Lebanese football or basic, uncontested details about the news, as well as attributed statements from organizations that align with its bias such as Hezbollah or the IRGC. Option 2 for more controversial subjects, statements by organizations that tilt against its bias, or anything disputed by other sources. In my reading of the discussion section, editors have given evidence that Al-Manar is biased and at times prone to questionable editorial decisions, but I have not seen evidence of systemic unreliability, much less evidence of a detrimental impact of such unreliability on-wiki. Special considerations bordering on Option 3 should be given to any extraordinary claims, and republished content from other sources should be cited at the original source rather than at Al-Manar unless the original source is paywalled or otherwise inaccessible. Unbandito (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4, deprecate per M.bitton comments. Highly unreliable, beyond unreliable though as it is a deliberate and intentional arm of propaganda. That is the classic case of where deprecation is appropriate. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2: Per Chess. GrabUp - Talk 19:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 to 4 This is clearly a worse-than-average source with a history of misattributed claims, occluding untrustworthy information sources and generally bad journalistic practice. Is it pervasive enough to deprecate? I don't know. Maybe it's fine for Lebanese football news as mentioned elsewhere. But for any contentious topic we absolutely should not be using this source. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 no evidence of unreliability seems to have been demonstrated. I don't care what it is comparable to, I'd like to see evidence of unreliability. You don't need an RfC to tell that you shouldn't be citing this for Middle East conflicts. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Traumnovelle, can I clarify if I understand: you think additional conditions should apply (option 2), and the specific additional conditions in this case is not to cite it for topics to do with Middle East conflicts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is really just common sense. If what this source states about a Middle East conflict is truthful and due it almost certainly will be reported elsewhere. I apply the same standard to sources such as the Time of Israel too. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Traumnovelle, can I clarify if I understand: you think additional conditions should apply (option 2), and the specific additional conditions in this case is not to cite it for topics to do with Middle East conflicts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4. This station is literally the progenitor of the "Jews did 9/11" hoax. Per its own website, its goal at the time was to conduct
effective psychological warfare against the Zionist enemy
—so, yes, this group does intentionally lie in order to try to influence geopolitics. We don't need to close our eyes and pretend that this is somehow different than how the Russian state uses Russia Today. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- That's more than 23 years ago, also it says that came from their television, not one of their articles. I mean, we don't usually come across a Misplaced Pages article that sources from any TV archives; it's rare if it happens. I don't see any of Al-Manar's current articles that directly make such a claim, although a hard archive search might find one.
- As for the quote "effective psychological warfare against the Zionist enemy", Al-Manar's website is a little hard to traverse, but I did look all over the website as much as I could, and I didn't see a single page with that quote in it. It might be that an archived page from Al-Manar (from way more than 20 years ago) has something like this, but even archive searches from archive.org don't give true results:
- Nothing in TV captions:
- One result in Metadata, but nothing to do with Al-Manar:
- Nothing in archived websites:
- Some results in Radio transcripts, but none related to Al-Manar:
- Some result come in books, but most of them are written by ADL staff or some other pro-Israel lobbies; the only book that's not written by ADL staff moves on to complement Al-Manar after slightly criticizing it:
- According to I.B Tauris "Women and media in the Middle East : power through self-expression", Al-Manar was created ... "in order for the Hezbollah to convey a message of ‘love and tolerance ... of values, morals and goals ... to live in peace, support the oppressed", it also says "It conveyed a strongly moral message aimed at eradicating ‘instincts’ pro¬ voked by other Lebanese television channels, where women are objectified and represented as ‘belly-dancers and prostitutes’."
- I highly doubt the notion of "Psychological warfare" is present anywhere in Al-Manar right now, and the Guardian article is probably long-time outdated. Viral weirdo (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- You appear to be correct that it was removed at some point, though other sources do confirm that it was once there. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 for anything remotely controversial, especially for the I/P topic area, since it is run by Hezbollah. Option 2 for non-controversial statements and viewpoints of Hezbollah, a la the Chinese government sources. ARandomName123 (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 (if this doesn't have the majority, then fallback to 3). This is obviously propaganda and very unprofessional per xDanielx's examples. We should use better sources in our articles. --Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (Al-Manar)
- almanar.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- Comment: Bias and inflamed rhetoric against Israel is NOT a valid reason for !voting options 3/4. Reporting that Israelis evacuated the Twin Towers on 9/11 IS a good reason for !voting options 3/4. I'll post some other examples of misinformation and unreliability here later, in addition to the ones in the discussion further up this page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Here's an example:
- Schafer, Bret (30 May 2024). "The Russian Propaganda Nesting Doll: How RT is Layered Into the Digital Information Environment". GMFUS. Retrieved 15 November 2024.:
we discovered RT content on Al Manar TV, a site owned and operated by Hezbollah. Though not technically a state-backed media outlet, Al Manar is a mouthpiece for a major political and geopolitical player in the Middle East, and thus exists as a politically backed, if not state-backed, channel... We found eight occurrences of RT content reposed to Al Manar, but a manual review of content tagged with “Russia” or “Ukraine” on Al Manar’s website revealed that those articles are sourced primarily, if not exclusively, from RT, Sputnik News, and Tass, all of which are Russian state-controlled outlets. Oddly, many other articles were attributed to “Agencies”, though those too appeared to be sourced from Tass.
BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)- Are you suggesting we treat a claim from a US based source as a fact? M.Bitton (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- It depends on what the content they reposted from RT was. Did Al-Manar quote the RT (or Sputnik) for uncontroversial sports news? Or for official statements of Putin? I don't see that as much of a problem.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The source says at least some of the content is about Ukraine, so I think that counts as controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- That claim was made by Al-Manar some 20 years ago (shortly after 9/11). Do you have more recent examples of disinformation? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Schafer, Bret (30 May 2024). "The Russian Propaganda Nesting Doll: How RT is Layered Into the Digital Information Environment". GMFUS. Retrieved 15 November 2024.:
A UK-based source, also a partisan thinktank so pinch of salt, but a highly respected thinktank:
- "If You Can't Make It, Fake It: The Age of Invented News". Royal United Services Institute. 4 September 2012. Retrieved 15 November 2024.:
Al-Alam and Al-Manar, two Arabic-language television channels owned by Iran and its regional allies, frequently lead with stories which have never happened.
BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- A partisan source (in the middle of ongoing war) means propaganda (that they are welcome to feed to their kids). M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can you offer any concrete evidence that the statement above by the Royal United Services Institute was factually inaccurate? - Amigao (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Skimming it, I don't see any concrete evidence in the article itself to support the claim. Do you? It appears the author is relying on the reader's implicit bias that "inventing news is the norm rather than the exception" in Arabic language media and guilt by association with Iran as evidence of the claim. I don't see any examples of debunked or falsified stories. Unbandito (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- RUSI's statement was a fair one. A more recent example would be Al-Manar's story stating that the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine "officially tops efficacy and safety" standards without anything else backing it up. - Amigao (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Al-Manar's story ...
That's a factually incorrect claim! It's not their story, it's clearly attributed to Sputnik. M.Bitton (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)- So they are re-publishing COVID-19 disinformation from an unreliable and deprecated source like WP:SPUTNIK. That does not exactly help the reliability of Al-Manar, at least for the purposes of an RfC. Also, here is a March 2022 Al-Manar article that spreads a version of the Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory with bat coronavirus thrown into the mix. - Amigao (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- First things first: you misrepresented a source.
- Second, they can re-publish anything they want, and so long as they attribute it to the original source, it has zero (as in none whatsoever) effect on their reliability.
- Third, you're doing it again: the above source is attributed to the chief spokesman for the The Russian Defense Ministry.
- I have no idea why you're doing this, but it certainly doesn't look good (to be honest, it' quite worrying). M.Bitton (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Re-publishing known vaccine disinformation narratives from WP:DEPRECATED sources has quite a lot to do with a source's editorial judgment and overall reliability for the purposes of an RfC. - Amigao (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Misrepresenting the sources, like you keep doing, is what makes a source unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's not necessarily unusual or a sign of poor editorial judgment for a source to cite a deprecated source. Just this morning, I read this article from the FT, which says:
Separately his deputy, Brigadier General Ali Fadavi, told Al Mayadeen, a Lebanese television channel close to Iran, that a response would be “inevitable”. In more than 40 years, “we have not left any aggression without a response”, he said.
Reliable sources often need to cover what biased or unreliable sources are saying in order to tell the full story. The fact that this guilt by association tactic of "citing an unreliable source = unreliable", which has been used on the RSN to knock sources down like dominoes, isn't even accepted as an actual journalistic standard shows that it's just silly politicking. Unbandito (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)- Citing a quote from deprecated source, as the FT example does, is quite different from directly re-publishing a deprecated source article verbatim, as Al-Manar frequently does. - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV), so do yourself a big favour and give this a break. M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here is an even more recent 2023 Al-Manar article that directly re-publishes the same WP:SPUTNIK piece. - Amigao (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- ... and attributes it to them. I'm starting to question your motives. M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Re-publishing unreliable sources that the community has long WP:DEPRECATED with attribution does not somehow make a source more reliable for the purposes of an RfC. - Amigao (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do you honestly believe that the real world cares about some irrelevant WP RfC or the "community" (a handful of editors)? You seem to have forgotten one very important rule: we don't lead, we follow. M.Bitton (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Republishing from bad sources is not the same as citing, and indeed does indicate poor editorial policies/standpoints. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Re-publishing unreliable sources that the community has long WP:DEPRECATED with attribution does not somehow make a source more reliable for the purposes of an RfC. - Amigao (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Today Al-Manar has an article on Ukraine verbatim directly copied (with attribution at the bottom) from Tass, a red flag source for us. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- ... and attributes it to them. I'm starting to question your motives. M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Good you can read Amigao’s mind to understand the motivation for his arguments here. But Amigao is correct that translating and reposting an article (as Jerusalem Post does of Walla, as noted in the discussion above, or as Al-Manar) is completely different than citing an article and attributing a claim to it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness. 22:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here is an even more recent 2023 Al-Manar article that directly re-publishes the same WP:SPUTNIK piece. - Amigao (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's a fair point that quoting and republishing a source are two different things. However, I would still question why we should take republishing another source as an indication of one source's reliability. We wouldn't typically use republished content on Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in the case of a paywall on the original source, so it seems unnecessary to me to judge source reliability based on their republications. And we wouldn't make this judgment in the other direction, for example if Al-Manar republished a story from the AP, we wouldn't take that as an indication that they are reliable. If Al-Manar is merely a content aggregator then I suppose we shouldn't use it, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
- What evidence do we have of the reliability or unreliability of Al-Manar's original reporting? Unbandito (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Furthermore, here is a prime example of misrepresentation of sourcing by Al-Manar: Al-Manar claims this article was sourced from Reuters but the article was actually sourced from this one at WP:RT.COM, another deprecated source. - Amigao (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate your hard work in continuing to analyze the source and build a stronger critique of it. I can't find the Reuters article that Al-Manar claims to have sourced that content from (not to say it doesn't exist, I just can't find it) so that's concerning. However, the Al-Manar article has more material than the RT article, which means at least some of the material must come from a different source. I can't read Arabic outside of the use of translation tools so it's possible that I am missing some nuance here, but the overlapping aspects of the article such as Lukashenko's statement in an interview with Sky News Arabia are not identically phrased (except for the quote itself) as one might expect if the material were republished from RT. So while the Reuters article in question appears to be missing right now, I find the evidence that the article was in fact republished from RT to be insufficient. Even if it were, it's not clear that the information published by RT and allegedly republished by Al-Manar in this case is unreliable, and the material that might be republished is just a quote from a Sky News Arabia interview, so hardly a reflection on either of the sources' reliability. Unbandito (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Al-Manar's article does not have more text in the body than the WP:RT.COM article. They are the same, but Al-Manar claims that it sourced the content from Reuters, which is clearly not the case. Here is the Al-Manar version and the RT version via Internet Archive links for ease of comparison. (Interestingly, Al-Manar does not appear to source other articles from Reuters.) - Amigao (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's my bad, you're right that the articles are the same, except that the syntax of the line about the quote from the Sky News interview appears to be slightly altered. The "read more" box inside the RT article interfered with my efforts to translate and threw me off.
- That being said, I don't see how this is evidence of systematic unreliability on the part of Al-Manar. If you could demonstrate a pattern of passing off the original reporting of unreliable sources as if they came from reliable sources like Reuters, I would find that more convincing. Unbandito (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Another common tactic Al-Manar uses to obfuscate its sourcing is to claim to source from unspecified "agencies" when, in fact, it is copying article text verbatim from Russian state media such as WP:TASS. For example:
- Amigao (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Al-Manar's article does not have more text in the body than the WP:RT.COM article. They are the same, but Al-Manar claims that it sourced the content from Reuters, which is clearly not the case. Here is the Al-Manar version and the RT version via Internet Archive links for ease of comparison. (Interestingly, Al-Manar does not appear to source other articles from Reuters.) - Amigao (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate your hard work in continuing to analyze the source and build a stronger critique of it. I can't find the Reuters article that Al-Manar claims to have sourced that content from (not to say it doesn't exist, I just can't find it) so that's concerning. However, the Al-Manar article has more material than the RT article, which means at least some of the material must come from a different source. I can't read Arabic outside of the use of translation tools so it's possible that I am missing some nuance here, but the overlapping aspects of the article such as Lukashenko's statement in an interview with Sky News Arabia are not identically phrased (except for the quote itself) as one might expect if the material were republished from RT. So while the Reuters article in question appears to be missing right now, I find the evidence that the article was in fact republished from RT to be insufficient. Even if it were, it's not clear that the information published by RT and allegedly republished by Al-Manar in this case is unreliable, and the material that might be republished is just a quote from a Sky News Arabia interview, so hardly a reflection on either of the sources' reliability. Unbandito (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Furthermore, here is a prime example of misrepresentation of sourcing by Al-Manar: Al-Manar claims this article was sourced from Reuters but the article was actually sourced from this one at WP:RT.COM, another deprecated source. - Amigao (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV), so do yourself a big favour and give this a break. M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Citing a quote from deprecated source, as the FT example does, is quite different from directly re-publishing a deprecated source article verbatim, as Al-Manar frequently does. - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Re-publishing known vaccine disinformation narratives from WP:DEPRECATED sources has quite a lot to do with a source's editorial judgment and overall reliability for the purposes of an RfC. - Amigao (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- So they are re-publishing COVID-19 disinformation from an unreliable and deprecated source like WP:SPUTNIK. That does not exactly help the reliability of Al-Manar, at least for the purposes of an RfC. Also, here is a March 2022 Al-Manar article that spreads a version of the Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory with bat coronavirus thrown into the mix. - Amigao (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- RUSI's statement was a fair one. A more recent example would be Al-Manar's story stating that the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine "officially tops efficacy and safety" standards without anything else backing it up. - Amigao (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Skimming it, I don't see any concrete evidence in the article itself to support the claim. Do you? It appears the author is relying on the reader's implicit bias that "inventing news is the norm rather than the exception" in Arabic language media and guilt by association with Iran as evidence of the claim. I don't see any examples of debunked or falsified stories. Unbandito (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can you offer any concrete evidence that the statement above by the Royal United Services Institute was factually inaccurate? - Amigao (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- A partisan source (in the middle of ongoing war) means propaganda (that they are welcome to feed to their kids). M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
French-based Reporters Without Borders criticised its terrorist designation in 2004, but noted its antisemitism.
- "Dangerous precedent seen in decision to put Al-Manar on list of terror organisations". RSF. 20 December 2004. Retrieved 15 November 2024.
"Some of the anti-Semitic statements broadcast on Al-Manar are inexcusable but putting this TV station in the same category as terrorist groups worries us and does not strike us as the best solution"
BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't make it unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Once again, more than 20 years ago. Also see weaponization of antisemitism.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Are you accusing RWB of weaponising antisemitism? Why would they want to? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- What are we supposed to “see” here? You have reason to believe that this is a manipulative and dishonest claim of antisemitism? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Once again, more than 20 years ago. Also see weaponization of antisemitism.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't make it unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- EUvsDisinfo has cited Al-Manar at least 14 times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) for spreading disinformation. Some are re-publications of articles from deprecated sources such as WP:SPUTNIK and WP:RT.COM, and include claims such as conspiracy theories about the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine leading to Alzheimer's disease. - Amigao (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- A pro NATO source criticising Russia and anyone who doesn't consider NATO's word as the absolute truth. What a surprise. M.Bitton (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- M.Bitton, is there a criticism of Al Manar, real or hypothetical, that you would accept or at least not consider to be bullshit? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I looked at some (not all) of the links. Every single one is simply reporting what Russian or Syrian officials said, and attributing it directly to them. It is the job of journalists to quote officials' statement no matter how unsavory they may be (and many of these statements are quoted in Western RS themselves).VR (Please ping on reply) 17:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: while this discussion is talking place, Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find to the "Al-Manar" article. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is very offensive to call another editors’ edits “garbage”. I would be grateful if other people could look at these edits too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's what you've been collecting and adding while the discussion is taking place. That's not something I would expect from an experienced editor, least of all when another discussion involving sources misrepresentation is also taking place on the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton I must reiterate: The Kip 00:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is very offensive to call another editors’ edits “garbage”. I would be grateful if other people could look at these edits too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here is an Al-Manar article (sourced from WP:SPUTNIK and WP:DAILYMAIL, another deprecated source) that speaks about the COVID-19 lab leak theory as if it is a fact without any balance or qualification. Source: EUvsDisinfo - Amigao (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: while this discussion is talking place, Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find to the "Al-Manar" article. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- A pro NATO source criticising Russia and anyone who doesn't consider NATO's word as the absolute truth. What a surprise. M.Bitton (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Mintz, John (22 December 2004). "U.S. Bans Al-Manar, Says TV Network Backs Terror". Washington Post. Retrieved 15 November 2024.:
French officials prohibited the network from broadcasting in France, citing what it called al-Manar's anti-Semitic content and appeals to violence. French officials cited al-Manar programs reporting that Jews spread AIDS around the world and that they seek children's blood to bake into Passover matzoh.
BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)- In France, you can bash the Arabs and the Muslims all day long (under the protection of the so-called freedom of speech and bla bla bla), and believe me when I say that they do (they will even honour you for doing so), but the moment your criticize Israel, you get accused of being antisemitic. M.Bitton (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Jews spread AIDS around the world and that they seek children's blood to bake into Passover matzoh" is NOT a "criticism of Israel". BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm referring to clear theme (when citing the opinions of their enemies who are known for their double standard). In France, you can say about the Arabs and the Muslims and that's fine given that Arab and Muslim bashing is literally a sport. M.Bitton (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the French state is deeply racist and Islamophobic. That doesn't make it "reliable" to accuse the Jews of the blood libel. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
the French state is deeply racist and Islamophobic
so why are paying attention to what it says? M.Bitton (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)- I am paying attention to what the French Jewish community said. There are other sources for this too in the Al-Manar article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- You mean the CRIF? M.Bitton (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am paying attention to what the French Jewish community said. There are other sources for this too in the Al-Manar article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the French state is deeply racist and Islamophobic. That doesn't make it "reliable" to accuse the Jews of the blood libel. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm referring to clear theme (when citing the opinions of their enemies who are known for their double standard). In France, you can say about the Arabs and the Muslims and that's fine given that Arab and Muslim bashing is literally a sport. M.Bitton (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Jews spread AIDS around the world and that they seek children's blood to bake into Passover matzoh" is NOT a "criticism of Israel". BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Bobfrombrockley can you find Al-Manar articles in the past 20 years that say Jews use blood in Passover? That's clearly antisemitic, but please actually find such articles.VR (Please ping on reply) 18:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- It was a TV series made by a Syrian company, which they screened. So not as straightforward as if they were claiming that in their own content (as they did with Israelis having foreknowledge of 9/11) but it shows you their editorial standards are incompatible with a reliable status. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- They screened a Syrian TV series that some pro-Israel sources don't like. What's that got to do with their reliability as a source? M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- again, it is not “pro-Israel” to say the blood libel and the protocols of the elders of Zion are not the content carried by a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's a Syrian TV series that they screened, it's their right to do so. What's that got to do with their reliability as a source? M.Bitton (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sigh. Yes it’s their right to screen something based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but nonetheless the Protocols were a forgery so doing so indicates unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's a baseless claim that nobody can substantiate. What does a TV series (produced in Syria) have to do with al-Manar's reliability? M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I’m confused. It’s widely agreed that the Protocols were a forgery. Numerous RSs say two different series screened on Al-Manar in the 2000s (one Syrian, one Egyptian) were based on the Protocols. So maybe this isn’t a dealbreaker in terms of reliability; it seems that they did subsequently apologise after France banned the station. But I think it’s obvious that it is a data point in the unreliability column. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Who cares about the protocol and whether it is a forgery or a fact? It's a flipping TV series.
it is a data point in the unreliability column
that's another baseless claim that nobody can substantiate.- I repeat the question that you ignored: what does a TV series (produced in Syria to boot) have to do with al-Manar's reliability? M.Bitton (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Was this TV Syrian TV series a drama or presented as factual? If a channel has broadcast a syndicated drama which contains blood libel and the allegation around AIDS, I feel all of its output needs to be looked at carefully in terms of reliability. Propaganda of this nature is a strong indicator of extreme antisemitic conspiracist views which may also be present in its factual output, even though no unreliable claim has technically been made. However, if it has broadcast a syndicated program presenting this as factual information then it becomes immediately unreliable for our purposes. If we aren't using the Daily Fail, and we can in good faith argue about the Telegraph's reliability based on them publishing a true story that was somewhat litter-tray adjacent, then there's no way we should be using a source that parrots blood libel.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Very well put, and good question, which the sources are vague about. It appears to be a docudrama, but Al-Manar initially seemed to think it was factual:
Al-Manar’s program director, Nasser Akhdar, stressed that the series was “purely historical” and that it was based on some 250 sources written by Jews. The program covers the history of the Jews and the Zionists between 1812 and 1948, he said, and underlines the Jewish emigration to Palestine, the Balfour Declaration, and the European policies regarding this issue during that period. “It offers a clear image of what the Zionists have committed in the social, political, and ideological fields,” Akhdar said. “It is a voice against all those who wish to hide the truth.” He said US complaints were an attempt to “misguide public opinion,” adding that this was part of the US strategy of hegemony over the media to “cancel other people’s opinions.”
It might be a point in Al-Manar's favour that they later removed the show from their archive and said they erred in showing it and that they never saw it before they broadcast it (although I am not sure that's been reported by anyone other than Counterpunch, an unreliable source). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)this was part of the US strategy of hegemony over the media to “cancel other people’s opinions.”
it certainly looks that way.- When the US complained to Lebanon over the series, Lebanese officials refused to interfere and one of them said:
M.Bitton (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)"The United States has a strange conception of freedom of expression... What would they say if we tried to interfere with the way Fox News portrays Arabs, Muslims or Palestinians?"
— Lebanese official
If a channel has broadcast a syndicated drama which contains blood libel and the allegation around AIDS, I feel all of its output needs to be looked at carefully in terms of reliability
I see, so channels in the west can distort history and portray the Muslims and Arabs as terrorists in their dramas, while hiding behind the cherished freedom of speech, but the rest of the word has to abide by some fictitious standard that only the west has the key to. Fascinating. M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)- We deem Western sources that repeat racist conspiracy theories unreliable too (Boynamedsue mentioned the Daily Mail; we also rate the Lebanese minister's example, Fox News, as an unreliable source). I think there's a difference, though, between perpetrating stereotypes that are deep in a culture (as the majority of Western AND non-Western sources do) and repeating actual conspiracy theories such as Jews deliberately spread AIDS or Jews kill Christian children to harvest their blood for ritual purposes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, we certainly don't judge the reliability of western sources based on the TV series and movies that they screen. M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- If an Arab drama series portrayed a group of Israelis, or even Jews, as nefarious villains sabotaging a society, I agree that would be a pretty perfect analogy to what Western media does to Arabs, and I wouldn't say it had any effect on how we should evaluate news output. However, if a Western channel broadcast a drama that said, say, Arab Muslims worship Baphomet and train children to suicide bomb Jews as they believe (and the following is a deliberately offensive example) their inherent, irrational and motiveless antisemitism is more important than the lives of their children, then we would have a more precise analogy to the question of blood libel.
- No, we certainly don't judge the reliability of western sources based on the TV series and movies that they screen. M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- We deem Western sources that repeat racist conspiracy theories unreliable too (Boynamedsue mentioned the Daily Mail; we also rate the Lebanese minister's example, Fox News, as an unreliable source). I think there's a difference, though, between perpetrating stereotypes that are deep in a culture (as the majority of Western AND non-Western sources do) and repeating actual conspiracy theories such as Jews deliberately spread AIDS or Jews kill Christian children to harvest their blood for ritual purposes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Very well put, and good question, which the sources are vague about. It appears to be a docudrama, but Al-Manar initially seemed to think it was factual:
- Was this TV Syrian TV series a drama or presented as factual? If a channel has broadcast a syndicated drama which contains blood libel and the allegation around AIDS, I feel all of its output needs to be looked at carefully in terms of reliability. Propaganda of this nature is a strong indicator of extreme antisemitic conspiracist views which may also be present in its factual output, even though no unreliable claim has technically been made. However, if it has broadcast a syndicated program presenting this as factual information then it becomes immediately unreliable for our purposes. If we aren't using the Daily Fail, and we can in good faith argue about the Telegraph's reliability based on them publishing a true story that was somewhat litter-tray adjacent, then there's no way we should be using a source that parrots blood libel.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I’m confused. It’s widely agreed that the Protocols were a forgery. Numerous RSs say two different series screened on Al-Manar in the 2000s (one Syrian, one Egyptian) were based on the Protocols. So maybe this isn’t a dealbreaker in terms of reliability; it seems that they did subsequently apologise after France banned the station. But I think it’s obvious that it is a data point in the unreliability column. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's a baseless claim that nobody can substantiate. What does a TV series (produced in Syria) have to do with al-Manar's reliability? M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sigh. Yes it’s their right to screen something based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but nonetheless the Protocols were a forgery so doing so indicates unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's a Syrian TV series that they screened, it's their right to do so. What's that got to do with their reliability as a source? M.Bitton (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- again, it is not “pro-Israel” to say the blood libel and the protocols of the elders of Zion are not the content carried by a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- They screened a Syrian TV series that some pro-Israel sources don't like. What's that got to do with their reliability as a source? M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- It was a TV series made by a Syrian company, which they screened. So not as straightforward as if they were claiming that in their own content (as they did with Israelis having foreknowledge of 9/11) but it shows you their editorial standards are incompatible with a reliable status. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- In France, you can bash the Arabs and the Muslims all day long (under the protection of the so-called freedom of speech and bla bla bla), and believe me when I say that they do (they will even honour you for doing so), but the moment your criticize Israel, you get accused of being antisemitic. M.Bitton (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am a strong opponent of Israel's aggression against Palestine and Lebanon, and I am disgusted by the despicable attempts by various ghouls to suggest that any mention of the IDF and West Bank Settlers' mass murder of children is equivalent to blood libel. However, blood libel is an incredibly serious thing. It is not hard to find out that Jews absolutely do not mix blood with flour to make special biscuits, or that this belief has had terrible consequences in the past. Anybody not prepared to make that little bit of effort will have, in my view, question marks over their reliability..Boynamedsue (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
if a Western channel broadcast a drama that said...
Have you ever noticed that the TV series "Homeland" (based on an Israeli television drama) that was being screened all over the place is actually Islamophobic and Arabophobic? That's just an example; in fact, Islamophobia and Arabophobia have become so common in the western media (especially, in the last two decades) that one doesn't even notice them, i.e., they've become the acceptable norm.- What we have here is a clear case of double standard, where freedom of expression seems to only be acceptable when it comes from the west. Franky, it beggars belief that a country such as the US (the "champion of free speech") would try to censor a TV series in another country. M.Bitton (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've never seen Homeland, so I don't know whether its level of Islamophobia would be equivalent to blood libel. But it is made by Fox 21, whose sister news network we DON'T USE for politics or science.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter who made it, it was screened everywhere and it received many awards. Like I said, that was just an example amongst the many. This all comes down to one thing and one simple choice: one either supports freedom of expression or one doesn't. M.Bitton (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I'll make this crystal clear. I absolutely do not support freedom of expression. I have used physical violence in the past to prevent nazis from freely expressing their views, and would do so again. However, even if I believed in freedom of expression, freedom to express your views is not freedom to be accepted as a reliable source on wikipedia. Have a look at WP:RS for the criteria which apply.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I will make this crystal clear: the reliability of a source doesn't depend on what TV series it screens (WP:RS doesn't say otherwise). M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I'll make this crystal clear. I absolutely do not support freedom of expression. I have used physical violence in the past to prevent nazis from freely expressing their views, and would do so again. However, even if I believed in freedom of expression, freedom to express your views is not freedom to be accepted as a reliable source on wikipedia. Have a look at WP:RS for the criteria which apply.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter who made it, it was screened everywhere and it received many awards. Like I said, that was just an example amongst the many. This all comes down to one thing and one simple choice: one either supports freedom of expression or one doesn't. M.Bitton (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've never seen Homeland, so I don't know whether its level of Islamophobia would be equivalent to blood libel. But it is made by Fox 21, whose sister news network we DON'T USE for politics or science.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think the current relevance of this sort of content comes through when you look at how they report Israeli "organ harvesting", mixing reliable and unreliable sources and misrepresenting both to shape a narrative echoing the Protocols, or how they describe settlers engaged in "Talmudic rituals" at al-Aqsa to describe something that isn't actually Talmudic but again fits an antisemitic narrative (in contrast, e.g., to Al-Jazeera who use quote marks when reporting this). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am a strong opponent of Israel's aggression against Palestine and Lebanon, and I am disgusted by the despicable attempts by various ghouls to suggest that any mention of the IDF and West Bank Settlers' mass murder of children is equivalent to blood libel. However, blood libel is an incredibly serious thing. It is not hard to find out that Jews absolutely do not mix blood with flour to make special biscuits, or that this belief has had terrible consequences in the past. Anybody not prepared to make that little bit of effort will have, in my view, question marks over their reliability..Boynamedsue (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- "LEBANON: Did Tunisia's tyrant buy off Hezbollah TV?". Los Angeles Times. 24 May 2011. Retrieved 15 November 2024.
Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television was allegedly paid $100,000 to polish up the image of deposed Tunisian dictator Zine el Abidine ben Ali... The newspaper said Al-Manar, which used to receive $150,000 a year to support the Ben Ali regime, asked for an extra $50,000 annually if ACTE wished to raise the profile of the ruler, who now resides in Jeddah with his wife.
BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)allegedly
no need to read further than this. M.Bitton (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)- Being paid money to polish up someone's image doesn't make it unreliable, as long as they don't say something inherently false. It just proves bias, not unreliability. Also, that's alleged by Sabah newspaper, which, if you see their original report, was accusing several different agencies, such as NBN, Al Jadeed, LBCI, and Future News, all alongside Al-Manar. Almost ALL of Lebanon's news agencies were involved in that, if it's really true. Viral weirdo (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cochrane, Paul (7 March 2007). "Bombs and broadcasts: Al Manar's battle to stay on air". Arab Media & Society. Retrieved 15 November 2024.:
France banned the channel following complaints by the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France to the French Higher Audio Visual Council (CSA) that scenes in a 30 part Syrian-made series, Al-Shatat (The Diaspora), aired during Ramadan 2003, were anti-Semitic. The show, which claimed to depict the history of the Zionist movement, stoked widespread condemnation by portraying the killing of a Christian child by Jews to use the victim's blood to make matzoh bread.
BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)- I already told you: unbelievable as it sounds, in France, you can bash the Arabs and the Muslims all day long and make up any story about them (under the protection of the so-called "freedom of speech"), but the moment you say anything that is related to Israel, then your freedom of speech ceases to exist. M.Bitton (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Are you saying the show, Al-Shatat, did not portray Jews as child-killers, and that the French Jews are making this up? Because otherwise French racism and free speech ideas are not relevant to determining this Lebanese source's reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is? They are free to show whatever they want. Arabs and Muslims are often portrayed as terrorists (when they're not portrayed as something worse) in the western media, and their history often falsified, yet, you don't see them crying and whinging about it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton your tone throughout this discussion is verging heavily on WP:NOTFORUM/WP:BATTLEGROUND, I heavily encourage you to slow down a bit. The Kip 19:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @The Kip: Your targetted comment is verging on aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton your tone throughout this discussion is verging heavily on WP:NOTFORUM/WP:BATTLEGROUND, I heavily encourage you to slow down a bit. The Kip 19:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Aside: our article on this series, Ash-Shatat, has been nominated for deletion, in case editors are interested in that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is? They are free to show whatever they want. Arabs and Muslims are often portrayed as terrorists (when they're not portrayed as something worse) in the western media, and their history often falsified, yet, you don't see them crying and whinging about it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Are you saying the show, Al-Shatat, did not portray Jews as child-killers, and that the French Jews are making this up? Because otherwise French racism and free speech ideas are not relevant to determining this Lebanese source's reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I already told you: unbelievable as it sounds, in France, you can bash the Arabs and the Muslims all day long and make up any story about them (under the protection of the so-called "freedom of speech"), but the moment you say anything that is related to Israel, then your freedom of speech ceases to exist. M.Bitton (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's always heat in discussions of contentious topics, but even given that this sections is starting to go off topic. Discussions should be about the source in relation to policies and guidelines, how the source is described by other reliable sources, or matters relating to the handling of the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
RFC Science-Based Medicine
Is the blog Science-Based Medicine in whole or in part, a self-published source? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment for context: Note that a prior RfC has found a previous consensus has found that Science-Based Medicine is considered WP:GREL and not considered WP:SPS. See WP:SBM for more details at WP:RSN. Raladic (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Iljhgtn, is there a reason that you chose not to list this RfC on the Maths, science, and technology list? If not, would you mind adding that topic area to the RfC template? Thanks,FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)- Never mind, Raladic added it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Responses (Science-Based Medicine)
- Not SPS - Per the previous RfC, there seems to be no reason to rehash this. The editorial practices of SBM show that they do not act like an SPS and that has not changed since the prior RfC. So there appears to be no reason to deviate it from it now. What is the rationale for this repeat RfC other than to try to discredit it? SBM is one of the watchdog media that help keep WP:FRINGE science out of Misplaced Pages. Raladic (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment (Summoned by bot), @Iljhgtn has there been in discussion of this on this noticeboard since the last RFC? TarnishedPath 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- OP created different RFC here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Science-Based_Medicine"_blog which was closed as a bad RFC as it was not neutral and editors pointed out the lack of RFCBEFORE on a reasoning of why this needs to be rehashed. Given that that one was just closed and now this new one was immediately opened again without any RFCBEFORE discussion, it similarly appears to be looking for a problem without information as to why this RfC is here without any new evidence that should change the established consensus of the community. Raladic (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- There was a discussion from a few years ago listed on RSP that seemed very mixed as to whether SBM is a SPS Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS. Per what they wrote on their site: "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" If people are able to publish directly, by themselves, without being reviewed, then that meets the definition of SPS and we need to treat it that way for BLPs. Noting that this only means that it can't be used for direct statements about living people, but can still be used for statements about the truth (or, more often, otherwise) of views held by living people, the views of the authors about living people, and statements about fringe theories themselves. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight -
After careful review, the editors of SBM decided to retract this book review. Because we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness, occasionally corrections need to be made post-publication. In this case we felt there were too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science, and leaving the article up would not be appropriate given the standards of SBM.
, so this looks like exactly what you'd expect from a non-SPS. You basically just made the case why they are not an SPS. Raladic (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)- In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- "As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as WP:SKYISBLUE. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- This just seems like sealioning but here you go... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You have linked to several articles by Steven Novella. Where does it claim on those articles they are self-published? David H. Gorski obviously reviewed those articles, he is listed in the link you cited below as the other editor. There are two editors so this isn't self-publishing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The website says "SBM is entirely owned and operated by the New England Skeptical Society" . So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella . This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology . My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. The dude looks young for his age, fooled me. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- So between Jay, Steve, and Robert Novella it seems that we have a lot of relatives here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is your source for the organization having 25 employees? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: you've claimed three times that the organization currently has exactly 25 employees... It is the core of your argument, but I don't think its true and I can't find it anywhere online... So how are you getting that number? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology . My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The website says "SBM is entirely owned and operated by the New England Skeptical Society" . So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella . This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as WP:SKYISBLUE. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- "As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight -
- It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have contacted someone who should know about this; hopefully they get back to me and I can let you know what the current figure of their employees is with documentation if possible. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not SPS This isn't a self-published source, the articles are reviewed before being published by an editorial board. The four current editors are: Steven P. Novella, David H. Gorski, Kimball C. Atwood, Mark Crislip. Guest editors can submit articles to the website, all of which are reviewed before publication. Critics of SBM are jumping a single retracted article that this is an SPS. Seems like a bad case of cherry-picking. There is no good evidence this is an SPS. Update There are two editors not four my mistake. The publisher is the New England Skeptical Society. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't match what is currently on their website, they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by New England Skeptical Society, it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The New England Skeptical Society, of which Novella is founder and president. Void if removed (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by New England Skeptical Society, it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Their own statement was "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" Given that, it is clear that in at least some cases, people can publish directly on SBM without being reviewed before publication. - Bilby (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't match what is currently on their website, they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS, seems to be pretty cut and dried at least when it comes to Novella's pieces (remember SBM claims to be a blog, its generally presenting personal opinions... When its two expert editors want to publish their actual work they do not publish it there but in real journals). I would also note that this discussion should include the sister blog NeuroLogicaBlog. If anyone wants to disagree with me they can lay out what editorial checks and balances would apply to Novella. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own Respectful Insolence. There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is it two or several? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own Respectful Insolence. There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- (How) does the following factor into your assessment that it's an SPS? In their discussion of "Why Dr. Harriet Hall’s review of Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage was retracted," they note that "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing," and that they "have mechanisms of quality control" for articles that are posted without prior review, including "clarification in the comments" and "corrections to the original text of the article." Their page about outside submissions says in part "The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using an informal peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a 'rough and ready' peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission." FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. Void if removed (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was asking Horse Eye's Back, in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for Bilby as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- With Quackwatch we came to a similar position - articles published by the editor are self published, but articles on the site by other authors are not. I'm ok with something similar here. The only problem is that all they say is "trusted authors" can post directly. I would read that as safe to assume people who do not regularly have articles posted on the site would not be trusted, but it doesn't say only the editors are trusted to publish without prior review. Thus there may be some gray area between the two. - Bilby (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The others are more a grey area for me, most of what we are currently using on wiki is pieces by Gorski and Novella... And we have discussions elsewhere about some guest authors like Harriet Hall not producing work of the same quality/rigor as Gorski and Novella. Its a bit of an odd situation, normally the editors are not also the authors and even when they are they're normally not the primary and most reliable authors. Its made extra odd because most of the editors/authors are subject matter experts so usable under EXPERTSPS no matter where we come down on general reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was asking Horse Eye's Back, in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for Bilby as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. Void if removed (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS. It's a group blog with some guest authors. Having multiple contributors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Having guest authors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Retracting a post does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. This language in WP:SPS is particularly relevant: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". As a pro-SBM editor argued in the aborted RfC, the need for SBM in Misplaced Pages is to enable wikivoice accusations of "grift, fraud and quackery" that cannot be sourced otherwise. In other words, the reason this group blog has been elevated to a reliable source is to work around NPOV. - Palpable (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is a direct quote from WP:SPS. - Palpable (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with WP:SPS the appropriate venue is WT:V - Palpable (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is a direct quote from WP:SPS. - Palpable (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Do some people !voting here have a connection to the source? I see one editor referring to Steven Novella as "Steve" and another who may be affiliated with the New England Skeptical Society. I have seen some surprising interpretations of WP:COI in the past so I'm not sure if this is important, but thought it was worth noting. - Palpable (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is also a great point and worth investigating as part of any close here. Looks sus at the very least... Iljhgtn (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS. I personally think this source is fine to use on BLPs, but there is no way to honestly read our (convoluted, strange) SPS guidelines and not come to the conclusion that it is one. It is a small group of people most of whom publish without prior review on a blog. That they make arguments we like does not make it not a blog. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS. It's a group blog, but still a blog. Group blogs are specifically called out on WP:SPS. As noted above, SBM "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness". The fact that they later retracted one article doesn't negate that the norm for "trusted authors" (probably including regulars, and definitely including the owners of the site such as Gorski and Novella) is to publish without any editorial review of the author's work. Hence, it is clearly by and large an SPS.
- The claim that we need this to not be an SPS to effectively fight fringe and quackery is often made but I've never seen it backed up with an example of a fringe topic whose Misplaced Pages article would become credulous to pseudoscience without it. There are plenty of published and even academic sources that stuff like homeopathy is pseudoscientific, quackery, etc.; we are perfectly capable of sourcing something like "John Smith is an advocate of homeopathy, a pseudoscientific practice" in just about any case it is needed. SBM being an SPS also doesn't preclude its use in cases of WP:PARITY, as pro-fringe sources themselves are often SPS or otherwise poor. Crossroads 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The germ theory denialism article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's no shortage of reliable sources establishing that the germ theory was a huge advance in medicine and that we have basically incontrovertible proof of it for maybe thousands of diseases.
- - Palpable (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- But using any of those sources to draw conclusions about the specific claims of a particular germ theory denialist would be against policy. XOR'easter (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The germ theory denialism article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Reliable SPS- can be used to describe fringe theories proposed by people as discredited or as quackery, including on a bio... should not be used to describe people themselves as quacks. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)- Partial SPS - saw some of the info of arguments below from CoffeeCrumbs, and FactOrOpinon. I think the partial peer-review for some articles is... frustrating for a direct answer, but if there is peer-review on an article, it should stand as non-SPS material. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS - We see at WP:SPS that an SPS has clear rules and restrictions, such as not being used ever for a WP:BLP, absolutely never. Some seem to be arguing that this obvious SPS should for some reason be granted an exception to the clear language of "never" and should be allowed on biographies of living persons in some cases (or in many). There are many reasons why that is not allowed generally, but we have now learned that this source is essentially the soapbox of primarily only two individuals, and most importantly, is not part of a media outlet or organization or inclusive of any external (or even further internal vetting). No, rather, it is a blog. An SPS blog. One perhaps run by scientists, two scientists, but a blog, nonetheless. Again, quoting directly from WP:SPS, "
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
" So here we have this source, which is obviously beyond WP:SKYISBLUE a blog and a self-published source, we must then at the very least clarify that it absolutely must not be used in any circumstances for BLPs going forward, by the fact that it is so clearly a SPS.Iljhgtn (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC) - Partly SPS and partly non-SPS - The site makes it clear that some authors can publish without prior review. I consider their articles to be self-published; for example, I put Steven Novella's articles in this category. The site also says that other articles undergo prior review (e.g., "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing"). I consider the latter to be non-self-published. Examples of authors who clearly aren't regular article authors there and whose articles presumably underwent prior review: Nikolas Dietis and Kiarash Aramesh. For some articles/authors, it's not clear to me whether they fall in the SPS category or instead in the non-SPS category. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that posts by some established contributors are self-published (as shown by links above), while guest contributors are not. So the answer to whether SBM is an SPS or not is 'yes'. SPS and not SPS. Certainly the idea that it's fully SPS has no basis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS: As noted by other contributors, SBM openly acknowledges that it often publishes content without prior peer review. Consequently, this makes it a self-published source (SPS), with the opinions expressed representing those of individual authors. Like any other SPS, its use requires caution, especially in articles about living people or controversial topics, where ensuring accuracy and neutrality is critical. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not SPS for reviewed articles They directly state they have editorial peer review for a number, if not most, of their articles. And only a select few don't go through that process (though appear to have after the fact review, considering the retraction, so even that seems to be in question). I will note that this appears to be yet another attempt by WP:FRINGE pushing editors to try and remove skeptical debunking media from negatively covering their fringe topics. Par for the course attempt, honestly. Silverseren 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a day that ends in -Y.... XOR'easter (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we can't tell what is and isn't peer-reviewed and what is SPS material, is that not a problem? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- And how we will determine which articles have been reviewed? Also note that editorial review and peer review are different things and they do not appear to make a claim of peer review. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a blog, they are a trusted blog." Iljhgtn (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Poor editorial control is a matter of reliability, but all matters of reliability don't have to be decided by classifying a source as self-published. It's accepted that other sources follow their stated editorial practices, and noone has shown why that shouldn't be the case here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a blog, they are a trusted blog." Iljhgtn (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not SPS for reviewed articles They've got editors, which sets it apart from a standard SPS. Those articles that could be self published are still reliable for most purposes anyway, since they are from subject matter experts. It is also worth noting that while it should not be used for biographical details in general, even if this were to be considered a SPS that would not rule it out for comments on science, medicine, or the reception of fringe ideas, even when those ideas happen to appear on an article with a person's name at the top. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not SPS by virtue of having either pre-publication review or the possibility of editorially imposed retraction. A source that is truly self-published wouldn't have either of those. XOR'easter (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Partial SPS It's a bit awkward since they do so much good work, but "our own editors, however, have earned the privilege of publishing articles without prior review, since they have a proven track record," is extremely concerning. What they describe as an editorial process for these articles, saying that "if any concerns about accuracy, fairness, or completeness come to our attention, we deal with them in a number of ways," is just not enough. The job of an editor is checking before, not just maybe cleaning up after "if," so I would have to say that the articles by their own editors have to be considered SPS until they revise this. Things they actually do vet before putting up, I consider as being subjected to an editorial process, however. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Generally not SPS, though additional scrutiny for articles by Gorski and Novella may be appropriate. Essentially per my previous comment. I'm also frankly not impressed with this RFC, and the manner the proposer starts these discussions in general. Said discussions are not quite up to the point of disruption, but I would nonetheless heavily suggest that they seek advice as to the drafting of their statements and formatting of their proposals and whether adequate prior discussion has taken place, from one of the other editors supporting their point of view. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS A group blog posting guest postings is still a group blog, and still self-published. Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella, whose blog it is), previous claims to having a robust editorial process seem unconvincing. There is no consistently documented publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and this source is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. Void if removed (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as here, and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am responding to suggestions that some sort of allegedly robust editorial and accountability process makes it not an SPS, which I think is a nonsense.
- My favoured definition of SPS is: if it isn't traditionally published (book, newspaper, journal) or something directly comparable structurally, it is an SPS. That is in line with USESPS since it considers virtually all websites to be self-published. It is narrow, yes, but it is also consistent across media. It is also not a reflection on reliability in other ways, as SPS vs GREL are two different concerns.
- I think the "self" in "self-published" causes much confusion, as does the consideration that "publishing" is the mere act of putting information online. A publishing company is more than a person who vets content and presses a button to place material on a website. If we consider something not self published simply because the person who writes it has to go through another person before it is published, that means celebrity social media accounts where an intern reports to a manager aren't self published, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing (ie, virtually nothing is self-published by that standard).
- I consider "science based medicine" to be a publication as a whole rather than something that can be approached article-by-article. There is no distinct, separate, traditional publishing entity, as with a newspaper, a book, or an academic journal. The owners and editors are all the same, and that they solicit other people's content to add to their own publication which they entirely control still makes it their own self-published publication, in exactly the same way as any blog with guest posts.
- I know there are difficult edge cases to the whole "what is a traditional publisher" model, but I don't think a group blog like SBM is even close to that, and considering it to be one (because editors want to use it to make BLP claims about quacks) has turned into a slippery slope IMO. Void if removed (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources is policy, not an essay. It is clear policy that blogs like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs at a bare minimum. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I said "USESPS is an essay, not a policy" (emphasis added). It seems that you're confusing WP:USESPS (which as I noted is an essay) with WP:SPS (which is a policy). People clearly have different opinions about whether SBM is wholly SPS or only partially SPS, and if the consensus of this RfC is that it is only partially SPS, then the part that isn't SPS can be used for statements about living persons despite identifying itself as a blog. Also, the BLP policy is for statements about living persons, wherever they occur, but AFAIK, RS expert blogs can be used for DUE statements about non-persons, even if that statement appears in a biographical article. BLPSELFPUB is also an exception. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware. We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them. When I raised this weeks ago I asked what I was missing, and it turned out I wasn't missing anything except a massive intractable tarpit. I think none of it is obvious. Your objection here is understandable depends very much how you interpret "author", "publisher" and the work being published, and a narrow definition restricted to natural persons means any source with two people can be argued to be not self published. But to me it remains obvious that for a self published book in which my friend writes the foreword, their content is still self published even though I acted as "editor", and I don't see a difference between a self published book with multiple contributors and a group blog with multiple contributors. And the trouble is a lot of the discussions about how we classify X or Y revolve not around what they are, but about how we want to use them, which makes it ever more messy. Personally I would like to see clarity on *why* BLPSPS exists, and define the standard clearly there, because that would inform what sort of sources are acceptable in BLPs, which is really the nub of the matter. BLPSPS feels like it might once have been shorthand for "a source who's probably had the lawyers look it over before publishing it", but that's just my impression/speculation. Absent BLPSPS, the question of whether sources like grey literature or SBM are SPS or not is largely moot. Void if removed (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Void if removed makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, most local and hyper local news outlets are in fact self-published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Void if removed makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources is policy, not an essay. It is clear policy that blogs like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs at a bare minimum. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as here, and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not SPS for reviewed content. Where content is clearly reviewed, definitely not SPS. Where we’re not certain, treat it with extra caution. By the way “blog” and “SPS” are not synonyms. Blog is a format that can be edited and published by reputable organisations, as with eg The Conversation or perhaps the SPLC’s Hatewatch. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree with you that your two examples are not SPS, however I have seen people argue the contrary in both cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Everything in The Conversation (website) is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per WP:NEWSOPED. I also don't believe that any of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this blog are considered reviewed, and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- That argument is directly supported by Misplaced Pages policy. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone needs to make, but policy overrides guidelines. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. XOR'easter (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling WP:V a guideline). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of WP:V that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using
self-published sources as third-party sources about living people
, but that fails to apply in two different ways. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)- How does "fail to apply in two different ways"? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- There seems to be a lot more than that which is pertinent, that whole section for example is pertinent not just that one sentence. Many of the "not SPS" arguments also seem to be based on WP:NEWSBLOG. As for it somehow not applying you've lost me, gonna have to explain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of WP:V that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using
- Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling WP:V a guideline). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- That argument is directly supported by Misplaced Pages policy. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone needs to make, but policy overrides guidelines. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. XOR'easter (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this blog are considered reviewed, and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Everything in The Conversation (website) is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per WP:NEWSOPED. I also don't believe that any of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, several editors seem to claim something along the lines of "since Science-Based Medicine is 'reviewed' it cannot be a SPS". This claim would benefit from some proof, ideally other secondary sources validating this claim, and not just the very same source saying that it does so. Alex Jones might claim that he is reviewed and reliable etc. That claim by itself does not make it so. Also, I am not saying that Science-Based Medicine is anything like AJ in terms of reliability etc., and to be clear, this RfC is not about reliability, it is just on whether or not the SBM source is an SPS, which I think it pretty obviously is. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models:
- Book publisher: External authors submit book outlines and sample chapters; if selected, the publisher contributes substantially towards editing (including developmental editing if necessary), designing, and marketing the book. The author pays for none of this and expects to get paid (at least if sales exceed a minimum threshold). If the publisher rejects the book, then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher.
- Newspaper: The publisher/publication hires editors and journalists. The editor assigns stories (to internal staff) or commissions them (among freelancers; alternatively, editors may accept external pitches, in the book-publisher model). The journalists write the stories; the editor and publisher/publication representatives decide whether to publish what the journalists wrote. If an employee instead of a freelancer, the journalist expects to get paid the same even if the article is canned (not published). If a freelancer, and the piece doesn't run, the freelancer is free to sell it to a different publication.
- Peer-reviewed journal: The (usually for-profit) publisher or (usually academic) sponsoring body creates the publication and hire editors. External authors submit whole papers; editors send the papers for external review and use that information to decide which ones to publish. The authors usually pay for publication, but this is understood to be akin to volunteer work on all sides, with the money usually coming from a third-party grant rather than the author's own funds. If the journal rejects the article, the author is free to submit it to another journal.
- I wonder if any of these models feel similar to how you imagine SBM to work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have expanded on this concept in a sandbox. I wonder whether people would find that comparison useful in, say, Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using self-published works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do not think any of the above apply to SBM, but I'd like to see you perhaps write up a few methods for what clearly SPS look like, and then we could compare to the above, and determine which SBM most closely resembles. Again, if you write stuff, then you are the publisher, that is by definition "self-published", which is very often the case even if not always for Science-Based Medicine...even by their own admission! Iljhgtn (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think defining none self-published sources are the ones we give a free pass because of our social-culture background is a good way to define them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models:
- SPS. The website describes itself as a blog. According to WP:SPS blogs are considered SPS. In addition, SBM publishes unknown proportions of articles without prior editorial review. Therefore, SBM could only be used with attribution, because it is impossible to tell which articles passed editorial review and which did not. JonJ937 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @JonJ937, WP:SPS says "...self-published material such as...personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above)...are largely not acceptable as sources". Are you sure that this isn't a WP:NEWSBLOG? They have an Executive editor and a Managing editor, which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with WP:NEWSBLOGS, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "
These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.
" Iljhgtn (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)- I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want Science-Based Medicine to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per WP:NEWSBLOG we are advised to use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. JonJ937 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Use with caution and statements of opinion are covered by other parts of the guidelines, separate from SPS. Whether a source is self-published or not doesn't mean it's reliable or unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per WP:NEWSBLOG we are advised to use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. JonJ937 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want Science-Based Medicine to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "
- @JonJ937, WP:SPS says "...self-published material such as...personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above)...are largely not acceptable as sources". Are you sure that this isn't a WP:NEWSBLOG? They have an Executive editor and a Managing editor, which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with WP:NEWSBLOGS, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Mostly SPS. It seems to be the Novella and Gorski show. That doesn’t make it unreliable for topics in which they are recognised experts - neurology for Novella and oncology for Gorski, apparently. That would make them reliable reviewers of any guest content on those topics too. But outside their domains of expertise, they are just blogging. Expertise in one domain does not imply expertise in another - and sometimes it’s quite the opposite, in that smart people who are accomplished in their niche start to think their opinions on everything else are equally robust (looking at you, Elon). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS. Editorial oversight is insufficiently verifiable nor independent enough to call this something other than self-published. SmolBrane (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS It seems their peer-review is only for new contributers, the staff is volunteer and they explicitly say that they like to avoid as much editing as possible. There also doesn't seem to be much of editorial indepencence from the owner (New England Skeptical Society) which is an advocacy group. Especially troubling is that the Executive Editor is also the President of NESS. NESS also has two other members of the Novella family on the board. That makes three of the five board members from the same family. This is no what oversight should look like. The group of writers is also small and probably know each other well and are of course, ideologically similar. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Partial SPSPartly unclear, partly not SPS As discussed above, it isn't clear which articles by Gorski and Novella have been reviewed and we should probably lean towards treating those ones like WP:EXPERTSPS just to be safe. They do, however, have a very clear review policy on guest articles (see ) which statesvolunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission
(emphasis added). That's pretty obviously not self-publishing. I do want to note though that this type of discussion would really benefit from more consensus on what an SPS is. Maybe some more experienced editors should consider drafting a big RfC to revise SPS with more detail on what it means in practice (probably after ARBPIA5 is over so admins have more time to focus on it)? CambrianCrab (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CambrianCrab:The main problem is that they currently only have two editors (one being the managing editor), so we can be relatively sure that they do not follow that policy becuase it requires a minimum of four editors to follow (the managing editor and at least three others). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good catch on the number of editors, I missed that the other ones had retired/passed, but I don't really think that makes it SPS since articles are still getting reviewed. Imo, it's a red flag in terms of reliability that either the list of editors and/or review policy is out of date, but no impact towards whether or not it's SPS. CambrianCrab (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- See and that is interesting because I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I think that it could be reasonably argued that SBM is reliable, but that there is no case at all that it is somehow not SPS. When there is one person in most cases writing something and then just directly launching it to the internet on a blog, that is self-published. Which we have no way of knowing if these two editors even check one another, so it is very possible that frequently this is exactly what is happening. However, how different is it really when there are only two editors from one checking on anything. That is practically and definitionally a self-published source by every possible measure for evaluating whether or not a source as SPS or not. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? And again, even if that is true, if there are only two editors doing the "reviewing", that is not due diligence, that is back scratching and rubber stamping. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't think SBM is unreliable, just that outdated pages would be a red mark towards reliability. Whether or not pages or up-to-date has nothing to do with if something is self-published.
- I don't really follow the rest of your argument.
We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed?
Yeah we generally take sources at their word on their own policies unless we have reason to question it. SBM is a relatively long-running and well-known outlet run by experts in the topic area. I don't see any reason we should think they're lying about their policy. CambrianCrab (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Those are fair point, review is review and it seems that at least some are seemingly getting reviewed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- See and that is interesting because I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I think that it could be reasonably argued that SBM is reliable, but that there is no case at all that it is somehow not SPS. When there is one person in most cases writing something and then just directly launching it to the internet on a blog, that is self-published. Which we have no way of knowing if these two editors even check one another, so it is very possible that frequently this is exactly what is happening. However, how different is it really when there are only two editors from one checking on anything. That is practically and definitionally a self-published source by every possible measure for evaluating whether or not a source as SPS or not. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? And again, even if that is true, if there are only two editors doing the "reviewing", that is not due diligence, that is back scratching and rubber stamping. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CambrianCrab:The main problem is that they currently only have two editors (one being the managing editor), so we can be relatively sure that they do not follow that policy becuase it requires a minimum of four editors to follow (the managing editor and at least three others). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not SPS. What someone means by "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" is "these writers aren't dumbasses and we trust them" with an implied "if an issue is found after the piece is out, we'll put out a correction", not "these people are infallible and we will never correct them because reasons". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- So they are essentially "Not SPS" because they claim to sometimes not be SPS. Got it. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of oversight is due diligence, not dumbass detection. SmolBrane (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Partly SPS and generally unsuitable for contentious topics on Misplaced Pages. While SBM is valuable for some scientic topics, it self-described as blog with inconsistent editorial oversight, allowing authors like Novella and Gorski to pubish without review. Gorski, who often takes strong positions, is a polarizing figure, and his articles often reflect a bias and lack of nuance. For controversial topics or biographies, more neutral and independently vetted sources would better meet Misplaced Pages standards. IntrepidContributor (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- SPS As I've said before on previous RfCs, this is explicitly a self-published source. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not SPS unless Gorski and Novella wrote the piece: SBM is one of the best sources for coveraging WP:FRINGE and WP:FRINGE activism we have and I'll note some, certainly not all, wanting to make it a SPS tend to have, at best, a WP:PROFRINGE attitude . Simply put, there is editorial oversight of contributors. We don't know if there is for Gorski and Novella, and should act accordingly and treat them as subject matter experts outside BLPs, but we do know that there is for other contributors. I'm somewhat concerned with the shape of this RFC - we have longstanding consensus that SBM is a reliable source and not an SPS. Instead of challenging that, this RFC was opened to challenge specifically the SPS designation in a seemingly roundabout way to question it's reliability.
- I also want to note that per WP:PARITY
In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed.
- so while I still maintain it's not an SPS, the standards for WP:FRINGE allow non-peer reviewed sources on fringe topics as long as they're reliable, so an SPS designation should not, unless we also agree it's not reliable, be used to go a purge of its use. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- No due to editorial oversight. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that the editors have stated that they do not provide oversight on all contributers prior to publication, this does not seem to be universally true. - Bilby (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- SPS I think it's important that the arguments about whether Science Based Medicine is SPS or not are removed from our own assessment of the topics they’ve covered, otherwise we infuse topic bias on a process matter and risk floating away from the core question of this RfC. SBM is SPS simply because of the lack of editorial oversight and independence needed for subject matter of medicine.--Evathedutch (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: Bild
 |
|
What is the reliability of the German tabloid Bild, including its website Bild.de?
- Generally reliable
- Additional considerations apply
- Generally unreliable
- Deprecated
Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Responses (Bild)
- Option 3/4 Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, archived link, routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation)
Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers.
...The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary
... EDIT: another quoteBILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.
} Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)- As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 , as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that an acclaimed book presenting a lightly-fictionalized denunciation of its practices is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. signed, Rosguill 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3 at least, and I wouldn't say no to 4. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for WP:ABOUTSELF material; if they claimed something as simple as X number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3 I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3/4 Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. Magisch 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and allegedly breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable FortunateSons (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2, provisionally, since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. Alaexis¿question? 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3, I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Misplaced Pages project. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3, there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – Bildblog. But see my comment in the discussion section below. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 per ActivelyDisinterested. The Kip 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per WP:ABOUTSELF would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4 per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's snowing 3 Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion (Bild)
Bild is currently used over 1,800 times on the English Misplaced Pages per bild.de 
. It is already currently listed on RSP as "generally unreliable". This RfC was prompted by a discussion at WT:RSP, where a user questioned the lack of participation in previous discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I asked the initial question at WT:RSP since I don't like when we classify sources based on vibes. So I'll play the role of the devil's advocate. I have very little knowledge of the German media landscape and I'm open to arguments in both directions. The sources provided by u:Hemiauchenia make two claims:
articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary"
- this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities- In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes . Alaexis¿question? 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated):
From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.
- If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. signed, Rosguill 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. Alaexis¿question? 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia, I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks!
- These are the key points from the foreword
- articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers
- BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples
- is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze
- A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer
- A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable.
- I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed?
- In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very WP:BIASED source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. Alaexis¿question? 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. Alaexis¿question? 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. Alaexis¿question? 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated):
- I'm not really sure what is meant by
classif sources based on vibes
, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. WP:SOURCE saysreputation for fact-checking and accuracy
, as does WP:RS multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the bild.de , most of them belong to the first category. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Nigerian newspapers
WP:RSNP has nothing about Nigerian newspapers, but references a project-list of them which seems rather too optimistic. It seems to me that these newspapers are filled with completely unreliable promopieces. You can see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Martina Ononiwu, where a completely unknown Nigerian/French person supposedly got a US-only award from President Biden. Not a single source outside Nigeria confirms this, there seems to be no reason at all why she would have received this, but it got reported by Vanguard, Guardian, Nation, Roving Naija, The Sun...
We had similar issues with e.g. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Musa Muhammed (entrepreneur), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Omogboye Saheed Ayodeji, and probably many others which I can't find as easily.
Isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers which routinely publish such completely unreliable promo pieces as articles? Fram (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that if you deprecated these newspapers, there'd be basically no usable Nigerian sources left, which hardly seems good in terms of attempting to fix Misplaced Pages's coverage biases. I do agree that it is standard practice at a lot of Nigerian newspapers to run effectively undisclosed promotional material, and it seems good to note this somewhere on RSP, but I think deprecating them outright would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says
realised that their top quality journalism or influential columnists alone weren’t going to win the battle for eyeballs. Enter “viral content” and clickbait headlines. Press releases were repackaged as news stories, fact-checking and verification became redundant. Aanu Adeoye says, “the traditional gatekeepers of journalism (newspapers) in this country don’t give a hoot about the quality of what they’re churning out daily.” In a few years, stories from Nigeria’s top newspapers looked as hurriedly written as stories from blogs. It had become a game of who could break the news the fastest and who could churn out the most news. Nigerian traditional media beat the upstarts at their own game and occupied spots at the top of Nigeria’s most visited websites. But the true cost of this pyrrhic victory was quality control.
If even mainstream Nigerian newspapers can't be trusted as factual sources then it's not clear what Nigerian sources can be trusted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) - I really don’t get arguments like this one. How does it help Misplaced Pages to use unreliable sources from countries with more limited media landscapes? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- One of Misplaced Pages and the WMF's goals is to be "diverse" and to lessen systemic bias to western nations. Limiting coverage to Western liberal democracies will obviously prevent that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- How does it help the English Misplaced Pages to eliminate practically all English-language sources for about 1 billion English-speakers? There's not an easy answer, here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Much of the editor population vastly underestimates how much of our reader base comes from these regions of the globe.
- Formally deprecating sources is a last resort for widely misused stuff like the Daily Mail (arguably part of the issue there was the perceived credibility of a mainstream Western paper subject to strict British libel laws). Simply following and enforcing existing P&G should address the issues adequately.
- Furthermore, if one of these Nigerian papers were to come under new and improved management or ownership, I doubt WP would take notice with any real celerity.
- RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says
- This is a problem with virtually every newspaper published in Nigeria and India. We cannot simply deprecate all news from two of the largest English speaking countries in the world. Or, we could, but we would get called very racist for doing so. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which don't have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. Fram (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It still has a disparate impact in a racially biased manner. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No its not, it is based upon lack of truth, no one here has raised race once apart from you. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever the intention banning the entire media ecosystem of a developing country of 230 million people (plus India's 1.43 billion because we would ban them for the same reason) and making our encyclopedia irrelevant to large swathes of the non western world would have a biased outcome - doesn't matter the intention if it gets you the same result. Is that a sacrifice we are willing to accept? Because if so we need to stop pretending we have any interest in "combatting systemic bias". PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, in my opinion it hasn’t been shown that reliability issues already aren’t being handled at in a nationally disparate manner. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- if these sources want to be accepted as reliable on Misplaced Pages, they should give up their practice of publishing paid news and writing puff pieces for anyone willing to pay. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we are going to be banning every single news source of a country of 230 million, then we should be very aware we are doing it. And possibly throw out all the project's virtue signaling over countering systemic bias along with it, if we decide to go that route. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- We should allow perpetuation of misinformation on Misplaced Pages because it would be racist not to? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (disparate impact or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should we do the same and ban all news from India? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- We should ban all shitty sources. If that wipes out all of India’s news (I’d sure be surprised) then yes. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should we do the same and ban all news from India? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see how it would be preferable to have our coverage of non-Western developing countries be dominated by propaganda, paid-promotion, tabloids, and un-fact-checked reports... JoelleJay (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- No one is suggesting an either-or dichotomy. We should start by enforcing existing policies with regard to usage of these sources on a case by case basis. Mass deprecation was merely an impulsive suggestion someone made somewhere above, and would self-evidently be overkill unless all other options had been exhausted, which they haven’t. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (disparate impact or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which don't have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. Fram (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think this claim should be presumed true but not notable. The PVSA award is given out annually by any number of authorized NGOs to their own volunteers without any US government involvement, and it does come with a form letter in the president's name. Ononiwu apparently received hers from Innovate Africa Corp. There's no reason any US press to write up such a thing, and there doesn't seem to be a public database of honorees. Note however that Ononiwu should not have been eligible for the award because she's not a US citizen or permanent resident. I guess these newspapers went along with exaggerating the award's prestige, but I don't see it as a major problem for reliability on facts. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it could be worth writing some guidance along the same lines as WP:NEWSORGINDIA, though I'm not sure it rises to the point of a general deprecation yet. Reuters Institute report here might also be helpful in developing such guidance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- As with WP:NEWSORGINDIA Nigerian news sources are full of undisclosed advertorials. It's a common practice, so editors need to be cautious with anything that uses promotional language. Their use for establishing notability needs to be seen in a similar light.
- Formally deprecating all Nigerian news media just isn't an option, in the same way deprecating all India news media with the same issue isn't an option. I would support changing the language of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it highlights the same issue in other countries not just India. I doubt this is an issue limited to those markets, and one that will likely become more of an issue everywhere with the difficulties newsedia currently face. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I recall at least one instance of them churning out AI generated puff pieces e.i daily times ng puff piece about Pranav Adani and GPTzero analysis of first 5000 words of it. Oddly enough Daily Times NG is listed as a "generally reliable" source for Nigerian topics at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources.- Ratnahastin (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's evidence that their promotional articles aren't reliable. But I've yet to see anyone present evidence here that other kinds of news from these sources are unreliable. Does anyone here have evidence of that? If not, I don't see why we'd deprecate these Nigerian news sources in their entirety, and instead I support Hemiauchenia's having added "Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability" to RS/P, perhaps adding something like "especially for promotional news articles." FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since the PROMO issues seem to be localized particularly to biographies, perhaps we could have guidance similar to what we use at NCORP that calls for heightened Nigerian source scrutiny re: independence when it comes to BLPs. Deprecating them just for BLPs might also be an option. JoelleJay (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I refuse to comment on the instances that led to this proposal because they can happen on a platform with the format adopted by Misplaced Pages. However, I oppose the proposal to deprecate all Nigerian newspapers on English Misplaced Pages. Applying a blanket judgment based on issues with a few outlets among many is unjust and undermines Misplaced Pages's inclusivity. Nigeria's media landscape, shaped by its diverse population of over 500 languages and 300 ethnic groups, plays a critical role in democracy and accountability.
- "While no media is flawless, treating all Nigerian newspapers as unreliable disregards their contributions and efforts to uphold global standards. Media reliability concerns exist worldwide, yet discussion of this nature is sensitive and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through blanket exclusions. Adopting this precedent ensures fairness and avoids marginalizing voices from the Global South.
- "I recommend individual evaluations of Nigerian newspapers, involving local expertise and ongoing monitoring, to maintain Misplaced Pages's mission of inclusivity and accuracy. A nuanced approach will preserve diversity and strengthen the platform's credibility."Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes banning falsehoods is a sacrifice I am willing to make, be they from White people black people, or yellow people. As I said about Fiox and the Daily Myth, if you do not want to be accused of telling lies, there is a simpler solution, do not tell them. This is my last response here with a firm not reliable. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind, but it has to be proof and not emotive appeals to (so-called) fairness. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
or yellow people
Uhhh.... JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- Obviously meant as in "persons of any color, including colors in which persons don’t exist" and not a reference to the antique Western epithet for East Asians ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not "obvious", even to those of us who have interacted with Slatersteven enough to presume he wasn't intending to use a racial epithet. JoelleJay (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously meant as in "persons of any color, including colors in which persons don’t exist" and not a reference to the antique Western epithet for East Asians ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm against this. Nigerian sources, like all sources, are entitled to be evaluated one by one. EEpic (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)
I've gone ahead and created a new section covering Nigerian news organisations at RSP Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Nigerian_news_organisations. It's a bit stubby at the moment but it's at least a start. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources. —A. B. 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —A. B. 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that their judgment is poor or that Nigerian editors are inferior in any way, but that there are issues with Nigerian press across the board, such as low press freedom that is very different from say, news sources in Western Europe and North America, which should be kept in mind with evaluating their content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —A. B. 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I encourage you to engage with folks at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria as you develop guidance on Nigerian media. A. B. 21:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I second this. I conversion about Nigeria WP should not be done without Nigerians editors involvement. Just because you found something wrong in some sources that doesn’t give you the right to assume all is bad. I can literally give you examples of where BBC published falsehood, in 2024! So let’s listen to these editors as they are more familiar with these sources. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reliable sources can churn out a lot of rubbish once in a while. No matter what anyone says, the likes of Vanguard, Guardian, Daily Times, Punch, Daily Independent, The Sun, etc, would always be notable relating to general issues about Nigeria. Some weeks back, a state in Nigeria held their governorship election. These media houses in question were the source of verified information about the election. When a political appointment is made by the president, it is the same media houses that Misplaced Pages editors would use to establish the claim. If we make them unreliable, it means we are putting an end to Nigerian contents on English Misplaced Pages. These media houses will dish out promotional materials whenever they want and we can do nothing about it (it is business for them). All we can do as Wikipedians is to speedy norminate articles for deletion if they are not notable to be on the Wiki. The major issue we are having now is a result of a loophole in the notability criteria. GNG should not be used ALONE to establish notability. SuperSwift (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If these media houses(e.g The Daily Times) are churning out AI generated puff pieces then we should indeed add a cautionary clause in the guideline that care must be taken when using these sources to establish notability, especially at venues such as AfD. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- GNG still works. The sources have to be independent. What this means is that in the case of Nigerian media, it's tricky but necessary to try and determine if a particular report is independent of the subject.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Judging articles on a case-by-case basis is something we (Nigerian editors) are already doing and believe it or not, we’re doing a damn good job at it. Deprecating these sources means that articles on Nigerian topics would be deleted in batches——thousands, if I might add——and this doesn’t necessarily reflect the systemic bias we are supposed to be fighting.
- There are tells that give off a sponsored/paid article and every Nigerian editor in good standing already knows this and by this, I vehemently disagree with Hemiauchenia that Nigerian editors are not able to distinguish a reliable source from an unreliable source.
- Also, I think sometimes, what we consider as “poor journalism” (in the Western standard) are just Nigerian journalist (correctly) using Nigerian English to write articles that it seems like it is promo. This does not mean that undisclosed paid journalism does not happen but sometimes, we confuse the two. So, this is me opposing any form deprecations as this will have unintended consequences. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have a section on RSP that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ratnahastin, uhm, if Indian editors did so, someone took the liberty of doing it for us (possible due to our incompetence): WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA; no one is opposing it. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have a section on RSP that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
It is true that Nigerian news outlet like their Western counterparts (RSBIAS?) do publish opinions, promotional and advertorials like reliable news without explicitly marking them as much. In fact, this has long history in African media and it is mostly associated with UPE editors who want to create contents for their gain.
Yet, deprecating Nigerian sources is not the solution. It will definitely do more harm than good to the visibility of the most populous black nation on earth. This means that we would have no reliable source to either curate or create contents. This is just an indirect way of saying that Nigerian content is no longer acceptable on English Misplaced Pages. This is because reliable sources are the backbone of contents creation. Prior to this discussion, we have been sending a lot of articles with promotional sources to Nigeria AfD noticeboard. This is what we can do from our end. We can neither stop people creating them nor stop the media from doing their business.
Also, there is currently a section at WP:RSP tagged WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA notifying reviewers and editors of caution in dealing with Nigeria sources. This alongside thorough analysis of Nigerian sources should drastically reduce the promotional articles and create a better future for Nigerian contents on the English Misplaced Pages.Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We cannot disregard Nigerian sources entirely. Yes, there are issues with some outlets, such as publishing promotional content or reworded press releases, but this isn’t unique to Nigeria. Even in countries with established media systems, there are sources that can’t always be trusted. The solution isn’t to write off all Nigerian sources but to evaluate them individually. Some articles might be biased or promotional, and we can avoid those. However, there are also credible reports and investigative pieces from Nigerian media that meet our standards. By treating each source on a case-by-case basis, we strike a balance, avoiding systemic bias while ensuring the content we use is reliable. A blanket approach would only create more gaps in coverage, which isn’t what we want for Misplaced Pages. And as Reading Beans mentioned, we Nigerian editors are already doing a good work judging sources on a case-by-case basis. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
], the only keep argument is based on just the above "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?". This is why they should not be acceptable because content is being created (and defended) using dubious sources (on the very grounds those sources are being defended here, false allegations of racism or false balance). Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Such a statement from a suspected UPE with limited knowledge around Wp:BIO and Wp:GNG shouldn't hold water let alone be used as a basis or argument for the deprecation of an sources of information. The WikiProject Nigeria volunteer are doing enormous tasks to ensure content that doesn't meet the English Misplaced Pages standard is nominated for deletion. Atibrarian (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, like already stated above, every sources presented in an AfD discussion is analysed carefully. FYI, majority of !delete votes there are Nigerian editors and the only keep !vote there being the paid creator (whom I suspect of UPE). If you can get a deletion discussion where a non-notable article was kept and defend with unreliable sources, I would appreciate it. Like the examples shown, the unreliable of the published articles were always pointed out and the articles were (correctly) deleted. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. No. No. my friend, @Reading Beans, I have told you ever and anon that this editor is not into UPE. So STOP THE SUSPICION and even voicing it out. It is affecting the reviewing of my articles. It is a blessing in disguise that my article brought this intense discussion. My take away from here is the guide being created for Nigerian sources and the caution I will employ in future creations. Royalrumblebee (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- What I'm seeing in that AfD, and in the others mentioned that all ended in deletion, is editors using their own good judgement to deal with this issue. Hopefully the new advice at NEWSORGNIGERIA will help encourage other editors to use the same caution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, if someone argues "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?", the response should be "no, we don't. We're rejecting notability based on these specific Nigerian articles, because (a) the articles being used to assert notability all focus on a single "event," (b) the articles are extremely similar and might have been content farmed, especially since they seem overly promotional (e.g., it's not a "prestigous" award, it's solely based on number of hours volunteered and being nominated by a relevant organization), and (c) US government info about the award makes it clear that she's not eligible for that award (as she's not a US citizen or permanent resident), which means that these articles aren't reliable for this content. But the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do you have evidence of the latter? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which is what Im did say, more than once. To me met with stonewalling "but that's racism" comments (and still am), at which point if the best argument you have is emotive, I have to assume you have no others, thus Im assume its an accepted problem with them. And as this is about "reputation for fact-checking" and the best argument is "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism"...well I have to assume they dio not have said reputation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm not sure what the referent of "them" is in "Im assume its an accepted problem with them."
- As for the rest, my argument isn't "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism." My argument is "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do you have evidence of the latter?" You still haven't presented any evidence that articles from Nigerian news media are generally unreliable. Either you have evidence for that or you don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- ] ]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Did you actually read those articles? Neither one makes any mention of any of the Nigerian news outlets identified in the OP. The BBC piece is about new websites "established around the time of Nigeria's general elections in February 2023." The SSRC piece is about "the spread of disinformation and how social media has only furthered this spread by providing new, fast-moving arenas for confirming and amplifying such false information" in Nigeria, including uptake by traditional news media, while noting that "The increasing threat to democratic institutions posed by disinformation is a global phenomenon." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Vangaurd and The nation ]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- "This story is part of a series by the BBC on disinformation and fake news - a global problem challenging the way we share information and perceive the world around us," where this particular article focused on the "spread of fake news in Africa" by looking at how five false stories — one each from five African countries, including Nigeria — was picked up by some news media in those countries. Yes, "The Nation and the Vanguard, both published stories with a very similar theme" to one of those false stories, but absolutely nothing in the BBC article suggests that Nigerian news media are generally unreliable. Is there any country globally where the BBC couldn't write an analogous report? For example, another BBC story in this series is "How President Trump took 'fake news' into the mainstream." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- You have it in reverse, we judge a source on its reputation for fact-checking, I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not, it down to you to show they do, We do not judge sources based upon how local editors will police pagers, but on the sources alone. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not ]
No, you haven't. Nothing you cited says anything about their reputation or suggests that they're generally unreliable. If you believe that something you cited provided evidence of general unreliability, please quote what you have in mind.it down to you to show they do
I haven't claimed that they have a reputation for fact-checking, so I have no burden to prove that they do (and more generally, if you want me to show something that I've said is true, just quote it, so we're both clear about the claim in question). What I said is (again): "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter." Fram proposed "to formally deprecate these newspapers," and you responded with "a firm not reliable." Since you're claiming that they're generally unreliable, you have a burden to show that they're generally unreliable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- You have it in reverse, we judge a source on its reputation for fact-checking, I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not, it down to you to show they do, We do not judge sources based upon how local editors will police pagers, but on the sources alone. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- "This story is part of a series by the BBC on disinformation and fake news - a global problem challenging the way we share information and perceive the world around us," where this particular article focused on the "spread of fake news in Africa" by looking at how five false stories — one each from five African countries, including Nigeria — was picked up by some news media in those countries. Yes, "The Nation and the Vanguard, both published stories with a very similar theme" to one of those false stories, but absolutely nothing in the BBC article suggests that Nigerian news media are generally unreliable. Is there any country globally where the BBC couldn't write an analogous report? For example, another BBC story in this series is "How President Trump took 'fake news' into the mainstream." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Vangaurd and The nation ]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Did you actually read those articles? Neither one makes any mention of any of the Nigerian news outlets identified in the OP. The BBC piece is about new websites "established around the time of Nigeria's general elections in February 2023." The SSRC piece is about "the spread of disinformation and how social media has only furthered this spread by providing new, fast-moving arenas for confirming and amplifying such false information" in Nigeria, including uptake by traditional news media, while noting that "The increasing threat to democratic institutions posed by disinformation is a global phenomenon." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I finally dug up an old AfD comment I'd made after reading a bunch of literature on Nigerian sources:Nigerian newspapers in particular are well known to flout broadcasting rules on paid advertising.
Professor Omenugha describes a similar trend in the print media: “In the newspapers, the so called specialised pages of the property, IT and computer businesses and finance pages are prime examples of commercialised spaces. The point is that no attempt is made to let the audience or readers know that these spaces are paid for and they end up holding them as sacred as they would news”.
Some journalists also work as paid consultants to politicians and businesses thus threatening professionalism. AIT’s Amarere says it is demeaning to journalism as “some of the concerned journalists now work for companies through which they obtain jobs. They cover their track by saying they are staff of this or that company and run offices outside the newsroom. In this situation it is difficult to balance profession with commercial interest”.
"Awards" issued by media are also considered corrupt.“The awards are not free, they are for money and anything that comes with a prize has implications”, says Olumide Adeyinka-Fusika, a lawyer. “If a newspaper names a bank as the best bank of the year and the bank is later indicted for corruption, that newspaper will not be willing to publish the story because that will be like passing a vote of no confidence on their own judgement”.
JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)- Here are some other references: chapter "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome"
For example, such practices as pack journalism by beat associations of journalists which operate like cartels, the payment of protection fees by reputation managers of institutions, the granting of awards of dubious credibility to non deserving individuals and organisations are some of the ways in which corruption manifests in the media.
Nigerian media and corrupt practicesEven though over 64 % of those sampled believed that acceptance of any form of gratifications was unethical, over 75 % of the
The Nigerian Press, Brown Envelope Syndrome (BES), and Media Professionalism
journalists engage in corrupt practices with impunity. More than half of the 18 media outfits covered by the study are indifferent to certain identified corrupt practices in their organizations.Adewale (2008), in his "The Rot in Nigerian Journalism Is Much Deeper Than We Thought" cited a controversial statement by Graham Greene to back up his position thus: "A petty reason perhaps why novelists more and more try to keep a distance from journalists is that novelists are trying to write the truth and journalists are trying to write fiction". This embarrassing irony aptly describes the state of Nigerian journalism and journalists in particular.
Deep rot in NigeriaIn its mildest form, press releases are published almost verbatim. Reporters either have an agreement with the government media men and are ‘settled’ with money, or threatened they will not be paid what is known as ‘qua”, or ‘mobilisation”. Some papers don’t pay salaries, and journalists have to make what they can on commission. In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men. Newspapers have a straight conflict of interest, they are financially reliant on political adverts, full-page colour hagiographies to governors and other political players. Last year, one paper alone took an estimated £270,000 in advertisements on one edition from supporters of former military ruler Ibrahim Babangida, celebrating his birthday.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)- I think we need something similar to User:Ms Sarah Welch/sandbox/Paid news and private treaties for Nigerian media as well. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- @JoelleJay the "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome" is an auto-expiring link that doesn't let anyone else use it. Could you provide a better link/where you found the original link? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Clicking the link from this should work. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- All seriousness aside,
In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men
- those powerful men should just buy the newspaper or hell even a whole media empire to rebroadcast their personal opinions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here are some other references: chapter "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome"
- ] ]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which is what Im did say, more than once. To me met with stonewalling "but that's racism" comments (and still am), at which point if the best argument you have is emotive, I have to assume you have no others, thus Im assume its an accepted problem with them. And as this is about "reputation for fact-checking" and the best argument is "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism"...well I have to assume they dio not have said reputation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was pointed to this discussion by @Axad12 after a similar discussion when I ran across Bella Disu. It does seem like much of Nigerian media simply writes whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay for. It seems like these sources should simply be banned except in cases where it is clear that the article was not purchased. 🄻🄰 00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
| unhelpful ChatGPT wall of text |
|---|
|
- Comment pretty much everything has already been said; the news media in Nigeria seem to be in the habit of puffing everyone and everything. As with the Indian news sources, we almost have to evaluate each news story on a case-by-case basis. We can keep Nigerian sources, but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability. The sources in the country are in the habit of puffy reporting, we just have to learn to use them. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd be ok if we create a policy similar to the NewsOrgIndia ... We allow the sources, but to be taken with a grain of salt. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. What did you mean by “…
but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability.
”? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. What did you mean by “…
- @Hemiauchenia's addition of WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA is helpful but the link to the unvetted WikiProject list is not, in my opinion. It lists, for example, This Day as "reliable" which is the publication I made a thread about which seemed to have drawn the conclusion to disregard promo and use with caution. It also lists pretty much every newspaper which reported inaccurately sparking this thread as "reliable"
- Beyond the issue of promo, Reporters Without Borders state "Nigeria is one of West Africa’s most dangerous and difficult countries for journalists, who are regularly monitored, attacked and arbitrarily arrested, as was the case during the 2023 elections." 🄻🄰 10:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक What sort of opinionated and unstructured comment did you just make? What do you mean by "unvetted WikiProject list"? Do you, by any chance, know the efforts I and few other editors who are Nigerians have put to bring up that list? Please be careful when making comments, especially when the topic has to do with one you're not entirely familiar with. As far as I am concerned, you cannot call a list which I have put efforts in contributing to "unvetted", the comment is not only unreasonable but also incorrect.
- I couldn't locate the thread you linked but whatever you brough up there are your opinion. I know the efforts I have been putting at AfD when it comes to Nigerian sources. Be careful, please, with all due respect.
- In a more general note, this thread is not going anywhere, This Day is a reliable source of information whether anyone "who is not a Nigerian" likes it or not, in fact, any source listed in the WikiProject as reliable is indeed reliable. The Herald, Guardian, New York Times, and other UK or US papers all publish nonsense piece as well, no one is permitted to call Nigerian sources unreliable because there are only a few Nigerian editors? I can't tell. I guess when this thread was initiated it was thought that there'd be no editor to oppose. SMH. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The link they are referring to has been archived, see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 460#This Day on Bella Disu.
In regard towho is not a Nigerian
There are many non-Nigerians who don't agree with the comment that started this thread. I both support and encourage projects to maintain there own sources lists, as they most likely to have knowledge of that particular area, but they are subject to WP:CONLEVEL and so from to time discussions like this will happen. The net result of this discussion has been WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, which only writes down the advice that has been given in many other discussions. - If any editor wants to discuss a particular source they believe has issue outside of what's already covered by WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA I suggest they start a new section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested last time we discussed This Day, you pointed out that they have a tag for advertorials. Currently, top of the advertorials is this article about a former governor's successor's parents visiting him. As you noted, there is no indication on the article that this is an advertorial and it looks like a normal news item. This one is also also in the advertorials category with no indication on the article.
- How can this be a reliable source when advertorials are completely indistinguishable from reporting? 🄻🄰 15:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because otherwise it would result in the making all news organisations in multiple countries completely unusable, and it wouldn't be limited to India and Nigeria. Such undisclosed advertorials are common in a lot of countries, and will likely become more common not less due to the changes effecting news media across the globe. It wouldn't help to improve the encyclopedia by saying that such vast swathes of the news media are generally unreliable, and in many ways that isn't a fit description for the sources. They are reliable for many things, but not for the promotional nature of these advertorials.
- As has been said before the AfDs show that noone is being fooled. Editors are correctly spotting when this is happening and acting accordingly. Promo content being added to Misplaced Pages is certainly not an issue limited to these countries, just look to all the reputation management companies found elsewhere.
- Ultimately it's what effect should be had. We don't want those advertorials being used to add promo content to Misplaced Pages, that is achieved by WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. So do we need to class all those news media organisations as generally unreliable, will that help to improve the encyclopedia? I very much doubt it would. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are they? How are they being spotted? For example, see Eko Heritage Awards - there are many sources here but every single one of them appears more dubious than the two advertorial examples linked above. For an active AfD, see Misters of Nigeria. It was moved out of drafts by an editor who is now blocked and the editors voting keep simply insist that the sources are reliable without any evaluation. 🄻🄰 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Pinging you is difficult) Let me be blunter, you deletion rationale in that AfD
Sources all appear to be WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA
is not only unappealing but also vague. Why? you simply said that "ALL" of them are NEWSORGNIGERIA without telling us what analysis you did that made you come to that conclusion. I figured since we're not doing anything in-dept here, it would make sense to also tell you, since this area is my expertise, that the subject clear-cut passed GNG. If you did any analysis and showed it, then we'd be discussing what you analysed and not something else. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Pinging you is difficult) Let me be blunter, you deletion rationale in that AfD
- I do not get the impression that advertorials are regularly passed off as real news in countries with strong protections for journalism. What the academic papers I linked earlier were emphasizing is that Nigeria has a striking systematic problem with unethical journalism that goes beyond what is seen in respectable broadsheets (the "brown envelope syndrome" being one example) and appears to affect all major outlets. The last link talks about an egregious political advert for Babangida's birthday that ran in the Daily Trust—listed as generally reliable—and characterizes the newspapers as being reliant upon such revenue sources. Some of the other journals note that several newspapers don't even pay their journalists; surely at least those should be considered generally unreliable? JoelleJay (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are they? How are they being spotted? For example, see Eko Heritage Awards - there are many sources here but every single one of them appears more dubious than the two advertorial examples linked above. For an active AfD, see Misters of Nigeria. It was moved out of drafts by an editor who is now blocked and the editors voting keep simply insist that the sources are reliable without any evaluation. 🄻🄰 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure why you're responding with so much emotion. It would be better to discuss this dispassionately. Your reply doesn't actually explain why a publication like This Day, which publishes disguised promotions, should be viewed as reliable. @JoelleJay also provides very compelling evidence above which has not been rebutted. 🄻🄰 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe the rather emotionally charged use of "unvetted" to describe another editors work had something to do with it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, my reply is emotional to you, and you think I am dispassionate, lol. I'll entirely ignore this your comment. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The link they are referring to has been archived, see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 460#This Day on Bella Disu.
- I'd be ok if we create a policy similar to the NewsOrgIndia ... We allow the sources, but to be taken with a grain of salt. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
People may defend WP:RSNG, but when I see that e.g. The Nation is considered "generally reliable" but publishes (with a byline!) e.g. this pure promo drivel (used in a new article here, not something I went looking for especially), then it is hard to take that list or the defense of it seriously. It turns out to be (at least in part) a copy of a four year old article from the Vanguard, not some actual journalistic effort by the Nation, but how could one tell? Fram (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Jeff Sneider / The InSneider
Used for many claims throughout pages for CBM movies, such as The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Superman (2025 film), Kraven the Hunter (film), and Peter Parker (The Amazing Spider-Man film series), including those which are otherwise unverifiable like Victor von Doom appearing in the first or that Spider-Man was supposed to appear in Madame Web (film) but was cut.
I really do not see why his claims is so widely allowed and accepted as fact, even though he is undoubtedly more reliable than random blogs or posts on Twitter he's still a journalist making claims without evidence. I would like to establish here definitively if we continue to site theinsneider.com as a source, as we currently do in many articles. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did a Google News search and when other outlets report his stuff it is described as a rumour or "reportedly". He is also described as a "scooper". I don't think most of that should be used on Misplaced Pages because of NOTNEWS. Rumours about media that haven't been released yet aren't even news yet. Does he say that he got his info from a source? Then it should be attributed to that source. It also looks like a SPS. So everything sourced to him should be attributed, but even then it probably shouldn't be used. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right now, much of what is sourced to him is just taken as face value, for example Doom is listed in the cast for the Fantastic Four movie without clarification that it's based off a claim by him. My changes to remove such information from the pages were undone, so there seems to be some ambiguity if he is currently accepted as a RS. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- For any stories about named people (e.g. casting), WP:BLPSPS would probably bar use of this source, since he's self-published. His record on this is at best mixed from a quick search. For example, he reported that Sydney Sweeney would be starring in a new Johnny Depp film, which was swiftly denied, kept posting that it was true, and then a few months later, Penelope Cruz was announced as the co-star.
- I did some digging and apparently he made a recent post, copied here, , in which he says
This may speak to my own reckless vanity, but I’d rather be wrong sometimes than sit on 100 accurate stories and stand idly by and watch as Nellie Andreeva breaks every single one of them. Yes, it’s nauseating to get a story wrong — seriously, it makes me sick to my stomach — but it’s an even worse feeling when you don’t report something and then get beat by the competition.
If that's his attitude to reporting, then it would probably be best if we don't use him for non-BLP subjects as well. -- Patar knight - /contributions 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- I've removed everything that clearly failed WP:BLPSPS and tried to beef up non-BLP uses of this (e.g. filming dates, projects in development) with better sources that cite his work. Honestly most reputable don't really cite him and hedge by using "rumoured" or "reportedly" and cannot corroborate. Definitely not an ideal source and probably runs afoul of WP:NOTGOSSIP, especially if not picked up by better sources citing him at all. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
In the future it would be appreciated if you notified other editors of such a discussion rather than going on what I would describe as a deletion rampage, making dozens of edits to remove a source that is widely deemed to be reliable. Sneider clearly meets the SME requirement at WP:SELFPUB, he is a long time film and entertainment journalist whose work has previously been published by various reliable sources. The fact that he is now self-publishing his reporting does not now make him unreliable, which is what the wording at SELFPUB caters for. If you take issue with specific claims he has made or the wording of specific claims then the place to discuss those is at the talk pages of the articles in question, not here where the majority of editors will never see it. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have notified editors at WP:FILM, WP:TV, WP:MCU, DC Universe (franchise), and Sony's Spider-Man Universe. I think that should cover all the articles impacted so far by this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- For a lot of these pages, the relevant policy isn't WP:SELFPUB, but WP:BLPSPS, since the InSneider is self publishing reporting about living people (e.g. A didn't role B, C got fired because of D, E might be in F). BLPSPS is a bright-line rule and while WP:IAR exists, superhero movie rumours isn't going to justify that. This is especially true when non-selfpublished exist to cover the same claims or when WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies.
- For example, your revert at Black Widow (2021 film) restored The InSneider when the material in the sentence is already fully supported by the already cited The Hollywood Reporter piece and your revert at X-Men '97 restored material alleging very specific allegations of sexual misconduct with young men that is corroborated by independent sources . I've reverted the latter given the serious BLP issues there.
- It's less of an issue when the BLP-connection is less direct such as when it's talking about a film production in general (e.g. G starts filming in H, I was delayed to J, K is in development at L), but even SELFPUB recommends replacing with better sources when possible and I highlighted some reliability issues with Sneider above.
- I have also notified WP:BLPN since this touches on BLPSPS. -- Patar knight - /contributions 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are forgetting that there is a very big distinction between Sneider's pieces written for Collider and other RS and those he written on his own blog. He speculates much more and gives unverified, evidence-free information on his blog than he does when working with publications, and he isn't impeded by an editor or journalistic oversight in his own website.
- If you want to see proof that Sneider has made false and provably false claims on his own website before, then there's compilations of all the time he has made false claims thanks to the people at the subreddit for Marvel spoilers. Among the falsehoods he has promoted on his site include that the Fantastic Four movie would start filming in March, that Adam Driver was cast as Doom, that Jack Quaid was cast as Johnny Storm, and that Tom Holland was going to appear as a full role in Across the Spider-Verse. Sneider should be used in articles only when he is writing for reliable sources, otherwise we are inviting unsourced and oftentimes completely imagined speculation on our pages. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh wow, so he's basically correct about 2/3 of the time. Not terrible, I guess for online postings, but this would seem to fall well-short for WP:SELFPUB purposes, much less making an exception for WP:BLPSPS. -- Patar knight - /contributions 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we should be letting some people from a Reddit community dictate what they think is true or false to determine notability on this encyclopedia. I understand Sneider gets a bad rap from some people and in the press, but he does qualify as a WP:Subject-matter expert in the field of entertainment news. I am subscribed to his newsletter and Sneider does a pretty good job clarifying what he is actually reporting from what are his own opinions and beliefs. A lot of what he says in his newsletter tends to be blown out of proportion or taken out of context, and not everything pans out in the film industry. For the Sydney Sweeney thing, I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart and thus, Cruz came onboard, not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading. A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions (because they get ad revenue from major companies involved) but Sneider has a good track record of reporting on industry details, deals, and events as they are in progress, which goes for the Fantastic Four castings and Black Widow. I have been working on adding third-party sources for some of his recent newsletter issues being cited to help make verifying his reports easier, though this takes time. I do not agree with removing his published articles from Collider, Variety, or his newsletter outright as we cannot disregard a source simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT or you don't believe in it. We go by WP:Verifiability, not truth, and report all the facts as presented, which is how an encyclopedia ought to be. I have not found any instances to my immediate recollection where editors cited a Sneider report only for it to be proven intentionally wrong or misleading. The Madame Web report was not disputed or debunked, and the recent reports of Superman and Beyond the Spider-Verse have since been clarified as a matter of semantics, not actually being intentional false news reporting on Sneider's part. A lot of what he says is regurgitated through aggregators and social media which tends to be less reliable or transparent than what he actually says in his newsletter or on his podcast The Hot Mic. I would not go as far as to say Sneider's newsletter reporting is "speculation", as he is an independent working journalist with 20+ years of experience in this profession. He knows his stuff but gets a lot of bad publicity from his social media activity and because some of his reporting hits a nerve with select communities. I would consider him a reliable source, but with clarification needed to specify when he is making an educated guess or providing an opinion alongside what he is reporting from his industry sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, because @Tinynanorobots questioned what Sneider's sources are, I suppose it ought to be explained that every journalist gets their information from sources. These individuals are usually people who work within the industry they are reporting about, so they are often talent agents, managers, PR workers, producers, involved creatives in a production, etc. who have first-hand information and provide information as a tip to a journalist. Most of these sources prefer to remain anonymous, so we cannot just find who his sources are to verify their tips. That's just not how this industry works. Filming schedules and castings change all the time, so to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false, and if you have any reliable sources saying Sneider specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report, that should be presented rather than just going off of some editors' opinions of a controversial figure. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Anonymously-sourced reporting obviously can be used in RSs, but you're not really making a strong case for reliability and encyclopedic quality by defending Sneider with
to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false,
. In respect to the Holland thing, it's not a good look to be confidently stating things about major casting at the tail end of February 2023 that then don't pan out upon release in at the end of May that year. Maybe he was right at the time, though no one else has corroborated this from what I can tell, but even then he would've published too early given he was ultimately wrong. specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report
would meet the standard for defamation of a public figure, but it isn't the standard for assessing if a particular source is reliable or a good indicator of if something is encyclopedic. If someone gets a lot of stuff wrong in good faith, they're still not reliable, especially in WP:BLPSPS situations. -- Patar knight - /contributions 05:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- Yes, using anonymous sources is common in journalism, but is not standard. The standard is to cite their sources. Sure, NYT and WaPo don't always follow their own guidelines on anonymous sources. Usually such guidelines involve mentioning that the information is from an anonymous source and giving clues as to the credibility of the source. When including information from anonymous sources, wikipedia should follow suite. If the NYT cites a "source close to the president" for a claim, the wikipedia article should also mention a "source close to the president" So how much info does Sneider give?
- Also, information should be verified. This might involve asking another source if they object to the publication of the information. Also, really, the studio should be asked to comment. If there is not a comment from the studio or a line saying that comment was sought, then best practices have not been followed.
- The idea that Sneider is a SME is questionable. The reporting in question seems to be a matter of insider knowledge not expertise. Basically, people are leaking the information to Sneider or gossiping to him about who will get the part. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Anonymously-sourced reporting obviously can be used in RSs, but you're not really making a strong case for reliability and encyclopedic quality by defending Sneider with
- FYI, we are also not here to be WP:Righting great wrongs. It is completely acceptable to note what an SME reports about an industry topic they have been covering for two decades now. The reports should be judged on a case-by-case basis to determine if Sneider has ever actually intentionally made any false or misleading statements and passed them off as a report directly by himself, and not by sheer opinion or a lack of or misunderstanding of the filmmaking process and journalistic procedures. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if he is 100% correct (which he isn't), none of his tweets and InSneider reports can be used per WP:BLPSPS to verify anything about living people since they are self-published. There's presumably no issue with his work in non-self-published sources with editorial control like Collider, but for the self-published stuff in respect to living people (e.g. castings, cut scenes, staffing), Misplaced Pages has a bright line rule against it. The only stuff that is even allowed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for self-published stories would be for instances where it's being used for stuff that is general enough to not really implicate BLP (e.g. filming schedules, runtime, episode length). -- Patar knight - /contributions 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The whole sum of BLPSPS is that no self-published blogs may be used. Sneider's publishing is via a newsletter and is part of his job as a journalist. In what ways are his newsletter reports violating any core and basic BLP policies or how are they of a major concern to it beyond the X-Men '97 allegations. A lot of journalists nowadays are posting on their own outside of major trades or news organizations because those options have become more prevalent to do so. Anonymous sourcing is also how all journalists operate, so if we say journalists who post on their own cannot be cited as reliable sources for doing their job without disclosing their sources and having a company watch over them, that sets a very bad precedent for the freedom of the press and what we actually allow to be included, let alone mentioned, in this encyclopedia. If it applies to Sneider, it ought to apply to all self-published journalists and newsletters, and I don't see how that could go well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's a misreading of BLPSPS, which says:
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—
(emphasis added). Unless there's a clear organizational structure (e.g. 404 Media), most newsletters are little more than self-published blogs. There's tons of great journalists with their own newsletters that I think are most likely reliable that I would love to cite (though Sneider may not be one of them), but BLPSPS is crystal clear on this front and for good reason. If you want to start a new discussion somewhere (here, WP:BLPN WT:BLP, etc.) on whether we should move to a case-by-case basis for journalistic SPSs, you can do that, but until then BLPSPS is policy and can't be overridden by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Don't really care about the anonymous sources issue, since that is an accepted norm for journalists. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- Not all of the instances of Sneider's reports are about people themselves. They are primarily about the Hollywood projects which naturally involve people's jobs and castings. I fail to see how a technicality should prevent us from using a decent source at all. If the issue is of verification, find a third-party source verifying the report. This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that.
The InSneider can be separately assessed for reliability for any claims not about living people, but as WP:BLP makes clear in the first sentence, it applies regardless of if the article is a biography or not, so the fact that Sneider is cited on movie articles is immaterial in respect to WP:BLPSPS.- There's been multiple discussions on this noticeboard about Substack and other newsletters involving much more prominent journalists than Sneider and the consensus has always been that BLPSPS bars their use in respect to living people unless the publication has editorial oversight and a reputation for reliability (e.g. Glenn Greenwald , David Sirota , Matt Taibbi , in general )
- I don't object to the underlying facts per say if they are indeed verifiable through third-party sources. I did try to find non-self-published sources that independently corroborated what Sneider reported, and replaced InSneider with them when I did. I only removed when I was unable to do so. WP:BLPRESTORE makes it clear that the onus to restore material removed for BLP issues is on those who want to restore it to do so in a policy-compliant way, which seems unlikely since nothing in this section has challenged the individually self-published nature of InSneider. -- Patar knight - /contributions 21:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not all of the instances of Sneider's reports are about people themselves. They are primarily about the Hollywood projects which naturally involve people's jobs and castings. I fail to see how a technicality should prevent us from using a decent source at all. If the issue is of verification, find a third-party source verifying the report. This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's a misreading of BLPSPS, which says:
- The whole sum of BLPSPS is that no self-published blogs may be used. Sneider's publishing is via a newsletter and is part of his job as a journalist. In what ways are his newsletter reports violating any core and basic BLP policies or how are they of a major concern to it beyond the X-Men '97 allegations. A lot of journalists nowadays are posting on their own outside of major trades or news organizations because those options have become more prevalent to do so. Anonymous sourcing is also how all journalists operate, so if we say journalists who post on their own cannot be cited as reliable sources for doing their job without disclosing their sources and having a company watch over them, that sets a very bad precedent for the freedom of the press and what we actually allow to be included, let alone mentioned, in this encyclopedia. If it applies to Sneider, it ought to apply to all self-published journalists and newsletters, and I don't see how that could go well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if he is 100% correct (which he isn't), none of his tweets and InSneider reports can be used per WP:BLPSPS to verify anything about living people since they are self-published. There's presumably no issue with his work in non-self-published sources with editorial control like Collider, but for the self-published stuff in respect to living people (e.g. castings, cut scenes, staffing), Misplaced Pages has a bright line rule against it. The only stuff that is even allowed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for self-published stories would be for instances where it's being used for stuff that is general enough to not really implicate BLP (e.g. filming schedules, runtime, episode length). -- Patar knight - /contributions 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your lengthy examination of Sneider as a reliable source. I think a potential compromise that I hope the editors here could agree on- is to restructure all current citations to his self-published website so that it clearly states that it is journalist Jeff Sneider reporting. The example on The Fantastic Four: First Steps that spurred me to open up this discussion in the first place, for example:
Additionally, the character Mole Man is expected to appear, and Robert Downey Jr. is expected to appear as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.
- could be reworded to:
Journalist Jeff Sneider reported in 2024 that the character Mole Man is expected to appear, as well as Robert Downey Jr. as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.
- This would be done for every single citation that uses his personal site. I see your arguments defending his inclusion as a verifiable source, but I also feel as the central issue here- that a lot of pages take him at face value as equivalent to official news from Deadline or Marvel Studios themselves, should still be rectified. We could also add him to the RS list as a source that can be used in the articles with attribution only.
- Thoughts? @Trailblazer101 @Patar knight @Adamstom.97 HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- For anything that involves stories about living people, this would be BLP violation, attribution or not, since The InSneider is a self-published source and that's barred by WP:SPS. If no other sources are writing about it besides a self-published report from Sneider, that's a good indicator that we shouldn't include it on Misplaced Pages. Attribution for stuff like "Mole Man" might be okay depending on Sneider's reliability and how tied that is to a specific actor in the text. -- Patar knight - /contributions 06:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I support attribution being applied to Sneider's reports, and most of the instances where his reports are used already do this in prose while third-party refs are being added to them. The BLP violation reads to me like a bit of a stretch with semantics itself and could probably be re-evaluated when it comes to journalists reporting as part of their job. Reporting on allegations should not be a reason to be barred as a source when major news outlets do the same. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Reporting on allegations a reason to be barred as a source
is a straw man. Major news outlets have a reputation for fact checking and reliability, while Sneider has had multiple confirmed reports not pan out. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- Which ones have not panned out? Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sweeny, Lindelof, and Holland make at least three incorrect reports in approximately a year. If I did more spot checks from the spreadsheet, there would probably be more. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, not everything in Hollywood pans out. That does not mean the reports were false. Unless other independent sources confirmed they were false, you are assuming they were not true, which draws into some dangerous POV issues here on your apparent bias. I have asked you to provide sources which confirm Sneider's reports were false, and you have provided none of the sort. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Lots of stuff in all kinds of different fields don't pan out. However, if a source often reports things as confirmed and they don't pan out, there's a reliability/jumping the gun issue and its starts falling into unencyclopedic WP:RUMOUR territory. The end result is that Sneider either misjudged how correct the story originally was or how likely that status quo was going to remain. If you look at the Deadline and Variety archives, they only reported on certainties in respect to the Sweeey/Holland/Lindelof stories (i.e. Cruz hiring/nothing/hiring and departure).
- Genuine question, does Sneider ever issue corrections/retractions or do retrospectives on why he got stories wrong? Obviously sometimes reliable sources get it wrong, and the proper thing to do in that case is to issue corrections/retractions.
- I think I've seen only even heard of Sneider once before (when the X-Men '97/Beau DeMayo story was happening) so to accuse me of bias is wild when you've created a position where it is functionally unfalsifiable that Sneider could ever be wrong. If it pans out, he was correct. If it doesn't, he was correct but things changed afterwards, despite in many cases no reliable sources backing up his original story. Sneider isn't important enough for something like the Columbia Journalism Review or an an actual reliable source to investigate his methods and he uses anonymous sources (which isn't an issue in and of itself) so it's essentially impossible to prove if any of his reports are false in a way that would satisfy you. -- Patar knight - /contributions 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that is an argument for waiting until things are officially announced, before putting them in the article. The problem isn't Sneider, but the kind of reporting that he is doing. He is reporting other people's predictions. He also isn't a SME. He is a reporter that chases leads and reports what may be hearsay or leaks or outright lies by his sources. He is reporting on Hollywood, after all. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, not everything in Hollywood pans out. That does not mean the reports were false. Unless other independent sources confirmed they were false, you are assuming they were not true, which draws into some dangerous POV issues here on your apparent bias. I have asked you to provide sources which confirm Sneider's reports were false, and you have provided none of the sort. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sweeny, Lindelof, and Holland make at least three incorrect reports in approximately a year. If I did more spot checks from the spreadsheet, there would probably be more. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which ones have not panned out? Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @HadesTTW: I just saw that you pinged me in this message. I agree that a good resolution here would be to add Sneider to the RS list as an SME for entertainment reporting as long as he is attributed, and potentially with the caveat that his self-published sources should be replaced with non-self-published sources if available. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- You can spot check the examples used and some definitely seem to hold up as poor reporting. Besides the Holland/Across the Spider-Verse example I discussed above another one I spot checked was this comment made March 9, 2023, in which Sneider says it's 100% confirmed that Damon Lindelof's Star Wars film would be coming out in December 2025 film. On March 21, 2023, Lindelof's departure is announced.
I am subscribed to his newsletter
Can you confirm if the quotation from the post I cited is correct then? It matched the title of this post from InSneider and it went unchallenged in the thread and seemed to match the style from what I've found.not everything pans out in the film industry.
,I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart...not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading.
andA lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions
. I don't think Sneider is maliciously creating false reports or anything, but if he's reporting too early on things that aren't confirmed yet while the major trade publications are reporting when it's certain, that does not bode well for his reliability nor for the encyclopedic value of his coverage (WP:NOTNEWS).removing his published articles from Collider, Variety
Pretty sure no one here is suggesting that. The main issue is WP:BLPSPS and then reliability as a WP:SPS. -- Patar knight - /contributions 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- Sneider's report and those quotes are correct from his newsletter. I have no idea what "thread" you are referring to, but a lot can change and happen in the 12 days between Sneider saying Lindelof's film was confirmed for that release and when Lindelof ultimately exited the film. That's just how Hollywood, and all of business, pans out. You can't seriously hold that against Sneider to say his statement is false when Disney's Star Wars films have pretty much languished with development hell issues for years. Even major trades report on projects in early development and when directors or writers are in talks. That's just what the trades do. They report on the production process, which is always in flux. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the confirmation. I copied the quotation from a Reddit thread from a film podcast subreddit which I linked in my comment above. I dealt with how the other trades operate and the issues with using Sneider for the truth of what he's reporting above, so I won't repeat them here. -- Patar knight - /contributions 22:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sneider's report and those quotes are correct from his newsletter. I have no idea what "thread" you are referring to, but a lot can change and happen in the 12 days between Sneider saying Lindelof's film was confirmed for that release and when Lindelof ultimately exited the film. That's just how Hollywood, and all of business, pans out. You can't seriously hold that against Sneider to say his statement is false when Disney's Star Wars films have pretty much languished with development hell issues for years. Even major trades report on projects in early development and when directors or writers are in talks. That's just what the trades do. They report on the production process, which is always in flux. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, because @Tinynanorobots questioned what Sneider's sources are, I suppose it ought to be explained that every journalist gets their information from sources. These individuals are usually people who work within the industry they are reporting about, so they are often talent agents, managers, PR workers, producers, involved creatives in a production, etc. who have first-hand information and provide information as a tip to a journalist. Most of these sources prefer to remain anonymous, so we cannot just find who his sources are to verify their tips. That's just not how this industry works. Filming schedules and castings change all the time, so to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false, and if you have any reliable sources saying Sneider specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report, that should be presented rather than just going off of some editors' opinions of a controversial figure. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Alrighty, I wrote the below on The Acolyte (TV series) and I'm copying this below.
Jeff Sneider being used as a source in Hollywood reporting.
Jeff Sneider's reports, found in his TheInSneider blog and also Above the Line, have been covered in several other reliable sources.
His career besides his self-published blog: He has had two notable tenures at TheWrap, and in between those two tenures, he had a stint at Variety covering the film industry. This is confirmed here, with information here on his tenure at Variety. Collider also has him listed as Senior Film Reporter, and says he did work at Ain't It Cool News before his venture into trade publications, and at one point he contributed reports for Mashable.
These following perennial sources have cited his self-published blog, exemplifying WP:USEBYOTHERS:
- Forbes describes him here as, "Jeff Sneider, an industry insider and reporter", and covers his reporting, even providing a link to another site he contributes to, Above the Line.
- and here's him reporting that Kaitlyn Dever was chosen to play Abby in the second season of The Last of Us, which ended up being spot-on correct, via NME:
- per a Vox Media publication, New York (magazine)'s own Vulture, covers one of his reports here
- Screen Rant, (noted in the perennial source list as
considered reliable for entertainment-related topics
but not forcontroversial statements related to living persons
, which in this case, we're sort of concerned about that stuff in relation to Sneider's reporting) covers Sneider in many, many instances.
- Screen Rant, (noted in the perennial source list as
- and reported by Screen Rant here is an InSneider report that The Bikeriders, (a film with Austin Butler and Norman Reedus) was dropped by Disney's 20th Century Studios. Sneider's report ended up being true, as Disney let the rights go to Focus Features.
- And Variety - reporting on the InSneider report mentioned above concerning Bikeriders, right here. Can hardly get better than trade publications.
- Deadline Hollywood - reports that Sneider was the first to get the news that the Russo brothers were coming back for Avengers 5 and Avengers 6.
- via The Hollywood Reporter - Sneider first reported that Jeremy Allen White was playing Jabba the Hutt's son in The Mandalorian & Grogu.
BarntToust 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I also find the Mary Sue story about Johnny Depp and Sydney Sweeney to be drama mongering. Their punchline about Sneider's story amounted to "and internet users were pissed about the actress potentially working with the subject of the Amber Heard lawsuit" - like who cares about internet people being ticked? Was there doxxing? was anonymous or a world government involved? No!
- If Sneider gets something wrong, nobody gets mangled or tangibly harmed. The WP:BLPSPS policy is for claims concerning living people themselves, not films and casting processes or anything of the like. and for randoms who are not, something that is not what Sneider is doing.
- Let's WikiLawyer the concept of this policy and apply it to the Moon. Even though the chunk of rock is the subject of the article, there are parts of the article for the Moon which concern living people, like Buzz Aldrin and how he walked on it. Holy hell! the very association of living people to a subject of an article clearly not about people means we must NEVER use any WP:EXPERTSPS about the Moon in the article because it is WP:BLPSPS.
- I don't think that Sneider should be used to state facts about casting. I certainly don't believe we need to add a person to a cast list because he says something on his podcast: while I question his nature of jumping the gun on reports, I don't believe the rationale should be that the info he reports is concerning a living person. I figured that saying RDJ was gonna be in Fantastic Four was bold, but it's concerning that a character is going to be in a film, not some claim about a person's life and times. Besides his casting scoops, I think he gives worthy insight into the film industry and its processes. I think that his branding is corny and I'm concerned that once he implied a joke about suicide after losing a scoop to a THR reporter but hey, Kubrick was cruel yet he was still held in high regard for his work. Same thing for Sneider. BarntToust 21:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, I started this discussion because I was bothered by the Fantastic Four page where he's used for the cast list. I hope we are able to at least agree that he shouldn't be cited without attribution, lest he gets something wrong (not maliciously, but because his sources may have been wrong, or events changed in the production process that he was not aware of). Advocating him to be deprecated for BLP violations is a massive stretch that I do not agree with- he's generally reliable, and I trust that his self-published site can be used for article content. He just shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Precisely. I agree with all of that. The Fantastic Four page's cast section is something that is being discussed at Talk:The Fantastic Four: First Steps and would be best handled there rather than here, though I agree with the core points with the attribution and use with non-BLP content. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's best if we formalize it here, anyways. It's my hope that we can get a consensus enough to write an entry on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which would be helpful for everyone editing CBM articles that refer to his claims. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would prefer listing Sneider at perennial sources. The WP:MCU taskforce already has an entry for his reports at WP:MCURS, for reference. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to note that this wouldn't meat the criteria for inclusion on the RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's best if we formalize it here, anyways. It's my hope that we can get a consensus enough to write an entry on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which would be helpful for everyone editing CBM articles that refer to his claims. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Precisely. I agree with all of that. The Fantastic Four page's cast section is something that is being discussed at Talk:The Fantastic Four: First Steps and would be best handled there rather than here, though I agree with the core points with the attribution and use with non-BLP content. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know, saying someone was going to get a job, and then it turns out they didn't might have a negative effect on their career. A casting director might wonder why they weren't chosen. This is just speculation, and it probably helps the actors, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. The stakes are low either way, and it makes sense to wait for an official announcement. As it has been said, things don't always pan out. Speculation on casting seems like news to me. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, I started this discussion because I was bothered by the Fantastic Four page where he's used for the cast list. I hope we are able to at least agree that he shouldn't be cited without attribution, lest he gets something wrong (not maliciously, but because his sources may have been wrong, or events changed in the production process that he was not aware of). Advocating him to be deprecated for BLP violations is a massive stretch that I do not agree with- he's generally reliable, and I trust that his self-published site can be used for article content. He just shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- All three of the listed Forbes articles are written by Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry), which are generally unreliable due to lack of editorial oversight. Please note that Forbes.com contributor articles do not count toward WP:USEBYOTHERS. As a policy, WP:BLPSPS takes precedence over the WP:USEBYOTHERS guideline. — Newslinger talk 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- alright, we can consider the other 97 out of 100 joking exaggeration sources I've laid down here. We've still got use by Hollywood trades, reliable entertainment websites, and other popular sources. My point stands still. BarntToust 02:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe that Sneider's reporting of casting is 90% of the time on point, but the margin of error warrants attribution and additional consideration. I do not believe that info about a person being cast in a film constitutes personal information, and thus I believe that BLP does not apply to that extent. I believe additional considerations and attributions should apply for the first reason, rather than depreciation for a grossly WikiLawyered reading of BLP policy. I believe he is considered reliable for general behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood, having been at it for a long-o time and that he would know about these things. BarntToust 02:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLPSPS is a bright-line rule that prevents self-published sources from being used for third-party claims "about a living person". The policy is phrased with the word "Never" to emphasize that routine exceptions for claims such as film castings are not appropriate. This language is repeated in the WP:SPS policy in more explicit terms: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Like the remainder of WP:BLP, this rule applies to all claims about living persons, and not just "personal information". — Newslinger talk 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. We seem to agree to not use it as a third-party source. We seem to agree to give Sneider attribution and consideration of due weight in these reports he does.
- If there are any concerns, I suggest you turn to the great policy that is ignore all rules. BarntToust 02:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by
behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood
? Like what a gaffer is? Or the type of camera used? Or does he know more about things like how casting directors and location scouts work? I thought he was a reporter that covered the Hollywood beat. Does he do anything besides report what industry people tell him? Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)- I wonder if reporting what industry people tell you is, uh, what trade journalism is the definition of? BarntToust 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think he is a trade journalist, either. A trade journal covers an industry with people in that industry as the target audience. Jeff Sneider describes him as an Entertainment Journalist and describes him writing for publications aimed at the general public. His own website describes itself as
Scoops and insider analysis
. This isn't about being an expert, it is about being in the know and chasing down leads. A lot of the articles are even labelled "Hot Rumor". He is a reporter, he reports things. The nature of what he reports means that it involves making predictions as well as discussing rumours and other gossip. A lot of it involves upcoming movies, that is, events that haven't happened yet. It also means a lot of his stuff isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)- know what? I think his insights have merit. Glad to see you found the article about the journalist that I wrote. Did you see the part where he threatened to drive his car into a tree when he lost a Christopher Nolan scoop, then got fired from Variety? Or when he said something racially insensitive and got fired from Mashable? I personally enjoyed the part where he went on about getting his butt kicked by Uwe Boll in a boxing match.
- Anybody think that he does a self-published newsletter because he can't hold down a job? BarntToust 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- It did strike me as surprisingly negative considering the defence he is getting here. It is basically a hit piece. The boxing thing was confusing, it is probably undue. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reliable sources describe Sneider the way that they do, so that should be reflected in the article. This is a rationale that is based on a concept which is probably best explained by Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
- As for the boxing match, that is a notable event he was involved in. Fighting the director of one of the worst films is plenty notable for inclusion. BarntToust 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- It did strike me as surprisingly negative considering the defence he is getting here. It is basically a hit piece. The boxing thing was confusing, it is probably undue. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think he is a trade journalist, either. A trade journal covers an industry with people in that industry as the target audience. Jeff Sneider describes him as an Entertainment Journalist and describes him writing for publications aimed at the general public. His own website describes itself as
- I wonder if reporting what industry people tell you is, uh, what trade journalism is the definition of? BarntToust 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLPSPS is a bright-line rule that prevents self-published sources from being used for third-party claims "about a living person". The policy is phrased with the word "Never" to emphasize that routine exceptions for claims such as film castings are not appropriate. This language is repeated in the WP:SPS policy in more explicit terms: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Like the remainder of WP:BLP, this rule applies to all claims about living persons, and not just "personal information". — Newslinger talk 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I like Paul Tassi's work, but per WP:FORBESCON, he can't be used in USEBYOTHERS analysis. However, he, like the other links in this post generally refer to Sneider's reports as in terms of rumors instead of certainties. The one exception is Screen Rant article, where it is corroborated by THR, and they suddenly switch to writing in certainties. The last three links here from the major trades are clearly doing their own independent corroboration of Sneider's story and doing the polite thing in journalism and crediting him with being the first to break the news.
- As for accuracy, many of the links were about the Beatles casting, which Sneider was actually wrong about Charlie Rowe as George Harrison, which was immediately denied, and ultimately ended up being wrong. The many commentary pieces about the rumored casting that it sparked might justify inclusion, but the miss doesn't speak well to his reliability. So even from your own links, it seems that for content that doesn't run afoul of WP:BLPSPS and is encyclopedic enough to include, it would have to be attributed and written as though it's a certainty. -- Patar knight - /contributions 04:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I have not kept up with this discussion over the holidays but I see a bunch of dubious arguments have taken place. Trailblazer was correct above when he said that Sneider makes it clear when he is noting rumours versus reporting on something that his sources have confirmed to him, and the high-profile instances where he "got something wrong" are not examples of him lying but clearly examples of things being true or potentially true at the time which did not pan out. Several instances have been mentioned where a potential casting was reported but did not pan out. That is not a lie or a "miss" or anything of the sort, he is reporting on people being eyed by a studio or even entering negotiations but he can't guarantee that everything will work out in the end, and his wording reflects that. The exact same can be said for any of the Hollywood trades who have reported on potential casting that ended up falling through. The level of scrutiny being put on the accuracy of his reporting here is a bit ridiculous considering the same would not be done if he was still writing for TheWrap or Variety, which is what WP:SELFPUB protects. If any of these reports had come from a journalist who was still working at the trades we would not be having this conversation at all. As for WP:BLPSPS, its wording is oddly vague. "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person" -- what does that even mean? Any sentence that mentions a living person cannot be sourced to any self-published source, regardless of what that source is or what the sentence says? If an expert on the life of Donald Trump had a meeting with him and then tweeted out something Trump had said, we could not include that in any articles even if it was not a detail about Trump's personal life? I think it is crazy to say that we can't use a tweet or a blog post from a person we otherwise consider to be reliable to note when an actor is being considered for a role in a film or that they may have a scheduling conflict that could prevent them from doing a certain job. I am sure the wording at BLPSPS could not have been meant to prevent that. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- In your example, if that expert's tweet contained anything of substance, a reliable source would mention it, and you would be free to cite that reliable source. Alternatively, you could wait until the WP:BLP policy no longer applies to Trump, although I highly doubt that the tweet would constitute due weight in any Misplaced Pages article if no reliable source mentions the tweet by that time. In all other cases, yes, WP:BLPSPS would prohibit that tweet from being cited on Misplaced Pages to support a claim about Trump, despite the tweet being written by an expert, because the tweet is self-published. — Newslinger talk 22:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- The WP:SPS policy, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer", is as explicit as can be. That longstanding requirement has been part of the verifiability policy since February 2007, and part of the biography of living persons policy when it became a policy in July 2006. (It was added to the latter page as a guideline requirement in April 2006.) If you would like to contest these policies, you are free to do so on their respective talk pages. — Newslinger talk 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to mention the wording in WP:V, as it's more explicit, but Newslinger beat me to it. I've found this annoying in the past, where the project of a living person is detailed in a otherwise reliable third party self-published source. However that exact situation is meant to be covered (and excluded) by it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I and others have said, the policies against self-published sources used for anything about living people is a bright line rule. And as for WP:DUEWEIGHT and ignoring the self-published/BLP issue, if the only source that mentions an aspect of an article subject is a self-published newsletter, then it would more likely to be undue to include based on the proportion of RS coverage. Misplaced Pages is not the great place to right great wrongs about what reliable sources should be covering. -- Patar knight - /contributions 06:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- When I went through and removed most of the mainspace uses of InSneider, the overwhelming majority were reports of people being cast, people being considered for a acting/directing role, when an already cast role was going to make a secret appearance in a film, or creative decisions that can only be made by a very small number of people at a studio (i.e. director, producer, executives) that the guidance at WP:BLPGROUP leans towards applying the policy.
- If something aligns with what other reliable sources have said, then it would be best to use what those sources have said instead of a SPS. But in any case, UNDUE is not an avenue to bring in content that doesn't meet our verifiability/sourcing policies. -- Patar knight - /contributions 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, we are not writing a biography about James Gunn or Peter Safran and using Sneider to source claims about their person. Sneider is used to write about the particulars of film production.
- One side of this discussion is looking at the forest, while the other side is focused on the trees. BarntToust 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- BLPGROUP doesn't seem to be relevant to this discussion, it is talking about "corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons" and specifically refers to harmful claims, neither of which apply here. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- The subsection is about when BLP applies to "legal persons" AND "groups". It does not displace WP:BLPSPS and in no way limits the applicability of BLP to groups to instances of potentially harmful material.
- The first part of the paragraph is a clarification about how legal persons existing as a term of art in law doesn't mean that they are always covered by BLP, which is meant to protect natural persons. The second half of the paragraph applies to all groups and tells us to look at each group on a case by case basis to see where it fits on the spectrum between groups that are small enough that BLP should apply and ones where they are too large. The part about harm is simply noting it is part of the analysis. For creative decisions on films, the people actually making that decision would be very small, so it should attract BLP protections, which means BLPSPS applies. -- Patar knight - /contributions 03:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Besides the stories involving named people where BLP would obviously apply, the level of creative decisions that InSneider reports on and that Misplaced Pages uses him for are those that would clearly be attributable to a very small number of people (5-10 max). They're typically stuff such as what projects a studio is considering, what characters will be cast, and what the plot of film will be about.
- We're not using InSneider for lower-level stuff like what belt buckle was used on a particular costume, what brand of communication devices the PAs use, or what shade of a color was used in a particular CGI shot. -- Patar knight - /contributions 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of due weight, we are fine. #2: ignore all rules. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see #Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson on this very page. NYT censored CEO killer Luigi Mangione's face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If general association, not even direct, with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ignore all rules. BarntToust 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The one policy that WP:IAR does not bypass is consensus. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the WP:BLPSPS and the WP:SPS policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like Fandom – which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful", particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. — Newslinger talk 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- A few editors here are trying to stretch the BLPSPS and SPS policies to prevent Sneider from being used at all, which shouldn't override the existing community consensus and clear evidence that he is a reliable source for film-related reporting. HadesTTW suggested wording that is a good start towards a common-sense solution where Sneider is used, with attribution, for reports on film-related coverage where better sources do not exist. This should lead to a compromise, with Sneider being used in situations where his reports are improving articles while editors become more aware of whether he should be used (and not using him in situations where his reports genuinely fall into BLPSPS territory, could be replaced by a better source, or some other issue such as DUEWEIGHT). All that is preventing us from moving on to that conclusion and ending this discussion is the idea that BLPSPS and SPS apply to every little mention of a living person in a source, which I maintain is ridiculous and inappropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you do not agree with excluding self-published sources from being used for claims about living persons, you may propose a change to the relevant policies at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons. What you believe is "ridiculous and inappropriate" is actually how these policies have been applied on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, per community consensus. — Newslinger talk 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I never said I was against the central ideas of BLPSPS, I completely understand why we want to have a higher standard of verifiability when it comes to exceptional/controversial claims about real people who may take issue with said claims. That makes sense from multiple angles. What I take issue with is using the same standard for non-exceptional claims that happen to involve people. In my opinion, there is a very big difference between not trusting a SPS to report on claims of sexual misconduct (which I accept) and not trusting them to report on basic casting and filming details for a movie. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- exactly! If I actually paid any attention to X-Men 97, I would have rm'd that in a hot second. Sneider making claims that Beau DeMayo was doing heinous stuff to his staffers is some outrageous content that I would insist we wait on reports by NYT or WaPo or The Times, any particular source of merit to include those claims in the article. Outrageous claims require usage of especially reliable sources like newspapers of record. BarntToust 19:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the 18 years since that BLPSPS policy was enacted, the industry of journalism has changed drastically with a variety of seasoned journalists and subject-matter experts publishing their reports on their own accord, and I believe it is about time that the policies are updated to compliment such changes to update with the times. I do not think Sneider's status as a self-published source should discount his reliability with his actual reporting in his newsletter, and am more than happy to raise concerns for the policy to be updated elsewhere, but that is not the central issue to determine reliability in this discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most people on this board are aware of the poor state of traditional journalism and the rise of indie outlets. I myself noted in a section below that Ken Klippenstein, who has a track record of good journalist work and whose stories I think are accurate, should nonetheless not be used without corroboration and/or discussion by non-SPS RSs because he's a BLPSPS. If any of you think there's appetite in moving from the current bright-line rule to another system for BLPSPSs (e.g. limited carve out where RSN endorses use with attribution), that might be a worthwhile discussion to have. As its stands though, BLPSPS is quite clear and the overwhelming majority of the uses of InSneider are in such cases.
- If we do want to go back to discussing the reliability of InSneider for non-BLP claims, I would start with something I asked earlier, are you as a subscriber to InSneider, able to provide examples of if he retracted, corrected, and/or explained why he missed on the Sweeney/Day Drinker, Holland/Spider-verse, Lindeloff/Star Wars stories? Getting a story wrong isn't fatal to use as a reliable source since even the best sources aren't 100%. However, for assessing new sources, correcting mistakes is an indicator of reliability (as long as the miss rate is not too high), but not addressing them is a sign of unreliability. -- Patar knight - /contributions 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The language in WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS does not provide an exemption for self-published content about other living persons that is deemed to be uncontroversial. The "central idea" of this requirement is to ensure that any claim (not just controversial claims) about a living person passes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing special about Sneider or his self-published newsletter that would warrant an exception to this requirement, which applies to every other individual who meets the WP:EXPERTSPS criterion. If anyone wants to amend this requirement, which has been applied on Misplaced Pages for more than 18 years, a discussion at WT:V, WT:BLP, or WP:VPP would be the first step to enact the change you are looking for. Such a change, if it gains community consensus, would apply to all sources of this kind and not just Sneider's content. Until then, the use of Sneider's self-published claims about other living persons remains a violation of core content policies. — Newslinger talk 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, that is your interpretation of the policies which is clearly not shared by all editors. I fear a discussion at one of those other places will have similar luck due to a few editors that like things the way they are, but I am happy to give it a go. As for wrapping up this discussion, I still think we should return to the wording that I suggested above in response to HadesTTW. I am not concerned about these apparent "misses" that Patar knight keeps harping on about. Some of these may have been genuinely wrong, but not many of them (which is the case with almost all reliable trade sources as well). Most would have been accurate at the time but then things changed due to the developing nature of films (i.e. Lindelof leaving his SW film, Driver being considered for FF but not getting the part). The Sweeney instance seems to be a blatant case of him getting it wrong and being called out immediately, but that one time isn't enough to make him an unreliable source especially when nearly everything else he has reported aligns with other sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've started a policy talk page discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability § Self-published claims about other living persons. — Newslinger talk 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, that is your interpretation of the policies which is clearly not shared by all editors. I fear a discussion at one of those other places will have similar luck due to a few editors that like things the way they are, but I am happy to give it a go. As for wrapping up this discussion, I still think we should return to the wording that I suggested above in response to HadesTTW. I am not concerned about these apparent "misses" that Patar knight keeps harping on about. Some of these may have been genuinely wrong, but not many of them (which is the case with almost all reliable trade sources as well). Most would have been accurate at the time but then things changed due to the developing nature of films (i.e. Lindelof leaving his SW film, Driver being considered for FF but not getting the part). The Sweeney instance seems to be a blatant case of him getting it wrong and being called out immediately, but that one time isn't enough to make him an unreliable source especially when nearly everything else he has reported aligns with other sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The language in WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS does not provide an exemption for self-published content about other living persons that is deemed to be uncontroversial. The "central idea" of this requirement is to ensure that any claim (not just controversial claims) about a living person passes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing special about Sneider or his self-published newsletter that would warrant an exception to this requirement, which applies to every other individual who meets the WP:EXPERTSPS criterion. If anyone wants to amend this requirement, which has been applied on Misplaced Pages for more than 18 years, a discussion at WT:V, WT:BLP, or WP:VPP would be the first step to enact the change you are looking for. Such a change, if it gains community consensus, would apply to all sources of this kind and not just Sneider's content. Until then, the use of Sneider's self-published claims about other living persons remains a violation of core content policies. — Newslinger talk 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I never said I was against the central ideas of BLPSPS, I completely understand why we want to have a higher standard of verifiability when it comes to exceptional/controversial claims about real people who may take issue with said claims. That makes sense from multiple angles. What I take issue with is using the same standard for non-exceptional claims that happen to involve people. In my opinion, there is a very big difference between not trusting a SPS to report on claims of sexual misconduct (which I accept) and not trusting them to report on basic casting and filming details for a movie. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you do not agree with excluding self-published sources from being used for claims about living persons, you may propose a change to the relevant policies at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons. What you believe is "ridiculous and inappropriate" is actually how these policies have been applied on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, per community consensus. — Newslinger talk 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- A few editors here are trying to stretch the BLPSPS and SPS policies to prevent Sneider from being used at all, which shouldn't override the existing community consensus and clear evidence that he is a reliable source for film-related reporting. HadesTTW suggested wording that is a good start towards a common-sense solution where Sneider is used, with attribution, for reports on film-related coverage where better sources do not exist. This should lead to a compromise, with Sneider being used in situations where his reports are improving articles while editors become more aware of whether he should be used (and not using him in situations where his reports genuinely fall into BLPSPS territory, could be replaced by a better source, or some other issue such as DUEWEIGHT). All that is preventing us from moving on to that conclusion and ending this discussion is the idea that BLPSPS and SPS apply to every little mention of a living person in a source, which I maintain is ridiculous and inappropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The one policy that WP:IAR does not bypass is consensus. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the WP:BLPSPS and the WP:SPS policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like Fandom – which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful", particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. — Newslinger talk 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of due weight, we are fine. #2: ignore all rules. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see #Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson on this very page. NYT censored CEO killer Luigi Mangione's face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If general association, not even direct, with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ignore all rules. BarntToust 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Pimlico Journal
Is this reliable? https://www.pimlicojournal.co.uk/p/the-new-age-and-the-continental-far tgeorgescu (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- The notice at the bottom indicates that it's hosted by Substack. I can't find any information on who writes it or their editorial policy. So it's like an anonymous blog, basically. Schazjmd (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. This is just an SEO blog. Contributor892z (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's self-published. EEpic (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's new and apparently mostly anonymous, but has received notice, with The New Statesman stating it "has gained a small but not insignificant following, one that includes many young Conservative activists and special advisers, even some MPs." Author anonymity is not automatically bad, as The Economist almost never credits authors, and even "good" journalists are moving to Substack these days. However, Pimlico's newness, coupled with anonymous authorship, suggest it should be used incredibly sparingly, if at all, and as attributed opinion, if appropriate per WP:DUE. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Telegram (software)
Once Telegram gets mentioned on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, its shortcuts would be WP:TELEGRAM and WP:RSPTELEGRAM.Telegram is unreliable because:
- Telegram is an alt-tech platform, which means that it is highly unreliable as a source because it is used by the alt-right to evade censorship and publish far-right opinions and pseudoscientific conspiracy theories.
- Telegram is a self-published source because it is a social networking service.
- Most far-right things (such as Red Ice, The Light (newspaper), and Nicholas J. Fuentes) have escaped to Telegram after getting suspended on several mainstream social networking services.
- Telegram has been described as a "safe haven for spammers and crypto scams" because of how most Telegram groups are flooded with cryptocurrency scammers and other types of spammers. However, t.me links are barely seen on Misplaced Pages (or i just don't see them often).
- Pavel Durov has been arrested in France.
Telegram would either be WP:GUNREL (like all other self-published sources) or WP:DEPREC (because it is alt-tech). However, if t.me links are commonly used to violate WP:NOTSOAPBOX, it would be WP:SPB.
67.209.128.52 (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware there was anyone suggesting that it might be reliable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Telegram doesn't need to be on the RSP, it's obviously unreliable and I don't see anyone arguing that it is reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's just a user-generated source (WP:USERGEN). Reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF claims and posts by respectable experts/journalists/reliable sources, unreliable generally. Ca 16:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Aside from the fact that the alt-right i.e. literal neo-Nazis use it (which is something you can say about almost every social media platform at this point), Telegram, as a platform where anyone can create content with no clear editorial oversight, is a self-published source and unreliable, except in cases such as basic self-descriptions. I thought this was pretty obvious. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
HeyAlma.com
Is HeyAlma reliable for this claim?
- Article: Jack Schlossberg
- Diff: Special:Diff/1263811691/1265899403: "He identifies as culturally Jewish."
- Source: "Is JFK’s Grandson Jack Schlossberg Jewish?"
- Quote: I reached out via Instagram DM to ask if he identifies as culturally Jewish. “Yes!” he responded, before clarifying that he always has to explain that he’s not “technically” Jewish because his mother isn’t. (Jack is referencing halacha, or Jewish law, which states that a child’s Jewish status is determined by the mother’s religion.)
- HeyAlma About page
It was stated by two editors here and here that this information is "trivia", that how a person self-identifies culturally (eg. Jewish, Iranian, Pastafarian, etc..) is irrelevant to their biography (!). And claiming the source is unreliable.
I understand there is baggage about calling people Jewish on Misplaced Pages, particularly incorrectly by antisemitic forces, but in this case, the source is Jewish itself, there is no bad faith involved, it appears to be true, and there are questions about how he self-identifies: his father is Jewish and mother not. So we now have a source that directly asked him, quoted his answer unambiguously, finally clarifying how he self-identifies. -- GreenC 17:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- That section contains a bunch of other ancestry trivia that's not even mentioned in the source cited. I'm personally opposed to any mention of ancestry in someone's bio unless it is found in RSes and is relevant, but that practice is so pervasive on here that I rarely make an issue of it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- How a person self-identifies, and their ancestry, may or may not be the same thing. And apparently the question was so relevant and often asked, an article was written about it. Is the source reliable? -- GreenC 14:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- This would be easier if the subject had published the comment themself, as this isn't quite WP:ABOUTSELF. It's a third-party saying that the subject said this about themself.
- I can't see any immediate reason that HeyAlma would be unreliable, but equally I'm unconvinced they are a "high-quality" source that WP:BLP calls for.
- Whether to be include this or not isn't based on reliability, included content must be verifiable but verification doesn't guarantee inclusion. If this is the only mention the subject has made of their Jewish heritage does the subject really think it's an important aspect of their identity? Whether other secondary sources have mentioned his Jewish identity or if the subject has posted anything about it themself might be more relevant to inclusion then the reliability of one source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a Haaretz article noting that Schlossberg "says he keeps some of the Jewish tradition and celebrates Jewish holidays, but the religion clearly doesn't play a central role in his life." One can be a cultural Jew even if one isn't a religious Jew, and it sounds like that is partially the case for Schlossberg. A relevant Hey Alma quote: "I feel I’m at least 100% half Jewish ;)". It's easy to confirm Jewish heritage on his father's side (an example), but that's distinct from the question of whether he's culturally Jewish. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson
Ken Klippenstein is cited in the Media outlets section of this article. He's an independent journalist who self-publishes and doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist. Reliable or not? I say no. Some other editors from that article might come here with more context. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- permalink of the 'Media outlets' section. Mr. Klippenstein is being used to cite:
Klippenstein also alleged that The New York Times directed their staff to "dial back" on showing photographs containing Mangione's face.
A report on the killing by the NYPD was obtained by independent journalist Dan Boguslaw, and published by Klippenstein on December 26. The report focused on Mangione's motive and people who express sympathy for him, whom they labeled as "extremists". Klippenstein alleged that multiple media outlets had access to the report, but selectively quoted it in a way that focused on Mangione. He said that "By withholding documents and unilaterally deciding which portions merit public disclosure, the media is playing god."
- Klippenstein, Ken (December 11, 2024). "NY Times Doesn't Want You to See Shooter's Face". kenklippenstein.com. Retrieved December 15, 2024.
- "Read the NYPD's Mangione report the media won't publish". Ken Klippenstein. Retrieved 28 December 2024.
- Some1 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's crap. "Media reactions" or "in the media" sections in Misplaced Pages articles too often, like this article, become dumpsters where Wikipedians simply like to show off how good they are at finding random sources and shoehorning them into an article, for reasons. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right, but the focus here is on the reliability of Ken Klippenstein and whether or not his statements (sourced to his own website and attributed) are usable in the article. Some1 (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist
That's not accurate, as you could have confirmed by checking out the references in the Klippenstein WP article that note that he's been a journalist for outlets like The Nation and The Intercept. Both of those are generally reliable on the RSP. He's also seen as serious by other journalists (e.g., in this Columbia Journalism Review interview, which describes him "as one of the most fearless reporters of the Trump era").- His self-published work cannot be used as a source for WP content about living or recently dead people (e.g., about Mangione's letter), per WP:BLPSPS. He could be used as a source on a BLP if the WP text sourced to him is not itself about a person (e.g., if it's about mainstream media). But in this case, I don't see how to disentangle his statements about the press from content about Mangione. Some other news outlets have reported a bit about the content currently sourced to Klippenstein, such as this Hill article, noting Klippenstein's apparent publication of Mangione's letter. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was just going to say something similar - it's definitely inaccurate to say he hasn't written for other reliable sources in the past. It's true that his own stuff would fall foul of WP:SPS, but his stuff picked up by other reliable sources is usable, conceptually, with proper context and attribution. Sergecross73 msg me Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hell no, get rid of this Kenny guy now. WP:BLPSPS: this content directly involves a living person (Luigi), and to make self-published claims about info regarding these living persons is against policy. And, Kenny boy over here is using his blog to write WP:BOLD things about an American newspaper of record. BarntToust 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- BarntToust - Dial it back a bit. WP:BLP applies to all BLP is all Misplaced Pages spaces. You calling him weird names like "Kenny Boy" probably doesn't constitute "written with the greatest care and attention". Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this was like WaPo or The Times writing this about NYT then yes I would support inclusion. This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here. "Ken" should be more concerned that he is writing damning blog posts accusing a reputable newspaper of compromised journalistic integrity. Who else will pick this up? Who else will corroborate this bold as all hell claim with trusted journalistic process? BarntToust 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- "This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here" is false, as is "he is writing damning blog posts." More than one person here has noted that he's a reliable journalist. Unbandito explained why he chose to start his own journalism Substack (not a blog). There are a number of established writers using Substack to host their reporting; here's WP's incomplete list. It's bizarre that you put his name in quotation marks, especially after calling him "this Kenny guy" and "Kenny boy." Nothing is stopping you from answering your own questions. I already noted a couple of sources that had picked it up; here's another. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I personally believe that bold claims against these news organisations need other comparable news organisations to corroborate them, to establish wp:due weight. the spreading of claims by sources who are especially biased and opinionated means nothing. "Ken" can make a bombshell accusation against NYT for spineless reporting but can we get The Guardian or some other prestigious institutions to back these claims? BarntToust 18:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- A reminder that WP:RS states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject," so I don't agree that his reporting "means nothing." This thread started off with the false claim that he "doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist" and the question "Reliable or not?" The false claim has been addressed. The question shows that people have different opinions. Whether some mention of Klippenstein is DUE is not a matter of reliability and belongs on the Talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Having been employed by two ultra-partisan outlets for some short period, and then by "The Young Turks" which is marginally better than InfoWars, does not indicate this individual's self-published works meet the encyclopedia's reliability standards. And it has not been shown that I made a false claim, only if you think these ultra-partisan sources are "mainstream". Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent, which is laughable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was employed by The Young Turks before he worked for The Nation and The Intercept, not after, and those aren't the only other media for which he's written. Partisanship doesn't determine whether a given media outlet is/isn't mainstream media. They're both listed on Harvard's Index of US Mainstream Media Ownership.
Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent
Please quote whomever you're referring to, because I don't see any comment suggesting that. I'd be happy to be corrected, but otherwise, it's counterproductive to characterize people's comments as more extreme than they actually are. Again: people clearly have different opinions about whether he's "Reliable or not?" You have your opinion, and I have mine. Personally, I consider the Columbia Journalism Review interview as evidence of his reliability; if they happen to focus on someone who's unreliable, I think they say so, as here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)- Funny, Misplaced Pages lists The Federalist as "generally unreliable due to its partisan nature" yet they're listed as mainstream on Harvard's index. Seems like some kinds of partisanship are more acceptable than others. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't claim or imply that all MSM on Harvard's list are reliable. Reliability, partisanship, and mainstream media status are all distinct dimensions. A source can fall into any one of their 8 combinations. The full RSP sentence is "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories." Maybe you think a source that promotes conspiracy theories is reliable, but I don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think a source promoting conspiracies is reliable, and I'm not disputing the decision against The Federalist. I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview, and I disagree. Even the content in question isn't just a professional critique of editorial decisions, but it's couched in nefarious undertones, even going so far as to accuse MSM of "playing god." Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here.
That's a very general claim for which you've provided no evidence and that also seems way beyond the scope of this particular thread.Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview...
Another very general claim, though this one at least touches on the thread's topic. Focusing just on Klippenstein, if you have evidence that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it. If you do have that evidence, then you really should have presented it when you first asked "Reliable or not?" FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- I would just refer you over to the article's talk page where discussion of this issue has continued, and a resolution has been reached. As to Klipp's conspiratorial worldview, see his latest media rant which I also submitted in talk.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how anything on the talk page provides evidence for your claim that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters," and either you have evidence of that or you don't. So far, it looks like you don't. The only thing I see in your link relative to a "conspiratorial worldview" is his claim that "every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is," which hardly rises to the level of "frequently." FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a taboo? BarntToust 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a BLP violation to keep calling him a conspiracy theorist is what it is. One that Jonathan f1 seems quite committed to. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like I explained to you on the talk page, I'm using his own words. He's alleging that politicians and major media outlets "conspired" against the public. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Him using a turn of phrase one time doesn't give us cause to start throwing insults at him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Please provide a couple of reliable sources calling Klippenstein a conspiracy theorist or desist immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- if it looks like a duck, do we need reliable sources? I don't think we should explicitly be throwing around the Alex Jones-word, but rather show don't tell. Keeps BLP vio away. BarntToust 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not putting him in the same bucket with Alex Jones, but his repeated attacks on major media followed by a remark about them "conspiring" with each other is what it is. But okay, to move past all this pointless tone policing, I'll find a new phrase. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- if it looks like a duck, do we need reliable sources? I don't think we should explicitly be throwing around the Alex Jones-word, but rather show don't tell. Keeps BLP vio away. BarntToust 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Him using a turn of phrase one time doesn't give us cause to start throwing insults at him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Please provide a couple of reliable sources calling Klippenstein a conspiracy theorist or desist immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like I explained to you on the talk page, I'm using his own words. He's alleging that politicians and major media outlets "conspired" against the public. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a BLP violation to keep calling him a conspiracy theorist is what it is. One that Jonathan f1 seems quite committed to. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to rehash his entire career as a journalist here, and particularly his time with The Young Turks which will certainly provide you with ample evidence of this. It isn't even relevant here -the articles in question are attack pieces where he is either implicating major media outlets in a plot or calling their journalistic ethics into question. That we are even debating inclusion with no corroboration from high-grade sources is remarkable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I said
if you have evidence that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it.
You're the one who made the claim, and you're the one with the burden of proof for it. Don't try to shift the burden onto me. I'm not "debating inclusion" of any specific edit right now. I'm telling you that if you can't or won't substantiate your claim, then you should retract it, as it's an unsubstantiated contentious claim and a BLP violation. The BLP policy applies to any statements about living persons on all WP pages, including this one. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- I'll retract it just to move on from this. My objection to Klippenstein in this particular case does not hinge on this little side issue. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I said
- is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a taboo? BarntToust 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how anything on the talk page provides evidence for your claim that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters," and either you have evidence of that or you don't. So far, it looks like you don't. The only thing I see in your link relative to a "conspiratorial worldview" is his claim that "every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is," which hardly rises to the level of "frequently." FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would just refer you over to the article's talk page where discussion of this issue has continued, and a resolution has been reached. As to Klipp's conspiratorial worldview, see his latest media rant which I also submitted in talk.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think a source promoting conspiracies is reliable, and I'm not disputing the decision against The Federalist. I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview, and I disagree. Even the content in question isn't just a professional critique of editorial decisions, but it's couched in nefarious undertones, even going so far as to accuse MSM of "playing god." Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't claim or imply that all MSM on Harvard's list are reliable. Reliability, partisanship, and mainstream media status are all distinct dimensions. A source can fall into any one of their 8 combinations. The full RSP sentence is "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories." Maybe you think a source that promotes conspiracy theories is reliable, but I don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Funny, Misplaced Pages lists The Federalist as "generally unreliable due to its partisan nature" yet they're listed as mainstream on Harvard's index. Seems like some kinds of partisanship are more acceptable than others. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was employed by The Young Turks before he worked for The Nation and The Intercept, not after, and those aren't the only other media for which he's written. Partisanship doesn't determine whether a given media outlet is/isn't mainstream media. They're both listed on Harvard's Index of US Mainstream Media Ownership.
- Having been employed by two ultra-partisan outlets for some short period, and then by "The Young Turks" which is marginally better than InfoWars, does not indicate this individual's self-published works meet the encyclopedia's reliability standards. And it has not been shown that I made a false claim, only if you think these ultra-partisan sources are "mainstream". Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent, which is laughable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- A reminder that WP:RS states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject," so I don't agree that his reporting "means nothing." This thread started off with the false claim that he "doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist" and the question "Reliable or not?" The false claim has been addressed. The question shows that people have different opinions. Whether some mention of Klippenstein is DUE is not a matter of reliability and belongs on the Talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I personally believe that bold claims against these news organisations need other comparable news organisations to corroborate them, to establish wp:due weight. the spreading of claims by sources who are especially biased and opinionated means nothing. "Ken" can make a bombshell accusation against NYT for spineless reporting but can we get The Guardian or some other prestigious institutions to back these claims? BarntToust 18:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why did you put his real name in quotes like that? Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- As an indicator that I generally distrust Substack reporters and their methods. I can't believe that anything will pass as qualified journalism nowadays 😐 BarntToust 18:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- "This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here" is false, as is "he is writing damning blog posts." More than one person here has noted that he's a reliable journalist. Unbandito explained why he chose to start his own journalism Substack (not a blog). There are a number of established writers using Substack to host their reporting; here's WP's incomplete list. It's bizarre that you put his name in quotation marks, especially after calling him "this Kenny guy" and "Kenny boy." Nothing is stopping you from answering your own questions. I already noted a couple of sources that had picked it up; here's another. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this was like WaPo or The Times writing this about NYT then yes I would support inclusion. This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here. "Ken" should be more concerned that he is writing damning blog posts accusing a reputable newspaper of compromised journalistic integrity. Who else will pick this up? Who else will corroborate this bold as all hell claim with trusted journalistic process? BarntToust 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- BarntToust - Dial it back a bit. WP:BLP applies to all BLP is all Misplaced Pages spaces. You calling him weird names like "Kenny Boy" probably doesn't constitute "written with the greatest care and attention". Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- In this case, I'd say keep it. Klippenstein obtained and published the manifesto, which mainstream sources begrudgingly admitted was the same one they refused to publish. It appears that the citations in this article are of secondary coverage of his work, which makes them even more admissible. Klip is not just some guy, he has journalistic credentials and a past of reliable reporting for multiple reliable orgs. He's one of a number of journalists who was laid off from major outlets in the last year or so as part of a broader trend of restructuring in media that is ongoing. He and others like Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill have moved on to independent work, but despite the loss of their association with an established organization, their reporting remains influential and they've made a number of valuable contributions to our knowledge of and discourse on current events. I worry that Misplaced Pages policy, which assumes that mainstream media has a static financial and ethical position in perpetuity, is not adequately nuanced to accommodate major shake-ups in the press such as what we're seeing today. I think it's also worth noting that while Ken publishes on substack, at least in some other articles he's written (such as his publication of a US intelligence report on Israeli preparations to strike Iran) he employs an editor to review his work. This is the same sort of self-publishing that mainstream RS do, and another argument in favor of his reliability. Unbandito (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- "multiple reliable orgs."
- Really, like what? The Young Turks? I'm aware that Nation and Intercept are considered generally reliable, but there's also consensus that they're opinionated, biased and partisan, and should be used with caution. Klipp doesn't work for any of these publications anymore; he self-publishes on substack and has made a career for himself publishing MSM polemic. That's what this section includes currently -Klipp's self-published polemic directed at NY Times, CNN etc. Even if this appeared in The Nation, there'd be weight issues. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, The Nation and The Intercept. All media has bias, and any media-literate person should understand this. I think weight arguments are a lot stronger regarding content that is more than a few sentences or a short paragraph long. I don't think the due weight for this content is zero, and therefore I think the material is appropriate. If there is a significant view in opposition to Klippenstein, I think the page would be better improved by expanding it. Unbandito (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course all media, and all humans, are biased, but when a consensus on here comes with that caveat, you know you're not dealing with a gold standard RS. And this is only relevant here if you think his past employment with these outlets, however brief, in some way lends credibility to his self-published substacks. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think what his past employment in media shows is that he has the training and follows the same standards of verifiability as prestige media organizations. I think it's worth noting that when a fake version of the manifesto was making the rounds, Klippenstein declined to publish it and called it out as misleading because he couldn't verify its authenticity. Regardless of where he's publishing them, I think his publication of several leaked documents ahead of the mainstream press as well as his history as a FOIA journalist shows that he is well connected to valuable sources of information and is engaged in "real" investigative journalism of the sort that prestige outlets are increasingly unwilling to pay for when opinion pieces get them just as many clicks.
- His perspective on the unwillingness of the media to publish a document which they had verified is true is granted some additional relevance by the fact that he is the one who published the document and inquired to these organizations as to why they hadn't, as well as by the fact that journalists from those legacy organizations leaked internal communications to him which showed the decision those organizations had made.
- I think that this is frankly a strong example of the way that Misplaced Pages's current RS policies are inadequate to handle the reality that with the traditional media in financial and organizational crisis, sometimes breaking news is going to be published by small independent outlets or individuals. Any conception of reliability that uniformly dismisses sources like Klippenstein as if they're some random blog post by John Q. Public while reifying legacy media despite the history of its errors and shortcomings and the media studies scholarship that problematizes a simplistic conception of source reliability, is sure to exclude some valuable material and include a lot of junk. Without getting too far off topic, I think the solution to this is to emphasize verifiability and source consensus over things like editorial process and organizational prestige, and to attribute wherever there is controversy or disagreement. Unbandito (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course all media, and all humans, are biased, but when a consensus on here comes with that caveat, you know you're not dealing with a gold standard RS. And this is only relevant here if you think his past employment with these outlets, however brief, in some way lends credibility to his self-published substacks. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone using phrases like "MSM polemic" ought to be stepping well away from deciding the reliability of any sources, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- NY Times and CNN are mainstream media, a polemic is "a piece of writing expressing a strongly critical view of someone or something." Thus, Klippenstein's hit pieces on MSM are polemics. I don't see why me knowing what these words mean implies I need to "step well away" from assessing reliability. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, The Nation and The Intercept. All media has bias, and any media-literate person should understand this. I think weight arguments are a lot stronger regarding content that is more than a few sentences or a short paragraph long. I don't think the due weight for this content is zero, and therefore I think the material is appropriate. If there is a significant view in opposition to Klippenstein, I think the page would be better improved by expanding it. Unbandito (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- if someone else reports on it, its not sps, its secondary coverage of SPS, which should be admissible in BLP, right? I think we can't directly use any details in his blog that aren't vetted and cited by another non-SPS news source Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, secondary sources can be used for a BLP, if they are RSs. For example, this LA Times article confirms that Klippenstein published Mangione full "manifesto." And this Mediaite article could be used re: his criticism of other media for not releasing the whole thing, though RSP says "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." Perhaps there are other reliable non-SPSs that are better sources for the content about Klippenstein's criticism of other media; I'm not going to take time right now to search further. There may still be questions about due weight, whether a claim needs to be attributed, etc., but those are distinct from the question of reliability and what can be used for BLP material. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- See, this is the thing, we've got LA Times, a high quality RS for news, so there's no reason to cite Klippenstein. But that covers the manifesto issue, which I wouldn't object to including. But the hit piece on those MSMs? Yeah, that's not found in LA Times or any other source on that level, only a "marginally reliable" source. I do not think Klipp is any position to critique editorial decisions at these publications, and do not see how that's due weight anyway. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this:
- I don't object to the bit about media not publishing the manifesto, and this could be sourced to the LA Times (the secondary source referencing Klippenstein).
- The next line about the NY Times not showing the suspect's face -no RS is talking about this and I personally find it irrelevant.
- The last part about media outlets selectively quoting from the NYPD report -this exceeds weight limits and makes the section read like a hit piece against MSM, all sourced to one man. Klippenstein objects to the NYPD using the term "extremists" to describe the suspect's supporters, and cites a report by security firm Dragonfly to argue that the risk of violent attacks on corporate leaders will likely remain low. If you read his source, they, too, use the word "extremists" to describe people who support the killing.
- Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this:
- See, this is the thing, we've got LA Times, a high quality RS for news, so there's no reason to cite Klippenstein. But that covers the manifesto issue, which I wouldn't object to including. But the hit piece on those MSMs? Yeah, that's not found in LA Times or any other source on that level, only a "marginally reliable" source. I do not think Klipp is any position to critique editorial decisions at these publications, and do not see how that's due weight anyway. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, secondary sources can be used for a BLP, if they are RSs. For example, this LA Times article confirms that Klippenstein published Mangione full "manifesto." And this Mediaite article could be used re: his criticism of other media for not releasing the whole thing, though RSP says "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." Perhaps there are other reliable non-SPSs that are better sources for the content about Klippenstein's criticism of other media; I'm not going to take time right now to search further. There may still be questions about due weight, whether a claim needs to be attributed, etc., but those are distinct from the question of reliability and what can be used for BLP material. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I read his work and personally trust Klippenstein. However, his substack is clearly a self-published source. Unbandito's comments on broader issues with Misplaced Pages, while interesting, don't address the WP:BLPSPS issue. Ultimately, Klippenstein is the person with final approval on what he wrote.
- I would consider Klippenstein's views WP:DUE if they are reported on by reliable sources. Based on what I know and see here, I can't consider him to meet the WP:EXPERTSPS criteria in this topic area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Chess here - WP:EXPERTSPS is appropriate here. Klippenstein is a respected journalist. He's also self-publishing. But, in this case, he's an expert who is self-publishing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- See talk page (article linked up top). Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll endorse this as position as well. Klippenstein has a good track record with reputable outlets and hasn't had issues so far on his own, but is ultimately a WP:BLPSPS that should only be included when corroborated and/or discussed by non-SPS RSs. That appears to be the case with the manifesto itself, but not the other reports. -- Patar knight - /contributions 01:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pretty much yes. There's no issue with the manifesto content, but the other reports are not mentioned in any secondary RS of any quality (ignoring Washington Times and the art website). There's also the fact that he's mentioned 3 separate times in a section of only 8 lines, which is hard to defend. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I merged the 'Media outlets' section with the 'Other' section. An editor made a good point on the talk page that according to Klippenstein's article, he's a FOIA document expert, and that
much of his journalism draws on information he has uncovered from records requested at state and national levels of the US government
, whichalso frequently include information from leaked documents
. Some1 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Regardless of expert status, BLPSPS applies and would bar the use when it's not corroborated. It seems the new combined section has some sources that discussion Klippenstein's work in and of itself, which partially solves that issue. The issue then is if the amount of coverage is DUE. Klippenstein is an established journalist and some inclusion is probably due given the coverage, but a lot of the paragraph is repetitive, so I would probably cut it down by half. -- Patar knight - /contributions 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you comment in the article's talk page, because despite what is being said here in this thread, certain editors still think he's a "certified rando", "a random blogger", and unreliable 1, 2, 3. Some1 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of expert status, BLPSPS applies and would bar the use when it's not corroborated. It seems the new combined section has some sources that discussion Klippenstein's work in and of itself, which partially solves that issue. The issue then is if the amount of coverage is DUE. Klippenstein is an established journalist and some inclusion is probably due given the coverage, but a lot of the paragraph is repetitive, so I would probably cut it down by half. -- Patar knight - /contributions 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I merged the 'Media outlets' section with the 'Other' section. An editor made a good point on the talk page that according to Klippenstein's article, he's a FOIA document expert, and that
- Pretty much yes. There's no issue with the manifesto content, but the other reports are not mentioned in any secondary RS of any quality (ignoring Washington Times and the art website). There's also the fact that he's mentioned 3 separate times in a section of only 8 lines, which is hard to defend. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Chess here - WP:EXPERTSPS is appropriate here. Klippenstein is a respected journalist. He's also self-publishing. But, in this case, he's an expert who is self-publishing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, a consensus has not yet been achieved here. I don't wish to step on anybody's toes, but I have reverted User:Toa Nidhiki05's blanking of a large portion of the disputed section here. Kire1975 (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please see WP:ONUS:
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
You should self-revert your reversion until consensus has been reached in one way or another. Astaire (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- But WP:NOCON is also relevant:
When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. Astaire (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The material that User:Toa Nidhiki05 removed had been in the article since December 13 without any dispute (until now). Some1 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. Astaire (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- But WP:NOCON is also relevant:
- Please see WP:ONUS:
Slayage
Slayage: The International Journal of Buffy+ ISSN 1546-9212 https://www.whedonstudies.tv/slayage-the-international-journal-of-buffy.html
Slayage (ISSN 1546-9212) is an open-access, blind peer-reviewed, MLA-indexed publication and a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals. journal. All content is available at no cost, in downloadable, full-text PDFs. There is no submission or publication fee for authors.
- https://www.whedonstudies.tv/editorial-team.html
- https://doaj.org/toc/1546-9212
- Links to the www.whedonstudies.tv site
- https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1546-9212
- There is also a site at https://slayage.ejournals.una.edu/. https://una.edu/ is University of North Alabama's website. UNA hosted the 2018 Slayage Conference, but I have not found more about their relationship.
- Slayage and Slayage: The Online Journal of Buffy Studies (a previous title) redirect to Buffy studies. It has a few sentences about Slayage, but they are out of date.
Context: WP:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27#Principal Snyder and WP:Articles for deletion/Principal Snyder
Apologies, I am not familiar with what information is relevant and helpful. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- From the listed information, the fact, that the journal has fixed editors and a fixed board of officers and members, the mission statement of "the scholarly exploration of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its related texts" and "meant to invite analyses of not only Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse, etcetera", and the fact, that most contributors are associated with universities, I believe that this is a serious academic source, even though it is focussed on a niche topic and may not be quite as organized as publications by long-standing publishers in the field. I think this is a reliable source which can provide commentary as expected by WP:NOTPLOT on its subject matter. Daranios (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- My initial thoughts was "Obviously not", but searching Google books its cited in works published by credible publishers (McFarland, Routledge, etc). It could be reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the fact it's such a niche source (an academic journal dedicated to a specific TV show of all things) suggests that while it's probably not unreliable, it's questionable whether it should count towards the notability of fictional elements from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's special pleading. We don't dismiss topics from journals dedicated to other authors, do we?
- Grok gives the following as peer-reviewed, indexed journals of 20th century authors:
- James Joyce Quarterly: This journal is dedicated to Joyce's works, offering scholarly articles, reviews, and bibliographies. It is indexed by several databases, including JSTOR and Project MUSE.
- The Faulkner Journal: Focused on the study of Faulkner's literature, this journal publishes scholarly articles, book reviews, and special issues on various aspects of his work. It is indexed in databases like MLA International Bibliography.
- The Hemingway Review: This journal delves into Hemingway's writings, life, and influence, providing critical essays, reviews, and notes. It is indexed by several academic databases, including Project MUSE and JSTOR.
- Virginia Woolf Bulletin (also known as the "Virginia Woolf Miscellany"): This publication explores Woolf's literature, life, and cultural impact. Although not as widely indexed as some others, it is recognized by the MLA International Bibliography.
- T.S. Eliot Studies Annual: This newer publication focuses on in-depth studies of Eliot's poetry, criticism, and cultural contributions. It is peer-reviewed and indexed in academic sources.
- D.H. Lawrence Review: This journal features scholarly articles on Lawrence's work, with a strong focus on his novels, poetry, and letters. It is indexed by resources like JSTOR.
- Kafka Studies: Although not as universally known, this journal offers critical analysis of Kafka's literature and philosophical themes. It's indexed in humanities databases.
- Samuel Beckett Today/Aujourd'hui: Dedicated to Beckett scholarship, this journal publishes articles in both English and French, focusing on Beckett's plays, novels, and other works. It is peer-reviewed and indexed by databases like Scopus.
- Marcel Proust Bulletin: This focuses on Proust's extensive oeuvre, particularly "In Search of Lost Time," with articles that explore his influence and interpretations. It's indexed by various literary databases.
- Thomas Mann Jahrbuch: This German-language journal studies Mann's literature, life, and cultural impact, featuring peer-reviewed articles. It is well-indexed in European academic circles.
- Sehnsucht: The C. S. Lewis Journal: Established by the Arizona C. S. Lewis Society in 2007, this is the world's only peer-reviewed journal devoted exclusively to the study of C. S. Lewis and his writings. It promotes interest in Lewis's literary, theological, historical, biographical, philosophical, and cultural contributions. The journal is indexed in databases like JSTOR, making it accessible for academic research.
- I'm sure there may be more. Grok tends to overlook things even when you tell it to be exhaustive; the last one I specifically queried but it wasn't included in the first set. Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not dismssing the journal as a reliable source, I'm just saying that its focus on a particular TV show means that it may not demonstrate notability for fictional elements of this particular TV Show. I would say that this goes for the others sources you conjured using an AI chatbot and their particular purviews. If the particular fictional element is found to be notable I see no reason against using it as a source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- AI chatbot just more or less summarized List of academic journals about specific authors. The above are all legit scholarly journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not denying that they are legitimate scholarly journals. It's a question of WP:DUE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- DUE is demonstrated by the fact that an entire journal exists about the topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see why having a journal dedicated to a TV Show means that every minor aspect of its characters and worldbuilding is automatically notable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- No more than any minor aspect of CS Lewis characters become automatically notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- What is the intended use? Simonm223 (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cynically, I'd say Slayage is evidence that there's a whole lot of academics who liked (like?) Joss Whedon's work and decided to put together a journal so they could write about their favorite fiction and have it count towards their career advancement. But that's still not reason to discount it as a source, is it? Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- No but reliability is contextual. Without understanding thd context all we can really say is, "yeah it's a journal." Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is reliability even being seriously questioned here? Seriously, has anyone looked at it and compared it to similar academic journals? Because I'm seeing a lot more "Who would have a whole journal on this?" than "This isn't really a peer-reviewed, indexed journal." That is, no policy-based arguments against reliability are being advanced here. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK I found the context (was on my phone mostly over xmas which is a horrible interface) and I'd say that mention in a single journal is a bit weak for establishing independent notability of a seasonal antagonist in a TV show unless that mention was particularly in-depth. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- But that's not an RSN decision; that's an AfD topic. RSN is to debate whether a peer-reviewed, indexed journal is, in fact, a peer-reviewed, indexed journal. If we're agreed that this is, in fact, a peer-reviewed, indexed journal, even if a niche one, our job here is done, isn't it? Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK I found the context (was on my phone mostly over xmas which is a horrible interface) and I'd say that mention in a single journal is a bit weak for establishing independent notability of a seasonal antagonist in a TV show unless that mention was particularly in-depth. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is reliability even being seriously questioned here? Seriously, has anyone looked at it and compared it to similar academic journals? Because I'm seeing a lot more "Who would have a whole journal on this?" than "This isn't really a peer-reviewed, indexed journal." That is, no policy-based arguments against reliability are being advanced here. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- No but reliability is contextual. Without understanding thd context all we can really say is, "yeah it's a journal." Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cynically, I'd say Slayage is evidence that there's a whole lot of academics who liked (like?) Joss Whedon's work and decided to put together a journal so they could write about their favorite fiction and have it count towards their career advancement. But that's still not reason to discount it as a source, is it? Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- What is the intended use? Simonm223 (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- No more than any minor aspect of CS Lewis characters become automatically notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see why having a journal dedicated to a TV Show means that every minor aspect of its characters and worldbuilding is automatically notable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- DUE is demonstrated by the fact that an entire journal exists about the topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I limited it to 20th century authors, though, in an attempt to force a more contemporary focus, which is what we're really concerned about here. No one doubts Augustine is a topic of legitimate scholarly inquiry. Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really see why, when there are no objections against the content of the magazine, it should not be used for notability. The reason why we have a notability requirement in the first place is to only create articles on topics where there really is enough to say. If there is enough, then why not? Daranios (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- AI chatbot just more or less summarized List of academic journals about specific authors. The above are all legit scholarly journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not dismssing the journal as a reliable source, I'm just saying that its focus on a particular TV show means that it may not demonstrate notability for fictional elements of this particular TV Show. I would say that this goes for the others sources you conjured using an AI chatbot and their particular purviews. If the particular fictional element is found to be notable I see no reason against using it as a source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I searched for Slayage and the papers from the AfD in Google Scholar after finding it mentioned at WP:Search engine test (how-to guide), WP:Notability (academics) (guideline), WP:Notability (academic journals) (essay), and WP:Journal sources (untagged). Is there a quick way to add up citation counts for Slayage across its papers? Do journal citation counts estimate impact, and is impact relevant here?
- https://www.whedonstudies.tv/volume-110.html Daniel A. Clark and P. Andrew Miller (Northern Kentucky University) "Buffy, The Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority"
- https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11208910260268275851 – Cited by 17
- Clark, Daniel A., and P. Andrew Miller. "Buffy, the Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority." Slayage: The Online International Journal of Buffy Studies 3.9 (2001).
- Daniel A. Clark (no user profile)
- P. Andrew Miller (no user profile)
- Andrew P. Miller – Cited by 5345, but seems to be a different person
- https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11208910260268275851 – Cited by 17
- https://www.whedonstudies.tv/volume-41.html Michele Paule (Oxford Brookes University) "You're on my campus, buddy!: Sovereign and disciplinary power at Sunnydale High"
- https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14669897941185192559 – Cited by 2
- Paule, Michele. "" You're on My Campus, Buddy!" Sovereign and Disciplinary Power at Sunnydale High." Slayage: The Online International Journal of Buffy Studies 4.3 (2004).
- Michele Paule – Cited by 87
- https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14669897941185192559 – Cited by 2
Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: NewsNation
What is the reliability of NewsNation?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Survey (NewsNation)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings, Coulthart said "... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"! . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including Jamey Jacob and Mick West, all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
- Writing in The Skeptic, Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: "Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."
- He wrote a UFO book titled Plain Sight which Jason Colavito described as a "conspiracy narrative" and a "slipshod summary".
- The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for “espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”
- The Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking "Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary? while strongly implying the former.
- The Sydney Morning Herald has described him as a "UFO truther" with "little appetite for scrutiny".
- Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked 60 Minutes (Australian TV program) investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
- Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
- In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the Washington Post: ), the channel "was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health".
- In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said "... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing". The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to Mick West's analysis, a Boeing 737 .
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage Personisinsterest (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. BarntToust 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 per Chetsford. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (NewsNation)
- For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
techinasia.com
There is an article about the company here: Tech in Asia. At some point many articles seem to be written with AI, with the following note by the publisher on those articles:
>🤖 All content is created by our AI Author using various sources and our data for extra context.
>🧔♂️ A friendly human checks it before it goes live. More news here
I assume such articles cannot be used. I wonder about articles that are written before they started using AI such as . There are also paywalled articles written by staff such as that have the following note:
>It takes our newsroom weeks - if not months - to investigate and produce stories for our premium content. You can’t find them anywhere else.
Currently this site is used as a source in 315 articles (link)
The company seem to have some relationship with The Business Times (Singapore) via their about page. The business Times syndicates tech in asia's articles via this page: and links to them in their footer.
My opinion is that articles written before they started using AI are probably fine, at least from a reliability point of view alone. It may be confusing to allow only premium content however. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Every article should be checked before using it as a source, as even seemingly reliable sources can be wrong, but anything created by AI should be viewed even more critically. You assessment is probably right. Paywalled content is acceptable, see WP:SOURCEACCESS (and another opportunity to mention WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange if people haven't heard of it yet). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would not bother with the paywall vs non-paywall distinction. Let's just draw a bright-line that they are no longer reliable after they started churning out LLM glurge with reliability assessed contextually as per standard practice from before they decided to throw their credibility entirely away. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Pop Crave
I know what you're going to say. This is a social media page, and it can't be reliable. But Pop Crave is also a website that conducts interviews and breaks news. Pop Crave itself is reliable on Twitter and other sites.
I know there's a small chance of this going through. But I think it's also worth seriously re-examining our social media sources policy. The younger generations are getting their news from these sources way more than any others. That number will only increase as the years go by. And as a result, these sources will become more reliable. We need to get in touch. Personisinsterest (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Others are free to chime in, but the fact that a source is considered "reliable" on another website -- especially social media -- is of little consequence in the context of determining its reliability on Misplaced Pages. What ultimately matters is how it conforms to policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:RS. Assessing the source on its own merits, I Googled their staff page since I couldn't find it on their homepage (, for those interested), and there is no information provided about these people beyond their roles at the site, which frequently strikes me as the sign of a dubious source. Furthermore, there are no authors listed on any of the articles presented on their homepage, which is not a good sign. All things considered, this really does just look like a social media-type fansite, which in addition to not meeting the criteria of WP:RS, would also make it unusable on WP:BLP articles.
- Finally, I will conclude with this: As a young enough person (22, as I write this), I certainly view news from sources that don't meet Misplaced Pages's standards for verifiability and reliability, but that doesn't mean I'm going to cite them on Misplaced Pages. So I don't see using popular sites that younger audiences get their news from as a good idea -- using that standard, TikTok and Instagram posts could be regarded as potentially acceptable for, say, information about living persons. Sorry, but that is just not how Misplaced Pages functions. JeffSpaceman (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I concur with JeffSpaceman's assessment. The site does list it's staff, but the bios are the same humorous take on lorum ipsum. There's no way to assess reliability, which has the markings of it being unreliable. The publishing medium - social media vs. website - doesn't really matter. It's the credentials, editorial oversight, and reputation for fact-checking that matter, and on that there's nothing to go on.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BLP says that for articles about living people you should be
very firm about the use of high-quality sources
. Celebrity news and gossip sites are not high-quality sources. Separately interviews can be used for WP:ABOUTSELF statements, as long as it's not overly promotional (etc) and your only quoting the subject and not the comments by the interviewer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm familiar enough with PopCrave to say with confidence there is no world in which it should be used as a reliable source. It's a prime example of churnalism. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pop Crave doesn't have a track record of reliability we would want for a RS, especially in the BLP space. Looking at the bios of some of the authors that I was able to find (Dylan Anthony, their most prolific writer, does not appear to be on LinkedIn). most have little journalism experience, especially with RSs. That being said, they do have some experience, do not seem like grifters, and do get interviews. It seems like their interviews should be safe enough for WP:ABOUTSELF statements if it's not egregiously self-serving. -- Patar knight - /contributions 22:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Look, guys, gals and either or else, if we have to have a discussion about every website that has become a content farm we've already eliminated half of the sources considered generally reliable a decade ago, and if we consider bias and opinionation to be a damning factor, there's the other half gone.
How about we agree to encourage practice of good media literacy, and learn to take each article on a given website on a basis-by-basis account? If it is recognised as churnalism or slop, don't use it. If it's an example of helpful content, use it. We live in the enshittification age of AI garbage. Deal with this conundrum smartly. BarntToust 02:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an awful response to give at the reliable source noticeboard. Discussing sources is what is done here, and this person is asking a good-faith question on the use of a source. Your participation isn't required if you're already exasperated for some reason. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- look, it's exasperating to see literally all pop culture / video games sources going down the proverbial shitter for sakes' of engagement and leverage of AI. most sources have the whispers of decent journalism drowned out behind the great content farm, and it's probably prudent to know how to pick the meat from the shells, so to speak. Yes, it is tiring, and it is sad to see journalism turn sour. If it bothers you to see concern expressed and grievances given, eh. it's reality. BarntToust 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's besides the point. Lament it somewhere else. This is a place people are supposed to be asking about sources, and your grumbling creates a chilling effect on editors who wish to learn how to go about things the right way. I'm well aware of the state of journalism in 2025, and I don't blame anyone bemoaning it. But there's a time and place for things, and this is not the place for it. It lacks common sense - just as it would if I were to head over to WP:NORN and say "Oh great, yet another question about WP:SYNTH!" That's...what they do there. If you're tired of fielding questions, do something else. Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I get your frustration. Frankly it is what motivates a lot of my strong and loudly expressed preference for academic work and books published by reliable presses over journalistic content in these discussions. Because, yeah, journalism is in a dire place. Globally. (And I say this as someone who aspired to be a journalist early in his career only to watch the profession die.) I also agree there are certainly degrees here. In fact my antipathy toward WP:GREL is mostly motivated from the fact I fully agree with you that we should be treating reliability contextually most of the time rather than making general statements.
- However, in this specific case, I'd say PopCrave, as a particular outlet, was never farther up the journalism ladder than the bottom rung. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- that system I propose is seriously the only way I believe we'll get anything sourcable. Journalism is a lobster, @Sergecross73. That means it is mostly a shell (useless and non-consumable) and we must look for and dig out the meat (useful and consumable content). I'm not posting to bitch and moan only, I'm trying to hit the nail on the head and I'm providing a method of thought to deal with how to wade through the swamp of garbage journalism. BarntToust 17:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- and each site is probably a lobster, so to speak. Each site, some more than others, is a shell, but with careful judgement, substance can be drawn from it. BarntToust 17:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The "system you propose" doesn't exist yet, and its not appropriate to propose it in the middle of someone's valid question. Go take it to WP:VILLAGEPUMP or something. Stop derailing this thread. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- and each site is probably a lobster, so to speak. Each site, some more than others, is a shell, but with careful judgement, substance can be drawn from it. BarntToust 17:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
it's probably prudent to know how to pick the meat from the shells
I completely agree with this, but your comment doesn't help the OP know how to do that. If your not going to offer advice or knowledge then you're posting to the wrong place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's besides the point. Lament it somewhere else. This is a place people are supposed to be asking about sources, and your grumbling creates a chilling effect on editors who wish to learn how to go about things the right way. I'm well aware of the state of journalism in 2025, and I don't blame anyone bemoaning it. But there's a time and place for things, and this is not the place for it. It lacks common sense - just as it would if I were to head over to WP:NORN and say "Oh great, yet another question about WP:SYNTH!" That's...what they do there. If you're tired of fielding questions, do something else. Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- look, it's exasperating to see literally all pop culture / video games sources going down the proverbial shitter for sakes' of engagement and leverage of AI. most sources have the whispers of decent journalism drowned out behind the great content farm, and it's probably prudent to know how to pick the meat from the shells, so to speak. Yes, it is tiring, and it is sad to see journalism turn sour. If it bothers you to see concern expressed and grievances given, eh. it's reality. BarntToust 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editors come here looking for advice on how to make a good judgement on a source, so telling them they need to use their own good judgement doesn't help. Answering questions simply as YES/NO is equally as bad, instead try to answer question in a way that helps the OP understand policy and how to make good judgements.
- Also although for some reason people believe Misplaced Pages considers bias or opinion in reliability matters it doesn't, see WP:RSBIAS and WP:RSOPINION. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Is this article declaring the Newport Tower a 12th c. baptistry a reliable source for the tower??
The autho rhas emailed me demanding it be added to the Newport Tower article as it has been peer reviewed.. Other non-peer reviewed papers of his can be found here. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- For reference the tower is Newport Tower (Rhode Island) The answer is no. The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming. Even academic presses slip up sometimes and Istanbul University Press is frankly quite a bit distant from Rhode Island such that I would be cautious about the level of rigour of its fact checking (if any) on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- In addition to this, the author is retired from the U.S. Navy and a student of aeronautics, while this paper involves a great deal of cartography, religious history, etc. In other worlds, far outside of the author's field, even if there was some question about its reliability. Looking at the non-peer reviewed papers, I see that the author also believes the Kensington Runestone is legit. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hemiauchenia, that WP article has an entire section on alternative hypotheses, so it's not clear to me that "The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming" is a reason to exclude this hypothesis. Given that context, what does it means to be a RS for a fringe theory? A source may be reliable for the existence of the fringe theory but unreliable otherwise.
- It's unclear to me whether this chapter is truly peer-reviewed. It appears in an edited book, and the editors are on the faculty of Istanbul University, but it's not clear to me that they have expertise in this area, whether they reviewed all of the chapters for accuracy or only for things like pertinence and organization, or if they sought any outside review for any of the chapters. Their Google Scholar info: , . The book was just published, and I couldn't find any reviews for it. What the author of the chapter "demands" is irrelevant. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- The question is, does this source add anything to the "Norse hypothesis" such that it is worth adding the article to include it? I think the answer is no. There's no evidence that this paper has had any impact on the wider discourse surrounding the tower. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't read the paper, but the abstract says "Two Turkish cartographers, the earliest being Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-1310), and later, Piri Reis (c. 1465-1553), illustrated the North American Baptistery on their respective cartographic works." I know nothing about the "Norse hypothesis" and so cannot judge whether this is something new; the current WP text makes no mention of Turks, but perhaps that's just a matter of what was judged to be DUE. The book link above says that the book was only published last week, so at this point the chapter cannot possibly have had any impact on wider discourse. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- The question is, does this source add anything to the "Norse hypothesis" such that it is worth adding the article to include it? I think the answer is no. There's no evidence that this paper has had any impact on the wider discourse surrounding the tower. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Peer review is only as good as the peers in question... Istanbul University and history have a rather fraught history when it comes to Turkish nationalist historiography (which I would fit this under given the elements of Turkish exceptionalism). We have a long history of disregarding those views because academics outside of Turkey do (especially as it concerns claims of Ottoman voyages of discovery, the Kurds, and the Armenian Genocide). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, obvious crank. I would take it as evidence that Istanbul University Press is not reliable. I imagine he was stationed at the base in Newport and got interested, but he should seek professional training in history and learn to read some relevant languages before leaning in on a claim this unlikely. There's really nothing in his article except some maps so extremely magnified that they don't resemble anything in particular. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Pinkvilla
Pinkvilla has been flagged as an unreliable source, and there is growing consensus around its exclusion from the list of acceptable sources on Misplaced Pages:ICTFSOURCES. Previously dicusssed (see 1, 2). Due to concerns about the site's editorial standards, accuracy, and potential biases, I propose to dicussss the credibility of Pinkvilla. The aim is to ensure that Misplaced Pages articles are supported by sources that meet higher standards of reliability and credibility. Pinkvilla itself states that the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data. However, it asserts that the numbers are generally reflective of the box-office performance of the films in question ().Morekar (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think there's a difference between the box-office numbers in Pinkvilla and their general articles? Could one be considered reliable and the other not, or is this looking at the site as a whole? Ravensfire (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data
it probably shouldn't be cited then. EEpic (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Reliability discussion took place previously Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_9#Can_Pinkvilla_be_considered_a_reliable_source_? putting it as one of the best sources for movie related news and box office collections. RangersRus (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Viva
Viva (airline) flies seasonal flights from Nashville to Cancun, yet neither airport lists them in their articles. The flights are bookable on Viva's website. Is this considered a reliable source to add Viva to Nashville, or will this news article which briefly mentions Viva's presence in Nashville also be needed?
For some context here's what it would look like:
| Airlines | Destinations | Refs |
|---|---|---|
| Viva | Seasonal: Cancún |
The ref in the rightmost column is always from the airline itself and indicates that the airline does fly to the airport. The ref after the destination (Cancún) is sometimes included to verify individual routes and is not always required if the route is not disputed by anybody. Sadly, there are not many good sources talking about Viva's BNA-CUN route in detail, so I may have to use the news article from WKRN I showed earlier which only mentions it in passing, even though it also says Spirit Airlines flies to Cancun from Nashville, which they stopped several years ago.
So this is my question: Is Viva's website, a primary source, alone able to prove that they fly from Nashville to Cancun and thus be included in the articles, or is a secondary source, WKRN or not, also needed? King airaglub (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Booking systems aren't reliable, as the details my be different anytime you check. Doesn't the airline publish a list of it's flight destinations? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does. https://www.vivaaerobus.com/en-us/our-destinations/airports King airaglub (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That would be reliable in a WP:PRIMARY way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does. https://www.vivaaerobus.com/en-us/our-destinations/airports King airaglub (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- "New flights are coming to Nashville International Airport in 2025: Here's where they'll take you". WKRN. December 30, 2024. Retrieved January 2, 2025.
- "Aeropuertos internacionales". Retrieved January 2, 2025.
Is a book on "banishing belly fat" a RS for ice cream manufacturing?
This self-published diet book from 2013 presents the startling headline "Avoid Antifreeze" when referring to ice cream brands that used propylene glycol (PG) more than a decade ago as a texture-control ingredient for commercial ice creams. In small amounts, PG has been used in thousands of prepared foods since the 1980s (including ice creams and frozen desserts), is universally considered GRAS, and is regulated under law by several national food safety agencies (PG guidelines and government sources).
Is the "belly fat" book a RS for ice cream manufacturing? The book is sourced in this article about one ice cream brand. What purpose is served by mentioning PG - a common GRAS ingredient - using the "belly fat" book as the only source? WP:RSCONTEXT. Zefr (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you linkng the right work? Random House is a respected publisher, so the work you linked isn't self-published. The author, David Zinczenko, has a history in publishing about health issues. If you are linking the right work, it's not self-published and would be reliable for the use of the additive and why it's added. Whether those details should be included in the article or not is a matter to discuss on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be any history of Random House vetting or having peer-review on topics of ice cream manufacturing or regulatory law on ingredients - that was the point of the question. It's a stretch to infer Zinczenko is a health guru, as he has no history of science education or peer-reviewed publishing on food law or manufacturing practices, and no citations on PubMed. The Zinczenko book seems to be only an imprint for diet advice, leaving open the question: can it be RS for ice cream manufacturing? Zefr (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It isn’t self published. Whether it reliably supports a specific statement in a specific article is a different issue. There is more to reliability than just who the publisher is. Blueboar (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Random House is a reliable publisher, Zinczenko is a journalist, not a scientist, so I'd say he's reliable for trends and stuff in that vein, but not for scientific or medical conclusions. So when it comes to propylene glycol I think he can say that it's an ingredient, and even that some people think it's unhealthy, but not how or why its unhealthy. Andre🚐 21:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I never said he was a heath guru, and why would he need prior scientific publishing to say what ingredients happen to be used in icecream? Sources need to be of a quality to match the content that they support, icecream ingredients don't require that someone have citations on PubMed. If this was used for medical or health claims then it wouldn't be reliable, but it's not being used for that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Help us understand what purpose is served by isolating propylene glycol as one minor ingredient among many using a non-expert book as the source? In frozen desserts manufactured in 2013 (propylene glycol appears to have not been used by any major ice cream manufacturer since), it was one of some 12-20 ingredients, and by law, could not be more than 2.5% of the total ingredients mix. FDA food labeling stipulates that ingredients are shown in descending order, where propylene glycol would not be in the top 5 of ingredients by volume. Highlighting one additive with this book as a source creates a false impression to the casual reader that there may have been a health risk or manufacturing problem due to propylene glycol (which is why I searched PubMed and cited the safety regulations). As a manufacturing method no longer used, what purpose to the encyclopedia does it have being mentioned with a 12 year old source that fails to say it was safe? WP:AGE MATTERS. Zefr (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- You appear to be arguing about whether it should be included, which is a separate matter from reliability. The book makes no claims, and isn't used to support any claims, about health implications of consuming the additive. It's reliable that the ingredient was included in icecream at that time. Again whether that should be included is a matter for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. I think there's a reasonable argument that it doesn't need to be included. It's outdated and not a very important detail. I don't think the source is the reason why, though. Andre🚐 23:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- ActivelyDisinterested and AndreJustAndre - appreciate the fair comments which seemed to suggest an RfC, now underway. Zefr (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. I think there's a reasonable argument that it doesn't need to be included. It's outdated and not a very important detail. I don't think the source is the reason why, though. Andre🚐 23:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- You appear to be arguing about whether it should be included, which is a separate matter from reliability. The book makes no claims, and isn't used to support any claims, about health implications of consuming the additive. It's reliable that the ingredient was included in icecream at that time. Again whether that should be included is a matter for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Help us understand what purpose is served by isolating propylene glycol as one minor ingredient among many using a non-expert book as the source? In frozen desserts manufactured in 2013 (propylene glycol appears to have not been used by any major ice cream manufacturer since), it was one of some 12-20 ingredients, and by law, could not be more than 2.5% of the total ingredients mix. FDA food labeling stipulates that ingredients are shown in descending order, where propylene glycol would not be in the top 5 of ingredients by volume. Highlighting one additive with this book as a source creates a false impression to the casual reader that there may have been a health risk or manufacturing problem due to propylene glycol (which is why I searched PubMed and cited the safety regulations). As a manufacturing method no longer used, what purpose to the encyclopedia does it have being mentioned with a 12 year old source that fails to say it was safe? WP:AGE MATTERS. Zefr (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be any history of Random House vetting or having peer-review on topics of ice cream manufacturing or regulatory law on ingredients - that was the point of the question. It's a stretch to infer Zinczenko is a health guru, as he has no history of science education or peer-reviewed publishing on food law or manufacturing practices, and no citations on PubMed. The Zinczenko book seems to be only an imprint for diet advice, leaving open the question: can it be RS for ice cream manufacturing? Zefr (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu
The following genealogy sources are currently considered Generally unreliable at WP:RSP (A), or in repeated inquiries at WP:RSN (B and C):
- A: Geni.com
- B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
- They should be:
- Option 1: listed as Generally unreliable (change nothing to A; add B and C at WP:RSP as such)
- Option 2: Deprecated (list them as such at WP:RSP)
- Option 3: Blacklisted (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)
- A: See "Geni.com" at WP:RSPSOURCES.
- B: See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#Have we got lists of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research?, in particular subsection #genealogy.eu, where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @ActivelyDisinterested. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
- C: See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Preliminaries
- Probably need to add the website Genealogics.org to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be WP:CIRC. --Kansas Bear 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. NLeeuw (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read Background: B. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey A: Geni.com
- Deprecate. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. JoelleJay (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate.
Question. Isn't it already deprecated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) - Deprecate A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- Deprecate, per background discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.
- Deprecation of this source will reduce the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.
- Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally unreliable. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) Generally unreliable is the one which says this:
"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"
I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would only allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be prohibited. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the Generally unreliable category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then only as far as we have to. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally reliable, in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. Ghirla 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Deprecate. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. JoelleJay (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as genealogy.eu and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Lancaster (talk • contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the Europäische Stammtafeln, Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. Ghirla 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". NLeeuw (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; Foix. --Kansas Bear 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)
@ActivelyDisinterested: my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Franklin Open
I would like to know what is known about "Franklin Open" (link). It claims to be peer-reviewed but charges $1900 to publish an article. Should we count this as an RS, or should its articles be treated as self-published? (Apologies if it's already dealt with somewhere — I searched and couldn't find it.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's published by Elsevier on behalf of the Franklin Institute. So not self-published. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- But the question is, is the stuff peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? --Trovatore (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like any other Elsevier/Franklin Institute journals. Reliable in its area of expertise, which is mostly engineering and applied mathematics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, here's the thing. They published a paper with no meaningfully new content on the so-called infinite monkey theorem, here. This thing should never have gotten past peer review, not because anything in it is wrong per se, but because it's not a novel contribution (and is also not a survey). It's a bunch of trivial calculations, put together well with nice illustrations, but with an overall conclusion that is not remotely new.
- So this makes me wonder about their standards, and whether they should be treated as a predatory journal or something similar. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Article processing charges are completely standard, expected, uncontroversial aspects of nearly all open access journals, including Franklin Open. If a journal can't charge for subscriptions or article access, it needs to make at least some money through APCs. Does this discussion concern the journal itself and every article it publishes, or rather a single article regarding monkeys and typewriters? If the latter, then the qualifications of the authors and which salient points of the paper merit mention should be discussed on article talk pages per WP:DUE, WP:ASPECT & WP:ONUS. Not all articles ever published warrant stuffing into every Misplaced Pages article about a topic, no matter how much individual Wikipedians may slobber over the authors, and thousands of perfectly reliable and decent-quality articles should not be cited per WP:MEDRS and WP:PRIMARY. But I'd almost always place more importance on published academic journal articles, even if I dislike the methods or conclusion, over the quibbles and beard-strokings of Wikipedians. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per the scope of the journal "Original manuscripts and special topic issue are welcome as well as multidisciplinary topics or application-oriented articles, reviews, surveys, and educational articles." (emphasis mine) There's zero issue with a journal publishing an educational article with routine calculations and no new conclusions. You said yourself the illustrations were nice. What's the reliability concern here? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? reliable journals publish educational articles all the time and they're preferable to novel hypotheses and research. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be an educational article. The authors seem to think they're making a novel contribution. --Trovatore (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if that is the case why would this have any bearing on the reliability of the journal? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it might not, or at least not very much. In my opinion they should not have published this particular article, and I think that reflects badly on them, but of course that is going to happen from time to time. I was trying to find out what was known about the journal, specifically whether it was predatory or predatory-adjacent, and I did that because I didn't think a reputable research journal would publish this. But it seems that that was not the issue. --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if that is the case why would this have any bearing on the reliability of the journal? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be an educational article. The authors seem to think they're making a novel contribution. --Trovatore (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like any other Elsevier/Franklin Institute journals. Reliable in its area of expertise, which is mostly engineering and applied mathematics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- But the question is, is the stuff peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? --Trovatore (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I want to raise a concern about Twitter or known now as X. I'm planning to nominate a list to Featured List and some awards are cited as a tweet from a Philippine Record Label, Star Music, and some cited on YouTube but originally from a significant subscribers (1 Million plus subscribers) and have a Official Artist Channel and can be treated as a reliable source per WP:RSYT. So, is it okay to cite a tweet directly from record label because some awards aren't covered on a news article, which is only acknowledged on their social media.
P.S: I added a discussion just in case some reviewers have a disagreement on citing a tweet. Royiswariii Talk! 01:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- From your description alone, it sounds like you're asking if Star Music's tweets about (themselves or their bands) winning awards can be cited as sources? If that's the case, the tweet would be a self-published, primary source, and inherently self-serving. So no, I wouldn't consider that appropriate. Reliable, independent, secondary sources reporting on the awards are what makes them important.
- If I've misunderstood your question, can you give us some examples of the tweets and how they would be used? Woodroar (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Woodroar one of their post is here , they recognized the awards for the Best Inspirational Secular Song at the 46th Catholic Mass Media Awards, and this is only the piece of sources i searched. Royiswariii Talk! 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- the List of awards and nominations received by SB19 a Featured list was cited from a Facebook too cause they considered it. and List of awards and nominations received by Bini cited this on ref 28. So, I think needed to be considered to since it was awarded. Royiswariii Talk! 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem isn't really Twitter/X or Facebook, it's that you want to use a post by the record label about an award they received. That's inherently self-serving, which means we should avoid using it.
- The Facebook sources at List of awards and nominations received by SB19 were posted by Awit Awards (still a primary source, but not the recipient) and the Philippine Movie Press Club (a secondary source, though I wonder how reliable they are), so I'm assuming that's why they were included. Personally, I think both of those should be removed until they can be supported by better sources, but that's just me. Woodroar (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Woodroar I think it can be considered? because
The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
The claim made in the post is specifically about Bini (girl group) under the record label Star Music, which is not considered a third party in this context. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim
- The award mentioned is neither excessively self-serving nor extraordinary (such as a prestigious recognition like the Grammys). Instead, it is a straightforward of Bini achievements. Royiswariii Talk! 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Of course it's self-serving, it's about an award that one of their bands received. As far as the claim about third parties, I hadn't considered that. But Star Music's tweet does involve claims about third parties, both the group Bini and the organization Catholic Mass Media Awards.
- As others have pointed out, there are also NPOV concerns. Alongside reports from reliable, secondary, independent sources, it's WP:UNDUE to include an award sourced only to a self-published, primary tweet from the record label. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that coverage of winning an award is obviously
unduly self-serving
. As I said below, we're not just relying on the source for the statement that the award was given but for the implication that it is worth noting; we can't rely on the recipient for that! --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Woodroar I think it can be considered? because
- the List of awards and nominations received by SB19 a Featured list was cited from a Facebook too cause they considered it. and List of awards and nominations received by Bini cited this on ref 28. So, I think needed to be considered to since it was awarded. Royiswariii Talk! 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Woodroar one of their post is here , they recognized the awards for the Best Inspirational Secular Song at the 46th Catholic Mass Media Awards, and this is only the piece of sources i searched. Royiswariii Talk! 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If an award isn't covered by secondary independent sources, how is it BALASP on the page? JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- exactly. Had it recieved media coverage, it would've been notable and due for inclusion. BarntToust 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with the sentiment overall for due weight in articles, but this is a list after all. Per WP:FLCR, a high-quality list would;
"comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items"
, suggesting that all items would ideally be included in the list, even if not a requirement. I'm inclined to agree with opinions above that documenting an award you have received is not unduly self-serving, even if publishing such information is entirely self-serving. I otherwise don't agree with the argument that publishing an award won is effectively unwarranted. The question should be more about the awards themselves, for example if the awards were meaningless or irrelevant then sure it would be unwarranted. Give the awards referenced above, the Catholic Mass Media Award by the Catholic Media Association, I'd say it's questionable, but otherwise there are enough secondary sources reporting on them even if not widespread, even if not those in question it seems. CNC (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Twitter, when cited that way, is WP:ABOUTSELF, which carries several restrictions; it's also obviously WP:PRIMARY. One key thing is to avoid such about-self cites for anything self-serving - things companies post on Twitter are often promotional in nature and therefore potentially self-serving. "We intend to release this at date XYZ" would be something we could cite to Twitter. Winning an award, unfortunately, is almost certainly self-serving and therefore is probably something we can't. Note that even if you're absolutely certain they're not making it up, you're still relying on them for the implicit statement that this award is worth noting, which they are obviously not a good source for. And similarly, even beyond that, it raises WP:DUE issues - if there is no coverage of the award anywhere except by the recipient (who is obviously not a neutral party and could therefore be expected to highlight even exceptionally marginal things, providing little weight to them), this makes it hard to justify as worth including. --Aquillion (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
is infobae reliable?
i found this source while doing a GA review for this article (for the jan backlog), and im not sure about its reliability. the source did not have an author name, which could be a read flag.
P.S. i read the previous discussion, and it said that it is widely used in the spanish wikipedia. also, researching its wikipedia article did NOT work out well. brachy08 (chat here lol) 07:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems reliable. SandyGeorgia, who has worked extensively with FAs, noted here that the site is reliable. Sammi Brie, who also has experience with FAs, mentioned its reliability here. I would take their word. APK hi :-) (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I read it from time to time and it has always seemed generally reliable. A bit clickbaity with a lot of pop culture stories but no real accuracy issues. Astaire (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per the news organizations guideline, mainstream news organizations are assumed to be generally reliable absent evidence to the contrary. As "the most popular online portal in Argentina", Infobae is a mainstream news organization. Despite tending to "feature a stronger component of sensationalism" than Clarín and La Nación, I have not found any patterns of concern that would warrant considering Infobae less than generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 17:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Far Out Magazine
Would Far Out Magazine be considered a reliable source for music and the arts? 2600:100C:A21D:971A:1418:AFA9:3465:D674 (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only RSN-comment I could find on it here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_458#Rockpasta.com. I can't find an "about"-page. Currently it's used on WP quite a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comments at Talk:Far Out (website) indicate caution is called for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I make it a point to remove this source whenever I see it because of the fact that, beyond the WP:CIRCULAR concerns noted on the talk page linked above, many of their articles seem to republish content from years ago, while titling them to make it sound as if new insight has come out recently. For a few examples as of late, see , , and are all examples of this website recycling content from other, more reliable sources that can (and should) be cited instead. For all I know, there may be minor instances where this site can be used, but I'm familiar enough with Far Out Magazine to say that, for the most part, their content is clickbait churnalism, and in particular, should not be used for information about living persons. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Credit to User:Binksternet for explaining the unreliability of this source on this user talk page message. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary?
Are the sources in these two articles primary or secondary? 1874 Waitemata by-elections and 1886 Waitemata by-election. The book provided is just a collection of parliamentary records, elections, terms served etc. an example is here: Traumnovelle (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those articles are sourced to contemporary newspapers, which would be secondary sources; one of which, the New Zealand Herald, is included in the "perennial sources" page and categorised as "Generally reliable". Daveosaurus (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Newspapers are interesting to discuss because their classification evolves with time. Historians usually classify recent newspaper reports as being secondary, but old reports are classified as primary (this is because the sources used by the newspaper have been lost, and so the newspaper becomes the earliest available record of the events… with more modern sources based on that old newspaper). Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliability isn't the issue here. It is if the sources are primary or secondary. Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, and Berkeley considers contemporary newspaper articles as primary sources: Traumnovelle (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
AdWeek
Would AdWeek be considered a reliable source in terms of advertising campaigns? 2600:100C:A21D:971A:19F4:96E7:9B0B:1686 (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- AdWeek is a perfectly reliable advertising trade magazine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The thing is public relations notices aren’t usually considered reliable for companies. 2600:100C:A21D:971A:19F4:96E7:9B0B:1686 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As an established trade magazine, I consider AdWeek generally reliable for topics related to the advertising industry. AdWeek's own press releases, which consist of a small number of articles published under
adweek.com/pressbetween 2017 and 2022, are non-independent primary sources that are promotionally toned, and should not be considered the same as AdWeek's standard content. Are these press releases the public relations notices that you are referring to? — Newslinger talk 05:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- As an established trade magazine, I consider AdWeek generally reliable for topics related to the advertising industry. AdWeek's own press releases, which consist of a small number of articles published under
- The thing is public relations notices aren’t usually considered reliable for companies. 2600:100C:A21D:971A:19F4:96E7:9B0B:1686 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Langweiledich.net
I came across this article being used in the Bad Apple!! article to support this claim:
In 2023, users of the Touhou Project, Osu! and Hatsune Miku subreddits collaborated to recreate "Bad Apple!!" on Reddit's r/place canvas, during its 2023 event.
It's in German, so I can't really judge the reliability of this site myself - would it be considered a reliable source? MiasmaEternal☎ 22:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's the self-published blog of Maik Zehrfeld. There's some advice about self-published sources here WP:SPS. I don't think it would be considered reliable, best to find a better source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)
This thread is opened at the request of @Kovcszaln6 following the dispute between me and @Javext in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) on the multiple issues regarding that article.
I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:
1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and
2. Yemeni state-controlled media outlets
wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")
Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article.
Special:diff/1266430566: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used.
Special:diff/1266448873: This is the version that Jav wants to keep
Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):
- (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:
Abo Yemen✉ 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle
WP:AGE MATTERS?citing Portuguese records
That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above Abo Yemen✉ 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Bossip
Hello. I am debating on improving the "4 da Fam" article for a possible WP:FAC nomination. I have a question about a potentials source. Would Bossip be considered reliable and high-quality enough for the FAC process (or for Misplaced Pages in general)? I would be using the following source: Rappers Be Lyin: 10 Greatest Rap Lies. The About Us page says that the site has earned awards in the past and has been mentioned in various reliable sources. I am hesitant about it as Bossip is a "gossip" website. Apologies if this site was already discussed before, and thank you for any help and insight on this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks marginally reliable to me. Like it's not great. But by the standards of pop culture media it's not as bad as it might be. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. That is fair. I had a similar opinion about to be honest. If I do decide to work on this article in the future, I may use other sources first and then see if this one would even be necessary in the end or not. For the purposes of a FAC, which has stricter requirements for sources, it may not be the best option for that context. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What exactly would 'Before she was the illest female in her Dillard’s department, Amil was the illest in all of Hip-Hop, making $40K/guest verse as the Roc’s first lady? Riiiiiiiight.' be used to source? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be used as a negative review for the song as it is criticizing Amil's lyrics. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. The use of slang isn't the issue here. Reliability isn't a register of specific vocabulary. I suppose the question would be whether, Amil was, in fact, making $40,000 per guest verse previously. Should they be reporting that factual statement accurately and should they have a decent history of accuracy in reporting and clarity in corrections when they make an error then the rest is just aesthetics. Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be reported in the article as a factual statement. The "$40,000 per guest verse" bit is part of the song's lyrics and would be addressed in that context, not as an absolute fact. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. The use of slang isn't the issue here. Reliability isn't a register of specific vocabulary. I suppose the question would be whether, Amil was, in fact, making $40,000 per guest verse previously. Should they be reporting that factual statement accurately and should they have a decent history of accuracy in reporting and clarity in corrections when they make an error then the rest is just aesthetics. Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be used as a negative review for the song as it is criticizing Amil's lyrics. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seems pretty odd if not outright illogical to use a gossip website if you're going to bring this to FAC. The typical reviewer there expects the cream of the crop of sources, not tabloid gossip. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read some of the articles on the site and it's overly unserious and pretentious BS; my advice is to not use this source. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. Thank you for the response. I agree with your assessment. I have removed it from the article. I am honestly not sure why I used it in the first place. I just thought that it would be beneficial to open a discussion about it here to get further feedback. I believe my question has been answered, and hopefully this can be used to help any other editors in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read some of the articles on the site and it's overly unserious and pretentious BS; my advice is to not use this source. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Science-fiction fanzines
I see the question of science fiction fanzines has come up many times in the archives. My question is fairly simple. Writer and translator Philippe Hupp, the founder of the Metz science fiction festival, sent a letter to PKD Otaku, a sercon fanzine that is notable in the PKD community and is often referred to by PKD scholars, but is admittedly obscure in the grander scheme of things when it comes to reliable sources. In the letter that they published (pp. 4-6), Hupp goes into some historical detail of his relationship with Philip K. Dick and how he was able to get him to speak at the festival in 1977, and provides important historical documents (correspondence, photos) that is reprinted with permission by PKD Otaku. Currently, I'm citing this letter in an article about the festival to say some basic facts about the history. While Hupp and Metz have been covered by numerous reliable sources in France and elsewhere, I believe this kind of exclusive historical detail has only been revealed in PKD Otaku. Is it acceptable for me to carefully cite this info from Hupp (it is, after all, about him and his relationship with PKD) and point to PKD Otaku as the source? The article I am working on, If You Find This World Bad, You Should See Some of the Others, is currently on GAR, and it has been pointed out that this fanzine may not meet the criteria for a RS. It does have two editors, however, but I think it is safe to say it is self-published like most fanzines. It would be a shame for this historical information to be ignored. What is the best course of action? If it isn't acceptable to use as a primary source, I've thought that a brief mention of it in a footnote might be okay. Please let me know your thoughts. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it's the only source available, and the facts are not controversial, and cited as being from Hupp's account of things, it seems fine to me. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I believe it meets that criteria, however, I will revise it further to make sure that it does. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Beebom.com
Beebom has been in a few discussions previously about reliability but they've had few responses. I'm asking about their reliability after their reference in Game Science where their opinion is being used as fact WP:RSOPINION. Issues below also make it difficult to establish reliability via WP:SOURCEDEF.
I'm not familiar enough with Beebom to know their overall reporting but I've come across issues.
- They don't have a masthead so I don't know who their writers are or what their expertise is. The most they have is an About Us page with a few higher roles not in editorial and then two editors without any information. This makes it difficult to establish their level of independence and editorial control. A previous RS discussion pointed out some of their content being written by "Beebom Staff" which is still the case but not often.
- Their editorial guidelines are limited and don't disclose important information. For example, they don't state a separation of ads from editorial. They don't mention here the affiliate programs they're in or the sponsorship deals they do. They don't mention their Beebom Gadgets storefront where they sell phones and make videos on them. However, they disclose having an Amazon affiliate program in their privacy policy. But they don't disclose the other "affiliate partners" they use. These issues brings into question conflicts of interest which they don't have a policy on. Alongside other basic guidelines like a corrections policy or how they handle accepting samples (if they do).
- A 2016 interview explains that they make money from sponsored posts and partnerships. This isn't included in their editorial guidelines. I bring it up since they feature this interview on their About Us page, but Misplaced Pages blocks links to the interviewer's site, YourStory.
- They used to tag sponsored posts as "#sponsored" 5 years ago but stopped. It seems they now use a byline named "Partner Content" for those articles. But they don't mention anything about a sponsorship or partnership in their latest article under this byline. Nor is there anything about this in their policies. So I can't confirm if they do this for all paid content or not.
- I tried looking into their gaming coverage after seeing them on the Game Science page and found a clickbait news article where they deliberately lie. The headline is, "Black Myth: Wukong Is Now the Most Played Steam Game of All Time", which they almost immediately state isn't true. While also stating "Yes, Black Myth Wukong is now the most-played Steam game of all time!" This makes me question their overall fact checking and reliability when they lie in a news headline.
I can't find much mention of Beebom aside from their own social media on google. Even after removing their social media, I can't find anything. Snakester95 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: