Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 461

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 455←Archive 459Archive 460Archive 461Archive 462

RfC: Times of Israel

I see consensus that the Times of Israel, while possibly biased in certain areas, is considered generally reliable. Blog posts created by recognized experts are usable in the same way any recognized expert's blog posts are used. Valereee (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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

What is the reliability of the Times of Israel?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable
  • Option 2: Additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable
  • Option 4: Generally unreliable with deprecation

Previous discussions: [2] [3] [4] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Times of Israel)

  • Option 1. The Times of Israel is a generally reliable newspaper of record and is a benchmark for the area as a whole. I'm starting this RfC because other editors have indicated both on and offwiki they see the Times of Israel as WP:MREL or less. I want to determine if that is a widely held position. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Per Nableezy, the blogs are unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not always. We will accept a blog by a bona fide expert on a subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Hawkeye7 and Nableezy: "Unreliable" here would be treating the blogs like WP:COUNTERPUNCH, which is also WP:GUNREL yet can be cited if an article is by an expert per WP:EXPERTSPS. Is that fair? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, of course. An established expert writing anywhere including ToI blogs is still a usable source. But generally unreliable meaning the publication itself does not grant any reliability to it is what I meant. nableezy - 06:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with that too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I broadly agree with Pluto2012's views expressed in the last discussion on this. Reliable for Israeli politics, not reliable for events that are part of the Israel Palestine conflict, broadly reliable for events in other countries (where those events do not relate to the Israel Palestine conflict). ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Any chance you could link to or quote Pluto2012's comments? I can't see that name in the last discussion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry, my mistake, discussions were listed newest to oldest. They write:
    It depends what for.
    Times of Israel is an Israeli site of information with a clear editorial line. It is certainly reliable for the meteo or when reporting some scandals in Israel ; and it is certainly not for events about the colonisation, the Arab-Israeli relations, ... and for events about what happens in other countries...
    I would probably be broader than that and say that they are generally reliable for Israeli politics. I can't say I am an expert on Israeli newspapers, but that would be my viewpoint from what I have read. ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 For two reasons. First per El komodos drago and second because we should not ever be treating a newspaper as generally reliable in all circumstances. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    You can assume I have read that and think it requires significant revision as it is out of synch with the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Simonm223: So, your argument isn't based on policy? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    No. I may be stricter with newspapers than general but my argument remains in line with El D within the context that I think newspapers are, generally over-used. Simonm223 (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm confused about how WP:NOTNEWS, which deals with our coverage of events on Wikipedia, intersects with WP:NEWSORG, which is about how we judge the reliability of news sources. Could you go into a little more detail about the conflict here? Safrolic (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    The wide allowance of news sources as reliable sources leads to a preponderance of "notable" news events. These news events are frequently rife with WP:RECENTISM and there's rarely any consideration in the long-term lasting impact of these events. WP:NOTNEWS tells us that Wikipedia is not appropriate for breaking stories and yet, through the wide-spread over-use of news sources, we routinely have articles that are breaking news stories wearing a lampshade of encyclopedic relevance. I think this is off-mission for Wikipedia.
    It's been something of a perennial complaint of mine and I'm largely resigned to being the minority opinion here because I know that widespread use of news sources is very convenient - especially when people are interested in topics with minimal academic significance. However it does mean that, when people ask whether news organizations are "generally reliable," I'm not going to say an unconditional yes.
    In addition, the option 2 - reliable with additional considerations - is about as high on the reliability scale as we should go for any source since reliability should always be treated as context-specific. If you look at my conversations at this noticeboard on academic sources you'll see I generally strongly prefer working with journals and books from university presses but, even there, I don't automatically assume reliability in all circumstances. Nor should we. Ever. So to summarise my position:
    1. General reliability is a misnomer, all reliability is conditional.
    2. I believe Wikipedia over-uses news sources and that this has had a deleterious effect of creating articles about topics of little long-term relevance.
    3. I think that academic presses have higher quality control standards than news organizations and should generally be preferred in all circumstances.
    4. Wikipedia should use fewer news organizations as sources and WP:NEWSORG is too permissive IMO.
    5. This specific news source does not seem reliable for matters related to the conflict between Israel and Palestine although it seems as reliable as other news sources on other topics. Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    The text of GREL indicates "generally reliable" just means factually reliable in most cases, it's not like it's something that prevents scrutiny if a source says something that's patently ridiculous. We have WP:ROUTINE as well, and that's not all that closely related to reliability. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    GREL is not policy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    OK, but it is the definition of "generally reliable" used, so... Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not convinced we need an RfC at this moment. I feel constant RfCs on sources relating to Israel/Palestine are a waste of people's time. It's a very biased news source, which means it needs to be used with great care, especially on Palestine. We could say that about almost any paper in the Middle East.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    On one hand, you're probably right. On the other hand, it's too late now. RfC's on a contentious topic are a little like avalanches, once they get started, you get a pile of opinions and then some poor administrator has to close it. More than once, I've seen someone a random question about why RSP says something, and it gets to the point where everyone is chipping in with their opinion on the source, and we have to have an RfC anyway... Best wishes and have a nice day, ~ El D. (talk to me) 21:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 While bias is fine, the Times of Israel has occasionally displayed bias on the subject of the Israel-Palestinian conflict that has reached extremes that may impact its factual reliability. A non-holistic list of research on this point includes:
- A 2021 peer-reviewed study in the International Journal of Communication found the TOI "framed protesters as violent and responsible for casualties and attempts to dehumanize them".[5]
- A 2024 peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Arts and Human Science found that "The Times of Israel ... frame narratives to consolidate unilateral Zionist control and normalize militarized policies." [6]
Further, the subdomain blogs.timesofisrael.com appears to be citizen journalism with minimal or no gatekeeping and should be avoided. Chetsford (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
These are both analyses of how media frame issues, i.e. they're accounts of bias not of unreliability.
The first also analyses al-Jazeera and find it frames narratives in a biased way too. Al-Jazeera is repeatedly affirmed this noticeboard to be reliable so your argument for downgrading ToI should only be persuasive to those who think al-Jazeera should be downgraded. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
"These are both analyses of how media frame issues, i.e. they're accounts of bias not of unreliability." Like I said: "While bias is fine, the Times of Israel has occasionally displayed bias on the subject of the Israel-Palestinian conflict that has reached extremes that may impact its factual reliability."
"The first also analyses al-Jazeera..." This is a thread about the Times of Israel. Chetsford (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Can you give some substance from these articles that shows it is so biased that its reliability is impacted? I'm not seeing that here. What I take from these articles is that ToI is typical of news media in framing the world according to its ideological preconceptions, i.e. there is nothing there that suggests we should treat it differently than any news source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Source 2 discusses "hidden ideological agendas ... advanced under the guise of objective reporting" and "thinly disguised propaganda". We routinely deprecate propaganda outlets. Source 1 aligns with essentially identical conclusions. And frankly, as I mentioned these are just a snapshot from a smorgasbord of studies that examine a level of such extreme bias by TOI that it warps the reliability of the Who What Why narrative. I'll leave it at that as I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Source 2 is striking in its vagueness. Emotionally charged dehumanization served exclusively nationalist security agendas through visceral identification rather than structural critique of governance denying Palestinian self-determination. Inhibiting balanced perspective on political grievances guaranteed indefinite escalation cycles while normalizing oppressive policies as the sole means of control. Basically it says that ToI uses words like “terrorist” instead of “resistance” to talk about Hamas, and humanises Israeli victims but not Palestinian victims. If we used ToI’s language we would not achieve NPOV, but source 2 gives no instance where using ToI reporting would lead us into inaccuracy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 The ToI is generally fine as far as Israeli news sources go. It obviously has a particular perspective on the issues it covers, including the Israel-Palestine conflict, but no evidence has been presented that this is any worse than that of the UK Telegraph or Al Jazeera for instance (both reliable per RSP). For any coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict we should be seeking to use a pleurality of sources from a diversity of perspectives. If the blogs lack editorial control they should be treated like WP:FORBESCON as generally unreliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for news reporting, the blogs are generally unreliable as ToI disclaims any editorial review or control over those contents. nableezy - 21:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 when comparing coverage of events domestic or abroad to other listed RS, there is parity on facts of the content. There is certainly no more apparent bias or other RS issue with ToI than with Al Jazeera, for example. From coverage of Isr-Pal conflict, it seem they report from perceived/assumed authorities and what their reporters can gather in the field, not much different than US sources reporting with statements from the Pentagon and field reporters. TheRazgriz (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Generally reliable and they should especially be used for covering the Israeli Palestinian conflict. They were one of the first news outlets reporting on the Killing of David Ben Avraham. In regards to that story, they were one of the most balanced and neutral in their reporting compared to Haaretz, JPost, MEE, etc. Their editors also go back and correct/update their articles/headlines if there was a mistake. In this article, the editor’s note says, “This article has been corrected and updated. An earlier version cited, in the headline and the text, a foreign press reporter who visited Kfar Aza saying she was told by an IDF commander that the bodies of 40 babies, some of them beheaded, had been found at the kibbutz. This claim has never been confirmed.” Wafflefrites (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1. As I said in the previous discussion, This may not be obvious to most editors, but the central use-case for TOI is as aggregation of Hebrew-language media. Many stories are only available in English via these outlets, and they are usually reliable translators. NOTE: This is to the exclusion of specialized legal, religious, or military subjects. TOI does not have the expertise to translate these articles correctly (no one with legal, military analysis, or Orthodox-religious higher education on staff) and the result is often seriously distorted. Although w/r/t religious and technical detail a similar concern attaches to every daily newspaper, I would never prefer TOI for any claim that a monolingual outlet had equal ability to report. For example, I spoke with Jacob Magid last year for a story regarding UN diplomacy. He had badly misunderstood his source, unlike mainstream outlets. There is no reason to use TOI for such a claim. Anyway, there's a category of such publications for every foreign language, and it does no one any good to restrict our citations to equal-quality foreign-language sources that most editors can't even evaluate. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 This is one of the better Israeli sources, the expected bias but a clear step up from the JP. Selfstudier (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I will echo what others have already said, Times of Israel is a generally reliable source with the standard consideration of potential bias, though no more then any other source in the topic area. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per Selfstudier. Questions about bias/dueness always especially in topic area, but reliable enough. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 agree with Selfstudier. Rainsage (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per all above. Fairly standard, comparatively balanced outlet - if TOI somehow isn't considered GREL, then we need to re-evaluate a lot of other GREL sources. The Kip (contribs) 05:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for Israel-Palestine and Option 1 for general. GrabUp - Talk 05:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 largely per the arguments above, particularly Hemiauchenia. I reject the notion that newspapers cannnot be GREL, and this specific one has a sufficient history of accurate and respected reporting without major red flags. FortunateSons (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1: Generally reliable, without caveat. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 yeah agree with GrabUp, Option 2 for Israel-Palestine and Option 1 for general. Baqi:) (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • This feels a little out of nowhere, just saying. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    Tis a bit, not sure this really needed an RFC, still we're here now. Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    There's a fair amount of controversy with many supporting WP:MREL. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    Is there anywhere in articlespace where it being in a yellow coloured box or a green coloured one somewhere in projectspace would matter one way or the other? Because I assume if the source says anything weird, it would end up here anyway, no matter what colour the box is, when it actually happens, and then we would have the benefit of, oh, I don't know, some context maybe?
    Like sure, if we're having this RFC we're having this RFC I guess, but I really don't get what these more abstract discussions (that seem to be a thing now) are actually going to resolve. Sure, I don't actually do much related to CT/A-I, I've more or less avoided the topic area thus far, but is contested addition or removal of this source something that actually happens? Are people using this source and then getting it removed by other people that think it's MREL? Are people removing the source running into cases where they're getting reinstated?
    More to the point, could there be something more specific than "this entire source, in general", or even "this entire source, as used in the A-I topic area" that could be considered a nexus for contested additions or removals? Are people worried about DUE? I'm not sure there's really any consensus on whether we'd apply colour coding for that (what counts as "additional considerations" is pretty vague) or, again, whether the pretty colours would even matter either way. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    I broadly agree with your statements, and I would like to see evidence of onwiki misuse before degrading reliability of a source. That being said, I wanted to hear what the other side had to say, which is why I started the RfC.
    The impact of these discussions is that only generally reliable sources count for WP:DUE, at articles for deletion, for assessing WP:COMMONNAMEs when at requested moves, and in many other places onwiki. Marking the Times of Israel WP:MREL means it's less reliable (therefore having less weight) for the purposes of those discussions, and reducing a source's reliability can be a strategic maneuver beyond whether it can be easily cited in articles. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1: Times of Israel is generally reliable for factual reporting, particularly on Israeli domestic affairs, with standard journalistic practices and clear editorial policies. however, for Israeli-Palestinian topics (Option 2), additional sources are recommended due to its Israeli perspective, reliance on Israeli official sources, and imbalanced coverage depth between Israeli and Palestinian viewpoints. For non-I/P coverage, it can be used similarly to other mainstream reliable sources.Cononsense (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    Do you mean to say "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" topics? As written, Option 2 for "Israel-Palestine" is a proposal to make it WP:MREL for anything relating to Israel and Palestine, including domestic affairs. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    Nobody’s disputing that it’s biased, which is what the argument for #2 you’ve laid out seems to rest on. The question is whether that bias affects reliability, which thus far little hard evidence has been given in support of. The Kip (contribs) 19:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for Israel-Palestine topics, Option 1 otherwise. It's a newspaper of record, but caution must be taken when a national newspaper discusses a war that nation is in. MultPod (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Not EC, but responded to FortunateSons (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    @FortunateSons What does EC stand for? Why is my entry struck through? MultPod (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    @MultPod, FortunateSons left a message on your talk page informing you about contentious topics. As the message explains, you have to have extended-confirmed (EC) status to discuss anything related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Schazjmd (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ah, I saw that message. It does seem that extended-confirmation is more properly abbreviated as XC, though. MultPod (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for I-P topics; Option 1 otherwise - For reasons laid out by Jannatulbaqi, Cononsense, & MultPod. NickCT (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not typically standard for the reputable free press of a country to be presumed unreliable on any reporting about a war involving that country. The NYT isn't presumed unreliable when the US goes to Afghanistan, for instance. "We should never treat a source as generally reliable under all circumstances" is also not an argument typically made about other sources. Safrolic (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is not typically standard. I do have questions about to what extent Israel's press can be considered free, given RSF's ranking of the press freedom situation in Israel as "problematic", [7] but this is not my primary concern. My particular issue is the combination of the Times of Israel with the Israel-Palestine conflict, given their history (see the papers in Chetsford's comment) of misrepresenting that situation. By contrast, I would be happy with other Israeli papers (e.g. Haaretz) which have a better history of fact checking and are more neutral on the conflict. ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Although TOI adheres to good journalistic ethics and attributes the statements by the Israeli military that it reports on, I think that editors would be wise to limit the extent to which we regard the publication of IDF statements by the TOI as an indication of the notability or veracity of those statements. I think this is especially relevant as it applies to the designation of individuals as terrorists or the use of the presence of terrorists as a justification for a particular military action. The TOI is all too willing to repeat IDF claims that terrorists are hiding in every hospital, school and aid vehicle in Gaza while making little effort to independently verify those claims. As MultPod said, caution must be taken when a national newspaper discusses a war that nation is in. This is especially true because, contrary to Safrolic's comment, there is press censorship in Israel (a fact that the TOI itself acknowledged in its coverage of the October '24 Iranian strikes) and, especially in the current war, a record of retaliation by the government against independent and critical elements of the press. Unbandito (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Unbandito: Would you be in favour of treating all Israeli sources as WP:MREL due to the pervasive press censorship in that country? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, it's not that simple. I think the specific considerations I brought up in my comment are pretty clear. Unbandito (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Unbandito: What parts of your criticisms are generally applicable to Israeli media, and what parts are specific to the Times of Israel? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    In making my criticism I had this specific article in mind, which I read recently because it was used on the Israel-Hamas war page. Wisely in my opinion, the editor who added it used it to include the claim that a handful of named individuals had been killed in a targeted strike, while leaving out IDF claims published later in the article that it had detained "more than 1000 members of Hamas" and killed "over 1,300 terror operatives." These claims are more grandiose and it would not be due to repeat them as TOI does when eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence, as covered in other sources, contradict the framing that the large numbers of people detained in north Gaza were all or largely Hamas members, as well as the "terror operative" status of such a high number of the people killed in Gaza over the two or so months of the Jabalia operation. It's clear that the TOI is doing little to verify IDF claims, and is rather repeating them uncritically, so we should not seek to add those republished claims based solely on the TOI's publication of them, given the considerations I outlined above. Rather, we should use them sparingly and when sources are in agreement about them.
    I'm sure some of what I said about TOI is generalizable to Israeli media. After all, I agree with @MultPod's comment about national media covering its own wars in general, but as always context is important. Unbandito (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    That specific article does not really say anything in its own voice; it attributes all its claims to the IDF (although it may well believe them). So I'd say that's a reliable source for the claims of the IDF ("the IDF said x"), but we shouldn't use it to make a claim in our voice without attribution, and we shouldn't use its biased language but rephrase in our neutral language ("Hamas member" not "terrorist"). I think that's how we ought to operate anyway, especially for contentious topics, e.g. it's how we'd treat the Times of London if it reported on a war the UK was involved in, and I don't think we really need to add it to RSP to say this.
    Unabandito's point about notability, or rather noteworthiness, is correct: we don't need to report something just because ToI has said it. But I don't think that's a ToI-specific thing: it's just about applying our normal WP:DUE policies sensible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think 'press censorship' can refer to very different phenomena. In some countries, press censorship means managing everything the press is allowed to say about the government or other issues. It can mean telling the press they aren't allowed to show images of women singing or with their hair uncovered. In other countries, 'press censorship' means that while the country is at war, their media can't report details that impact immediate national security, like the specific location a missile landed in minutes earlier, or an ongoing military operation outside the country's borders. Some governments restrict all communication between their citizens and the outside world to ensure that foreign reporters can only hear their preferred viewpoints, while in other countries, censored media organizations are freely able to leak censored information to foreign outlets and then quote the international media for their domestic audience. Which kind of press censorship are you ascribing to Israel? Safrolic (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    This article gives a good overview of some of the topics likely to be impacted by Israeli wartime censorship laws: Personal details of hostages, operational details, intentions and capability of the enemy, etc. We should use caution in citing Israeli sources exclusively for facts on these matters; I think my above comment provides a good example of a TOI article with IDF claims that aren't worth repeating just because they were published there.
    It is also worth taking into consideration the raids, shutdowns and bombings of Al Jazeera and other outlets in this and past conflicts, arrests of journalists reporting on missile strikes, Israel's ability to control access to the Gaza strip for its national media, and the sanctions leveled against Haaretz as part of the broader context in which the Israeli press covers the war. Unbandito (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think it would be legitimate/sensible, as a general rule, to say that on the specific eight topics Intercept lists we need to make a particular effort to triangulate Israeli sources that have been vetted by the IDF with non-Israeli sources that haven't. We also want to avoid the opposite problem, which would be not using Israeli sources because they're vetted and then allowing systematic bias against Israel. Triangulation is the key principle, but that's a key principle for any contentious topic here so I'm not sure it needs a specific yellow flag for ToI to get people to edit responsibly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per Selfstudier and others. Nobody has presented evidence of unreliability. Most advocates of option 2 have not indicated what additional considerations should apply, except to triangulate with other sources on anything contentious, which should go without saying for any source in the I/P topic area, so I see no case made for anything other than general reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think we should note the blogs are not reliable, and they seem to be pretty widely used. nableezy - 20:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    Historically the blogs have even hosted outright satire before, though not exclusively. Their blog sphere was one of the places Joshua Ryne Goldberg trolled at, too (as WP's page notes). Although in his case it was deleted, the fact he was able to post under someone else's name does suggest a lack of initial controls. VintageVernacular (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    Agree, or rather they are as reliable as HuffPost contributors or Forbes contributors: Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Looking at uses on WP of the ToI blogs, most are either used as ABOUTSELF sources on the contributors or are written by obvious SMEs and used with attribution. Where that's not the case, they should be flagged as SPS if uncontentious and removed if contentious or about BLP third parties. That is presumably the default position, even though we've not stated it explicitly for this platform, per our SPS policy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I don't see any evidence that suggests they aren't a generally reliable NEWSORG. Andre🚐 06:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Although the newspaper's reporting is mostly attributed and often critical, it seems to be very generous with accusations of antisemitism to cite one example of unreliability:
1- ToI describes the highly esteemed UN rapporteur Francesca Albanese as having a history of "antisemitic statements." [8]
2- ToI has a category named "antisemitism on campus" relating to coverage on pro-Palestinian demonstrations in US campuses. [9] [10]
3- ToI has coverage about US pro-Palestinian actress Susan Sarandon listed under antisemitism category. [11] [12]
4-ToI reported in its article on how WP's RS noticeboard downgraded the ADL earlier this year that it was not the first time WP has debated the reliability of a "Jewish source," as if sources have religions or ethnicities, or as if WP doesn't consider Haaretz -a "Jewish source"- to be reliable.

ToI might be indeed overall more reliable than unreliable, but these examples show risk of including potentially libelous and biased material to WP, thus necessitating additional considerations such as triangulating with high quality and independent RS and using attribution for contentious claims on antisemitism and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

1- All of the instances they list about Albanese are accurately reported; whether or not her comments are antisemitic is a judgement call and we'd need to report it neutrally not just use the language of any one source. E.g. Al-Jazeera might say none of those comments are antisemitic; ToI might say all of them are "antisemitic, anti-Israel and pro-Hamas"; we would just report accurately what she's said and perhaps mention that she was accused of antisemitism if the accusation came from someone sufficiently noteworthy.
2- In the first example here, the ToI do not describe the protest as antisemitic; the only use of the word outside the tag is "In a statement, Temple Students for Justice in Palestine, which organized the demonstration, denied accusations of “antisemitism, intimidation, and harassment.”" If we don't use headlines as reliable sources, we certainly don't use taxonomic tags. (For comparison, this article on OpenDemocracy about false accusations of antisemitism is also tagged with "antisemitism".)
3- Same, Sarandon isn't accused of antisemitism in the article. She herself is reported talking about antisemitism, hence the sensibleness of the tag. ("Movie star Susan Sarandon claims she was blacklisted in Hollywood after she said, at a pro-Palestinian rally in November of last year, that US Jews fearing for their safety, given a spike in antisemitism, “are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country.”")
4- I don't think it's controversial to call the Jewish Chronicle and the Jewish Virtual Library (the two mentioned as such) as "Jewish sources", and even if it was controversial it is NOT cause for downgrading reliability). The main issue with that article is that ToI doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, which is sadly the case with most reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
In general, and this was the case in the Al-Jazeera RFC as well, we should not be cherry picking stories we disagree with or even dispute the accuracy of. I said during the Counterpunch RFC something like this is like Reddit trying to solve the Boston Marathon bombings, cherry picking whatever cherries trigger somebody’s outrage meter is not how we should be determining a sources reliability. That’s true for all parts of the POV spectrum. If other reliable sources have said that these stories are false and they indicate an issue with ToI then bring those sources. But personal opinions of wikipedia editors shouldnt be used to determine a sources reliability. nableezy - 16:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
"even if it was controversial it is cause for downgrading reliability" Sorry, is this a typo? Safrolic (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Correct! I meant it isn’t. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Here is a ToI article describing Albanese as a person, not her comments, to be antisemitic, in its own voice: US Congress members call on UN leadership to remove antisemitic official: The Times of Israel exposed UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese’s history of antisemitism in an investigation last year.." This is libelous and should not be inserted into BLPs without attribution, so of course additional considerations are needed. This is only one example and I am sure there are many others. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: So, you believe the Times of Israel is inaccurately describing certain people and their belief systems as antisemitic. Can you explain what definition of antisemitism you're criticizing? Incorrectly defining antisemitism is one of the main reasons the WP:ADL is unreliable.
Your argument would be much stronger if you provided an explanation as to why the Times of Israel is inaccurate, especially if it is similar to the ADL in that it wrongly calls pro-Palestinian activists antisemitic. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
According to this website, “ Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
Based on these sentences, I can see how some others might perceive Albanese’s statements to be antisemetic. The source also gives other examples such as “
  1. 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.
  2. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  3. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  4. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.“
Wafflefrites (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Disagreeing with a source does not make it unreliable. Such a standard would rule out most sources. nableezy - 00:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't, that's why I voted option 2.
Apparently, ToI considers even accusing Israel of potential war crimes to be antisemitic. ToI's reporting contains the definition: "side from inveighing against a 'Jewish lobby,' she has also sympathized with terror organizations, dismissed Israeli security concerns, compared Israelis to Nazis and accused the Jewish state of potential war crimes." This definition seems to me to be even more radical than the ADL's. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
That’s a better example but it’s still a subjective judgement call not a reliability issue. Many other RSS would say the same thing (Albanese’s 2014 comment was antisemitic; she rightly apologised for it.) while others wouldn’t. Many RSs call Trump, Netanyahu and Orban racist; others don’t. Disagreeing with a judgement is not grounds for calling a source less reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Is Haaretz reliable, in your perspective? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Effectively all of these examples boil down to bias on ToI's part, which again, nobody is disputing. I fail to see how that affects the longstanding RSN precedent that bias does not equal unreliability. The Kip (contribs) 03:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
It's not precedent anymore, because the argument is that certain opinions are factually untrue. The claim Makeandtoss is making is that you're lying about facts if you claim that Palestinian protestors are antisemitic.
Our own Wikipedia article Anti-Zionism#Allegations of antisemitism spends most of its section refuting that anti-Zionism can be antisemitic. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Please don't cast vague accusations.
The statement "ToI has a category named "antisemitism on campus" relating to coverage on pro-Palestinian demonstrations in US campuses." is true & in no way says that no pro-Palestinian protesters are antisemitic. The issue is that it implies all of these campus protests are inherently antisemitic, even when the articles tagged as such don't mention antisemitism i.e. 1 234 (I'm not claiming that there isn't reprehensible behavior described in these articles, but if they don't mention the subject of antisemitism, it's an issue for them to categorize them as such anyway)
Your issue with the anti-Zionism article however is unrelated to the discussion at hand. If you believe there is something wrong with its content, please take the matter there instead. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Butterscotch Beluga: I'm treating Makeandtoss' claim as true and steelmanning the argument. If we assume the Times of Israel said that pro-Palestinian protests were generally antisemitic, how exactly does that make them unreliable?
My understanding is that these protests are anti-Zionist, and the equivocation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is demonstrably false as per our Wikipedia article.
I will likely break this discussion out into a new thread and ask what definition of anti-Semitism we should require our sources to have. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say that I agreed that this issue makes them unreliable, (as you can see above I !voted for option 1 myself) only that your comment seemed to misinterpret Makeandtoss's !vote.
I will say however that that's not how steelmanning works, as you're seemingly addressing a bolder version of their argument, not a stronger one. Absolutist positions make for inherently weaker arguments as they lack nuance. Also, the comment I replied to didn't seem to be arguing against said hypothetical anyway.
What I was commenting on was how "The claim Makeandtoss is making is that you're lying about facts if you claim that Palestinian protestors are antisemitic." is an inaccurate description of their argument & reads as an accusation that Makeandtoss holds an absolutist position on the matter & considers differing positions to be lying. I'm not saying you intended for that to be how it read, but I also don't see what the point that comment was trying to make either. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
@Butterscotch Beluga: I'm breaking this point out into a new discussion at #What_definition_of_antisemitism_should_we_require_sources_to_have? Hopefully Makeandtoss will elaborate on their position there. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
@The Kip, @Chess would you then agree that TOI is not a reliable source for determining who is and who isn't antisemitic? Antisemitism is a real, objective phenomenon and we ought to be able to sometimes state "X was antisemitic" in wikivoice. But we should agree TOI isn't a RS qualified to determine who is antisemitic.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
@Vice regent: This is a better question for the thread lower on the page. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Two points on this:
  • As stated below, I don’t necessarily think we ought to be determining an “objective” definition of antisemitism ourselves - there’s a reason that there’s three major competing definitions plus a billion personal views on what is and isn't antisemitic. With orgs like the ADL, they went past bias and into outright falsehoods - they didn’t get GUNREL’d just because they were biased in their assertions of antisemitism related to the conflict.
  • On that, while I’d only rarely use a TOI claim of antisemitism to support an assertion in Wikivoice (as I’d do with most sources around either side of the conflict), I still completely fail to see why they are unacceptable to even be attributed as we typically do with contentious claims by reputable news orgs.
The Kip (contribs) 22:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Better than I said it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I examined the evidence of unreliability in previous discussions and users above and I am not convinced that differing characterizations amount to falsehoods. Still I agree that the publication has an bias obvious from its name and should be attributed for contentious statements involving antisemitism and the PIA conflict. Ca talk to me! 05:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1. It's a widely used source in this topic area and its reliability is confirmed by the examples in this thread which would are supposed to be the worst things they published. "Framing protesters as violent" could indicate bias but then again, should we likewise demote sources that display the opposite bias by framing protests as peaceful? Alaexis¿question? 17:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for Israeli military claims, as well as on WP:BLPCRIME. Otherwise, Option 1, as TOI is one of the better sources in this area.
    • TOI has a bad habit of considering Arabs/Muslims accused of crimes to be guilty until proven innocent, by contrast most Western newspapers are careful to use words like "alleged" for people who are not yet convicted:
      • For example, it called a shooter of Arab ethnicity a "murderer" (even though there were doubts about his mental sanity)[13], by contrast CBC News called him a "gunman"[14]
      • Here they refer to a Lebanese baby, dressed in military-colored baby clothes, as the "youngest terrorist"[15].
      • "16-year-old Palestinian terrorist" is how TOI describes a teenager captured in Gaza, who had not been convicted of any crime[16].
    • it uncritically treats Israeli military claims as fact. For example, just this week:
      • TOI: "Qadih marks the first known incident of a terrorist working for WCK"[17] By contrast, Reuters[18] reports the same but attributes to all allegations to Israel, and notes the Israeli army "did not offer any evidence".
    • it treats babies in ovens claims as facts[19][20], whereas we know that was an anti-Hamas hoax[21].

VR (Please ping on reply) 21:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

it treats babies in ovens claims as facts is cited to two ToI blogs which appear to be agreed on as unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah Im unaware of ToI ever claiming that was true (unlike JPost and i24). The blogs are unmoderated. They recently had one titled Lebensraum Needed for Israel’s Exploding Population before it was noticed and taken down. The blogs arent written or vetted by ToI, so while that means ToI cant grant them any reliability it also means their non-reliability cant detract from ToI's reliability. nableezy - 22:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

“Settings”

إعدادات التطبيق)؛ “Manual map rotation” 213.139.53.250 (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I think you're lost, this page is for discussing the reliability of sources used to reference Wikipedia articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Excessive primary sources cited in Origin of SARS-CoV-2

Page protection and edit requests are outside the scope of this noticeboard. I suggest any interest editors continue discussion on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

I started a talk topic discussing the use of primary (non-Medrs) sources to cite biomedical claims in Origin of SARS-CoV-2 on 12/12/24 and it seems to have not been taken up by the group. An extended confirmed user needs to fix several citations or apply a primary sources tag:

I also made an extended confirmed edit request yesterday with regards to one of the citations in particular, but have not received any reply. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That page has many active watchers, the edit request was only added yesterday someone will come round to answer it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
It is somewhat strange to me that this article is still extended-confirmed protected, since it's been years and the article is now -- I mean, in the whole year of 2024 it got 62 edits. Ugh, but it has been moved a bunch of times...
2024-07-13T03:53:04 TarnishedPath talk contribs block moved protection settings from Origin of COVID-19 to Origin of SARS-CoV-2 (Origin of COVID-19 moved to Origin of SARS-CoV-2: Per Talk:Origin_of_COVID-19#Rename_page_to_Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2_?, the name of this article is a category error. using Move+)   (thank)
2023-07-18T12:40:19 Hilst talk contribs block moved protection settings from Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 to Origin of COVID-19 (Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 moved to Origin of COVID-19: Moved per Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Requested move 11 July 2023 using rmCloser)   (thank)
 2021-02-12T16:15:42 ToBeFree talk contribs block protected Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 [Edit=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) (WP:GS/COVID19) (hist | change) Tag: Twinkle (thank)
@ToBeFree: Do we still need this? jp×g🗯️ 15:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
This is a discussion about sources. Discussion about page protection can be had at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. There is still no substantive reply to my talk topic (Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2#Faulty sources) posted 6 days ago regarding abundant use of primary sources in the article. I found at least 4 primary sources used to cite biomedical claims within the first 8 works cited. Then I stopped counting. Nobody has touched my edit request from yesterday (Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2#Edit Request: remove or tag citation #4 (non-MEDRS). This article needs a lot of work and/or the primary sources flag. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd say that removing a single redundant source among several is probably simply not a high priority for many people. Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The use of primary sources for four of the first eight references to cite biomedical content suggests a broader pattern of problematic sourcing in the article. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Edit requests should be made on talk pages. jp×g🗯️ 19:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I brought this up on the talk page[1][2] and it has not been taken up by the editors there. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest you review WP:DEADLINE - people will get to your edit request when they get to it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping! JPxG, the origin of the virus is probably the most contentious part of the entire topic area. However, this specific article, despite being the main article about the origin, is of course much less visited and edited than the articles about the pandemic and the virus. One might argue that this increases the risk of someone pushing their point of view into the article, but we'll see; it's almost 2025 and I have downgraded to semi-protection to see if the craziness of people has decreased enough to allow mostly-normal editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: :) jp×g🗯️ 22:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Edit Request: remove or tag citation #4 (non-MEDRS)". Wikipedia. Retrieved 2024-12-18.
  2. ^ "Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2#Faulty_sources". Wikipedia. Retrieved 2024-12-18.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slate (magazine) and is it reliable?

It was being used on a former very recently Featured Article Feather by singer Sabrina Carpenter, seems like if that article passed FA criteria then it is probably reliable? Slate Magazine is also hugely popular but yet I couldn't find anything about it here so please let me know. This0k (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC) — This0k (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Thatsoddd (talk · contribs).

It doesn't look like Slate has ever been a primary focus of discussion on RSN (nor been added to the perennial list because of that). But it appears the reason for that in past discussions that mention it is because it is just commonly considered reliable, at least within the topic confines of US politics and culture, at a minimum. For an article about a song, it seems like a perfectly fine source to use. Not contentious at all. SilverserenC 01:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Wait hold on because then why isn't there a discussion if it will be let's say short and sweet, it may as well be discussed. This0k (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussions happen when someone questions a source's reliability. The reliability of Slate isn't contentious. There isn't a point to having a discussion unless there's a dispute. Mackensen (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
In the interests of a full and detailed discussion, and because it often publishes edgy opinions, I hereby question its reliability.
Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@RadioactiveBoulevardier A "full and detailed discussion" requires, you know, details. Examples of stories (as opposed to opinion pieces) that would lead an observer to doubt its reliability. Serious factual mistakes that went uncorrected, for example. Reporting on Slate's unreliability. Given that you're now challenging its reliability the onus is on you to provide those. If the joke accidentally went too far you can withdraw your comment, I'll withdraw this response, and we can go about our business :). Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
If your going to question it's reliability you need to make a case or show some example of it's use that is contested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on why publishing edgy opinions would lead a reasonable editor to question its reliability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I've generally found Slate's longer form pieces to be reliable but their "Life" section has the same issues as other lifestyle sections but people seem to be able to use common sense there (nobody is using a gift guide as a source that "Your family will love this product"). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm an editor who regularly edits articles about popular music, and I sometimes lurk this noticeboard, but this is the first time I've felt compelled to write something on it. I use Slate and their music critics Chris Molanphy and Carl Wilson as sources from time to time on the topic of popular music. Molanphy, who is the author of the article being cited, has written for other reliable sources on the topic of popular music, and is a well-regarded writer and critic in the field. As far as I can see, there have not been any discussions about Slate's writing about popular music being inaccurate or untruthful. The article is used four times in the "Feather" article: To describe the song as within the neo-disco genre, to compare the video to the film Promising Young Woman, and that Carpenter had not made the Top 40 of the Billboard Hot 100 until the release of "Feather". That all seems like perfectly reasonable uses for the Slate reference in article about a pop song to me, and is similar to how other references from Billboard, American Songwriter, and Rolling Stone are being used in that article. I don't think describing a pop song as being part of a particular genre, or explaining a fact about chart placement, could be considered "edgy opinions" whatsoever. Doc Strange (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I would say that, with respect to most of their coverage, Slate is of pretty good quality. With respect to their politics/culture stuff, I tend to use them with a bit of caution; the factual claims they make are true, and they are not so biased as to discredit them, but it is pretty obvious that they like Democrats and do not like Republicans. They also have stuff like this, which is more or less completely a joke.
One might expect "news outlets make jokes sometimes" to be common sense, but at RSN nothing can be taken for granted, and I wouldn't be surprised if five years from now there's some argument on a talk page where two people argue about whether every sentence uttered in a Slate article is literally and factually true, and attempt to bolster their arguments with links to this very discussion.
So let it be said that a phrase like "Kyrsten Sinema made a rare, arduous trek to work" should not be interpreted literally as "a Senator's commute is arduous" or as "Slate said that a Senator's commute is arduous". jp×g🗯️ 15:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that this topic was started by a sock puppet. Graywalls (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

ResearchGate

Hello! I want to discuss on reliability of ResearchGate whether is reliable or not. I see some articles especially on AfC. Although, there is a previous discussion on ResearchGate but i want to be sure if this is a reliable or not. Royiswariii Talk! 02:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Not reliable. It's a social networking site. If the ResearchGate content is a paper which has been published in a reliable journal, then cite that publication. Rotary Engine talk 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Some guidance and links to previous discussions at WP:RGATE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
ResearchGate itself isn't reliable. As a repository, the publications might or might not be reliable. If they're published in a legitimate journal, for instance, or in a non-self-published book, they're reliable. But it's a previously unpublished paper or a pre-print, they're not reliable (for instance, I have some papers from undergrad and grad school on there that have not gone through any review or publication process). And for theses, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

What to do with citations without sources?

Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney has been edited by User:Religião, Política e Futebol (who has warnings about not using sources) so that many citations are now just statements, eg 21 " 3 November 1511 - Knowledge of João Escorcio because he appears to be in debt to the king of 8 thousand reais, of 4 mounds of wheat that he received from the tenant of the tithes of the islands". Doug Weller talk 09:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That appears to be a piece of original research, not a citation, so it should be removed from the article and a {{Citation needed}} tag added if appropriate. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Those elements come from the Chancellery documents, which are public records. Religião, Política e Futebol (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
If it ain't got a source, it ain't a cite, so remove it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
It has a source, a published book, it simply needs to add inline citations. Religião, Política e Futebol (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is what a cite is, an inline citation to a published work (who wrote it, who published it, when, and what page number) to allow verification. If it does not have those things, it is not a valid cite, and so should be removed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
You are providing what are effectively footnotes as citations, and these are effectively unsourced. You cannot expect people to verify or accept what you are claiming without citation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Religião, You still need to cite the documents you are using. Also, such documents are Primary sources, and so are of very limited use. You are essentially conducting Original Research (and Wikipedia is not the place to do that - see: WP:No original research.) Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
See latest edit.[22]. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I've managed to find a reliable source discussing the claim [23]. It suggests that the connection to Henry I Sinclair is unconfirmed. I really don't think 19th century genealogical sources are reliable for this topic, and I would support removal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I've added a brief section back [24]. Anymore I think would be a WP:COATRACK to the topic of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources covering Mr. Beat

See also: Wikipedia:Source assessment/Mr. Beat

Which of the following sources (cited in Draft:Matt Beat) could be reliable enough to contribute towards GNG?

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

All the local journalism sources are reliable but don't help much with notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
This is light and primarily local coverage (one of these is primary) that I think fall within the realm of WP:ROUTINE. Beat isn't seen as a media personality, but rather as just a high school teacher, and by that metric there are so many others in need of articles. As much as I and numerous others have learned from his videos, he really isn't important as far as the world is concerned. Departure– (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I have to say I've seen much worse articles on youtubers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Journal of controversial ideas redux

Previously I kind of left this particular bone of mine unpicked as the time it takes to review whether a philosophy journal constitutes a WP:FRINGE source is rather a lot, especially as some people like to incorrectly suggest that fringe philosophies aren't a thing. However I've been picking away at it in the background.

  1. Presently the journal is being used in a lot of contentious topics including WP:GENSEX, WP:AP2 and, alarmingly considering its content Diversity, equity, and inclusion (the journal has published papers in favor of the fringe concept of Transracialism) and Race and sexuality with an article that argues in favor of a biological theory to ascertain race-specific dating practices, you know Scientific Racism.
  2. The founders have said that they would be open to publishing pro-eugenic material [25]
  3. There is evidence that the founders specifically started the journal in response to negative reactions over a pro-eugenicist paper [26]
  4. The founders, themselves, have expressed pro-eugenicist points of view [27]
  5. Associate Professor of Philosophy at Deakin University, Patrick Stokes, said of the journal a pseudonymous journal devoted entirely to “controversial” ideas starts to look less like a way to protect researchers from cancel culture, and more like a safe-house for ideas that couldn’t withstand moral scrutiny the first time around.
  6. Henry Reichman, professor emeritus of history at California State University at East Bay and chair of the American Association of University Professors’ Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, expressed concerns about the ethics and effectiveness of a pseudonymous journal to protect academics but also pointed out the academic dangers of a pseudonymous journal, saying there is “potential for abuse” of such a journal, in that “academic research is generally assessed by peers in open discussion and debate.” And what if any author publishes one view under one name and a slightly different one under a real one? Or self-plagiarizes? Still, Reichman said, “it seems an interesting if potentially dangerous endeavor.”
  7. In practice the journal has allowed an academic veneer to be applied to the fringe beliefs of scientific racism, transracialism and transphobia.

It's my contention that this pseudonymous journal acts precisely in the manner that Stokes was worried it would and that it has precisely the dangers that Reichman identified regarding its deviation from standard academic publishing practice. In light of its irregular publishing practices, its use to support fringe social science beliefs and its deep relationship specifically to eugenics I think we should treat this journal as a WP:FRINGE publisher and should not consider any articles published in it as reliable sources for anything other than the personal opinion of the author under the usual intersection of WP:FRINGE and WP:ABOUTSELF. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Considering the scope seems to specifically be things that does not have widespread acceptance I struggle to think of any situations where it would be appropriate to cite it alone, without other sources to contextualise. JCW for 10.35000 to 40000 seems to indicate it's onlyy cited a few times though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
That's missing articles likely due to failures in citation format. [28] shows 16 - although in some cases it's identifying people involved with the journal in some formal capacity. However my assertion is that it should not be cited at all. So even if we ignore incidental references I'd like to take that 5 and make it a 0. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Especially the article that contends that east and south-east Asian women are biologically more attractive than Black women needs to be off this encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
You don't really need to ask permission to remove fringe stuff supported by fringe sources from mediocre publishers (MDPI). You can just do it if you want to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I've past experience removing fringe sources that are "journals" and was pretty much immediately reverted because it came from a journal. In my experience, when dealing with sources that claim academic credentials it's best to first demonstrate that they're clearly unreliable and gain consensus for that before you start cutting. That way you can point back to the discussion and go, "I know they're a journal, here's a discussion about why they're not a usable journal." Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
This resource should never be used unless there are third-party expert and reliable independent sources referencing it. No indication that it functions as anything but an outlet for WP:PROFRINGE without context. Compare the Journal of Scientific Exploration. jps (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Of course the journal should not be used to make claims about intra-scientific consensus... I see no reason, however, why it could not be included in articles on, themselves, highly controversial topics. The comparison to a journal publishing about ufos is, frankly, disingenuous. Roggenwolf (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
How is the comparison disingenuous? jps (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
It seems the main problem with the Journal is that it is immoral, and not that it is unreliable. The anonymity is an issue as well, but no one has mentioned any facts they got wrong. I don't see why this can't be used as a source for controversial opinions. If an article wanted to discuss the arguments for eugenics, then that might be a good source. Arguments about WP:Due should be made on a case by case basis. It is possible an article receives a lot of attention from outside sources, that increases its relevance. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
The journal also makes no attempt to vet the reliability of its contributors. A "controversial idea" according to their definition is one that is simply not widely accepted and generally eschewed in the relevant academic circles. There is no indication to me, for example, that the journal would reject papers that purported to show the Earth is flat or that climate change is not caused by human activity or that there is evidence that homeopathy worked. As long as the author could convince the editor that such "opinions" were on the out-and-out, they seem to be willing to give space for controversial ideas.
This is far removed from those journals which have as normal editorial philosophy that the judgement of expert reviewers is what is necessary for publication. That is a fundamental feature of editorial review for reliable sources. This source explicitly rejects that standard. As such, the only thing it is reliable for is a demonstration of what it has published. Beyond that, there is no means to decide that anything found in that venue is worth anything save that there might be third-party vetting identifying diamonds in the rough, for example. This is a classic instance of WP:PROFRINGE sourcing.
jps (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Have they published anything saying the earth is flat? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Digression. TL;DR: No, but once argued against censoring flat earthers.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yup. [29] You might argue that this was done "only for argument's sake", but it's an explicit endorsement that such ideas should be afforded space in a way that, if adopted universally, would make it very difficult for us to suss out reliable from unreliable points. jps (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
What? Come on, this is ridiculous. The paper is about speech on campus. It demonstratively reproduces flat earth arguments (which it calls "stupid ideas") as an illustration of weaknesses in anti-platforming arguments. There is absolutely no ambiguity about whether the paper argues that the earth is flat. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
You're wrong. The paper explicitly argues that censoring the idea that the Earth is flat is wrong to do. The paper explicitly argues that we should allow such ideas to be platformed in spite of opinions that the idea is "stupid". The authors do not claim the idea is wrong and they present the idea as worthy of presentation. jps (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the paper argues against censorship of "stupid ideas", including that the earth is flat, which it calls "even more stupid" than Time Cube. This is not even on the same disc-shaped planet as arguing that the earth is flat. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
You asked if they published anything saying that the earth is flat. I showed that they did. Now you are trying to change the goalposts because the authors think the idea is "stupid" that they didn't publish the idea. jps (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
You did not show that they published that the earth is flat! You showed that they published a paper arguing against the censorship of stupid ideas such as the belief that the earth is flat. These are very different positions. Describing a view is not the same as adopting, endorsing, or perpetuating it. In some cases (like this one!), it's a step in criticizing it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
You asked if they published anything saying that the Earth is flat. They did. They did so in order to argue that providing space for such ideas is in line with which the journal itself aligns. jps (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
jps thinks the JOCI published that the earth is flat. Did I just say that the JOCI published that the earth is flat? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Why am I even doing this? Your creative definition aside, no, the Journal of Controversial Ideas has not published any paper claiming (better?) that the Earth is flat. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
So are you now saying that you weren't asking the question in good faith, then? jps (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not even going to bother rereading this to figure out where you're pulling this from. No, I was asking if the journal published actual fringe flat earth shit, and you showed me a paper arguing that flat earthers, whose ideas are explicitly denounced, are among those whose bad ideas should not be censored on college campuses. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
You seem to think that when a journal talks about literal flat earth shit that it's okay if it is dressed up in, "but I think it is really stupid". This is like Nazis who give the wink and the nod when they talk about antisemitism. It's a normalizations. And the irony is that the paper makes the explicit case that such normalization is not an excuse to "censor" or, whatever. So the whole point of the paper is to allow for the presentation of "actual fringe flat earth shit". :) jps (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
You are literally talking about flat earth shit right now. By your lumpy rhetorical device, this makes you a winking flat-earther. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
By my "lumpy rhetorical device" it makes this threaded conversation unreliable for anything but our own opinions is what it does. jps (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Sure. Just because you attribute something doesn't mean you did not get that something said. jps (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
LMFAO, thank you for this. You should edit your earlier comment with a little paranthetical note that says you were approaching the question like an evil-but-not-too-clever genie. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
"Many people are saying..." jps (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Such a desperate misrepresentation of the paper’s stance on flat earth, and I know you (like everyone who’s gotten past colors and shapes class) know it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Funny. I don't feel desperate. Maybe you should update your model of other people's minds. jps (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
jps, I love you like a brother, but that article says that those flat-earthers are "promoting the notion that our home planet is a giant disc. If science enables us to know anything, we know this is false." So sorry, but no. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I think I am not wrong in saying that the article insists that we allow for flat earthers to present their case. Rhetorically, this looks to me like the journal is making an argument for presenting the flat earth argument on its own merits. Oh, the authors, they have their opinions! But censorship is the ultimate evil -- not the fact that this idea is false. Is that about right? jps (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Allowing flat earthers to present their case, doesn't mean publishing them in a journal. It means that we shouldn't shout them down or punch everyone who says the earth is flat etc.
Does it actually say "censorship is the ultimate evil"? One can believe that censorship is bad, and still think other things are worse.
Do you actually believe that Flat Earthers should be censored? And by censored, I mean not allowed to self-publish. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by Allowing flat earthers to present their case, doesn't mean publishing them in a journal. It is simply a fact that if you allow flat earthers to present their case in a journal, you have published them in a journal.
My apologies if it seems I am being hyperbolic in adopting the world of the article as the sum total of the author's opinions about everything. I think in the article the author identifies nothing worse than censorship (in their judgement).
Yes. Flat Earthers should be censored on Wikipedia. See WP:WEIGHT. They should not be allowed to "self-publish" at this website. jps (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment Nom, please provide examples of usage for WP:AP2. Seems unlikely to me.
It is not particularly helpful that you found a dozen examples of politically untoward social science / philosophy. This is exactly the kind of content such a journal is meant to contain.
Please also note that not all contributors are anonymous. There have been a number of notable academics publishing through them. I'm strongly opposed to formally deprecating it. Roggenwolf (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I would think the DEI article would be covered under AP2 - would it not? Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think I'd formally declare it unreliable but it should probably be recognized that for 99% of topics it would not be due weight by its nature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
99% of topics... Yes, I agree. But it should not be an issue to include a sentence summarizing one such paper in the, say, controversy or reception section of an already controversial scientific topic. Roggenwolf (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Given the fringe claims the Journal puts forward, it'd consider the source unreliable. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Generally unreliable. Any anonymous article in this publication should be considered unreliable since there clearly is no editorial oversight ensuring proper methodologies have been followed. Any article with a real byline should be treated as WP:SPS, so if a subject-matter expert chooses for some reason to publish there and attach their own name to it, we can potentially use that where relevant and as limited by policy (i.e. not in BLPs per WP:SPSBLP). Roggenwolf's argument that we might use it for articles about controversial topics misses the point of WP:FRIND: this is precisely where the guideline tells us we need to avoid in-universe fringe sources. Generalrelative (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Why would an anonymous article have failed to undergo editorial oversight? The author would not be anonymous to the editors, and blind peer review is the norm anyway. - Bilby (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: my argument was that :none: of JCI's articles appear to receive proper editorial oversight. That's why we should treat it as equivalent to SPS, an idea also endorsed by ActivelyDisinterested below. Any subject-matter expert publishing there should be evaluated as WP:EXPERTSPS and anyone else, including any anonymous contributors, should be considered unreliable.
You may disagree, but I'm persuaded by the sources, e.g. those cited by XOR'easter and jps below. You've characterized these elsewhere as "don't like it" arguments but they are not. They are substantive, source-based arguments for the unrelaibility of JCI's editorial oversight.
(PS: I see that there's a lot of sniping going on right now. Y'all can miss me with that. I won't be responding further unless there's a point worth responding to.) Generalrelative (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
But JCS clearly states their review process, which incorproates blind peer review, editorial oversight, and a well respected editorial board. [30] I am lost as to why you think this means that they do not undergo proper editorial oversight when they clearly do. Can you provide some evidence that they publish without editorial review? Because it sounds to me as if your complain has no basis. - Bilby (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I'll respond again since this is clearly a good-faith question. My point is that while there is an editorial process, that editorial process is manifestly unreliable. That is, it lets methodologically unsound ideas through in the interest of some other criterion –– perhaps shock value, or owning the libs, or a genuine belief in the value of unrestrained platforming of silly ideas. I don't know.
Here is a quote from two highly regarded subject-matter experts, Eric Turkheimer and Kathryn Paige Harden (who chose to publish in JCI to refute a prior paper published there): [31]

Human intelligence and human evolution are controversial areas of scientific inquiry that require the highest levels of scientific rigor and editorial discretion, which are absent here.

Editorial discretion is absent here. Note what they didn't say. They didn't say that the paper they're refuting presented some scientific hypotheses that didn't stand up to further evidence. They explicitly refer to the paper they're refuting as pseudoscientific and castigate the journal for publishing it. The Chronicle of Higher Education sources cited by XOR'easter come to similar conclusions, though perhaps less stridently. Generalrelative (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that there is a significant difference between saying "there is no editorial oversight" and "editorial discretion is poor". If you had made the latter argument it would have been much easier to understand. - Bilby (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I said "no editorial oversight ensuring proper methodologies have been followed" but okay. I see how I could have stated that more clearly. Generalrelative (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Generally an unsuitable source I'm going to avoid strictly calling the source "unreliable" because it's possible (I haven't read it) that the articles are very well reasoned but due to politics the authors are concerned about putting their names on things. That they are anonymous isn't strictly my argument against usage, though it's a big negative. Instead, my concern is that, in general Wikipedia's take on subjects should be rather vanilla. This is an encyclopedia, not a latest trends and ideas source. If an idea is controversial to the point where the author can't say it aloud, then perhaps that idea shouldn't be included here. A well reasoned argument in such a source my provide a reason to given less weight to an argument who's authors are public with their ideas but that falls into the arguments against including something that is WP:V (a perfectly reasonable thing to do). Just as OR on talk pages is fine but cannot appear in an article, a source like this might make very solid arguments but should not appear in Wikipedia as a RS. Usage as a reference when discussed by a cited RS would of course be it's own case by case thing. Springee (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah you'll note that I'm not rushing to AfD for Journal of Controversial Ideas (though giving it some TLC is on my long-term to-do list) nor am I angling to remove mention of it from a page like Peter Singer - I just don't think the journal's articles should be used as sources for the topics they discuss. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Generally unreliable WP:FRINGE journal with no mainstream academic support. They allow authors to use pseudonyms which is an obvious red flag. They published an article claiming bestiality is "Morally Permissible" [32]. They have also published an article by a pedophile defending non-offending pedophilia [33]. This type of nonsense wouldn't pass peer review anywhere else. They have no editor in chief, nor a statistical advisor. They will publish anything for media attention. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I read the bestiality one and, frankly, it'd be best positioned as a piece of poorly advised satire trying to equate bestiality to the trans experience. The idea of treating it as if it were a work of philosophy is frankly offensive to the discipline with how shoddy it was. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Most of the editorial board are utilitarians who put out useless "thought experiments" or those who have co-authored articles with Singer, so there is some COI there. Some of the others are those that have complained about "wokeness". I am familiar with most of the names on the list, the only one that makes no sense to me is Susan Blackmore. Odd to see her name on that list. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Blackmore has some spicy takes on drugs that would definitely constitute "controversial ideas" although from the opposite direction from the usual array of eugenicists and scientific racists who tend to gravitate to "heterodox" academia. Maybe that was the avenue of her interest in this. Or maybe it was something entirely different. For all I know, she owed Singer a favour. LOL. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Psychologist Guy Minus the fringe question, is a source being immoral really a reason it is unreliable, especially in philosophy of all disciplines? The University of California Press published a book defending pedophiles in the past few years as well. If they're unreliable it's because they're fringe but I don't really know why making immoral arguments would get someone declared unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Reliable (at least for what it would be used for). I'm curious about in what way these articles would be used such that reliability is a problem. I've checked every current use of the journal, and only once is it used to reference a claim (specifically "KAU has faced criticism for allegedly paying highly cited researchers from around the world to cite KAU as a "secondary academic affiliation" in order to boost their rankings."):[34]. The article being referenced is Saudi Universities Rapid Escalation in Academic Ranking Systems: Implications and Challenges Both authors are published academics, the journal is peer reviewed, and the editoral board looks fine. I'm not seeing any red flags. Is the fear that this will be used to say "controversial idea is ok"? If so, I do not see that it would be used in that way. Are there any examples of it being used inappropriatly? - Bilby (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The issue is at the level of the journal. Frankly the article about Saudi universities may be bromine but we cannot trust it because of the journal's untrustworthy editorial practices and the involvement of its founders in WP:FRINGE topics. I would not prejudice an author who has published there for work published in reputable outlets. This journal is not a reputable outlet. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
In what way are there untrustworthy editorial practises? This is not a predatory journal. The editorial board is impressive. The editorial polices and peer review process is sound. They are going to publish things we do not agree with, and they will write on fringe topics, but that does not mean it is unreliable. What specific editorial practises are untrustworthy? - Bilby (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The journal was set up to provide space for ideas that could not be published in other journals. It does this by adopting an editorial position that reviewers who reject papers are not fit to sit in judgement over these controversial ideas. jps (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
This sounds like backflipping. Can you quote from their editorial policy? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
This sounds like sealioning, but here you go: [35] The decision to accept or reject a paper will be made by the editors and will be based primarily on the comments and judgments of the reviewers, though the three editors will also ask for advice from appropriately qualified members of the editorial board. jps (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Aspersion noted, eyes rolled. How does this quote indicate unreliability? Because it doesn't include the word "expert"? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
It rejects the expert evaluation if the editors think that's a good idea. jps (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Do you get that from the last quoted phrase? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes. jps (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
This doesn't say that they'll override expert rejections. "Advice" could mean anything in terms of the "decision to accept or reject a paper", and there's no reason to believe it means superior scientific review. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
They reserve the right to publish over the objections of the reviewers. jps (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Nope, doesn't say that. Says reviewers will seek advice from the editors. Your reading leaps. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
You can deny it all you want. Let others read the exchange and maybe let them decide which of us has identified the editorial policy correctly. jps (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't say the reviewers will seek advice from editors, it says the editors will primarily base their decision to accept/reject on the judgement of reviewers, but that the three editors will also seek advice from other editors. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Even if it's true that It rejects the expert evaluation if the editors think that's a good idea, that would not make the journal unique, or even particularly unusual. As our article on Scholarly peer review puts it, "During this process, the role of the referees is advisory. The editor(s) is typically under no obligation to accept the opinions of the referees".
This makes me think that the problem here is merely that they publicly admit to doing what everyone else does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
You are reading far too much into a standard process. For example, Nature states that the final decision is made by the editors [36] Springer also describes the as their process for review "Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein" [37] It is normal in quality journals for editors to use the peer review process to inform the final decision, but not necessarily to make it. - Bilby (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
As my last engagement with this inane thread where I’ve sufficiently voiced my stance, I co-sign this comment and thank you for pulling some other papers’ policies. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Reliability stems entirely from reputation. Journal policies that revolve around personal preference are looked at askance, yes, even when they come from such reputable journals as Nature. There is a reason that Nature has the reputation of "everything you read in Nature is wrong." Their goal is to publish work that pushes the envelope for good reason. And they have had some doozies in the past.
Interestingly, we don't take Nature papers when they first come out at face value. It is only after they have generated the appropriate confirmation from third parties do we use them as foundational work. But for every Nature paper that leads to Nobel Prizes and high citations, there are perhaps dozens which amount to fizzling nonsense.
I have proposed nothing more here than to apply the same standards to this Journal. That unless there are third-party references to the works therein published, they don't deserve inclusion in Wikipedia.
jps (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
What you said was it adopts "an editorial position that reviewers who reject papers are not fit to sit in judgement over these controversial ideas". Clearly, this was a misreading of the editorial policy, given that the same editorial policy that you described this as is used by all major academic journals. But ok, if I understand what you are writing now, your concern is that you do not suppoprt using articles from a peer-reviewed journal unless those articles have been cited elsewhere. While the seems to go well beyond standard editorial practice, I think we can work with that in this case. Before using an article we should confirm that it has been cited elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Most academic journals will not accept a paper over the objections of the reviewers. They may allow for arguments that the reviewers were biased, or whatever, and allow for a different reviewer, but they will not publish against the recommendations of the reviewers. There is a suggestion (published in JOCI no less, referenced below) that JOCI will do just that. I know that Nature does that. jps (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Generally unsuitable for Wikipedia's purposes, by its very nature. We are here, first and foremost, to summarize mainstream and consensus thought. The people behind this journal basically went out of their way to create the Journal of Ideas Not Viable on Wikipedia. Using it on a bland topic would be at best redundant; using it on a controversial one is all but guaranteed to weight a fringe view out of proportion. The Journal of Scientific Exploration or Physics Essays are better points of comparison than MDPI: in the latter case, there is just a low standard of peer review, so that publishing an article there is not really better than posting a preprint, whereas in the former, there's a deliberate bias to what we may politely call "contrarianism". Use should be restricted to the usual intersection of WP:FRINGE and WP:ABOUTSELF as said above, and only then in cases where other considerations indicate that a citation is genuinely due. XOR'easter (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
This is how I would tend to read it. But this does not make it unreliable - just not something we would typically have cause to use. And that is born out in practise, as currently it is only being used to source a single claim, and that claim is solely that criticism exists and is backed by two other sources. I am not seeing a reliablity concern, but simply a source that has limited use. - Bilby (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, I'd call it unreliable, too. Does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? No, it doesn't. I am not convinced it has much of a reputation at all, except maybe for tedious edgelordism [38][39]. Here's a take from the Chronicle of Higher Education back in 2021, when the JCI finally came out with an issue: Eyes did roll in some quarters. A bunch of Twitter wags floated tongue-in-cheek ideas for their own faux-controversial essays (example: “Kant was just ok”). There was more substantive criticism too. One philosopher dismissed it as a “safe-house for ideas that couldn’t withstand moral scrutiny the first time around.” [40] And from a CHE opinion column in 2024: The problem is that the Journal of Controversial Ideas emphasizes noncomformity above other goals. It sidesteps the necessary process of engaging with and responding to ethical critiques and deprioritizes the downstream effects of its publications on the populations they study. By delighting in counterintuitiveness and mere controversy, the journal places shock value over rigorous research, and undermines the thoughtful exploration of complexity. In doing so, the journal further marginalizes controversial viewpoints by reducing them to a form of scholarly political gamesmanship that rewards conservative scholars for “owning the Libs.” [...] The Journal of Controversial Ideas sets out to advance knowledge, but instead it merely turns reasonable questions into outrageous positions and attempts to demonstrate rhetorical prowess. [41] XOR'easter (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I am aware that some people do not like it. The idea of a journal covering contraversial ideas is always going to upset people, and some of that would be justified. But in saying that it does not have a reputation for being reliable - can you follow that up with examples of problems in the publication? Have they had to retract any articles? Are there reports of poor editorial standards? I searched retraction watch, but couldn't find anything. - Bilby (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The problem isn't that people look at the journal and are "upset"; I don't think that's a fair summary of either CHE item. Scholars aren't angry about it. They're disappointed, indifferent, and bored. I don't know that the JCI has had to retract anything, but I don't see how that matters one way or the other here. Retractions by themselves don't make a journal bad, and the lack of them doesn't make a journal good. XOR'easter (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
No, but if you are going to say it is unreliable, you need some reason for saying that. So far, I have seen a lot people saying that they don't like the content, but no evidence of actual unreliability being posted. I am absolutly in support of marking a peer reviewed journal as unsuitable because it has evidence of being unreliable. I just want to see that case being made first. - Bilby (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the board in all its magnanimity published a "controversial opinion" that it was publishing unreliable pseudoscience: [42]. If the charges of those authors are true, most other journals would have not published or retracted an article. If the charges are not true, most other journals would not have published the riposte. So there is indication here that something is unreliable in the journal. This serves as the demonstration proof. The editorial concept of the journal itself all but guarantees that "unreliable" ideas are not cause for refusing publication. This is more-or-less how I would describe an "unreliable source". jps (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
There's such a thing as "unreliable ideas"? If they are willing to publish counterpoints to other papers that they have published previously, then that sounds like a positive, and not as if they are pushing a particular agenda. - Bilby (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Of course there are unreliable ideas. jps (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not comparing it to MDPI, it is published by MDPI so I'm pointing out the publisher already indicates it's going to be mediocre. The scope, of course, makes it even worse for our purposes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Their website runs on some software by MDPI ("JAMS"), but they say they are published by the "Foundation for Freedom of Thought and Discussion" [43]. (I don't think that foundation does anything other than publish the journal.) XOR'easter (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Generally unreliable. Outlets that regularly publish pro-fringe material are routinely classified as unreliable. I can't see how this journal is any different. JoelleJay (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it as pro-fringe. It seems the intent is to discuss controversial ideas, which could be difficult to discuss elsewhere. If it was to push controversial ideas I'd approach it differently. - Bilby (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
The thing is if you just want to say eugenics is wrong or won't work, or bestiality is wrong or come at a controversial idea from the mainstream viewpoint you're unlikely to publish in this journal. It's only if you have a "hot take" against the mainstream that you're going to publish there. This might not always be saying we should do something or there is evidence in support of something but it would say least be in the form of we shouldn't just dismiss eugenics as nonsense like the mainstream view. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that philosophers and others should have outlets where they can discuss controversial views. If there was an article pushing eugenics, I'd have a problem with that article. But if there was an article exploring eugenics, published in a non-predatory double-blind peer-reviewed journal with an outstanding editorial board, then I wouldn't have a problem with using it to source the existence of an argument. The issue I have is that I have seen no real evidence of a problem. People claim it has editorial issues, but can't point to an example. They claim that it is used inappropriately on Wikipedia, but I can barely find a single use, and nothing that represents an issue. Thus the only argument I can find is "we don't like that it publishes controversial ideas", and I would hate to deem a peer-reviewed academic journal unreliable because we do not like the topics it discusses.
Years ago I was working at a different university from where I am now, and two of the philosophers there published a satirical article along the lines of Swift's A Modest Proposal. They even called it "A Modest Proposal". I spent the next two weeks fielding emails from angry people insiting that we should fire the philosophers for expressing such a horrible idea, completely missing the point of what they wrote. I do not want to end up in the same place here without genuine reasons. I will support defining this as unreliable if it is being misused or if there are problems with the editorial practises, just as I would with any journal, but I am waiting on that evidence. - Bilby (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Reliable with caveats. This is a journal with an impeccable editorial board, and most of the authors are established academics. This is a not an outlet to push outrageous ideas; it is a forum for philosophers to pick apart and interrogate traditional beliefs. That's what philosophers do. Claims of lax editorial practices are not based on evidence and seem to be wrong. Arguments based on the journal publishing ideas we don't like are inadmissible; there is not and has never been such a criterion for reliability. First caveat: It is OK to deprecate anonymous articles, since the expertise of the author is an important criterion for us. Such articles are indicated by the journal and they are rather few (none at all in the 2024 volume). Second caveat: The majority of the articles count as opinion pieces for us. Although we cite opinion pieces all the time, they have to be attributed and some opinions might be too fringe to mention. A few of the articles are more than opinion pieces; for example, this article contains a lot of factual information and the author is eminently qualified, so I don't see why it can't be cited for some of its facts. Zerotalk 11:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
That's an opinion piece saying that California researchers should be allowed to keep the human remains of the victims of a genocide because, apparently, the study of California history is more important than treating the survivors of genocide with basic dignity. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
It's a mixture of opinion and fact and I only wrote that its facts can be cited. I'm not interested in responding to your characterisation. Zerotalk 01:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that can be considered FRINGE, because it is discussing current or recent practice and as far as I can tell is an issue of morality, not science. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
How could this possibly be misused on Wikipedia? To support a wikivoice moral statement? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Generally treat as WP:opinion and weigh WP:DUEness - Journal articles are usually WP:PRIMARY by default, though articles here are a mix of both primary data and secondary opinion-ating. this journal seems to be more about publishing commentary in soft fields like humanities. Science and other fields generally publish more reliable, less opinionated data that congregates around non-controversial hypotheses. If an article here proposes a very controversial opinion in a contentious field, it should be compared to other opinion pieces folks put up. Any controversial idea by definition does not have broad support from the field and should be considered in that context. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
How are journal articles primary? Sure, some of the more scientific ones are mostly data, but they even have analysis. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Per policy, research articles are primary for the results they report and any novel interpretations (but can include secondary content in e.g. the background section in the form of discussion of other published work). This is consistent with how journal articles are considered in academia. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand. We were talking about journal articles, not research articles. The source you linked lists research articles under primary sources, but lists journal articles under secondary, noting that it varies based on field. I think this would be very field dependent, which I was implying in my first comment. I think in some fields, "novel interpretations" are the bulk of scholarship, whereas some are data heavy, and others a mix. Most journal articles that I have read have been history related, where I believe "primary sources" usually means historical documents or other evidence, although it can also be applied to data. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I originally wrote all journal articles are primary, as i was thinking only of research journals. But yeah, some of the social sciences are more like opinion columns.
In general, highly fringe hypotheses or controversial ideas are by definition not fully accepted by the scientific field. I think these articles are more like opinion pieces, and there dueness is a major concern if they are asserting a fringe idea. I have no clue about reliability for assertion of facts, and think that if there is an important fact that is discussed in the field, it should be well known in other journals that aren't advertising themselves as "controversial ideas". Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I mean it's undoubtedly a WP:FRINGE publisher, that it's reason to exist. If a WP:EXPERTSPS were to publish using the journal it could be reliable for intext attributed opinion, DUE would obviously apply. The anonymous pieces wouldn't be reliable though. Also obviously anything from it would have to be used in the context of mainline academy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
It is not an SPS. I'm not sure why WP:EXPERTSPS would need to apply, although I can see why we should not use anonymous articles. - Bilby (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
In cases where the publisher is being discounted but the author could still be a reliable source, the situation is the same as if it was self-published. I would say the same would apply of a reputable author deciding not publish in predatory journal, for instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
It is an interesting argument. In this case we're not looking at a predatory journal. I do think it is worth a wider discussion unrelated to one journal, though. - Bilby (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
It's not a novel idea. It's been applied in other cases where a publishers is less reliable than the author it publishes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
My concern is that if a publisher was genuinely unreliable, could the article have been manipulated in ways that the author did not approve? If you self publish only you are responsible for the content. For good or ill, it says what you wanted it to say. If you do not, you sacrifice some control. So I'd much rather use a preprint if I have a genuine concern with the publisher than treat something that the author did not have full control over as self published. - Bilby (talk) Bilby (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
That would be the difference between generally unreliable and deprecation. If the publisher can't be trusted to publish honestly, an issue beyond reliability, then it should be deprecated. If the source is unreliable, because it lacks a reputation for accuracy and fact checking for instance (there could be many reason it's not reliable for wikipedia's purposes), then it could still be trusted as a platform for an author to publish through. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
That makes some sense, but honestly I would be loathe to treat something that is no self-published as if it was, because the author has surrended control over what they wrote. If it is a case of "unreliable, but we can still use it", I'd rather just argue that we treat the journal on a case-by-case basis than treat articles from it as an SPS, or see if the author has published the article seperatly and use that. - Bilby (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
If you're treating a source on a case by case basis, and are not considering the publisher as it's generally unreliable, what do you base you assessment on? I would say the author would be the best option. Also although an author gives up some control when publishing, they give up some control not all control. If the publisher wanted to alter the work in some major way before publishing them the author could decide not to publish with them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I do see where you are coming from. But I know of many people who have complained that what was published had been altered from what they submitted. We've all heard those strories, I'm sure. Which is why this approach makes me uncomfortable. - Bilby (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Reliability is always a sliding scale, the more contentious or problematic the content the more high quality it's source needs to be. Using the work of experts published in otherwise generally unreliable sources as EXPERTSPS is something that will be fine for somethings and not for others. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 04:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I really haven't seen any evidence of pro-fringe content here. No, peer review is not mutually exclusive with publishing a philosophy paper that arrives at a very unpopular moral conclusion, and Wikipedia does not state moral claims in Wikivoice. What problems have emerged or would emerge from using this source? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Reliable; generally treat as opinion given the great editorial board and the fact that the “fringe positions” opponents have been able to produce are all just scary moral positions that Wikipedia would/should never repeat in wikivoice anyways. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
You do understand that eugenics and scientific racism are not "just scary moral positions" but are, in fact, pseudoscience that falls firmly within WP:FRINGE, right? Like even if you want to argue that Wikipedia should be an entirely amoral and dispassionate dispenser of expert opinion, these two topics, one of which was the founding basis for the journal and the other of which it regularly entertains, are, in fact, fringe academic topics by Wikipedia's definition. This is clear to you, right? Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
First of all, dial it back, because I’m not interested in being wailed at. Being pro-eugenics is indeed a moral position, not an error of facts. Nobody has shared any incidence of the JOCI publishing pseudoscience. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
In the latest JOCI, this article on immigration and intelligence is pseudoscience [44]. To their credit at least they allowed Eric Turkheimer to publish a commentary on said paper [45], "We contrast their pseudoscientific approach with valid scientific methods. Human intelligence and human evolution are controversial areas of scientific inquiry that require the highest levels of scientific rigor and editorial discretion, which are absent here." The pseudoscience paper was co-written by two far-right fringe academics Heiner Rindermann and James Thompson.
A month before their paper came out in JOCI, Rindermann had his paper retracted from another journal, "The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised about the methodology and dataset used in this research. Independent post-publication peer review has confirmed fundamental flaws in the use of student assessment studies as a measure of IQ or cognitive ability, and in the prominence of individual examples taken from the author's life". [46]. This is fraudulent research, no journal wants to publish it. JOCI is basically a dumping ground for all sorts of garbage and anti-science. They published a paper by a pedophile. They will publish anything that no good journal will publish. There is a serious lack of rigour, the journal doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There are better journals that cover WP:Fringe content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm citing someone from above: Generally unsuitable for Wikipedia's purposes, by its very nature. I agree. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Reliable (and particularly wherever a section or paragraph directly discusses a relevant controversy). I should have really made this more clear in the above (with my old acc name): of course this journal is unlikely, though also not impossible, to find good use in an article lede etc., but its articles often do give good overviews over some long-standing academic controversies and the like. ChopinAficionado (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
We should also be careful not to casually expand WP:FRINGE to politicized fields of science. ChopinAficionado (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Which fields exactly are you referring to? Because this journal dabbles in scientific racism (fringe) arguments in favor of eugenics (fringe), arguments favoring sex-based difference as invalidating the social construction of gender (fringe) a paper which was just "the HWOKES! use rhetorical lampshades too (no scientific merit attempted) and the paper about bestiality was, as I mentioned, an attempt at a transphobic satire and had no scientific merit. So can you please clarify? Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Unreliable fringe journal. This is a journal whose mission is explicitly giving a platform to ideas that are such fucking nonsense that they can't get published anywhere else in the name of free speech. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether this journal might serve as a good indicator that any view published in it is not accepted by mainstream scholarship, and therefore UNDUE (except for ABOUTSELF sorts of material).
@Simonm223, years ago, I found our article on Medical Hypotheses to be very helpful in evaluating a source, and I would encourage you to work on Journal of Controversial Ideas for the sake of future Wikipedia editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
It's on my extended to-do list. LOL. Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I checked out one of the papers and have concluded that its description in the original list of complaints above was a thoroughly uncharitable misinterpretation, so I'm now skeptical that the papers found in this journal are quite as bad as described. However, I think the journal occupies a space between WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY, and so are unlikely to be usable for much Wikipedia content. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Generally reliable with attribution for subject matter expert opinion/analysis: WP:RSOPINION and WP:DUE. Treat as similar to The Conversation (website) (see WP:THECONVERSATION). Rather than myopically hyperfixating on the most hyper-partisan culture war issue of the day, let's take a broader view. It's not pseudonymous, it merely offers authors the option to publish pseudonymously should they so choose. Authors of recent articles include anthropologist Elizabeth Weiss writing about controversies in anthropology, literary scholar Pamela L. Caughie writing about controversial words in education, philosopher Raja Halwani on sex, gender, and sexual orientation, philosopher David Benatar on controversial ideas themselves, and a 29-author treatise in defense of merit in science whose diverse authors include Anna Krylov, Jerry Coyne, Peter R. Schreiner, John McWhorter, and Peter Boghossian (I realize that some Wikipedians may not like some of the views of some of the authors, but dislike is not a valid reason to categorically dismiss a scholar's contribution). Contrary to popular opinion, the JCI is not, in fact, a journal consisting entirely of far-right, racist pseudonymous authors advocating eugenics and trans-exclusionary radical zoophilia. The authors I mentioned above would be likely be cited in a heartbeat should their same works appear in a news article or their own blog per WP:EXPERTSPS. It may well be the case that not every article in JCI needs citing anywhere on Wikipedia, regardless of the author, but in this discussion I see people missing the forest for the trees, and forgetting, that, yes, topics published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas, will tend to be, surprise surprise, controversial. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Bad RfC/Mistrial, reliable with caveats. This whole thread has been nothing but poisoning the well, over and over. It's homing in on articles that (to borrow an analogy from law) fail to clear the bar for relevance. All the examples here have a huge prejudicial value that outweighs any possible probative value.
When we ask if a scientist or journal can be considered a reliable source, we focus on their factual reliability, not their personal integrity or controversial opinions. To take an extreme example, Erwin Schrödinger's published papers clearly count as reliable sources. Schrodinger was a brilliant physicist whose insights revolutionized quantum mechanics. He was also a serial rapist and pedophile. If I came to RSN and asked "Should we consider papers by X reliable? By the way, they're also a serial rapist and pedophile" I would clearly be poisoning the well and (rightly) pilloried for it.
What I can't understand is how nobody noticed now that it's a journal instead of a person. Does publishing one author's opinions on bestiality reflect in any way on the journal's factual or scientific reliability? Well, does the article at any point make a single substantially false statement of fact? As far as I can tell, it doesn't. It discusses purely ethical and philosophical arguments. So why in god's name was it brought up here? I see zero reason for this except as an attempt to smear the journal. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Vice Media (again)

https://www.vice.com/en/article/its-disgusting-viral-overdose-videos-are-hurting-people-at-their-lowest-moments/

I was looking to add this to the article on Tyler Oliveira. Using it to support the fact that Oliveira responded to criticism is probably fine, but I'm looking at the claim that "there’s no evidence that suggests publicly shaming people is a useful antidote to drug addiction and in fact it can be counter-productive at getting people to seek help." Would it be fine to add something like "Vice News argued that Oliveira's video was counterproductive in encouraging drug users to seek help"? Based5290 :3 (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

What is or is not effective at curing addiction sounds like a medical claim, I could be wrong so I've left a notification at WT:MEDRS#Discussion at RSN that may include a medical claim.
Medical claims are held to a higher standard than most others, see WP:MEDRS for details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Thats a tricky one... I think we can say "Vice News argued that Oliveira's video was counterproductive in encouraging drug users to seek help" without running into a MEDRS wall, but I don't think we can go much further. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make the claim that shame is not an effective treatment, then you will want to find a better source. This should be easy to do, as it is both a true statement and widely repeated in the treatment communities (where it is mostly aimed at family members and healthcare providers, rather than at addicted individuals).
However, I'm not sure that any of this matters. A typical work of journalism on this subject isn't trying to tell the individual in the film how the journalist feels about their behavior. It's usually trying to educate unrelated people. Therefore the message is usually less like "you, personally, are a terrible excuse for a human" and more like "this terrible public health problem needs serious attention and taxpayer funding". In other words, I think that a statement about the efficacy of shame as a treatment modality would be off-topic for this article.
@Based5290, if you are working on this article, I'm finding it very confusing. For example:
  • A British Columbia representative and interviewee, Elenore Sturko, alleged that she was filmed without her consent and labeled the video "inaccurate and exploitative" – Was the legislator the addict? Do Canadian legislators expect to be able to refuse being filmed while interviewed by journalists? Is her comment about "inaccurate and exploitative" about how it represents her, or is this an overall judgment on the whole thing?
  • A man was filmed while suffering from a drug overdose without his consent, which a harm reduction and recovery expert called disgusting. – Ah, so she's not the addict who got filmed. Some unnamed man is.
  • Several harm-reduction advocates criticized a portion of the video filmed by YouTuber and homeless service provider Kevin Dahlgren, purportedly in an overdose prevention site, which they said was actually a homeless shelter. – Did he film the man with the drug overdose? Did the overdose happen in this place? Or is this a different criticism?
  • Prior to the publication of the video, Dahlgren was charged by the district attorney of Multnomah County, Oregon for theft, identity theft, and "misuse of his official position as a homeless services specialist". – Is this relevant? Was filming the "misuse of his official position"? Had he been charged at the time the filming was done? Or is this a WP:COAT that we're 'hanging' on this article, since he's a non-notable person who hasn't been convicted, and there's no other way to shame this innocent-until-proven-guilty BLP in Wikipedia if we don't violate WP:BLPCRIME and stick the accusation in this article?
I have the same feelings of confusion about the other paragraphs in this section. I want something more straightforward: "Oliviera made a film. It has been criticized for being inaccurate [e.g., calling a homeless shelter an overdose prevention site], for filming two people without their consent [i.e., the politician and the overdosing man], and for letting a person who has been accused of crimes use a camera." Obviously you wouldn't use that exact wording, but this lays out the criticisms without being a laundry list of who said what when. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
If Vice News isn't considered to be reliable for medical claims I'd lean toward not. EEpic (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Times of Israel blogs

The current RSP description for Times of Israel says In the 2024 RfC, there was consensus that The Times of Israel is generally reliable, although potentially biased in certain areas. Blog posts are usable in the same way any recognized expert's blog posts are used per WP:BLOGS. Blogs were only minorly discussed in the RfC, so I though it would be worth revisiting this issue specifically. Several people in the discussion said that Times of Israel blogs lack pre-publication editorial oversight from ToI itself, which would make them self-published sources and unusable for BLPs per WP:BLPSPS, and arguably unreliable similar to WP:FORBESCON. If accurate, this should be more explicitly mentioned in the RSP entry, but I wanted to get more input here before potentially making that change. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Isn't WP:FORBESCON just needed because lack of editorial oversight isn't immediately apparent? With blogs this should be obvious due to "blogs" in name. Also, with your reasoning, we should add the blog sections of all other outlets too -- is it really worth the effort? NicolausPrime (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Do most newspapers have extensive blog networks that lack editorial oversight? In my experience this is generally not the case. blogs.timesofisrael.com HTTPS links HTTP links shows that ToI blogs have been cited over 600 times on Wikipedia, so this isn't some technical nitpick about a minor aspect of Wikipedia's usage of ToI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed and wouldn't this already be covered by WP:NEWSBLOG? - Amigao (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Not quite. It doesn't appear that TOI have editorial control over the blogs, which would make them self-published. Per WP:SPS self-published sources can't be used in WP:BLPs. NEWSBLOG doesn't have that restriction. Either way I would be against duplicating policy into RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I just think that Blog posts are usable in the same way any recognized expert's blog posts are used per WP:BLOGS is an inadequate summary, and makes it seem like ToI blogs are generally usable when they are actually not, especially for BLPS where they shouldn't be used at all. I think something like Blog posts lack editorial oversight and should not be used for claims about living people. would be a much better second sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLOGS is just another shortcut for the self-published section of V, and that contains 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. My point is it shouldn't be necessary to say that in RSP, as policy overrides anything in the RSP anyway. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Sure, okay. Can we change to, Times of Israel blogs lack editorial oversight, and should be used following the guidance at WP:BLOGS? As it should be obvious, the current RSP entry is also repeating part of the WP:BLOGS guideline. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to that, and I think that would still be in keeping with the RFC close. Might be worthwhile to see if the closer agrees. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Pinging the closer @Valereee for their view. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, @Hemiauchenia. Yes, what I was seeing the discussion was rough consensus (among those commenting on the blogs) was that TOI blogs, like any other blog, are usable in the way other blogs are usable: If by a recognized expert, generally usable with attribution. If not, generally not usable. Any suggestions on how to improve the wording to make that clear? Valereee (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Do we have proof they lack editorial oversight? Relative to other newspapers with similar features? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Their terms of use says: Please note that the posts on The Blogs are contributed by third parties. The opinions, facts and any media content in them are presented solely by the authors, and neither The Times of Israel nor its partners assume any responsibility for them. Please contact us in case of abuse. , which strongly implies to me that they don't have editorial control. It also seems unlikely that they would have published the recent controversial blog post saying that Israel needs "Lebensraum" [47] if they required pre-publication approval for each blog post. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense. Yeah, that is an issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
This kind of legalese is written by lawyers trying to preemptively position themselves for hypothetical lawsuits; legalistic disclaimers should not be read as actual descriptions of editorial policy. (This doesn’t mean the statement is false, just that it is not good evidence one way or the other.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
That may be true otherwise, but a key part of journalistic integrity is not doing that and taking full accountability for what they print. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Nableezy: who may have more insight on ToI's level of editorial control (or lack thereof) over the blogs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Basically the same as what you’ve already said, they explicitly disclaimed any editorial control, and that makes it normal self published blog level rather than NEWSBLOG level. nableezy - 13:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • News blog submissions should be viewed as OPINION journalism… they are reliable for verifying the (in-text attributed) opinion of the author, and not for statements of fact in wikivoice. Whether the opinion should be mentioned in a specific article (or at all) is a function of DUE weight, and should be based on the reputation of the author more than the reputation of the outlet publishing it. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    +1. Selfstudier (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there was a dispute that the TOI blogs are self published. Just make the change and see if it gets reverted. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I made the change [48], but it's not in the current version (not sure whether I got reverted or this was a side effect of breaking up RSP into several behind the scenes subpages) Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it was the latter. I've made the change again (with somewhat different wording) [49]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I think that the wording of the old version was awkward - the intent was clearly to say "TOI blogs are self-published and can be used only under the usual exception for WP:EXPERTSPS, when it happens to apply"; but it could easily be misread as asserting that all TOI blogs are presumed to be written by subject-matter experts, which is clearly not the case or the intent. Honestly even the new "questions have been raised" wording is awkward because I don't think there are any questions - from Wikipedia's perspective the blogs have zero oversight; this is unambiguous. They are usable only via SPS and only with the usual SPS restrictions. --Aquillion (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Check Your Fact

RFC OPENED
Closing discussion as #RfC: Check Your Fact has been opened. CNC (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Check Your Fact (CYF) is a "for-profit subsidiary" of The Daily Caller, the latter being depcrecated source due to the 2019 RfC. This fact-checking website was briefly discussed last month, where there appears to be lack of consensus over it's reliability.

As requested by Animalparty, here is an example of CYF as a source being removed from an article based exclusively on the unreliability of WP:DAILYCALLER (see diff). This is where the issue lies: The RfC failed to question CYF; from searching through the discussion, no-one argued that it was unreliable. I otherwise only found one noticeboard discussion (post-RFC) referenced above that was inconclusive.

Currently the CYF url is categorised as deprecated based on WP:RSPUSES, as this was added by David Gerard in February 2024 (see diff) based on this discussion at RSP (rather than RSN notably). So is it correct that Check Your Fact is deprecated, because of the 2019 RfC? Ie was the RfC about The Daily Caller (the website), or the entity The Daily Caller, Inc. that owns Check Your Fact?

To me it looks like it was specifically about the website, hence there was no discussion over it's subsidiaries. Overall it seems like incorrect "book keeping" to include this url as deprecated when it wasn't discussed here, but maybe I'm mistaken or misunderstood something?

And finally the usual question: Should Check Your Fact be considered generally reliable source for use in articles?

What this discussion isn't, for those quick to jump to conclusions or misinterpret: 1. This isn't about changing an RSP listing, this is about the interpretation of the 2019 RfC. 2. This isn't about the article referenced as a diff, this only serves as an example. Thanks! CNC (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As an update, based on deprecated sources archives, I discovered that CYF is in fact not deprecated, so will boldly remove from RSPUSES for now on that very basis. Whether it should be deprecated is another discussion. CNC (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
It's part of Daily Caller and as factual. Why would it get an exemption? - David Gerard (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I digree that this wasn't deprecated, it was created as just another URL for Daily Caller content and the source is deprecated not a particular URL it happens to be using. As a general principle going over the same ground because a bad sources find a new outlet would be a waste of time.
Remembering my comment from the last time this came up, at least at first this was no different than the Daily Caller. With it being run by the same staff and using more or less the same content. Over time it appears to have become a bit more separate from its parent organisation, and I could see an argument that it should be now have an exception from the deprecation of the Daily Caller.
As a separate comment 'fact checking' sites are poor sources in general, and I would suggest their use is always attributed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
should be deprecated if its part of daily caller Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I reversed the removal of the link from RSP - the Daily Caller is presently deprecated whatever URL its content is being served from. If you want to partially reverse this, you'll need an RFC showing consensus to do so (and it's not clear you have the momentum as yet) - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
No problem if that's how others see it also, I won't stand in the way of consensus if there are no issues. This discussion has certainly gone a different direction than the previous, but if that's the outcome then so be it. CNC (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
If you want to partially reverse this, you'll need an RFC showing consensus to do so would imply that the deprecation RfC treated The Daily Caller as a publisher rather than as a publication. But my reading of the discussion is that it treats it as a publication—one does not need an RfC to remove a sloppily inserted link from RSP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, one does not. However given it's been almost 9 months since it's deprecation it's far to assume that WP:STATUSQUO now applies. As well as that BRD won't bring about any consensus here. CNC (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I will repeat my argument from the prevous stale conversation, and assert that there is no good reason besides "I don't like the parent company" to deprecate Checkyourfact.com. Per WP:NEWSORG, Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. Checkyourfact.com is a fact-checking source, attested to by the IFCN certification. Its Corrections policy is here. It clearly discloses its ownership (potential conflict of interest) on its About us page. Its Methodology is here. Its staff and editorial board is here. Check Your Fact was awarded a grant in June of this year from the Poynter Institute's IFCN. From casual googling it appears to regularly align with fact-checks by USA Today Politifact and Reuters, [50][51][52][53]. It is true that perhaps Checkyourfact might not fact check every claim Wikipedians might wish it to, but guess what, that same logic applies to Politifact, Reuters, Snopes, and every other fact-checking outlet that has ever existed (check your own biases!). There very well may be few cases where citing Checkyourfact is even warranted (especially if there are a dozen other fact-checking sites that Wikipedians don't hate saying the same thing), but nobody has submitted a lick of hard of evidence for why Checkyourfact should be considered unreliable or deprecated beyond "vibes" and guilt by association. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If by guilt by association you mean acknowledging the existence of WP:SOURCEDEF and the fact that the publisher is a factor determining reliability, then sure, let's go with that. On the other hand, is there any actual point to this discussion (i.e., any disputed claim people actually want to use the source in question to support)? I really don't see the point in having a discussion for the sake of discussion (and faffing about RSP listings is essentially that without any actual usage). Like, I know nobody actually reads the instructions, but there's no reason to be so blatant about it. I would oppose the use of either this or the previous discussion (or any discussion not also about an actual issue)) to support any change anywhere, because people should take the effort to point out, with examples, the actual issue if they want substantive discussion over it instead of endless windmilling. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
"any disputed claim people actually want to use the source" It's being used in Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season and Jackson Hinkle at present, it's not needed at the latter but looks useful at the former. In the same light of not faffing around, either these references should be removed or CYF be re-considered as marginally reliable at least. Given the content in question, it can't be considered uncontroversial and therefore an unreliable source shouldn't there. CNC (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
We could either sloppily lop together with all operations of one firm with total ignorance to how this source is structured, or we could attempt to independently assess this source. And, upon looking a bit deeper into this source, it is a certified by the International Fact-Checking Network, which we consider to be generally reliable for the exact purpose of evaluating the reliability of fact-checking websites. The most recent assessment, conducted in March 2024, is quite detailed. I would encourage all of you to take a read through it; the random sample testing for criteria 5.3 - 5.5 do seem to provide a reasonable degree of independent assurance as to the quality of the organization's checks.
I strongly disagree with lumping this in the The Daily Caller's RSP entry, as the organizations seem to operate with some degree of independence and this was not actually discussed in the deprecation RfC. I agree with CNC that it seems like incorrect book keeping, and I do think there is persuasive evidence from how third parties have evaluated and use CYF that the source is actually WP:GREL.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
While I'm not convinced an RfC close would determine that the source is generally reliable, I also find it unlikely there would be consensus for it to be generally unreliable or deprecated either based on opposing viewpoints so far. Unless there are other comments in the coming days, I'll start an RfC below so we can re-determine the reliability of this source. I don't see any benefit of attempting BRD to remove the source from RSP at this point, ie reverting a bold edit from months ago that has become defacto status quo. There are clearly a few editors who support this edit, against a few of others that don't including myself. This now requires further input from the community. CNC (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
So be it, CommunityNotesContributor. I've started one below. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Check Your Fact

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Despite concerns over CYF's association with the deprecated Daily Caller, there is consensus for option 1 due to the source's incident-free operation under an IFCN-certified independent newsroom; no false reporting was discussed (save for a single concern raised late enough to miss all discussion. If necessary, it may form the basis of a new discussion), and one participant pointed to CYF's UseByOthers. Some participants raised concerns over CYF's selection of topics to cover while some responded that the source should be treated like other tertiary fact-checkers. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Which of the following describes the reliability of Check Your Fact?

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Survey: Check Your Fact

  • Option 1. Check Your Fact is a certified member of the International Fact-Checking Network (see WP:IFCN for more information) and has been a fact-checking partner of Facebook for quite a while now. The most recent assessment by the International Fact-Checking Network indicates that this is a fact-checking operation with eight dedicated staff. Per the review, which conducted independent sample testing of the fact checks produced by Check Your Fact, this is a fact-checker that uses the best available primary sources where available (to avoid games of telephone; see criteria 3.2), uses multiple sources of evidence where available (see criteria 3.3), makes public a clear structure for editorial control with three dedicated editors (see criteria 4.3-4.4), lists a public methodology (see criteria 4.5-5.1), provides relevant evidence to support or undermine claims when applicable (see criteria 5.3), applies its methodology consistently regardless of who is making the claim (see criteria 5.4), attempts to seek comment from individuals who made claims, when possible (see criteria 5.5), has a published corrections policy, and publishes corrections when applicable (see criteria 6.3), among other items. Funding for the project comes from Facebook (via its fact-checking contracts) and The Daily Caller (via advertising revenue and its general budget). Since at least 2019, Check Your Fact has been editorially independent of The Daily Caller's newsroom, though it is owned by The Daily Caller.
    Based on the independence of the newsroom for Check Your Fact, and the WP:IFCN's certification of the source as a fact-checker, I do think that this is a generally reliable fact checker. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2/3 While I am receptive to the relatively positive report at the International Fact-Checking network I have some concerns about the methodology. Particularly 1.5 ignores corporate ownership as a potential source of bias. 2.1 allows the fact-checking agency to self-select the facts it checked for review. 5.1 only states that a methodology exists but the link to the actual posted methodology [54] is absurdly vague. 6.2 points to a corrections page but articles to do with hot-button social issues such as abortion access / planned parenthood on the corrections page contain no information beyond that the article was taken down for not meeting editorial standards. So not exactly a correction so much as a redaction. 6.5 assumes that the parent company "has and adheres to an open and honest corrections policy" which I don't believe to be the case notwithstanding the certification of IFCN. Furthermore the IFCN rubrick does not sufficiently address the ways in which the selection decisions of what facts to check can necessarily impact the metanarrative of a fact-checking website. Because of this I find the IFCN certification not entirely persuasive. However it is persuasive enough that I wouldn't go straight to option 4. Simonm223 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    With due respect, I would contrast 2.1 allows the fact-checking agency to self-select the facts it checked for review with the random sampling enforced in 1.4, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. And while 2.1 (The applicant fact-checks using the same high standards of evidence and judgement for equivalent claims regardless of who made the claim) is a self-attestation, 5.4 requires a random sample to be tested to check the same thing (The applicant in its fact checks assesses the merits of the evidence found using the same high standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim). So the alleged flaw in criteria 2.1 (that there is no independent checking here) is illusory due to the testing in 5.4.
    If you don't like the methodology of the IFCN, that is one thing, but the resounding RSN consensus is that it is generally reliable for this exact purpose. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    I hear you but I think that irregularity is part of what makes the IFCN methodology questionable. That being said my big two concerns with the IFCN methodology, as I said below in the discussion area, are 5.1, 6.2 and 6.5. Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    What do you mean by that irregularity? Do you mean that the certification requires both self-attestation and independent assurance? Because that sort of thing is extremely standard in industry. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    I would be happier if there were no self-selection criteria and if the certifying body was fully controlling what is selected. But, again, this is not my main point of contention. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Although CYF started as little more than a new URL for the Daily Caller it now has a separate editorial staff and writers. However I don't think fact checking sites are good sources in general, better sources should be found with fact checkers only used sparingly and with care. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 until such time as unreliable factual reporting is identified. The perennial sources list is intended for sources that we've repeatedly identified actual problems with, and despite their concerning ownership (classification as generally reliable doesn't preclude WP:WEIGHT) the discussion to classify them here feels preemptive. I think we should wait until someone spots an incorrect or heavily biased fact check being used in the encyclopedia, and at that point Check Your Fact could be brought to RSN. The main header of this very page states fairly clearly that "RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed": this is preemptive and out-of-policy.
    For what it's worth on the source itself, I agree with ActivelyDisinterested regarding fact checking sites in general; however, I don't see a reason to consider them anything less than reliable. As a disclaimer, I am the editor who initially included Check Your Fact at Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, noted above by CommunityNotesContributor. This was the best source I could find for the claim, as the staff claim to have done due diligence trying to find evidence for the false rumor. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Addendum: struck my criticism of the RfC after reading the previous discussions and realize this may actually be necessary. I still think it should be considered generally reliable, but with an RS:P notice addressing both the concepts of fact checking ("Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant." from WP:SNOPES, "Check Your Fact is often a tertiary source. Editors prefer reliable secondary sources over Check Your Fact when available." adapted from WP:BRITANNICA) as well as a note about its ownership ("It is a subsidiary of The Daily Caller, a deprecated source, and there is no consensus on whether/a consensus that it is independent of its parent." adapted from the Deseret News entry). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Premature/Unclear (which I guess would fall under option 2 by the definitions of the categories). I don't see the reason why we should have a whole ass RFC on a source that is used on Wikipedia all of two times, and for which both previous discussions were heavily focused on some vague abstract notion of reliability rather than any challenges to use in context, as is more typically appropriate for this noticeboard. I would oppose making any changes to RSP based on such abstract and meta discussions in general. As for the specifics, I don't think a single affiliation is sufficient to establish a reputation, and it seems to early to call the organisation well-established, so I cannot endorse a classification as generally reliable. For its use on the hurricane article specifically, the primary issue I see here is not reliability, but that neither source actually directly supports the text in question, which is also rather weaselly (some have claimed, really?). Being threatened with arrests or execution is not the same as actually being arrested or executed, as I'm sure nobody actually executed will dispute, so rumours of actual vs threatened action should ideally not be equated either. The best source in the world still shouldn't be used to support a claim it doesn't actually make. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Moved to #Discussion: Check Your Fact
  • Option 1 Red-tailed hawk made a good case. Even attempting to self-impose such methodological strictures justifies assuming reliability for the time being. Roggenwolf (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per Red-tailed hawk. Nemov (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per Red-tailed hawk and WP:IFCN, which says There is consensus that [IFCN] is generally reliable for determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations. No evidence of inaccurate reporting has been presented here. I've looked through the articles on the front page and they seem even-handed and well-researched. Most of them are focused on debunking false claims on social media, so editors should consider WP:DUE when deciding if the content is worth including. Astaire (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1: This is a pretty standard fact-checker and should be treated similarly to other major fact-checkers. According to scholarly reports, it is "considered by the fact-checking community as highly reputable." [55]. Likewise, academic studies frequently utilize CYF in their research (see [56], [57], [58], etc.). Though, I will note it is quite strange--and rare--to see a fact-checker owned by an unreliable source. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1. There appears to be a lack of tangible evidence that CYF has actually published any false or misleading statements, or otherwise failed to correct errors etc. While I'm sceptical that any publication under the control of TDC can be considered generally reliable here, I'm not seeing any evidence as to why CYF should be considered unreliable. Instead, there appears to be strong arguments as to why it is in fact generally reliable. I otherwise think the status quo should apply here; if IFCN believes it is reliable, then it is generally reliable, and either there needs to be very strong arguments as to why this is not the case, or otherwise the previous consensus needs to be overturned. CNC (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Reluctant option 1 While I'm personally uncomfortable with their Daily Caller ownership, most everything posted above seems to indicate that they're editorially independent and considered reliable by most other sources. Probably worth keeping a closer eye on them, though. The Kip (contribs) 05:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1. While there may very well be few cases in which it's necessary or appropriate to actually cite CYF for a statement of fact, there has been no compelling evidence provided that CYF is anything but a reliable source. I really dislike any of us random Wikipedians engaging in beard-stroking, second-guessing of the criteria used by a reliable source like the IFCN, just as random Wikipedians should not be saying "how come that New York Times article didn't interview X, Y, and Z, who I think really would set the record straight?!", or "I don't like that systematic review in The Lancet because I think they should have used a different methodology!". If the IFCN rubric is 'bad', then WP:IFCN is bogus, and I guess every fact-checking website under its purview should be jettisoned just because someone on the internet has an issue with it. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3; coverage of it doesn't really indicate a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See [59][60][61][62][63][64]; in particular, coverage generally treats its connection to the (obviously unreliable, and on our end currently deprecated) Daily Caller as a reason for skepticism, notwithstanding their claims of editorial independence. And [65] specifically notes a case where their political bias seems to have led them to publish an inaccurate fact-check. I don't think Facebook using it can be reasonably interpreted as an endorsement; as some of these sources note, Facebook is a social-media company - their decisions are based on what helps them retain an audience, not on accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion: Check Your Fact

  • Aside from my comments above in the survey section, I would note that I do take objection lumping this source in with The Daily Caller on RSP without prior RSN discussion; it is extraordinarily sloppy to do that when it's got an independent newsroom and it wasn't discussed prior. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    Likewise, I've attempted to address this at WP:CHECKYOURFACT until the RfC closes. Note this does not mean that CYF is no longer deprecated (it's still listed as such), only that there lacks consensus over categorisation. CNC (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    I'm a bit concerned that decisions about CYF should not just be derived from the IFCN page which has methodological faults. Particularly their treatment of the corrections policy of the parent company and the handling of corrections surrounding Planned Parenthood by CYF are concerning. However we have a lot of garbage sources that aren't deprecated. I don't think this is a good source of information. But it's probably not as bad as Daily Caller unfiltered. Simonm223 (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    The issue is that when CYF was first setup it was just the editor of the Daily Caller posting content very similar to what was on the Daily Caller. If they setup a new site tomorrow called the Caily Daller that simply duplicate the content of the Daily Caller, then it would be silly to say it required a new RFC because it was using a different url.
    Saying that the CYF now has a separate editorial staff and writers, it's just that hasn't always been the case. So there was nothing sloppy about initially including it in the DC RSP entry. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    Except that it was added to RSP in 2024, despite no discussion on it and despite prior public reporting that the newsroom had been independent... 5 years before that. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    It would have been included in the Daily Caller RFC, that happened 5 and half years ago. As per my comment in the survey section, I think things have changed. But it had little separation at that point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    "It would have been included in the Daily Caller RFC" It wasn't. CNC (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    If a unreliable source starts publishing at a new URL that URL is still unreliable, the idea that a new RFC is required when that happens is just bureaucracy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Moved from #RfC: Check Your Fact
  • "I don't see the reason why we should have a whole ass RFC on a source that is used on Wikipedia all of two times" Because RfCs are for dispute resolution and there is a clear dispute over this source. Unless you can identify the consensus in the above discussion for us to save us all time and effort? It otherwise doesn't matter if it's only used twice, an RfC can even be for source usage in a single article if there is a dispute regarding it's usage. There is also no obligation to engage in this (even if it is a "request"); so if it seems like a waste of time for you, then might be worth considering not engaging to avoid time wasting. CNC (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    What would "save us all time and effort" is for people to read the part of the editnotice where it says the article it is used in, and the claim it supports and not create discussions where no real dispute in articlespace actually exists. Yes, technically there have been (multiple!) previous discussions on this source (one of them in this very section, even!), but starting discussions and RFCs that, intentionally or not, exclude the context surrounding the source gives the appearance of trying to bypass WP:RSCONTEXT, which is highly inappropriate and detrimental to evaluating the quality of a source in the places and situations it is likely to be used on Wikipedia. My objection on the RFC is thus on both procedural and substantive grounds. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
    (Procedurally, this is premature because there is virtually no use, no dispute affecting actual article content, and neither of the two previous discussions are valid. It is unclear because I have no idea how people use it, other than that they don't actually appear to do so. Substantively I don't think it's appropriate to call a newsroom that's existed all of 5 years well-established as per NEWSORG, and unclear because I am not in the habit of taking a single source as gospel, no matter how good it is.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
    Of course there is no use, it is deprecated. I think that it should be removed from the perennial sources listing. If it comes up, then it can be discussed. I think the fact that it has its own newsroom and is a specific type of journalism, means that it can be treated differently. From a quick look, it is mostly debunking social media posts. So I don't think any of those might be relevant for Wikipedia. The bias is probably more in what they choose to debunk. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    There are well over a thousand uses of The Sun, which is similarly deprecated. Removing it from RSP seems fine though, I doubt people will suddenly start using it... Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PayPal Honey

Hello y'all. Recently, a YouTuber had uploaded a video accusing PayPal Honey of scamming their users. I saw some inexperienced editors add these two sources to add info about the supposed scam:

[66] (WP:MEDIUM)

[67] (The original video by the YouTuber. WP:RSPYT)

Aware that they're both deprecated (and also that the YouTube one is primary), I reverted those edits.[68] @Denniss then reverted my edit saying no whitewashing please, if true this is a major problem.[69] I reverted it back questioning their decision[70] and they responded in another revert dont care about wiki policy, actually watch the video for proofs/examples how the app inserts affiliate links to make money, even manipulates affiliate links from others stealing money from them.[71]

So, can these two deprecated sources actually be used to cite an event with legal ramifications? Denniss has a 20-yo-account and is an autopatroller-file mover. I don't want to revert an experienced user with 40,000 edits again. Tarlby (t) (c) 22:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Nope, we don't cover material of this kind if it's only verifiable in self-published sources, and we would never cite these particular self-published sources for anything whatsoever. Remsense ‥ 论 22:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Great. I've reverted it again. Tarlby (t) (c) 22:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS apply here. We can only report on accusations of scamming if there is a useful source that reported it first. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that the YouTuber in question is the sort of subject matter expert we would need for this to be usable (I'm not saying they're wrong and if someone can find anything which indicates that they are in fact some sort of published expert give me a ping and I will re-evaluate)... They also seem to be saying right at the beginning of the video that no real reliable sources currently exist for the topic so IMO its a wait and see situation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The video is pretty well researched, but the creator wouldn't qualify as a WP:EXPERTSPS. I think this will likely be picked up by RS soon though after factchecking/investigations. Some lower-tier sources have already picked it up: The Express Tribune, [72] i (newspaper),[73], Times Now, [74], 9to5Mac [75], and The US Sun. [76] -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The Verge [77] and Fortune [78] have both published stories. I can't access the latter, but The Verge independently corroborates some elements of the story re: similar concerns being brought up in the past and has a statement from PayPal. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Someone else has already re-added this with these sources. They're both generally reliable, so I just added the PayPal statement from Verge. At this point, this is probably best discussed on the talk page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

What to do about News Nation and its obsession with UFOs?

NewsNation is widely used here and, overall, seems to be a generally reliable source. It's cited across the encyclopedia and, more importantly, by other RS. Reputationally, it probably fares better than CNN as of late.

That said, for the last two years they've dove head first into UFO stories and have basically positioned themselves as UFO Central. Most of this reporting originates from Ross Coulthart [79] who appears to be their dedicated UFO "beat" reporter.

I'm not going to do a blow-by-blow of their coverage as anyone can google it, but it seems to usually follow the same basic format: stories on both significant but also obscure UFO reports, sensational adjectives in the headline ("Bombshell!", "Groundbreaking!"), interviews with true believers are given first (and sometimes only) reference. We have a short, but non-exhaustive, section on this in the article.

This is really the only major red flag in their reporting and, as such, has not been subject to heavy scrutiny by any other sources. But it recently revved-up its UFO reporting machinery in response to the recent hysteria involving misidentification of airplanes in New Jersey. I have a sense that, at some point in the near future, there will have to be an RfC on the question of News Nation. But, for now, I'm hoping to get some general feedback about how the community feels we should treat this source when it comes to this specific fringe topic (UFOs). Chetsford (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote that section on the News Nation article. Ross Coulthart is a hardcore alien believer, and it's obvious that their coverage of the issue is sensational. Their reporting on the issue should be generally discounted in favour of more reliable sources. Its probably sometimes okay for routine, non controversial information on the issue on a case by case basis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
If the problem is not only one narrow topic, but also one specific writer, then maybe we should treat Mr. Coulhart as an individual source and consider him unreliable. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Can you point to any actual inaccuracies in his reporting of material facts that fall into the category of being 'unreliable'? Whether we personally believe or disbelieve in the account of a source in one of his stories is our choice as a reader. From what I can observe he simply reports various findings and speculations of often relatively credible individuals like military personnel. Is there a particular topic or story that you feel was improperly reported on, non-factually based or was overall misreported? Because simply covering the UFO topic as a subject matter should not be the metric by which we say whether a journalist is or isn't reliable. Also, if there is a news source that is generally reliable beyond UFOs but reports on it more intentionally, should we expect other sources who don't cover the topic to be the sole arbitrators of truth on the subject? SentientPlasma (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
"Can you point to any actual inaccuracies in his reporting of material facts" In general, nothing claimed by UFO fans is perfectly disprovable. If I said all the members of the WMF board are controlled by the temporarily disembodied minds of Mantids from Zeta Reticuli, you'd be hard-pressed to definitively disprove that.
But the spirit of WP:FRINGE/PS is that things that are "obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification". In that sense, on 13 December - in relation 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"! [80]. If your position is that evidence is undiscoverable because it's been hidden in a multi-dimensional conspiracy using 24th century technology then that claim can never be disproved. However, we have multiple non-governmental, independent experts who have said these are all misidentification of terrestrial aircraft. So I think, at that point, it's fair to say Coulthart is advancing a fringe theory that doesn't need to be disproved under our standards but can, rather, simply "be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification". Chetsford (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think sensationalism is necessarily a reliability issue. It should still be possible to distinguish facts from opinion. For example, in this article[81] Coulthart (very weirdly?) quotes himself in the 3rd person, which makes that passage his opinion, which might be usable if his opinion were notable and relevant; it states The FBI has concluded the drones do not belong to the U.S. military and that foreign governments are not behind the objects. which is a claim about what the FBI said, which in principle can be fact-checked (I haven’t attempted to do so); and it states in the article’s own voice: A federal probe into mysterious drone sightings in New Jersey and New York continues to produce a lack of substantial answers, which is some kind of puffery but not flat-out wrong.
WP:PRIMARYNEWS might be a reason not to use these sources rather than because of reliability. Another reason is that there are surely higher quality sources available. Is any article content being supported solely by one of Coulthart’s articles? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Setting aside the question of Coulthart specifically for a moment, is any NewsNation reporting on the subject of UFOs reliable? They've clearly made an intentioanl editorial decision to advance a specific pseudoscientific perspective with respect to UFOs and hiring Coulthart as a UFO beat reporter appears merely to be a manifestation of management decision-making. Chetsford (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I just searched for “news nation UFOs” and found this: [82]. It certainly plays up the fact that someone said “outer space”, but that’s presented as a quote, not as a fact. I couldn’t detect anything obviously wrong with the reporting. Have you seen them state something clearly pseudoscientific or false as fact? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Just four days ago Coulthart said during a NewsNation broadcast "... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"! [83] Given the context, it's clear that by "not alone" he didn't mean that other humans occupy the continent of North America other than New Jerseyans, but was implying that shape-shifting dimensional travelers from the third moon of Zeta Reticuli were monitoring the Trenton Bus Terminal from their invisible rocket sleds. Chetsford (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I watched the video. The full sentence is “The people of New Jersey are not alone, there are now sightings of purported drones all over the world…” which is not a pseudoscientific claim (it may still be false, I don’t know, I haven’t checked). Maybe the choice to use the phrase “not alone” is a dogwhistle to the true believers, but it’s got a clear plain-English meaning too (that there have been sightings elsewhere in the world). I’d be inclined to treat that video as an interview with Coulthart, hence as reliable for the opinions of Coulthart only. It’s introduced as a “discussion” rather than a news segment. This kind of video is a really poor source. In live video, people say things off-the-cuff, don’t pause to explain or consider sources, can’t edit after a period of reflection, speak in ambiguous run-on sentences… A written source should always be preferable. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
We can safely disregard their coverage of this specific topic as unreliable. If it does not influence their coverage of other topics, there is no reason to treat their regular news coverage with skepticism. Dimadick (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Cilisos

Is Cilisos reliable? Cilisos said in an article that Ling Liong Sik was "acting Prime Minister of Malaysia" during the 1988 Malaysian constitutional crisis,[1] but Malaysiakini stated the opposite.[2] KjjjKjjj (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Although Cilisos say he was acting prime minister, they then go onto say that this was never official. Ling was just the next in line after the collapse of UMNO. Maybe different wording would be better, that Ling chaired a cabinet meeting but was never official made prime minister.
Either way something from over thirty years ago like the Malaysian constitutional crisis, should really be sources to history books and not news media. I would suggest finding better sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks for your suggestion on the issue. However, the main question is if Cilisos is a reliable source to reference on Wikipedia. KjjjKjjj (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The general answer is likely to be "kind of". News sources in general are covered by WP:NEWSORG, and unless there are ongoing issues with it's accuracy and fact checking (as shown in other reliable sources) then it would probably be generally reliable. But note that "generally reliable" isn't "always reliable", regardless of the quality of the source there are times it could still be wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your suggestion. KjjjKjjj (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Saw, Raymond (February 24, 2020). "This isn't the first time Tun M was pushed out. Here's who replaced him in 1988". Cilisos. Retrieved December 19, 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Lin, Koh Jun (December 15, 2023). "Semak fakta: Malaysia pernah ada pemangku PM bukan Melayu?". Malaysiakini (in Malay). Retrieved December 19, 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Reliable Use of Raj-era British Sources for "Kamaria Ahir" Article

Hello all,

I am seeking input from the community regarding the inclusion of Raj-era British sources, specifically ethnographic works and government records, in the article "Kamaria Ahir and from which the previous version of page by me, here.There has been an ongoing dispute with another editor, @Ratnahastin who argues that these sources are outdated and unreliable. I contend that these sources remain relevant for the historical context they provide, and they should not be dismissed solely due to their age.

The Dispute:

The article includes several Raj-era ethnographic works, including key British sources, as well as government publications like the "Anthropological Survey of India(ASI), which are central to the historical narrative of caste structures in India. These sources were written by government officials who conducted direct observations of social structures during the colonial period. The reliability of such sources should not be underestimated, especially when they provide unique insights into the caste system, which may not be fully available in modern studies.

Key Issues:

1. **WP:AGEMATTERS**: While I understand that older sources may require careful scrutiny, Wikipedia’s WP:AGEMATTERS policy does not outright dismiss such sources, especially when they are still referenced in modern academic works. Historical records from the British Raj period are cited in many reputable academic studies and are invaluable in understanding the socio-cultural and caste dynamics of that time.

2. **Importance of British Sources**: British sources, though colonial, offer primary documentation on caste structures that are not always available in contemporary works. Scholars and historians such as K.S. Singh's "ASI

3. WP:SCHOLARSHIP:Rusell, I recogsnize the importance of modern academic sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but historical sources like the ASI have been referenced widely and are used to complement and provide historical context for contemporary academic works. Dismissing them entirely would undermine the article’s historical depth.

4.Verifiability and WP:V: The sources cited in the article are verifiable, and the concerns about page numbers can be addressed. There are some concerns about the access to full texts for some sources (such as in snippet views), but these can be supplemented with additional references or summaries from other reputable sources. The goal is not to dismiss these older sources but to improve the verifiability and citation standards.

5. Living Person Concerns (WP:BLP): One of the concerns raised was regarding the inclusion of living people in the article. If any specific names violate WP:BLPCAT, I am happy to remove them, but I argue that this should not lead to the deletion of the entire historical context or broader content.

Proposed Resolution:

Rather than removing valuable historical context, I propose that we: - Retain the Raj-era sources, especially those authored by British colonial officials, while improving citations and adding page numbers where necessary. - Include references to modern academic studies that cite these sources to bolster the neutrality and reliability of the article. - Address any concerns over living people’s names separately by removing them without affecting the rest of the article.

I believe these British sources are crucial for understanding the socio-cultural dynamics of the time and should be prioritized, as they are widely cited in modern scholarship. I welcome further input from the community on whether these sources meet the standards for reliability and verifiability according to WP:RS and WP:V.

Thank you for your attention and input.

Best regards,

Nlkyair012 20:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. The historical Raj sources are a good example for contemporary record of the time. Of course, there may be some modern sources that can add to content for how things are viewed now compared to then. But as you said, just because they're old, doesn't mean they are unusable. So I'd say that it would be best to keep them but also include modern ones to say how views may have changed. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
You're just responding to an LLM generated wall of text consisting of misleading and contradicting statements. OP wants to use sources from the 19th century(that was over 120 years ago) authored by people who were not academics nor had any expertise in ethnography as well as archaic government documents and records, such sources if published today would be considered unreliable as well. The sources OP wants to use do not even have page numbers which makes verification impossible given their nature. The question on whether to use WP:RAJ era sources for caste articles has been discussed thoroughly and repeatedly on RSN, one such discussion here and the consensus always has been to not use them at all. Caste topic falls under a contentious topic (WP:ARBIPA) and has its own general sanctions (WP:GSCASTE), now you tell me why should we use such horrible sources for an area that is under such stringent sanctions? The sheer level of disruption this area regularly experiences from caste SPAs and sockfarms who are only here to promote a caste group is insane. I'm just trying to uphold the agreed upon community norm by all experienced editors in this area. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I understand the concern about the lack of page numbers in the sources I’ve cited, and I’d like to address it directly. Initially, I didn’t include page numbers because I used specific keywords to search within these sources, which directly brought up the relevant sections containing the necessary context. In this way, anyone could easily verify the information by following the same method. I genuinely didn’t see the need to include page numbers because of how accessible and straightforward the process was. However, I’m entirely willing to go back and add precise page numbers to every source if that’s the standard expectation, ensuring full compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.
That said, I find the repeated insinuations that my contributions are somehow AI-generated or unreliable deeply unproductive. Instead of engaging with the substance of my arguments or offering constructive suggestions, it feels like this user is more focused on procrastinating or dismissing my work outright by accusing me of using AI. This doesn’t help resolve the issue or improve the article in any meaningful way. I am contributing in good faith, and my sole aim is to enhance the quality and accuracy of the article, but it becomes difficult when my efforts are met with vague accusations rather than collaborative feedback.
If there are specific problems with the sources I’ve cited, I would appreciate detailed, constructive input. Blanket statements that sources are “unreliable” without engaging with their content or context are not helpful. Additionally, dismissing historical sources simply because they are old overlooks the fact that they are contemporary records of their time. As another editor rightly pointed out, these sources are not invalidated by their age. In fact, they provide valuable insights into the period they describe.
Finally, I want to emphasize that labeling my response as AI-generated without evidence comes across as a way to sidestep genuine engagement. I’m here to collaborate and ensure the article aligns with Wikipedia’s standards, and I welcome any specific feedback or recommendations for improvement. But dismissive behavior only hampers progress and undermines the purpose of this platform. If adding page numbers or supplementing with modern sources resolves the issue, I’m more than willing to do that. Let’s work together constructively instead of making baseless accusations. Nlkyair012 04:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
That's not how we cite sources here. Just because you can see Google book snippet views or search results does not mean everyone can see that. Read User:Uncle G/On common Google Books mistakes for a summary of such misconceptions. I have already explained why Raj era sources are unreliable, and this is not my view but that of every established editor editing caste topics. Despite your denial of using AI generated comments, this very comment of yours is entirely AI generated and is written in a completely different writing style from your typical posts[84]. We were not born yesterday, everyone here can spot ChatGPT generated comments very easily, in fact editors are discussing a proposal that will create a guideline to remove/hat such nonsensical messages right as we speak. The fact that you continue to post AI generated slops despite my repeated requests is getting very disruptive now. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
1. Citing Sources and Accessibility:
I understand the concern about Google Books snippets and accessibility. While snippets might not be universally available, this does not render the sources unreliable. WP:V requires material to be verifiable, and I am committed to improving verifiability by adding page numbers and, where needed, finding alternative citations. Dismissing sources solely on their accessibility does not align with Wikipedia’s core policies, as long as their reliability can be established and I'm willing to add page numbers.
2. Use of Raj-Era Sources:
I acknowledge the community's cautious approach towards Raj-era sources. However, they remain valuable for historical context when balanced with modern academic perspectives. My goal is to provide a comprehensive view, respecting both historical records and contemporary scholarship. If the consensus deems specific sources problematic, I am willing to replace or supplement them appropriately.
3. AI Usage Accusations:
Your repeated accusations about my use of AI-generated responses are misleading and unhelpful in this discussion. To clarify: I have used AI tools solely for grammar correction and expansion where necessary, not for generating responses outright. These tools assist in making my arguments clearer and more concise. Accusations based on "AI-generated para checkers" lack substance and do not invalidate the content of my arguments. This forum (RSN) is to discuss source reliability, not to engage in accusations about AI usage. If you have concerns about my editing behavior, the appropriate venue would be DSN, not RSN.
4. Focus on Core Issues:
Let’s stay focused on the matter at hand: the reliability of the cited sources and how we can collaboratively improve the article. I am open to addressing specific reliability concerns in a constructive manner. Resorting to personal accusations detracts from this goal and wastes the community’s time.
5. Moving Forward:
I remain committed to improving the article in line with Wikipedia's policies. I respectfully request we focus on source reliability rather than speculative accusations. If needed, I am happy to provide additional citations or adjust the content to align with community standards Nlkyair012 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
and expansion where necessary Can I suggest not doing this. Using AI to help communicate is fine, but when AI is adding content to your replies it can feel insulting to other editors. They expand time and effort into replying to parts that they feel you put no effort into, this doesn't help foster friendly discussion:
As an example I could drop the following into the discussion:
The use of Raj-era sources touches upon an important issue: historical context versus modern scholarship. Raj-era sources may certainly provide invaluable insights into the British colonial perspective, but they must be used carefully to avoid perpetuating outdated or biased interpretations. Modern scholarship, with its evolving understanding of historical contexts and its commitment to decolonization and diverse perspectives, offers a necessary counterbalance. The claim that these sources can remain valuable "when balanced with modern academic perspectives" is fair but requires consistent and critical engagement. Simply adding modern perspectives may not always suffice if the Raj-era sources themselves are ideologically skewed or perpetuate problematic views. A moment of work for AI but it could waste half an hour of real time for an editor to reply to correctly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
understood sir Nlkyair012 13:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of Raj-era sources, the point you raised about balancing historical context with modern scholarship is indeed crucial. However, I would argue that even ideologically skewed sources can be valuable if their limitations are explicitly acknowledged and they are critically analyzed alongside reliable, modern perspectives. The goal, as I see it, is not to perpetuate outdated narratives but to provide a comprehensive view of historical discourse while adhering to WP:RS and WP:NPOV.
And yes I will take care to ensure that my responses are concise, clear, and free from unnecessary AI-generated verbosity moving forward. Appreciate your feedback. Nlkyair012 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I raised no such issue with Raj era sources, I'm disappointed that you think so. That was simply an example of AI constructing seemingly useful, but ultimately empty arguments. Your reply to it also has the exact same hallmarks, and I suspect came from a similar source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
sorry my bad for misunderstanding and no it didn't come from the same source Nlkyair012 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
@The C of E thanks for understanding. These people who handle caste related articles are just procrastinating or just saying using LLP or AI to generate response but they actually aren't helping at all Nlkyair012 04:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
@Nlkyair012 you may find a more receptive audience if you don't use ChatGPT to write your posts for you. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Understood Nlkyair012 13:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:RAJ is an excellent reader on the lack of reliable of Raj era sources and why. Even for a past perspective, it's better to rely on contemporary historians who can explain the Raj era views and the errors, limitations and bias present in those views. Ravensfire (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I largely agree with Ravensfire, with the addition any source of that age is already of question in terms of reliability even without the unique limitations of a colonial system. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

GameSpot (regarding non-gaming articles)

So after the GameFAQs debacle I went back to WP:RSPSS and WP:VG/RS and took another look at both. It was then that I realized that GameSpot's articles pertaining to non-gaming-related subjects don't appear to have been discussed - or at least they haven't been discussed in a good while.

Since at least 2017 (or maybe earlier than that idk) GameSpot has started publishing articles about film and television works that have nothing to do with video games, in the same vein as IGN (which has already been determined to be generally reliable for these two subjects). Have these articles been discussed before? And if so, when was the last time they were? 100.7.34.111 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have an issue with anything specific that GameSpot is being used to reference? I'm not sure why you describe the GameFAQs discussion as a debacle, or what it has to do with GameSpot, but please be more specific with your concerns. --Onorem (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I have no concerns. I brought up the GameFAQs discussion in order to lead into my overall point, and one need only look at said discussion to understand why I called it a "debacle." 100.7.34.111 (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
If you have no concerns, why is this here? You didn't get your way in an unrelated discussion. What action would you like to see regarding this discussion? --Onorem (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
It's not exactly as if they talked about both videogames and quantum mechanics. Growing from a specialized videogame page into a page with more varied types of popular culture does not seem a change that should change its reliability. Cambalachero (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
What is the citaion being used for and in what article? Ramos1990 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Did they expand their news coverage or did they just expand their reviews? Looking at news [85] I don't see anything which isn't gaming related but there is an entire review section for "entertainment"[86] (as opposed to a section about "games"). Reviews in general should be attributed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
On second review I do actually see some entertainment articles in the news section, they do seem to stick pretty close to the ground covered by the gaming coverage though. Not seeing any red flags, should be about the same level of reliability as the gaming coverage with is ok but not great. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Outright bans to cautionary use

I raise for discussion two questionable exclusions in Reliable Sources: The Daily Mail and self-published books. I don't think outright bans for either are appropriate. I think the prohibition should be altered to 'cautionary use'.

DAILY MAIL: I've always considered the Daily Mail ban was (as with other conservative sources) more ideological in its intent than anything else. Yes, it can be highly unreliable, but so can – as was sadly and conclusively proven over the past 12 months (no, I'm not going to get into a deceitfully derailing argument about it) – generally reliable sources such as the New York Times, etc. Due to its massive profits, the Daily Mail can actually afford more editorial oversight and other resources than many other struggling newspapers. The Guardian in its article on the case of its Wikipedia ban[1] stated that the ban was by a slender majority, and checking the discussion shows that the discussion's early questionable closure provoked a further discussion, which I cannot locate (if anyone can, please post the correct link here as it's currently broken.) As it happens, when checking all this I found the editor who first suggested the ban are now themselves permanently blocked, which is a rich irony.

SELF-PUBLISHED BOOKS: The reason I think this should be changed to cautionary use is that sadly, these days books published by even esteemed publishing houses can be littered with errors, as publishing houses have been cut to the bone, and no longer bring the rigorous editorial oversight they once did. (e.g. I'm currently wading through 'The Last Tsar' published by an Imprint of John Murray, and am despairing at the mistakes and sloppy editorial oversight.) Self-published books can be utterly woeful, and also the result of cynical publishing for profit, but equally a few can be subject to more rigorous expertise than even respectable publishing houses these days can seem to provide. I think too of such things as self-published memoirs of war experiences, etc, which the current outright ban would prohibit. Lastly, as I understand it – I may be wrong, Wikipedia permits blog posts or at least 'authoritative' websites created by a single person to be used in some cases, which constitutes self-publishing.

So again, I think a modicum of common sense needs to prevail. Guide rails for editors are critical, but except in exceptional circumstances, they should not be walls. MisterWizzy (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Please take a moment to actually read the front matter of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (particularly § Legend) before expecting us to go through and debunk each point in your post here. You'll likely find you're arguing against a stawman, and your conception of our cavalierness and lack of foresight for edge cases in these matters couldn't be further from the truth. If you are feeling particularly energized, maybe even read our guideline on how we determine the reliability of sources in context.Remsense ‥ 论 06:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
The most basic policy is from WP:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source that states sources should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Sometimes whether that is true or not is contentious, and you end up with a discussion such as the one for the Daily Mail. The consensus that formed in those discussions isn't effected by the original poster being blocked, after all their blocked wasn't related in any way. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and consensus is an important part of that, see WP:CONSENSUS.
Self-published sources can already be used with caution, but again there is a need for a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, if that's not coming from the publisher it has to come from the author. So per WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources self-published sources can be reliable "when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Basically if the author can be proven to have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, then the policy requirement is met and whether it's self-published or not doesn't matter.
Wikipedia is meant to be a encyclopedia, so it can't be just a hodgepodge of stuff random people have written. We ensure that is not the case by having these basic policies. Simply put in each case common sense is prevailing for the purposes of Wikipedia. If people want to create something other than an online encyclopedia there are always other places to do so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]

"On the Number of Iranian Turkophones" (Victoria Arakelova)

Article: Azerbaijanis (Talk:Azerbaijanis) and Iranian Azerbaijanis (Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis) The issue with this source is, it uses a very outlier number for population for Azerbaijanis (and other Turkic peoples) in Iran (6–6.5 million in 2015) compared to CIA World Factbook for example. (graphics listed below) Yet Arakelova's numbers isn't even about the population but supposed numbers of speakers of those languages. She is not a genetic professor either, but the source is used as a fact that Iranian Azerbaijanis are mainly of Iranian descent.

There are also various other sources. So the concern here is WP:UNDUE. Also author is used for Qashqai people saying 300,000 population while a 1989 source in the same article says 800,000 population. These are not normal ranges. Arakelova (Yerevan State University professor) how reliable is this source? Tagging involved editors: @Grandmaster: @Aintabli: provided various sources on other population estimates @Bogazicili: have pointed out a possible WP:PRIMARY @Vofa: @Wikaviani: Beshogur (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a reliable source. But it could be WP:OR in the infobox of Azerbaijanis article because the source is about Azerbaijani speakers, not ethnic Azerbaijanis. It can also be WP:UNDUE Bogazicili (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
The question here is, what is the basis for Arakelova's estimate? How did she calculate this number, if it is her personal estimate? Grandmaster 14:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
You can read it in her paper, accessible through Wikipedia library.
She seems to have looked at census results of only certain Iranian provinces. The census results only give total population numbers. The rest seems like speculations. I would also assume there are ethnic Azerbaijanis in other Iranian provinces.
But it is published on a peer-reviewed journal. So this question should be moved to WP:ORN or WP:NPOVN. Bogazicili (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Fail to see how this source is unreliable. If I recall correctly, it is indeed just from censuses of Iranian provinces. WP:UNDUE? Probably. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how it’s innacurate as well. Vofa (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment : I also fail to see how that source is unreliable. Maybe WP:UNDUE. However, the sentence "mainly of Iranian descent" is sourced by R. N. Frye in the lead and several sources in the Genetics section, it has been thoroughly discussed and should remain as per the consensus achieved on the article's talk page. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

R. N. Frye is not a genetic professor either. He can make such assumptions. He can be mentioned below (background section), but it's not worthy to include to the lede. Other researchers also tells clear Turkic migrations to the region.
Genetic sections shows us they're genetically close to other Iranians, while it indicates they also cluster together with Turkic peoples. Assuming something from the genetic researches is WP:OR as well. This discussion is similar to previously Azerbaijanis are a Turkic people with Caucasian, Iranian and Turkic elements text, which was removed after a discussion.
it has been thoroughly discussed and should remain as per the consensus achieved on the article's talk page. Arakelova hasn't any consensus, and you're the only one defending this source on both talk pages while others argued that the population numbers seemed off. Beshogur (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Since you and HistoryofIran both say: "maybe wp:undue", why does it still remain here? It's clearly undue weight. Beshogur (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
You want to source a sentence in the lead based on a single source from Encyclopaedia Iranica? I assume that's what you mean by R. N. Frye? There would be massive WP:NPOV and WP:DUE issues.
Other historians may say different things. When it comes to genetic studies: Other samples from Caucasus (light blue in Fig. 3) fell into a macrogroup that includes eight different clusters (Lezgins, Azeris, Turks, Georgians, Balkars_Adygei, Balkars, Adygei1, Adygei2). [87]
That information from R. N. Frye could be added into the body with in-text attribution. Bogazicili (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
No, read what I said. "However, the sentence "mainly of Iranian descent" is sourced by R. N. Frye in the lead and several sources in the Genetics section". I don't know why you all are only speaking of genetics when it comes to studies about populations, genetics are to be used very carefully. Frye does not need to be a genetic prof to say what he says, and for your information, those genetic studies you seem to like so much confirm his views. Your above source does not contradict that and when it comes to genetics, we need to know exactly what the studies say. As you probably know, humans share 60% of their gene pool with banana and 96% with Chimpanzee [88], that does not mean that human beings and banana are close or that we are chimpanzees. I advise you to take it easy and calm down with genetic studies. Since you mention that kind of studies, the sources in the genetics section say that while Iranian Azerbaijanis may have some admixture from Siberia and Mongolia, their gene pool largely overlap with that of the native population and there is no significant difference between Iranian Azerbaijanis and other major ethnic groups of Iran. I'm not inclined to discuss this again and again in futile disputes. I'm done here. Wish you guys a great rest of your day.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I just realized "mainly of Iranian descent" is in Iranian Azerbaijanis. This is completely WP:UNDUE. Using Arakelova for this is WP:OR. Encyclopædia Iranica source does not even have a date, I would guess it's super outdated. Bogazicili (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I just checked Arakelova and she does say "Turkic-speaking population of the Iranian origin, predominantly the Azaris ..." So this wouldn't be WP:OR. But there would be WP:NPOV and WP:DUE issues. Bogazicili (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Chimp thing is a weird comparison. there is no significant difference between Iranian Azerbaijanis and other major ethnic groups of Iran yes that's normal? Vast majority of Turkish people's genetics overlap with Anatolian Greeks as well? Does this make Turkish people "Turkic people of Anatolian origin"? It's pretty normal. It doesn't indicate Azerbaijanis are Iranian origin. Even Persians aren't pure Indo-European at all, but most of their genetics are from bronze age Iran. Beshogur (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Source Concerning Damien Haas' ADHD Diagnosis

I am editing a draft for a living person biography page about Damien Haas and came across a source from Bleeding Cool News being used for a claim of his ADHD diagnosis. Would Bleeding Cool News be an appropriate source for a WP:BLP? Here is a link to the article: https://bleedingcool.com/games/chatting-with-smoshs-damien-haas-about-all-things-sword-af/ BlueSpikez 18:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hass discusses the ADHD diagnosis in this Tiktok post[89], as it's an WP:ABOUTSELF post it could be more appropriate in a BLP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_461&oldid=1266655982"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy