Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 436

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 430 ← Archive 434 Archive 435 Archive 436 Archive 437

Middle East Monitor

The New York Times recently published an article on the proliferation of fake news from Russia, specifically a story about Zelensky’s mother-in-law purchasing a villa in Egypt.

Most sources that publicized this claim are already considered generally unreliable, with the exception of the Middle East Monitor, which is used widely on Wikipedia and whose involvement the New York Times describes as:

It also appeared on the website of the Middle East Monitor, or MEMO, operated by a well-known nonprofit organization in London and financed by the government of Qatar. A journalist who once reported from Moscow for The Telegraph of London, Ben Aris, cited it at length on the platform, though, when challenged, he said he had just made note of the rumor. “I don’t have time to check all this stuff myself,” he wrote.

The article is still up, meaning they've failed to correct the error when it was revealed to them, and the statement by Aris is highly concerning, which suggests a general issue at MEMO of them publishing and promoting fringe conspiracy theories without any attempt to verify that they are true. BilledMammal (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your summary, this is highly concerning particularly combined with the (probably fringe) views described in the page.
I would consider this worthy of an RfC after insofar as criteria are met, is that something you would agree with? FortunateSons (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


This looks like a misuse of the board. Instead of asking "Is source X reliable for statement Y" as is the norm, we instead assert unreliability without reference to any dispute. Cheered on by the chorus. Is the offending information cited to MEMO anywhere on WP? Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

All the MEMO report says is that El Mostaqbal reported this. And they did. And it also says The allegations have been denied by both the Ukrainian embassy in Egypt as “Russian propaganda”, while Orascom Development, the owner of the El Gouna resort issued a statement saying the reports were “completely false.”' MEMO does not report that this is true, they report that it was reported and that the both the Ukrainian embassy and the Egyptian government denied it. All of that is true. nableezy - 16:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
That seems fine then. I wouldn't say this could cast any doubt on a source's reliability.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
It attributes some to El Mostaqbal; others it puts in its own voice:

Al-Alawi’s body was discovered in the Red Sea city of Hurghada, with fractures and bruises found on the body. The cause of death was due to a cerebral hemorrhage as a result of a severe brain injury.

Al-Alawi never existed, and was not found dead, whether by a cerebral haemorrhage or other means.

In a recent interview, the deceased’s brother Ahmed Al-Alawi said that Mohammed’s investigation was his brother’s first big job, but that he started to receive death threats following its release.

Al-Alawi, having never existed, also never had a brother.
Further, regardless of what it puts in its own voice and what it attributes, I find it very concerning for a source to be pushing fringe conspiracy theories without any level of scepticism, and for it to fail to correct that error when it is raised with them - to me, those are indications that the source is generally unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
No, it attributes that too. You're quoting out of context. What it says about the body is Al-Alawi’s body was discovered in the Red Sea city of Hurghada, with fractures and bruises found on the body. The cause of death was due to a cerebral hemorrhage as a result of a severe brain injury. The report, citing a source, also disclosed that the journalist had been beaten by a group of people. That is, once again, citing the report. And there is no error in what they report, they are saying that so and so reported such and such. And that is true. They also say that so and so say it is Russian propaganda. That is also true. Your claim that they are "pushing fringe conspiracy theories" is completely unsubstantiated, they are relaying what was reported and attributing it to who reported it, and also attributing who says it is not true. It has a link to the interview, making that attributed as well. You are misrepresenting what they are reporting. nableezy - 22:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
No, that is attributing to the report that "the journalist" had been beaten by a group of people. It's not attributing the claim that he died.
Further, the interview is linked, but MEMO is saying in its own voice that the interview was given by Al-Alawi's brother - the brother who doesn't exist.
Regardless, is it not concerning that MEMO spends so little time verifying its stories that it is literally pushing Russian conspiracy theories, stories that it refuses to retract? This is not the behavior of a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
It is very clearly saying all this is from the report. You can tell that by the word "also". What is there to retract? That El Mostaqbal reported this? They did. nableezy - 22:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
My reading differs - the "also" refers to their earlier explicit mention of the report. And what there is to retract is the entire story; they are presenting - and thus promoting - Russian conspiracy theories as credible, saying things such as the report disclosed rather then the report alleges. The fact that they attribute parts (but not all - clearly you at least agree that the story presents both Al-Alawi and his brother as real people) doesn't change that. BilledMammal (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
The story they are "presenting" is that El Mostaqbal reported this. That remains true. At most it is missing a "purported" in front of brother when linking to the interview. They very clearly are reporting who said what, and who said its not true. They even include the claim that it is Russian propaganda. There isnt any part of what they are actually reporting that is an issue. nableezy - 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
That really isn’t how an average person would read the article, and even if it was, their statement and lack of retraction is nevertheless a reason not to use them in any area with controversy. FortunateSons (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Im aware of your feelings on sources you dislike, along with your efforts to remove them from certain topics, you dont need to repeat them multiple times in the same section. There isnt anything in this to retract, what they reported is accurate, and I see no reason why this source is not perfectly usable. If you feel they should issue a correction there is a link at the bottom of the story for you to contact them. nableezy - 23:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Even you agree they present the brothers as real people; don’t you think they need to retract that?
And the NYT has already contacted them; their response was concerning, as I quoted above. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
That doesn’t appear to be true at all. nableezy - 13:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Which aspect? BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
That it is their response and not some independent reporter's who writes for a different site. nableezy - 13:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Even if we disagree on that I hope you can see their failure to retract this story as concerning. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
That is certainly different from using “alleged” at the very least, if they are using such a source. Additionally, the conduct described above is certainly still concerning. FortunateSons (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Selfstudier that this discussion seems a misuse of the noticeboard. It is not relevant to some article and the publication isn't in RSP. But looking at the dicussion the thought occurred to me, I bet it has to do with NGO Monitor, and sure enough we have [1]. Why am I not surprised. NadVolum (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
It’s not misuse of this Noticeboard to discuss whether a widely used source that we now discover has a penchant for pushing Russian disinformation and conspiracy theories is reliable.
As far as I know, this has no relation to NGO monitor. BilledMammal (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
A "penchant" denotes a widespread tendency, "pushing" denotes a conscious decision to spread something, again with the strong implication of repetition. Here we have a single report, which attributes the story to somebody else and states that it has been denied.
I agree that, if MEM regularly published articles sourced to Russian propaganda, or if they had published this story as fact and repeatedly asserted its truth we would have to look at whether it was reliable for news relating to the Russia/Ukraine conflict. But that is not what this is about, is it? --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I say a penchant because of Aris’ response when challenged. The issue appears systemic.
Further, while some is attributed, not all is, despite the entire story being disinformation. ::::But that is not what this is about, is it? This is about the reliability of the source, nothing else? BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Bah, one not even much of an incident, and it is systemic? Then every newsorg is unreliable by that standard. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
It’s systemic because MEMO told the NYT "we don’t make any attempt to verify stories before publishing them". BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I can’t find anything by Ben Aris on MEMO. I can’t find he has any position there either. His Twitter profile doesn’t mention MEMO, so I don’t know what his unwilling to verify things has to do with MEMO. It also isn’t a normal thing to use quote marks for things nobody ever said. nableezy - 10:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
It appears MEMO doesn’t publicly list the author of their articles. And I was paraphrasing - or do you think I was doing so inaccurately? BilledMammal (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
What we can say for certain is that NYT is attributing the unsubstantiated claim to Ben Aris (whose name doesn't appear anywhere on MEMO's website). M.Bitton (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
He doesn’t even say he writes for MEMO and the sentence structure is he referenced the MEMO article, and from his twitter he does. But he writes for BNE Intellinews. Paraphrases don’t use quotes. If anything that would be a sign of unreliability and disinformation. I see no evidence whatsoever that he writes for MEMO, much less represents them and their editorial policies. nableezy - 13:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
My reading differs - and clearly so do others here. BilledMammal (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
What others? Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
There is one immediately above my reply? BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Please provide any evidence that he writes for MEMO or has any position there. A listing of his articles at MuckRack shows nothing at all. He is also not listed anywhere on MEMO's list of editors and regular contributors. Please provide any evidence at all for the claim that MEMO said anything like what you say they said. nableezy - 13:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I see the invitation to provide any evidence at all for the claims made has been ignored, I’ll assume that means the claim itself has been dropped. nableezy - 17:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
At least they attributed the claims, unlike the New York Times (enjoy reading this discussion about the self-declared beacon of journalistic integrity). M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on where the linked thread discussed attribution? The only comments I can find when searching by term are my own. FortunateSons (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The linked thread is about a fabricated story by NYT (it goes without saying that attribution is way above those who sink that low). M.Bitton (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I am aware, I participated in that thread. However, the claims about the article in the NYT are both highly disputed and unrelated to the issue of attribution. As the New York Times generally enjoys a high reliability and the linked discussion did not come to a different conclusion, I am confused about the purpose of your comment. Could you elaborate? FortunateSons (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Simple, if the NYT can screw up, so can MEMO and the NYT screwup is rather more severe than anything MEMO is allegedly guilty of. All this is just trying to make a mountain of a very small molehill. Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable for the story about Zelensky's mother-in-law. In general, I think that we should be very careful with using a source financed by Qatar (one of the worst countries when it comes to the freedom of speech and a supported of various Islamist movements) and that has been described as a "lobby group." Alaexis¿question? 22:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Generally reliable. It is obviously financed by Qatar, but so is every other self-proclaimed independent media state-financed, including the BBC, which has been publishing extremely misleading coverage of the war. All medias have biases, but that doesn't necessarily affect general reliability, unless it has been consistently false or misleading; which applies more to the New York Times than Middle East Monitor, as far as I have seen. Nothing justifies downgrading the reliability of this source so far. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss
It is laughable to compare the amount of control that the British government exerts on the BBC to the amount of Control that Qatari government exerts over Al Jazeerah. The UK is a democratic country committed to the freedom of speech and of the Press. Qatar is neither of these. Vegan416 (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Vegan416: With control or without alleged government control; that doesn't change the fact that editors can be biased and unreliable. Democracies have been implicated in serious human rights violations, claiming that they are immune to it, is egregiously of touch with reality. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Nobody is immune from committing human rights violations, and nobody claims to be immune to that. But still non-democratic states are much more likely to commit them (all else being equal) than democratic states. And in particular in this regard of the freedom of press I repeat that it is laughable to claim that there is no difference in the level of control the governments have on state-owned (or even private) media companies, between democratic and non-democratic states. And it is ridiculous to suggest that they should be assigned the same level of reliability. Vegan416 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Reliability is not based on government type, but editorial controls and track record on content. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
What's actually ridiculous is to suggest that the reliability of a source depends on factors external to the quality of its reporting, and that all western sources monopolize the truth. This western-centrism is the root of systematic bias on Wikipedia. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss @Iskandar323
The reliability of a source depends on many things, among them editorial controls and track record on content. And editorial controls are heavily influenced by the government type. It is much more likely that the editorial controls in a non-democratic state will be in the hand of the government. Especially is state controlled/financed media. So the default assumptions in each case are different. At the very least we can say that the onus of proof that the editorial controls are not in the hand of the government is much higher in the case of non-democratic state media. Vegan416 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Do you think this hasn't been discussed before in the context of AJ? No one is going to change the assessment of the reliability of AJ based on your personal opinions and suppositions about its editorial procedures. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I would ask people not to !vote here, this is not an RfC, and if it were it would be a bad one as it is not formulated in anything approaching a neutral way. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 Selfstudier (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Having a quick look, there are also issues on their coverage of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion; they haven't corrected their articles from immediately after the explosion that blamed Israel without equivocation, and even months later they continued to repeat those claims such as in this article where they say Hundreds killed in Israeli attack on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza. BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Your position appears to be if a source doesn’t repeat some dominant POV of western sources that means it is unreliable. But that isn’t what that means, and there remains a dispute about the responsibility for that explosion, and a source taking a differing view than say the NYTimes doesn’t make that source unreliable. nableezy - 06:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Presumably BilledMammal's position here is simply that Middle East Monitor is claiming as fact something that is either untrue or unproven.
Also, @BilledMammal, the source you've provided was not published "months later" after the attack.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right - I misread the date. Published a month and a half later. BilledMammal (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I’m saying a source that continues to unequivocally blame Israel despite most evidence suggesting PIJ is to blame is probably unreliable, and is definitely highly biased. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Some evidence advanced by allies of Israel suggests that, other evidence, such as the analysis by Forensic Analysis, suggests otherwise. You are saying that if one does not take the conclusion of Israel that it is unreliable. And last I checked, that is not what reliability means here. nableezy - 11:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Beyond that, your retelling of this source is itself unreliable, the only place it includes that line is the title of a cartoon in the caption. Sheesh. nableezy - 11:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
"You are saying that if one does not take the conclusion of Israel that it is unreliable." Obviously this is not what BilledMammal is saying.
However, regarding "your retelling of this source is itself unreliable, the only place it includes that line is the title of a cartoon in the caption", this is concerning actually. BilledMammal has seemingly misrepresented the source by claiming that "they say 'Hundreds killed in Israeli attack on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza'", despite that fact that this "claim" only appears as the caption of a cartoon at the bottom of the article.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
As far as I know, we treat captions the same way as we treat the rest of the article - there is no WP:HEADLINES for captions. If I am wrong, please correct me. BilledMammal (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Really?
From WP:Headlines: "Headlines [...] may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles."
You don't think that applies to captions? Especially a caption on a cartoon...
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the concern is that headlines are often clickbait created by individuals other than the journalist or researcher, while captions aren't because if a reader is seeing the caption they have already been convinced to click.
However, if I'm wrong and that does apply to captions we should update WP:HEADLINES to explicitly include captions, as I suspect I'm not the only editor who believes that policy doesn't apply to them. BilledMammal (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I suspect most editors don't think about that at all. Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Given how many editors aren't even aware of WP:HEADLINES you are probably right, but I still think that if I am wrong and it does apply to captions we should clarify that policy. BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes that is indeed the conclusion BilledMammal is reaching. That if one does not favor the conclusions of Israel’s allies it is unreliable and or biased. nableezy - 12:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
And if I'm reading it right, that cartoons are part of the moderated journalistic content of a newspaper. NadVolum (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
What you call unusual or fringe views happens to be those that articulate the views, news and facts of a two-sided conflict, as those are perceived by one half, the defeated or crushed party. NPOV demands extreme care to maintain balanced narratives, and drying up access to the few newspapers that take on the burden of expressing the generally silenced perspectives of one party only consolidates the WP:Systemic bias we have to cope with in this area.
There are many cogent reasons why we should retain our use, always careful, of less 'mainstream' sources. The most important is the systemic bias of our default newspaper RS, New York Times, the Washington Post, The Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post, Ynet and even Haaretz (the Guardian gives more coverage but not much) is known to all, and was underlined by a remark made in the NYTs the other day. The Israeli sources we accept are all now extremely pro-war and partisan, and much of their reliable content exemplifies a battle to show whose coverage is more patriotic, something that in turn feeds into the copy and paste Western newspapers. Chipping away, as has been done recently at the putative unreliableness or 'fringeness', even of the handful of newspapers that give voice to a Palestinian/Arab perspective, is nothing more than indicative of a tendency to spin reportage according to the dominant perspective of one of the contendents.

A study by the University of Arizona’s Maha Nassar found that of the opinion articles about Palestinians published in The New York Times and The Washington Post between 2000 and 2009, Palestinians themselves wrote roughly 1 percent. Peter Beinart, The Great Rupture in American Jewish Life,' The New York Times 22 March 2024

I.e., NYTs practice (and they are the most 'liberal' of the venues cited) is to delegate 99% of opinion articles on Palestinians to non-Palestinians (Americans, American Jews, or Israeli Jews normally). Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
First, the opinion is of Haaretz, not the "lobby group".
Second, we aren't here to right great wrongs; we don't use unreliable sources because no reliable sources contain the perspectives we believe should be included.
Third, your comment about the percentage of opinion articles seems irrelevant. How many opinion articles in the NYT about Russia are by Russians? How about Turkey? China? Israel? I suspect Palestine isn't a significant outlier among non-anglophone states of global interest.
Finally, regardless of reliability, I think it is clear that this is a biased source that should only be used with attribution, particularly now that FortunateSons has presented that Times article. BilledMammal (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify, it was telegraph and Haaretz, not Times :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The opinion I referred to is conspiracy theories, the holding views you dislike is referring to the Telegraph article. Holding views that agree with the Brotherhood or Hamas for that matter has nothing to do with reliability. You may want this to be a Zionist project where only sources that toe a certain line are allowed, but it is not and it has nothing to do with reliability. Not liking the views of a source is not and has never been a factor for a sources reliability. There is nothing disqualifying about holding views that promote a supposed pro-Brotherhood or pro-Hamas view of the region. Would holding that the Palestinian refugees have a right of return be disqualifying? Because that’s a pro-Hamas viewpoint of the region. You may keep trying to change the purpose of this board to be that of instituting a political test on sources, but I’ll keep calling it what it is. nableezy - 16:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Let’s WP:AssumeGoodFaith and beWP:CIVIL here. FortunateSons (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
When people attempt to rule out sources because of the views they hold they are misusing this board and attempting to institute a political test of their liking to sources. Again, holding pro-Hamas views has nothing to do with reliability, nor does holding pro-Israel views. You are the one making this about the views they hold. Is it a sign of unreliability to hold views associated with a state credibly accused of an ongoing genocide? Should all news sources that have been identified as pro-Israel be censored because of those views? Or do you only apply this test to the views you don’t like? nableezy - 16:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The issue isn’t the moral position of the source, its opinions are just clearly perceived as fringe by the sources cited by me. While there is some systemic bias, being in favour of terrorist groups is going to very likely put you in fringe territory regardless of which terror group it is: the same would have probably applied to a pro-Rote Armee Fraktion source had Wikipedia existed back then. If said source was also distributing conspiracy content enough to be noticed by MSM for it, even worse. FortunateSons (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Fringe doesn’t mean what you think it means. Holding pro brotherhood or pro Hamas positions isn’t fringe. nableezy - 17:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I think supporting terrorist groups and spreading conspiracy theories while not fact-checking or retracting stories is a factor when it comes to assessing the reliability of a source. It’s ok if you disagree FortunateSons (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Can I have ur permission to disagree as well? Thanks in advance. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Of course, you did ask so nicely FortunateSons (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
None of that is true, please don’t make bogus assertions and expect people to pretend like they are true. nableezy - 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
They were referred to as all 3 by RS, and the story is still up FortunateSons (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
No, holding pro-Hamas viewpoints is not "supporting Hamas", and the Community Security Trust isn’t a reliable source, sorry. Again, holding views you don’t like is not something that matters here. Holding views that one right wing source calls pro-Hamas has nothing to do with reliability. It’s a funny thing that happens here, people forget we are supposed to include all significant views published by reliable sources but then try to define what is reliable based on the views sources hold so as to suppress those significant views they dislike. But bias, supposed or otherwise, has nothing to do with reliability. So despite the effort to create a list of beliefs one must not hold to be cited our policies remain diametrically opposed to such efforts. nableezy - 18:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Pardon me, publicising media while being pro-Hamas and having a mission statement which includes The use or misuse of information is central to the conflict in the Middle East. There has been a growing need for supporters of, in particular, the Palestinian cause, to master the art of information gathering, analysis and dissemination. This requires well organised, focused and targeted operations. Such initiatives are virtually non-existent in the West today. The Middle East Monitor (MEMO) was established to fill this gap. and As such, we regularly interface with politicians, editors, lobby groups and various other stakeholders to facilitate a better understanding and appreciation of the Palestine issue. is totally and meaningfully different from “supporting Hamas”.
The CSR wasn’t discussed as an RS (though I would be tempted to say they are generally analogous to the ADL). Additionally, we do exclude fringe views already, and we don’t need a pro-Hamas viewpoint for the sake of [[WP:FALSEBALANCE], there are decent pro-Palestinian sources even before the war and particularly now. FortunateSons (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing remotely fringe about MEMO or its views, and therefore, nothing to exclude. Frankly, this joke is now officially a time sink that is wasting our resources without a snowball's chance in hell of achieving anything. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The idea that a pro-Israel viewpoint should be included but we should be excluding sources for having similar views to Hamas, besides being a basic association fallacy, is one that is not in keeping with our core policies. If you want a website in which only views that you like are allowed you can go start your own, cus this one ain’t it. nableezy - 19:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
If it helps, I believe that we also should exclude any news source with the same reliability issues that’s pro Ku-Klux-Klan, pro Jewish Defense League, or probably pro Kach (political party). We don’t have to WP:FALSEBALANCE our way into pro-terrorism viewpoints. There are good and diligent sources that express pro-Palestine views and those ought to be included even where I disagree with them, Memo just isn’t one of them. The inclusion of RS and the exclusion of fringe and unreliable sources is an important part of Wikipedia. FortunateSons (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
But not pro state credibly accused of genocide I guess. And again, there is zero evidence of pro-terrorism, repeatedly making false statements isn’t the best look. nableezy - 20:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Pardon me, they are not pro-terrorism, just pro-terrorist-group. FortunateSons (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
That makes the others (like NYT) pro-Genocide (when committed by a friend). M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
That also is not true. What your one right wing source says it has pro Brotherhood and pro Hamas views of the region. Which could be in favor of anything from lifting the siege on Gaza to supporting the rights of Palestinian refugees to agreeing that Hamas has a legitimate right to resist foreign occupation and racist domination. None of that has anything to do with anything, and your attempt to redefine RS to exclude views you dislike is not one that has any policy backing. Nor even much support on this board. nableezy - 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Again, you're confusing bias with reliability. The anti-Palestinian bias of the New York Times doesn't prevent the NYT from being treated as RS. M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and there are significantly biased (not:fringe) sources that are also reliable, and this isn’t one of them. Nevertheless, I agree with your last comment that this discussion is unlikely to produce results, we will just have to wait for when this comes up again. FortunateSons (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
You've been told this before, but I'll repeat it here: 1) Fringe doesn't mean what you think it means. 2) There is nothing remotely fringe about either MEMO or its views. M.Bitton (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Who receives what donations is always depended on a variety of circumstances and is unrelated to reliability in this context.
I too would prefer if there were more and better mainstream reliable sources on the pro-Palestinian side then there currently are, but using an unreliable and fringe source is not the solution to the western systemic bias, it’s the long term creation of reasonable and reliable sources on both sides, something that I (and probably you) don’t have the ability to do. As said above, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not the solution to a geopolitical and sociological issue. FortunateSons (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Look we have here this long thread and have proved what exactly? Not a whole lot, right? Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, both 'sides' provided good arguments for the inevitable RfC, otherwise, who knows. Maybe someone else will find something additional to contribute. FortunateSons (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Two editors fomenting a storm in a teacup does not a case for an RFC make. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, there are at least 5 participants, and considering the conduct and use of the source, I think it’s quite likely that it will be an RfC at some point. FortunateSons (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, perhaps when there is an actual live dispute over the use of the source on Wikipedia, that could be considered. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, something that I would consider probable FortunateSons (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh well if the great bastion of race-baiting that is the Telegraph has made some aspersions about people with foreign sounding names, I'm sure we're good as gold to take the info as writ. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Might want to take a look at the author of that piece. Selfstudier (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If a news outlet is routinely posting disproven information, incorrect information, or misinformation, it probably isn't a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 17:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Really, never knew that. Are you saying that applies to MEM0? Another evidence free accusation? Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Sure, but that isn’t the case here at all so I don’t see the relevance to that general statement. nableezy - 18:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
  • No case has been established. I've never paid much attention to MEM and I don't think I have ever cited it. However, to eliminate a source requires much better evidence than I see here. Once arguments that really amount to "I don't like its politics" are removed, there is practically nothing left. Overall this is an unusually weak case. Zerotalk 01:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I see MEMO as a non-reliable source that has no editorial standards and exists mainly to amplify a particular political position. I haven’t seen incidents of it actually promoting falsehoods apart from the one mentioned by the OP. But I believe the CST is a very reliable source (not a lobbying organisation, and far more reliable than the ADL, who are currently being discussed elsewhere on this page, so if they say MEMO promotes conspiracy theories I take that seriously. I don’t think, contrary to some comments here, that we should relax our standards in order to accommodate more that give voice to a Palestinian/Arab perspective: there are plenty of far stronger sources that do (Al-Jazeera, +972, Al-Monitor, The New Arab, the Independent, the Guardian…). I also object to the ad hominem attacks and assumptions of bad faith that have been a feature of this discussion. In a thread above, I am accused of not considering Norman Finkelstein reliable because I want to “hide the truth”; in this thread a second person agreeing that this source is unreliable is described as acting as a coordinated “chorus”; and the accusation has been made that this is somehow instigated to defend NGO Monitor. (The fact that I’ve defended Al-Jazeera and 972 and opposed NGO Monitor as reliable sources doesn’t seem to stop such allegations.) Instead of these allegations against editors, defenders of this source would be better off giving examples of use by reliable sources or other actual reasons to trust it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
    That's all very well, where though is the actual evidence of unreliability? It wasn't CST saying that they promote conspiracy theories, that was Haaretz (Anshel Pfeffer) saying that - "The Community Security Trust, the main Jewish organization monitoring all forms of racism, highlighted on its website that Corbyn is also scheduled to appear soon at a conference of the conspiracy-theory peddling anti-Israel organization Middle East Monitor, along with the anti-Semitic and Holocaust denier cartoonist Carlos Latuff." What are these conspiracy theories?
    So no, the burden remains with those accusing the source of unreliability to demonstrate that, not just allege it. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, use by others. How about (Wikipedia Library links): Insight Turkey ([2]), Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses ([3]), International Crisis Group ([4], [5]), Journal of Palestine Studies ([6]), Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ([7]), Arab Studies Quarterly ([8]), and that's just when I got bored going through the JSTOR results. That enough evidence to go against your completely evidence-free opinion here? nableezy - 16:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks Nableezy. That kind of evidence posted early on would have been more useful than (evidence-free) allegations that editors were here to hide the truth. Re CST, they did indeed say MEMO promotes conspiract theories, albeit a while ago:

    Middle East Monitor (MEMO) is a pro-Palestinian lobbying group which generally supports Islamist positions within Palestinian politics. We have had cause to write about MEMO on this blog before, because they commonly promote conspiracy theories about politicians in Western nations being beholden to Jewish or Zionist political manipulation and financial inducements, along with other classical antisemitic canards and tropes.[9]

    And:

    MEMO has featured repeatedly on the CST Blog for peddling conspiracy theories and myths about Jews, Zionists, money and power. This has included questioning the suitability of Matthew Gould for the post of UK Ambassador to Israel simply because he is Jewish. MEMO also continued to spread the untrue story that the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ film was a Zionist plot to stir up hatred of Muslims, several days after it had been widely established that the film was made by Egyptian Christians. One MEMO article, titled 'How money from pro-Israel donors controls Westminster', was even praised by American neo-Nazi David Duke. In 2009, when Channel 4's Dispatches aired a programme about pro-Israel lobby groups, MEMO illustrated their article about the programme with this image that implies Jewish or Israeli financial influence over the UK Parliament. A reverse Google images search suggests that this image originated on the thoroughly antisemitic Radio Islam website.[10]

    And: There is much else that is problematic in MEMO's report, not least the repeated Zionist conspiracy-mongering that is becoming their stock-in-trade. But this example illustrates a lesson they ought to heed: if you make things up as you go along, sooner or later people will stop believing what you say.[11] In the first cite above, CST actually goes further, saying that MEMO included a quote from Ariel Sharon that they say has been thoroughly debunked since it first appeared in 2001 in a press release from the pro-Hamas Islamic Association for Palestine. IAP's claimed source for the quote, the Israeli radio station Kol Yisrael, had never broadcast it, and their political correspondent confirmed that Sharon never said it. No other source has ever emerged to confirm IAP's claim.[12] Finally, in other pieces, CST accuse MEMO of multiple inaccuracies in relation to Raed Saleh.[13][14] BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    And is the CST material used by others? Those are CST blogposts you are citing there.Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Are these particular CST pieces cited by others? Well, we got to them because Ha'aretz cited them so yes. If you want a general discussion about the reliability of CST, probably better to open a new thread. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Blogposts are not RS, so no need. Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
That's not quite right. See below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I would argue that CST is generally reliable. In addition, it’s clear that the relevant citations confirm what the original RS source said. FortunateSons (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    They are blog posts. MEMO > blogposts. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    This is the blog of a reliable monitoring organisation not a self-published blog in the sense used by WP:SPS. It should have a similar status to e.g. SPLC Hatewatch or the Hope Not Hate blog, sources we've discussed before and ruled reliable. If you wanted to get pedantic, MEMO is essentially a blog if this is: MEMO is an organisation with a particular political perspective publishing its own content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Lots of RS orgs have blog post sections, they are just opinions, MEMO is a newsorg. Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Assessment of use by others

I've had a moment to look at reputation and use by others a little more systematically, by going through mentions in news articles via Google news and factcheck sites via Poynter Institute. Here's what I found:

  • Favourable:
    • DW has used it as a reliable source on the Palestinian Authority in 2016, calling it a "not-for-profit policy research institute".[15] (They also called it a "pro-Muslim Brotherhood website" the same year.[16])
    • The Misbar fact check website uses MEMO as a reliable source in factchecking a fake claim on social media.[17]
    • Snopes lists MEMO among "numerous international news outlets" reporting on the Saudi Miss World entry[18]
    • AFP occasionally uses it as a reliable source in factchecks.[19]
  • Unfavourable:
    • AFP reports MEMO passed off an anti-Saudi satirical article as true. The story may have been intended as light-hearted fiction, but other websites have since reproduced it without clarifying that it was made up for fun. The Middle East Monitor and Zambian entertainment site Tumfweko relayed the story, as did India’s Times Now before issuing a correction.[20]
    • Annenburg's Factheck.org finds it misrepresenting a video of IDF violence (In addition to the video, the post includes a link to an Oct. 30 article in the Middle East Monitor, a website that says it supports the “Palestinian cause.” That article includes a quote that reads: “Israeli commanders made ‘difficult decisions’ including ‘shelling houses on their occupants in order to eliminate the terrorists along with the hostages.'” The quote is attributed to a security coordinator at Kibbutz Be’eri, one of the settlements attacked by Hamas on Oct. 7. But the aerial footage shown in the post comes from a longer compilation video shared by the IDF on Oct. 9 on X [which] shows aerial bombings at several sites[21]
    • Misbar finds it (along with Al-Mayadeen) falsely claiming on its social media channels that a settler stabbed a Palestinian woman, based on video that was in fact an intra-Palestinian domestic incident (as debunked by an Al Araby TV reporter).[22] The same website reports MEMO reporting fake news about Nike quitting Israel.[23]
  • Ambiguous:
    • Logically Facts lists it among "news sites" (the others are Al Jazeera, The New Arab, and Jordan News) using false reporting from Channel 14, Israel's version of Fox News.[24]
    • Jerusalem Post reports them making unconfirmed claims about Israeli organ harvesting[25]
    • Highly reliable fact checking site Lead Stories mention their report being used in social media misinformation about October 7 but not clear if their report is accurate or not[26]
    • It features in a failed fact check from Polygraph about Libya, but it's the person they're quoting that is failed rather than MEMO.[27]
    • An AFP factcheck of a false claim made in a viral video mentions a Middle East Eye and Middle East Monitor videos as the original sources of the video; the MEMO version was not falsely dated (as in the viral version), but was misleadingly captioned.[28] Elsewhere, AFP describes MEMO as "a UK-based not-for-profit press monitoring organisation".[29]
    • Politifact describes MEMO as "a publication that calls itself a supporter of the Palestinian cause"[30] Elsewhere, fact checking a viral video, it lists MEMO among "Some pro-Palestinian news outlets [that] shared the video that’s been circulating social media, but they provided no additional information to substantiate the claim."[31]
    • CAMERA UK, a partisan pro-Israel media monitoring organisation, complains about a Daily Express (low quality right-wing UK tabloid, which we consider generally unreliably ) report that it says reproduces Palestinian Authority propaganda, and adds "Moreover, it’s quite telling that the only other site we could find that covered this “horrific” report was the pro-Hamas site Middle East Monitor (MEMO). Interestingly, though, MEMO’s headline (“Report: Israel imposes $28,000 fines on Palestinian children”, June 4) is significantly more restrained than the one chosen by Daily Express editors."[32]
    • HonestReporting, another partisan pro-Israel media monitoring organisation, complains about an International Business Times report (we consider IBT unreliable): "The journalist gets his information from a range of sources and links to sites including: Terrorist organization Hezbollah’s Al-Manar website; Iranian government propaganda outfit Press TV; Anti-Israel hate site Middle East Monitor (MEMO)."[33]
    • CheckYourFact calls it "a pro-Palestinian lobbying group".[34]
    • Several fact checks have found its videos being repurposed with fake information in viral social media posts, but this doesn't say anything about its own reliability.

Conclusion: not enough evidence of unreliability to call it "generally unreliable" but definitely enough to not call it "generally reliable" so probably yellow flag rather than red or green. Some RSs consider it a news organisation, but many consider it a lobbying group. I'd say: use with extreme caution, always attribute, try to triangulate if only partisan sources are available, be cautious if it's the only source, replace with better sources if any are available. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If that's a long way around of saying attribute anything controversial, I would go along with that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh. Is this over at last? That was a fairly big mountain of molehill. I must admit in the past of producing long documents adhering to all the standards when I wanted people to just give up and let something pass without comment, but that doesn't seem to work on Wikipedia thankfully. NadVolum (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
]Jerusalem Post reports them making unconfirmed claims about Israeli organ harvesting
Their unconfirmed claims are actually significant evidence that they are generally unreliable. The claim is that Israel dug up or otherwise took dead bodies from graveyards and morgues and stole major organs from those bodies. This is scientifically impossible; for such organs to be viable the individual has to have died in hospital with the organs removed almost immediately. There is no way that organs can be retrieved from bodies that have been buried or left in morgues for any length of time. BilledMammal (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
The Jerusalem Post said that a whole slew of sources reported that, not just MEMO, who were mentioned once only in passing. So no, that is not significant evidence at all. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
The claim is that Israel dug up or otherwise took dead bodies from graveyards and morgues and stole major organs from those bodies That claim is attributed to Euro-Med.
It's about time we closed this time sink. M.Bitton (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Not entirely; MEMO says, in their own voice, that there is evidence of organ theft. They also say "Moreover, Israel has made it lawful to hold dead Palestinians’ bodies and steal their organs." The first part of this is true - the second part is a falsehood. BilledMammal (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I just read that article and it sounds to me as if the Euromed call for an investigation is on the right track.
"There have been reports in recent years of the unlawful use of Palestinian corpses held by Israel, including the theft of organs and their use in Israeli university medical schools. Israeli doctor Meira Weiss disclosed in her book Over Their Dead Bodies that organs taken from dead Palestinians were utilised in medical research at Israeli universities’ medical faculties and were transplanted into Jewish-Israeli patients. Even more concerning are admissions made by Yehuda Hess, the former director of Israel’s Abu Kabir Institute of Forensic Medicine, about the theft of human tissues, organs and skin from dead Palestinians over a period of time without their relatives’ knowledge or consent. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Hiss stole from Israeli's, Palestinian's, and foreigners. Weiss' book discusses his actions; the fact that these sources omit these highly relevant facts raise serious questions about their reliability and neutrality, but it does not support these claims. BilledMammal (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
What I said stands: you misattributed a statement to MEMO.
What MEMO said cannot be dismissed just because you don't agree with it.
What has been quoted by Selfstudier makes JP's dismissal of the well-founded concerns look ridiculous. M.Bitton (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
What did I misattribute? MEMO says, in their own voice, that there is evidence of organ harvesting. They also say, in their own voice, that Israel has made it lawfully to steal Palestinian's organs. BilledMammal (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I quoted (in green) what you misattributed to MEMO. Please don't do that again. M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
The article I linked also says that it is documented that bodies were taken from hospitals, and these are the bodies it is referring to when it says there is evidence of organ harvesting. You are right that it does fully attribute the claim about dug up bodies - I confused the various different sources I have seen on this, and will try to be more careful in the future - but the substance of my statement was correct.
Can we now move on to discussing what MEMO actually said? BilledMammal (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
the substance of my statement was correct the substance of your statement is based on a misrepresented source. M.Bitton (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
In Report: Israel destroyed 192 mosques in Gaza Strip, they claim The Israeli occupation army has destroyed 192 mosques in the besieged Gaza Strip since 7 October, Israeli media outlets reported. As far as I can tell, Israeli media made no such claim - although a month earlier the Gaza Media office claimed that 192 mosques had been damaged. BilledMammal (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
So because you can’t find their source that means they are wrong? Yeah, that’s not how any of this works. nableezy - 21:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
So based on your own OR and your status as a reliable source, you make this edit ?? Selfstudier (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
A source, of questionable reliability, claimed that Israeli media had said something. There was no link to the Israeli media, and a search finds no Israeli source making the claim - although it does find non-Israeli sources making the claim a month prior that 192 mosques had been damaged, and it finds Al Mayadeen, an unreliable source, claiming that Israeli media reported that the Israeli Occupation Forces had left 192 mosques destroyed during the span of the aggression. If you look at the article, you'll see that the similarities also extend beyond that; most of the content is the same.
I think that is more than sufficient reason to remove the content on grounds of reliability.
Further, I think the unattributed reliance to a generally unreliable source is more than enough reason to find this source generally unreliable - if we can't trust the information when it is on Al Mayadeen, we can't trust it when it is on MEMO. BilledMammal (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Fuentes video

Revising down my opinion of MEMO a little having noticed they published a video this week of fascist antisemite Nick Fuentes, without indicating that he might be problematic. They just call him an “an American political commentator” and apparently approve of his view that Israel “controls” America “through bribery, espionage, and corruption”. Currently top of their “current news” section (news! even though obviously opinion). [35] BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

And Myron Gaines also features in the clip, interviewing Fuentes as if he’s the voice of MEMO, and saying it’s “100% a fact” that the Israel lobby is all-powerful. This is Gaines: https://www.mediamatters.org/manosphere/misogynistic-manosphere-influencers-embrace-nazism BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, massive red flag for me. Even a modicum of research would show who Fuentes is, and either they didn't do the research, or they don't care. Toa Nidhiki05 14:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
as if he’s the voice of MEMO, how did you come to that conclusion?
saying it’s “100% a fact” that the Israel lobby is all-powerful. some people have a very good reason to believe that's the case, so where's the problem with that and why should MEMO censor him when the so-called RS give a voice to the Islamophobes and anti-Palestinians of the worst kind? M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I'll just put it here https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-750425 Vegan416 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Nothing to do with MEMO. Is there anything else or is that it? M.Bitton (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
There is much more at his wikipedia article. And the point was this "they published a video this week of fascist antisemite Nick Fuentes, without indicating that he might be problematic" and "Currently top of their current news section (news! even though obviously opinion)". Vegan416 (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
They don't need to do censor him to please Israel and its allies who give a voice to the Islamophobes and anti-Palestinians of the worst kind (without describing as such). M.Bitton (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
We are not here to right great wrongs. FortunateSons (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't do it then. M.Bitton (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
When I first saw the video, I assumed it was MEMO interviewing him and Gaines was the interviewer. I only subsequently realised it was an extract from Gaines’ podcast. They took an extract from a Nazi podcast, of a prominent fascist being antisemitic, and put it on their website — as “news” — with absolutely no context. That’s simply not the behaviour of a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
He is an American political commentator, that's a fact, everything else is an opinion that professional journalists such as those working for the BBC wouldn't use. So where is the problem? M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
If you look at the first citations on his article, you would see that there are quite a few choice words to describe him other than commentator. FortunateSons (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I repeat, him being a commentator is a fact, everything else is an opinion or a label that professional journalists don't use. Did you read what I wrote about the BBC? M.Bitton (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The bbc describe him as far-right and white nationalist FortunateSons (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Not when they are interviewing him. Is there anything else? M.Bitton (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
It’s not possible to prove a negative, and perhaps some indication of political leaning would have been appropriate? FortunateSons (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Do the so-called RS (associated with Israel and its allies) give an indication of the political leaning of the Islamophobes and anti-Palestinians that they often interview (when not stating their BS as facts)? M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Do you have an interview of one of them with someone who is as prolific as Fuentes? FortunateSons (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't and I certainly don't intend on looking for one. Back to the subject: is there anything else about MEMO that we need to discuss? M.Bitton (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I think this will be likely heading for an RfC anyway in the long term, so I don’t have anything for now FortunateSons (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Did the BBC ever interview him? Vegan416 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think so, but I have never seen them insult a host. M.Bitton (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Nobody asked them to insult him in his face during the interview. But when publishing the interview they could add a description of his extreme views in general, so the viewers can asses him better. Or better they could refrain from interviewing him in the first place. Like the BBC apparently did... Vegan416 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
They could do all kind of things that you approve of, but like the other RS, they don't have to and as long as they don't fabricate stories (like the NYT), then everything is how it should be. Also, they don't have to copy anyone or let someone else decide for them on whom they should interview (for the sake of freedom of speech, etc.). M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
It’s not an interview, it’s a video from a podcast posted to their instagram account. Should they have posted that? I wouldn’t have. Does it have anything to do with their actual reporting? Meh. nableezy - 18:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Correct it’s not an interview. Nor is it “news”. What it has to do with their reporting is: they chose to bring very fringe views into their news section even though it isn’t vaguely newsworthy, they mislabelled very extreme opinion as news, they gave so little context in simply calling him “an American political commentator” as to be misleading. I don’t see how you can’t get that makes them an unreliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
put it on their website — as “news” they didn't. What they did do is mention what an American commentator said in his own voice. Is there a problem with that? M.Bitton (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
They literally did. It was filed in the “latest news” section of the website. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Whatever the tagging or section on the website, the actual content consists purely of an Instagram link and a headline, so it is self-evidently not their own reporting or news. There's not much more to be said than that. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Clearly distinguishing between opinion and news is a usual indicator of a reliable news source, often invoked on this bulletin board. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
They did mention what an American political commentator said in his own voice. Again, is there a problem with that? M.Bitton (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Presenting fringe views as commentary isn't the same thing as presenting them in the publication's voice, endorsing them, or presenting incorrect information. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah but it’s just an instagram post, yes also posted the same to their website, and I get the problem here but this isn’t reporting or something that anybody would cite anyway. So meh. nableezy - 22:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
And they’ve taken down the video. They have also posted Bill Maher saying the Jews have right of title to Palestine. That they post people talking on podcasts isn’t the newsiest thing to do but I don’t see how this is really something to spend time discussing. nableezy - 22:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The sad reality is that Nick Fuentes is a not-insignificant American political figure despite the fact that he's horribly racist, and he famously had a meeting/dinner with former President Donald Trump. Describing him as "an American political commentator" is not inaccurate, nor are his statements not newsworthy.
Per Iskandar "Presenting fringe views as commentary isn't the same thing as presenting them in the publication's voice, endorsing them, or presenting incorrect information."
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
His meeting with Trump was newsworthy. His guest slot on a Nazi podcast isn’t. If it was newsworthy, a news organisation would report it, explaining who he is. MEMO didn’t do that; they just put him out there as a legitimate voice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The news agencies (secondary sources) decide what is newsworthy and what isn't, that's their prerogative. M.Bitton (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes indeed. |"nick fuentes" "donald trump"| generates hundreds of google news hits, while |"nick fuentes" "myron gaines"| generates just ten, most from Media Matters for America, and all of which describe Fuentes as a white nationalist Holocaust denier and Gaines as a Nazi-embracing misogynist manosphere activist. The extent to which MEMO is an outlier here shows how fringe it is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
That's a lot of irrelevant WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Media analysis is not OR FortunateSons (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Irrelevant "whatever" that is based on someone's analysis is always irrelevant. The bottom line is that news agencies are free to give a voice to whomever they choose (that's what freedom of the press is all about). M.Bitton (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Media sources, including very reliable ones, publish the views of questionable figures all the time. The NYT published a piece written by a Hamas politician a couple of months ago. Meanwhile, the WSJ published a piece by a far-right who has a history of making racist anti-Arab statements. An no, the WSJ did not mention Smotrich's racist statements when presenting him as an author.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    Did NYT and WSJ file these opinion pieces under “news”? Did NYT miss out mentioning that their guest author was from Hamas? I agree Smotrich is a disgusting racist, but he’s a government minister and WSJ make it clear who he is, and in fact his (clearly labelled) opinion piece is premised on the fact the US media sees him as “far right”. If MEMO had chosen to interview Fuentes or give him an op ed, that would reflect badly on their integrity (and might suggest they are fringe) but would not be a reliability issue. But what they did was showcase his appearance on a Nazi podcast, gave no context whatsoever, and filed it under news. This is a reliability issue. I’ll try not to come back to this again because obviously it’s not the only piece of evidence to be weighed, but it’s important not to misrepresent what happened. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    "Did NYT miss out mentioning that their guest author was from Hamas?" Actually, yes. They simply introduce him as mayor of Gaza city (which is true) without mentioning his Hamas credentials. Likewise, the WSJ doesn't mention Smotrich's racism when presenting him. Giving context for Fuentes is absolutely not necessary for MEMO's reliability. The only issue I see here is MEMO accidentally misfiling this under news instead of opinion. VR (Please ping on reply) 20:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Having read through this discussion, I'm impressed; the lead of our article on MEMO makes it sound like they're super fringe, so one would think it'd be no trouble to cite lots of examples of them being unreliable, but instead this discussion is this long and the only evidence seems to be a couple nothingburgers where they reported that someone said something which that person did say, or reported stories other, bigger RS also reported. I'm just not seeing anything actionable here...? -sche (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Non-opinion articles containing falsehoods and antisemitic canards:
  1. More extremist than their Israeli paymasters - In this, MEMO denies that Raed Salah made antisemitic remarks. Salah had previously said We [Muslims] have never allowed ourselves to knead [the dough for] the bread that breaks the fast in the holy month of Ramadan with children's blood. Whoever wants a more thorough explanation, let him ask what used to happen to some children in Europe, whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the [Jewish] holy bread - indisputably blood libel. The article itself comes close to antisemitic canards such as "Jews control the media".
  2. MEMO Comment: Is Britain's new ambassador to Israel really going to be objective? - MEMO describes Matthew Gould as having two masters, with Israel being the second one because of his Jewish faith. Clearly Antisemitic trope#Dual loyalty.
Opinion articles written by MEMO's senior editor, expressing antisemitic canards:
  1. George Osborne needs a reality check - It is almost de rigueur for politicians to pay homage at the court of the Board of Deputies and, in the process, pledge allegiance to, sorry, support for the State of Israel.
  2. Is Israel now the unofficial 51st State of the United States of America? - quotes a long disproven line saying "Jews control America", along with other canards.
Outside of its publications, MEMO has tweeted antisemitic images, such as by depicting Israel as an octopus, organized lectures by Holocaust deniers and had their employees deny the holocaust. BilledMammal (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
All your examples are nothing out of ordinary. If we were to ban all media that have ever made anti-Palestinian, Anti-Arab, anti-Russian, anti-Semitic, anti-Chinese, anti-European, anti-German, etc. remarks, we'll be left with virtually zero sources. — kashmīrī TALK 22:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The Washington Post also deleted an anti-Palestinian image it had previously published. https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2023/11/08/washington-post-hamas-cartoon-michael-ramirez/ Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

A few more examples, some from the talk page of MEMO's article:

Reliability of Google Earth

I can't find any information concerning Wikipedia policy about the reliability of Google Earth as a source for elevations and coordinates of places. I've cited Google Earth as a source in many articles -- and had it deleted a few times. In those cases, the editor has substituted a "citation needed" tag. Well, Google Earth is a citation -- and to my mind is far preferable to no citation at all.

As an example of my use of Google Earth, I use it as a source of elevations for rivers, towns, and mountains, mostly in Latin America. The elevation of a place is often an important determinant of its climate, agriculture, and topography. If an alternative to Google Earth is available for this information about many remote and obscure places, I don't know what it is. To illustrate the use of Google Earth in an article, see Lauricocha River in which Google Earth is cited as a source three times. To understand what this river is like, you have to know the elevations along its route and I don't know of other sources as accurate as Google Earth. (To be clear, two people determining the elevation or coordinates of a place using Google Earth might come up with slightly different answers, but the differences in the vast majority of cases would be insignificant.)

Now, I suppose that using Google Earth could be considered "original research." I would maintain that it is no more original research than adding up two numbers in a math article. Anyway, I would propose that Google Earth be designated a reliable source for elevations and coordinates of places, provided that official governmental sources of that information is non-existent or inaccessible. Comments? Smallchief (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel like it’s probably about as reliable as many massive geographical indexes i.e. not very. I’m mostly thinking of place name databases that include any cluster of houses as an “unincorporated community” but it probably applies to other things. Dronebogus (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure anyone using {{cn}} like that is reading random RSN threads anyway, {{bsn}} {{rs}} and {{dubious}} exist so could just revert and mention one of those instead. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Maps should be fine as long as it's a simple interpretation of the map. Working out what percentage of an area is covered by trees could be straying into original research. Also make sure to include enough information for verification, simply using "<ref>Google Earth</ref>" is not enough.
Which after checking is what is used in Lawriqucha River. This is no different from vaguely waving at the Encyclopedia Britannica and saying it's somewhere on one of the pages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
You have a point and I agree. The use of Google Earth Pro to determine an elevation should identify the precise location for which such information was valid. The two elevations I cited in the article were identified as being Lake Niñacocha and the junction of the Nupe and Lauricocha rivers. I'll take your advice and also include coordinates in footnotes citing Google Earth. Smallchief (talk)
Think about including enough detail that another editor can replicate what you did, so they can get the same result as you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Those are completely unacceptable citations and I'm very surprised this is coming from someone with autopatrolled. You can't even search for "Lauricocha (/Lawriqucha) River" on Google Earth; AFAICT you have to plug in coordinates and then hover over the river to see what the elevation is at specific points. Simple citing this as "Google Earth" is not verifiable, and the choice of which places to report elevation for is OR. JoelleJay (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I didn't anticipate when I asked for opinions that I would be accused of being an ignoramus. Smallchief (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
It's not OR to report that Google Earth provides an elevation at a certain spot. It's like when we geolocate a feature (mountain, town) it picks a very precise spot on the feature but is that the best spot to geolocate is a matter of opinion. -- GreenC 01:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Google Earth is not "picking a precise spot", the user is hovering their mouse over whichever arbitrary point they choose and noting the elevation that Google is reporting at that site. Citing this as just "Google Earth" does not even provide the reader with a location to validate, and good luck verifying anything if the elevation ever gets updated. JoelleJay (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
But if we already have reliably-sourced coordinates for a place (as many articles do), it's not OR to read off the elevation given by Google Earth (or another digital map, or a paper map) for that point. – Joe (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:MAPCITE: "It is not original research to extract information from a map". It needs to be WP:Verifiable. This requires a good citation. There is {{Cite Google Maps}}, I don't see anything for Google Earth. Could check with Help_talk:Citation_Style_1. -- GreenC 01:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
In-line attribution may help here when no book, map, or other reference is available. At least the data can be juxtaposed with the source. I don't think it is OR since that would be literally when no citation is provided. There are many sources for that here in geohack [38]. Maybe others may have elevation. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it is OR since that would be literally when no citation is provided. OR can exist even when a source is provided. This is particularly true when the source provided is a primary source, as it is here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be the first place to publish an elevation. JoelleJay (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
It wouldn't be, it'd be published in the form of the map first. – Joe (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
But it's not "published". Readers cannot just go to Google Earth's KML release and find a stated "elevation of Lake Niñococha" (which, by the way, is not given as the origin of the Lauricocha River anywhere in the cited sources; the obituary for the explorer who documented the lake mentions he identified it as being the source of the Amazon river) or the "length of the Lauricocha River" or the "location of the junction between the Nupe River and Lauricocha River". In fact, not a single source in our article mentions the Lauricocha River -- not the Quechua-Spanish dictionary cited for the "lauri" part of "Lauricocha", nor the different Quechua-Spanish dictionary cited for the "cocha" part of "Lauricocha", nor the primary 1905 expedition notes that discuss the Marañon River and Lake Lauricocha, nor the research article on remains in the Lauricocha cave that also only mentions Marañon and the lake, nor Google Earth. The Sebastian Snow obit does say "Snow established that Ninococha has an outlet via underground channels to Lake Santa Ana, and from there to Lake Lauricocha"; if these "underground channels" are supposed to be "Lauricocha River" then, beyond the blatant OR in identity, Google Earth definitely cannot be used to measure the "length" of the river whatsoever.
Does a river by this name even exist?? JoelleJay (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Considering the allegation that there is no such thing as the Lauricocha River, an elementary Google search indicates 610 references to the "Rio Lauricocha" and 210 references to the "Lauricocha River." Amongst these sources I pick only two to illustrate the fact that the river does exist and that it is called the Lauricocha River internationally and in Peru.
The first reference illustrates the international usage of the Lauricocha River in a 1961 article in American Antiquity which refers twice to "Lauricocha River" near an archaelogical site. The article is on JSTOR at [39]
The second reference illustrates local, Peruvian usage of the term Lauricocha River. The reference is correspondence and a report between two Peruvian officials citing the danger of landslides caused by heavy rainfall near the "Rio Lauricocha" and the hamlet of Jesús, Peru. See page two of the document which is the first of several references to the "Rio Lauricocha." The document can be found at [40]
The Lauricocha River is also referred to in sources as the Upper Marañon River illustrating its status as one of the oft-cited sources of the Amazon River. I believe that calling it the Lauricocha River is preferable due to local usage. It's not at all unusual for rivers to have different names in different parts of their courses, especially in isolated mountain areas.
I would be pleased to provide you additional information. Smallchief (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
The question was rhetorical... I was just highlighting the fact that there is no evidence of this river in the cited sources. JoelleJay (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Horse Eye's Back who I believe has professional experience in satellite imagery and mapping. JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I've given this a read through and I don't think this is as much a technical question about Google Earth as a policy/guideline discussion about when reading a map becomes analyzing a map. On the technical side Google Earth does not appear to identify that river, it is unlabeled until it merges with another tributary and becomes the Rio Nupe. I'm sure there are maps out there which do label it though, with one of those I think there would be more of a question here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Minor clarification. The river below the junction of the Lauricocha and the Nupe rivers is often referred to as the beginning the Marañon River, one of the two major streams which unite to form the Amazon River. Both the Nupe and the Lauricocha have been cited as sources of the Amazon.Smallchief (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Then Google Earth is just wrong, they label the river below the confluence at Rondos the Nupe, not the Marañon. Google doesn't call it the Marañon until dozens and dozens of river km later. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
I think there is at least a distinction between reading the elevation of a labeled point off a published static map and reading it from something dynamic and unlabeled. JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the use of Google Earth in that article it appears to be WP:OR; Google Earth doesn't state the elevation or, I believe, the length of the river at any point - instead the user has to do original research to obtain this information from it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think simply reading values from a map is the intended meaning of original research (new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves). Google Earth "clearly states" the elevation of any point on the surface of the earth; the original research was what Google did to produce that data. Though I'll give you that measuring a river might go beyond a routine calculation, because of the coastline paradox and the non-trivial work needed to determine which tributary counts as the main one. – Joe (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
In this case it's not simply reading values from a map - since the points of interest are not labelled the editor has to determine the coordinates of those points of interest, and that's where WP:OR comes in. BilledMammal (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
My worry about the river length is that the river length is not what is in the article, what the article actual states is the direct line betweem to points. Even if correct this is likely a novel point, unless some other source has ever cared about what the straightline measurement was. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Google Earth is kind of a scuffed source to use for elevation data. Rather than rehash that issue, though, I will try to help: @Smallchief: I highly recommend TopoView, which the USGS provides as a free service, and lets you see extremely detailed topographic maps going back hundreds of years (which provide tons and tons of elevation data). jp×g🗯️ 05:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I see now that the river is in Peru -- disregard my dumbass comment about TopoView -- but I think it's quite likely that the Peruvian surveying agencies have something similar online. jp×g🗯️ 05:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Disregard my comment to the effect of being a dumbass, there are a gigantic number of maps here (with clickable index sheet here). jp×g🗯️ 05:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for giving us a useful source for maps of Peru (new to me, so who's the dumbass?), but Map No. 1550 which would show the course of the Lauricocha River is apparently non-existent in this map series. Other maps of the area exist, but Google Earth is the only source I'm aware of that can be relied upon for reasonably accurate elevations in the Lauricocha region.
Assuming that we did have a government-issued topo map of the area, would reading said map to determine elevation be considered original research? If not, I don't see a difference between utilizing Google Earth or a topo map as a source. Not everyplace in this large world is going to have an officially-determined and published elevation -- but elevation is often of critical importance in comprehending what a place is like. Smallchief (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
The difference is that Google does a lot of automated processing of geodata to come up with the layers you see in Google Maps and Google Earth, and because they're fundamentally commercial products, it's not at all transparent about what data and methods it uses or what quality control (if any) it does. For example, for a period of about two years they did something to their algorithm that produced a large, non-existent island in the lake outside my house. By comparison, official mapping agencies use old-fashioned survey techniques that are very unlikely to hallucinate landmasses. I do agree that in some years such high quality maps aren't available or accessible, and there you might fall back on Google Earth, but it's fair enough to say that it's a primary source of last resort. – Joe (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Is this the best source available? Why not use the source they must be using? Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Also if RS do not care, why should we? Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Google Earth/Maps acquires data from a wide variety of commercial, research and government sources (some free some not) and stitches it all together to create a uniform global map. It's probably proprietary what sources they use which can change depending on many issues, including competitive pricing. Google mapping products are revolutionary. Recommend the book Never Lost Again: The Google Mapping Revolution That Sparked New Industries and Augmented Our Reality (2018), a great story. -- GreenC 22:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion has generated enough light to reach a conclusion. To use Google Earth as a source for an elevation or location requires adding to the footnote the coordinates of the measurement location. By adding coordinates to the footnote any user may navigate to Google Earth and verify the information. Thus, I will add coordinates to the footnotes citing Google Earth in the Lauricocha River article. This should bring citations of Google Earth into adherence with Wikipedia:MAPCITE. Thanks to User:GreenC for mentioning Mapcite. Smallchief (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not think this is sufficient at all, as the locations you choose to state the elevations for are still OR. The river isn't even labeled on Google Earth! JoelleJay (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

No, Google Earth isn't an RS. It doesn't meet any of the requirements of RS. It doesn't have published editorial policies, it doesn't do fact checking, it doesn't have a reputation for reliability and accuracy, or for correcting errors. Do we even know where it gets its elevation data? What it does to verify this data? What happens if the data is wrong? And that's without even getting into how an editor knows which point along the river to choose as the elevation point? The idea of editors choosing a point along a river and then writing in Wikipedia that the elevation of that point is the elevation of the river is OR: it's interpreting (likely misinterpreting) a primary source. A river's elevation changes. Do you know what's the highest elevation? The lowest? The average? How would Google Earth determine where a river starts and where it ends? Does Google Earth employ surveyors and cartographers to verify this data? Or does it just combine other data from other sources without checking it? Same with river lengths. Find a better source, a "real" source, like a map published by a cartographer, or better yet, a book that covers the river. Levivich (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have information specifically on the accuracy of Google Earth's elevation numbers, but I disagree with you on several points. The latest figures that I found was that the Geo group in Google (which includes Google Maps as well as G.E.) had 7,100 employees. I'm sure they would be incensed by your assertion that they don't do fact checking. The images and positioning information comes from commercial satellite data that Google buys or commissions. Where I would be less inclined to trust them is for information that requires confirmation on the ground. It's true that they don't have a published editorial policy (as far as I know) but neither do the majority of national survey agencies. Note that lots of articles use latitude and longitude data derived from Google Maps, and I don't think we should disallow that. Zerotalk 02:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I do have a tendency to make overbroad generalizations :-) Google would be a fine source for things like US Interstate X runs through city Y, but for any such example of basic geography, it'd be easy to find a better source. I'm sure Google has lots of employees building Google Maps and their GPS navigation, street view photography, compilation of satellite photography, etc., but absent evidence to the contrary, I would not assume that any of their employees are out in Peru surveying the elevation of rivers :-) I think it's safer to assume that Google Earth's elevation data and similar is just repeating the data that Google obtained from some other source or combination of sources, and that, as you mentioned, Google is not verifying that data by actually surveying the location or taking measurements on the ground. Maybe for street view and road navigation in populated places, but not for rivers in the wilderness of Peru, rural US, small pacific islands, etc.
One indicator of reliability is WP:USEBYOTHERS: do any scholarly sources cite Google Earth for the elevation of a river, or for a particular set of coordinates? I might be convinced Google Earth elevation data was RS if use by others could be shown. Levivich (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to that question. I just want to say measurement of elevation does not require a survey on the ground. Satellites do that routinely. See this short article for an example. Centimeter precision is possible. The most accurate methods (which can monitor sea-level changes within millimeters) use lasers or radar. Older methods are stereoscopic, see this for example. If G.E. is just reporting one of these professional surveys, it is pretty accurate. Zerotalk 09:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Gamerant

Is gamerant a reliable source we can use a a reference? They seem to be fact checking, doing their research and writing neutrally Infrabel1 (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliability is context dependant, not just who creates it (although who creates it can heavily skew the base position from which reliability is assessed). Gamerant has a publically viewable policy on paid/ad/affiliate content, which indicates it does run such, so any articles with the appropriate disclaimers should be treated accordingly. It has ethics, fact checking and corrections policies. So absent any indication it is not reliable, it would come down to (as the paragraphs at the top of this page indicate, what is the content it is being used to support. Was there a particular article/content that this request was triggered by? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Free (self published?) textbooks

I'm hoping to double-check my understanding of WP:RELIABLE for these two sources. I believe they are both considered reliable and can be used heavily to verify information about linguistics, but I just want to make sure.

  • Hayes, Bruce P. (2021). Introductory Linguistics (PDF). Retrieved 2024-04-20.
Although it is definitely self-published, the author of this textbook is an expert in his field who uses this textbook to teach an introductory linguistics class at UCLA. The author has also written a traditionally-published textbook on an overlapping subject (Hayes, Bruce P. (2011). Introductory Phonology. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-444-36013-4).
It isn't entirely clear to me what controls, if any, eCampusOntario exerts on the content it publishes, so I'm not sure whether to treat this textbook as self-published. Additionally, the final two chapters of the book are labeled as "in progress." A first edition of this textbook also exists (Anderson, Catherine (2018). Essentials of Linguistics), and none of it appears to be in progress, but it advises readers to "consider adopting the much-expanded and revised 2nd edition."

All thoughts on this are appreciated, —SyntaxZombie (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

How would you like to use these sources? Alaexis¿question? 12:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
As at least one appears to be an SPS by an expert it may be OK for opinions. The other does not seem to be, and thus is not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Both of these works are written by qualified people. The authors of the second work are listed here. Having more than one author improves reliability because they can correct each others' mistakes. I wouldn't lose sleep over either of these works being cited. Zerotalk 14:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
So both pass SPS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
The author page does not indicate that their qualifications are sufficient, if it is a self-published source. For most of the authors listed (generally assistant or associate professors), it does not list the sort of publications that tell us that these people are otherwise accepted as experts. It also does not make clear what the authorial processes was, whether these people all collaborated on all parts of the work, or if individual chapters have individual authors and should be judged by that author. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Actually it clearly spells out the qualifications and research field of each author, making it obvious they are individually qualified. As a group they are super-qualified. The acknowledgements section of the book also lists 4 other linguists who "offered pedagogical insight and wise counsel" and 14 other academics who provided "thoughtful reviews and feedback" that "allowed us to make substantial improvements". This is much more peer-review than is normal for the first edition of a book published by a mainstream publisher. In my view it satisfies RS without question. Zerotalk 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
It explains that they have PhD in the fields and teach in the fields, but we usually look for significant publications as the indication of expertise, and it only has that for two of them (Derek and Nathan). -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Sheesh, have you ever tried writing a PhD? They're a pretty significant publication. – Joe (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
@NatGertler: We are allowed to cite PhD theses with care, so that's a poor argument. As for what we "usually look for", it would help to actually look: [41] [42] [43] [44]. Zerotalk 15:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

TED Talks (from ted.com or youtube)

A discussion came up on Talk:Katherine Maher about whether TED talks (from ted.com or youtube) are valid RS —it's not listed on RSP. My gut says "no".

Con
  1. TedX has no quality standard
  2. TED talks are cliche, coastal, rife with business speak & pseudo-intellectual
  3. the talks don't distinguish fact from opinion or anecdote. Sources are not cited.
Pro
  1. True TED (not Ted X ) do have an implicit editorial bar for content and speakers, but it's not a journalistic BAR IMO
  2. Speakers often have respectable pedigrees or are notable

What's your take? Tonymetz 💬 14:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

My take is it's the individuals who conduct the TED Talk we should discussing, not the distribution. TED is just a format and there is never going to be a TED talks are reliable/unreliable decision. It's like a decision on if a video uploaded to YouTube can be reliable based solely on YouTube and not the content, or if something on VHS is reliable. Is the individual giving the talk a reliable source? That's actually the question and we already know the answer to that one. Canterbury Tail talk 14:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Can we use the individual's own content—in this case KM's own Ted talk ? Tonymetz 💬 14:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
If an individual is considered a reliable source, then their TED Talk is a reliable source. If they're not then it's not. Canterbury Tail talk 14:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
how about this case? If KM says "i believe xyz" in her Ted talk can we put that in the article? Tonymetz 💬 15:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
@Tonymetz, why would it be WP:DUE? What makes "I believe xyz" of encyclopedic value as opposed to every other sentence in her talk? Schazjmd (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
why answer a question with a question. can you give an example? Tonymetz 💬 15:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
If you're interested in the case you can find it here Tonymetz 💬 15:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Tonymetz's question is the same I would have. I'm not saying it would never be due but this isn't an example of a typical RS reporting on a topic. It could be due if this were an about self case. That could be a simple factual claim, "I was born in Springfield" or a reply to a controversy covered by a RS, "the X newspaper article about me got the following critical dates wrong..." In general I don't think a TED talk is going to be a likely source for such statements but I haven't seen that many TED talks (despite attending a TED event). It would be possible, if the person is an acknowledged expert, that statements they made in a TED talk could be due (perhaps comments about the design of a moon rocket or, if they were say an official NASA historian, some historical facts about a rocket program). These would have to be case by case examples and presume a better source for the claim doesn't exist. In my rocket example, a fact that can only be sourced to a TED talk is unlikely to have weight for inclusion in the NASA article but might be due in an article about that rocket program. Again, case by case. Springee (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems like the question becomes how what was said aligns with WP:ABOUTSELF. Simonm223 (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
by this standard the TED talk would be a RS Tonymetz 💬 01:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I would treat any TED talk similarly to an OpEd. It's more or less the views and opinions of the speaker. Like a traditional newspaper OpEd there the author gets some style guidance from the editor and the editor decided the author's views were interesting enough to cover. Springee (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I wouldn't use their TED comments to establish weight but they could be used for about self type material. Springee (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Ted talks as shown on video are not, to the best of my knowledge, edited after the fact. The acceptance of a Ted (not TedX) talk may be seen as a form of recognition of a speaker's expertise, but it is the speaker, and not the details of content, that are being approved. As such, the talk itself is effectively a self-published source from our perspective. Our rules for self-published sources apply -- i.e., it can be used for topics on which the speaker is recognized as an expert, but cannot be used for statements about identifiable living individuals besides the speaker themself. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
i believe they are edited. Tonymetz 💬 15:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
TED(x) is probably almost always useless, because almost anyone can sign up to do one at their local university/institution, and I don't think TED Conferences has any editorial oversight over those. TED is decent, and the people who do one are usually notable or almost notable. But I think either fits under the scope of WP:RSOPINION. Cleo Cooper (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Can we cut to the point? Right-wing news outlets isolated a quote from a TED talk about Wikipedia to make it sound like Maher, now leading NPR, doesn't care about truth. And of course people are trying to insert that into her biography as a personal view about truth rather than, you know, an argument for the way WP:V encompasses multiple perspectives. TED Talks are reliable for the opinions of their speakers, but you also need WP:WEIGHT to include it in an article, and it has to be done in a way that meets WP:NPOV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 10:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the clips of the KM TED talks have an agenda. but there is also content in the complete TED recording that would be relevant to her article. And it would be good to have clarity on TED within WP:RSP Tonymetz 💬 15:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
about WP:WEIGHT & WP:NPOV -- can you clarify that ? what about WP:ABOUTSELF content that has yet to be published elsewhere. What weight would the ted talk have? Tonymetz 💬 16:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Seems WP:RSCONTEXT would be useful. Reading the Maher talk page it's appears that it will be used to support a quote without context of that quote, also it appears the argument has evolved to now be "Larry Sanger said something". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's a fair summary. Tonymetz 💬 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Could someone provide the context then, what content is going to supported by what source? If it's just a single quote, why should it be included? If no other reliable sources have reported on it then it might be best to not include it (WP:BALASP). If it has been reported on in other reliable secondary sources that explain why it's worth noting, why not use those instead? Secondary sources are preferred over primary ones. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
For quotes, it's recommended to cite both the secondary and primary source, but the last three sentences of WP:RS/QUOTE seem especially relevant. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
OK, but that doesn't answer my question. What content is going to be added to the article? Again if it's just one sentence from a TED talk why is it being included? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Mystery to me, I'm afraid. I guess my comment wasn't really intended a direct response to yours, just a tangent brininging up another section I think is applicable to the general discussion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm trying to separate discussions. Discussions on Katherine Maher should be on Talk:Katherine Maher . On this thread I'm trying to clarify Ted talks on RSP .
To answer your question, the Ted clips have attracted attention and likely aren't worthy of inclusion. but the Ted talk includes a lot on her policy and that would help flesh out more detail on her tenure at Wikipedia. Tonymetz 💬 15:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
TED is going to be generally reliable for about self statements, but reliability is context sensitive (again WP:RSCONTEXT). So it could be contested if it was used to support details out of context, and if no secondary sources have bothered to report on something a good argument could be made to exclude it (WP:BALASP). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's a reliability issue, unless there are grounds to suspect that TED manipulates the videos of the talks that they upload to youtube. Alaexis¿question? 07:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Citing videos from reliable, secondary sources on BLP articles

Hello WP:RSN,
I have a simple question: Can videos hosted on Youtube on official accounts from reliable, secondary sources such as CNN or PBS be cited on BLP articles? Another editor has suggested to me that Youtube videos can "never" be used on BLP articles, and they cited WP:Youtube and WP:ELNO. However, my reading of WP:Youtube is that while unverified youtube channels should not be cited, videos uploaded by official channels of reliable, secondary sources (especially those listed as reliable on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) are fine to cite. In particular, my feeling would that reliable, secondary sources that have multiple platforms are reliable regardless of the platform. For example, a national newspaper that is considered "generally reliable" is still assumed to be "generally reliable" if they also produce a podcast by the same staff members.

When looking for evidence one way or another on this matter, I have found that several rated good articles BLP articles such as Timothée Chalamet,Rihanna, Conan O'Brien, Chyna, Peter Dinklage and Seth MacFarlane all cite several videos hosted on Youtube by reliable secondary sources. Is this in fact indication that editors may cite, when appropriate, Youtube videos from reliable sources on BLP articles?

Thank you your time and input, CeltBrowne (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes Youtube videos can be cited on BLP's but there have to be a number of hoops they need to jump through. Firstly they need to come from a source that we would consider reliable to start with (or where citing a subjects personal youtube account, be non-contentious). Secondly they need to pass all the copyright checks. The issue primarily with news content on youtube is that much of it is copyright violations as wikipedia has defined them. Lastly it needs to pass all the other BLP requirements. So in theory, a news story by CNN, published on the CNN youtube channel, which was being used in a citation for content that passed all the other BLP checks would be fine. As you can see, its generally easier in the long run just to not cite youtube content in a BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, this pretty much aligns with what I had thought before I asked the question. I understand what you are saying when you say it'd just be easier not to cite Youtube, but I think in some instances it can be necessary; for example if hypothetically there's a piece of information only covered in the Youtube version of the story, or if the Youtube version of the story is freely accessible but the version on the reliable source's own website is behind the paywall (and thus harder to verify). CeltBrowne (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree. P.S. Make sure they have the verified badge. I think the same goes for Instagram, Twitter, etc. Cleo Cooper (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
@CeltBrowne For example:[45]. Someone replaced it with a text-article much later, but it was a good source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Note - the OP has misled you. I never invoked WP:ELNO. That was a random hopping IP, and said IP was wrong. I invoked WP:NPA through WP:BLP, which places strong restrictions on YouTube as mentioned and discourages it's use. It's use has an excellent example in the article on Chyna where two of the YouTube links are dead - a risk that encourages other sources to be used. This is the basis of my view that they should never be used. Also, the account on YouTub is not verified. Thank you. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Your view that YouTube "should never be used" is very out-of-line with the current consensus and relevant guidelines. It's okay that you hold that opinion but it would not be okay for you to use as the reason to remove such citations or tell other editors that they cannot use YouTube as a "source." ElKevbo (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Ghostarchive is capable of archiving YouTube links, both of the deadlinks in the Chyna had available archives (which I've added[46]). It would be good if when adding a YouTube video editors made sure a backup was available, in case it's needed in the future. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Could you provide a link to the part of BLP that places restrictions on using YouTube? I must be missing something. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I need to apologise, I went WP:NPA when I should have gone WP:NPF. Where WP:YOUTUBE is relevant here is the copyvio factor. It is also the case that WP prefers text to video (I don't have that guideline handy) which is why I said what I said about never using it. I hope that explains matters better. Yes there are exceptions but this issue is not one of them. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NPF makes no mention of YouTube. It does mention using reliable secondary sources, but such a source posting on their channel on YouTube is equivalent to them posting on their own website. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I never said it did mention Youtube. The point is that the claimed source (Wrestling Observer) doesn't run the channel. Therefore it is not a reliable secondary source. It isn't a verified account (see above) That is the combination. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
In the micro-sense, there may be a question of whether the cited source that myself and Addicted4517 are discussing is on an "official" channel or not. However, in this thread here on RSN I was asking in the macro, general sense "Can videos from reliable, secondary sources be cited?", and the answer seems to be a clear yes. I wanted to know the answer in general, not just for the specific source myself and Addicted4517 are discussing, as it's not uncommon in my editing to occasionally cite podcasts and video links when appropriate.
I don't think RSN should be dragged into the specifics of the source we're discussing. Again, I was asking in the broad sense, not the narrow. But for the record, the Heartland Radio is an official partner of Wrestling Observer Live and is authorised to broadcast it, which is something stated in the introduction of every episode of WOL. CeltBrowne (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
But it's not verified. That is a key failing of your claim. Verified by Youtube I mean. The broad sense is how you misled everyone to try and make a point. It doesn't work like that. There are exceptions across it and you tried to broad brush me for what I said - which I NEVER said was policy. I said what I said as a personal view based on WP's clear and concise preference for text over video (or audio for that matter). And I hold to that and will always be a sceptic of the use of Youtube as a source. And I think I'm entitled. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Not really, you're kind of just wrong insofar as you call YouTube a "source." It is not a source, it is a platform. What you're saying is like saying that it's OK if it's in print but not if it's on the web.
A work has an author and a publisher. If the author and publisher are reliable--say, a journalist and CNN--it doesn't matter what platform or medium the work is published in: print, online text, video, audio, etc. A piece of journalism from CNN will be reliable regardless if it's published on YouTube or CNN.com or Apple Podcasts.
It's true that one must check the YouTube video to make sure it's published by an RS, but beyond that it doesn't matter if it's YouTube or elsewhere. Levivich (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
There are other ways that this could be recognized as an official channel -- if either Heartland or WO provides links to it, for example. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Actually it does matter. I'm not saying don't cite the internet. That's ridiculous. WP:YOUTUBE is there for a reason and it's to stop random use of it as a source. There is a preference for text sources and that includes online text. Wikipedia is a text encyclopedia, correct? Text sources are preferred. I place that in italics for emphasis. And as I said, the source in this case isn't reliable as the channel is not verified. I hope that puts an end to this. I would prefer to move on. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
No that's not why WP:YOUTUBE is there. It's important you not spread blatant misinformation about our policies, or obstruct others' efforts to edit by, basically, making up rules that don't exist. Let's get a few things straight:
First, WP:YOUTUBE is a section of WP:EL. That page has nothing to do with sources... that's WP:RS. So the link you keep citing, WP:YOUTUBE, has literally nothing to do with using YouTube as a "source," or, more accurately, using a YouTube video as a source.
Second, WP:RS does not contain the word "YouTube" on the page. There are no special rules about YouTube videos being used as sources.
Third, no, Wikipedia does not prefer text sources. That's nowhere on WP:RS, and in fact, the section of RS at WP:PUBLISHED explicitly states that reliable sources can be in any medium: The term is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. That's the opposite of what you're claiming.
Fourth, no, you are not entitled to remove an otherwise reliable source just because it's a video hosted on YouTube (or just because it's a video). You can have whatever personal views you want, but Wikipedia runs on consensus, and you have to follow it. Which means you cannot make up and try to enforce your own rules.
When you do that, you confuse other editors, and waste other editors' time by having us have to stop and clarify the confusion you caused, as happened here. So, please, stop making up rules that don't exist, and stop misrepresenting the content of our policies and guidelines. If you're going to cite WP:YOUTUBE, WP:BLP, or anything else, take the time to actually read what you're citing and make sure it says what you think it says. Levivich (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Noone seems to have linked WP:RSPYT in this thread yet, so I'll do that. It's not policy, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
As with everything, it depends on context, consensus, and what you're using it to cite. I've seen an instance where someone took an edited clip from a source of marginal reliability which placed the (BLP) speaker's words out of context, in a way that disagreed with the fuller context provided by other higher quality reliable sources. So that particular Youtube was a problem, but not because it was a Youtube, rather because an editor was trying to use a lower quality source on a BLP with a clip edited in a way that created bias and that disagreed with all higher quality sources. And claiming, "but that's what he said", not taking into account what else had been edited out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
In line with what many other users above have said: to debate whether we can cite "videos" or "YouTube" would be like debating whether we can cite "books" or "Google Books". We must examine which video or book someone wants to cite, and for what. Certainly, some videos on YouTube (e.g. by verified news organizations which we accept as Reliable Sources) can be cited. -sche (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Snowden and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Report

RE: Edward Snowden and his Wikipedia article. The report from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and his own assertions are at odds. Several media outlets have repeated his claims. I believe the report should be included as a reliable source and not OR because it is the synthesis of several investigations and documents obtained by the committee.

the report is here: hpsci_snowden_review_declassified.pdf (house.gov) ItsjustGatsby (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Edward_Snowden#Use_of_an_Intelligence_Committee_report for a discussion of this source (and some other matters). The report was discussed in a USnews article.[47] Burrobert (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIMARY suggest using extreme caution when using primary sources in BLPs. If there is any secondary reporting on the report / conflicts with claims by Snowden, then it would be better to use those. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a US Congress report. WP:BLPPRIMARY does not forbid using this source in this case. WP:PRIMARY might be applicable here, but again, it does not forbid using this source, and I at least some parts of the report seem to be "secondary" because it uses many other sources for referencing. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I would certainly use caution here and not state anything in wikivoice based on this report. It is a primary source ("original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved"). Alaexis¿question? 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Probably a better link is this. Given that the report was widely covered in mainstream secondary sources (e.g. [48], [49], [50]), it can be used on the page to supplement other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
They attribute the report's findings, we should do the same. Alaexis¿question? 20:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, sure, we should make an explicit attribution to the report. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
The specific things being said in that talk page section that I think are worthy of note are:
  • "we should not use the report to remove Snowden's description as a whistleblower"
  • 'we should not use the report to accuse him of being a "suspected spy for Russia and the People's Republic of China"."
Yeah, of course we should not use it to do that. This seems like obvious common sense to me, and it's frankly kind of silly that there needs to be a RSN thread about this. Really -- he leaked embarrassing information about the US government, and the US government says he is an evil bastard -- what a shocking revelation, stop the presses! jp×g🗯️ 01:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
"we should not use the report to accuse him...". But it is not we who accused him. No, we must simply follow the WP:PUBLICFIGURE here (he is obviously not a "low-profile individual"). If an accusation has been widely reported (see links above to APnews, nbcnews, aljazeera, etc.) it must appear on the page. we should not use the report to remove S. description as a whistleblower. Yes, we should not remove such description, but we also need to cite an alternative description, a claim that can be sourced to multiple secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

inf.news

This website inf.news is a content farm like min.news with (most probably) machine translated articles from Chinese content farms or self-published articles gathered from Toutiao, Baidu Baike or Baijiahao.

Example is historical article Battle of Lazikou which relies on two inf.news articles (with no editors nor in-article referencing/vetting) and another content farm laitimes as sources If nothing is done to these sources I'm afraid the Chinese articles, which are already not well patrolled on English Wikipedia, are going to be inundated with all sorts of revisionist news and press releases.


about 200 articles with inf.news article as sources now NoCringe (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

There nothing to show who or what this website is, and no other reliable sources use it or even mention it. I would think better sources could be found for a history article than a random 'news' site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Confusing sources

Found much contradictions regarding Gajapati invasion of Bidar that, recently a user have actively edited the article with a source where it says the Gajapatis captured Bidar from Bahmanis when the Bahmanis were in War with the Malwa Sultanate. The context is cited on the basis of The Sūryavaṁśi Gajapatis of Orissa, page number 58, where it does says they captured Bidar. But at the same time, Bidar Its History And Monuments page number 8 talks about the event where the Malwa Sultanate captured Bidar from the Bahmanis. Which of the source is reliable, what changes can we make on the article on the basis of these sources? (Or did I ask this at the wrong place? Expecting the explanation of reliability of both). Imperial[AFCND] 10:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six)

What is the reliability of entertainment coverage, including reviews, from the New York Post (nypost.com HTTPS links HTTP links) and its sub-publications Decider (decider.com HTTPS links HTTP links) and Page Six (pagesix.com HTTPS links HTTP links)?

— Newslinger talk 21:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Added Page Six to RfC question per Endwise's suggestion in the discussion section. In your response, please clearly specify the publication and/or sub-publications that your evaluation refers to, and the types of coverage (e.g. film reviews, celebrity news) that you are evaluating. — Newslinger talk 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post)

  • Option 3 or Option 4. There is no need to make a carveout for the New York Post. The Post's entertainment coverage is part of it being a gossip tabloid at absolute best. This is not a paper of quality or renown. Given that so much of its entertainment coverage is about living persons, and the previous RFC noted the Post's fondness for fabrication, allowing any such carveout is likely to be a WP:BLP danger. There's a consistent flow of fresh BLP-violating trash from the Post, especially from Page Six but also from the rest of the paper/site. I would suggest the safest thing is to deprecate its entertainment coverage entirely. At the least, we must note that the New York Post must not be used for any statement concerning living persons - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't know enough to speak on the Post, but for Decider, I'd say option 2. Some of their articles are clickbaity gossip and tend to over-dramatize stories (for instance, this), but those tend to fall under WP:TABLOID. On the other hand, they have some longer-form articles/interviews (example 1, example 2) and reviews (example) that seem perfectly fine and where I have no reason to suspect their reliability. Given that the least reliable articles seem to come from sources that shouldn't be used in any case, I see no reason to extend the "generally unreliable" moniker to all Decider articles. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3. I've found the NY Post entertainment coverage to be mostly gossipy and i'd avoid it... In fact really all i would use the Post for is sports coverage, which is mostly ok as they employ some good sports writers.. everything else there I would avoid. Spanneraol (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Question - what does "entertainment" mean in this RFC? Celebrity gossip or film reviews?  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah... +1. For example this article from NYPost is a pretty standard concert review (not unlike other such reviews they post), and I'd have no issues with someone using it on Pixies (band). The celeb gossip crap posted on NYPost, Decider, and Pagesix.com is a different beast however and something I'd probably argue is generally unreliable. Endwise (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
    I assumed we were talking about entertainment news reporting rather than reviews. Spanneraol (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
    This RfC examines all entertainment coverage (including the entire scope of Decider) from these publications, which encompasses both film reviews and celebrity news. If you consider one of these publications to be more reliable for some topics than others, please say so. Please be detailed and specific in your responses, so the RfC closer can carefully evaluate the responses and give a comprehensive closing statement. — Newslinger talk 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2, weakly – The Post is tabloid-y but entertainment as a whole has elements of tabloid-y content. For instance, if I was working on an article about internet slang such as Looksmaxxing, I wouldn't have much of an issue using The Post for some cultural reception info. Also concurring with Endwise, I wouldn't have an issue with it for music or a film review. Celeb gossip shouldn't really be used from any tabloid anyway? I don't know much to speak on the other ones. TLAtlak 03:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 on Decider and Page Six. I can't find many (or any significant) examples of RS referencing its reporting based on a cursory Google News search for terms like "Decider reported" or "according to Decider", etc. That said, I also can't find any instances of its reporting being specifically identified as inaccurate or unreliable. Given that, I think Option 3 is the best bet. Chetsford (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC); edited

03:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Option 2. I understand why the New York Post can be problematic, but film/music/television/etc reviews are fine. I guess we have to explicitly allow that carve out so overzealous editors don't go around removing them. Jessintime (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Frankly I don't see the reason why reviews from well known film critics (like the Kyle Smith (critic) listed above) or interviews that asks the right questions cannot be used as a primary source just because they are posted onto an unreliable platform. S5A-0043Talk 11:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I'm the person who started the Decider question, as pointed out by the discussion below. Most of the entertainment articles from the sub-publications seem to be from established journalists so I do not have a problem with those, but if contentious claims are made, maybe using that source is not the best. It's kind of like the Screen Rant situation. Spinixster (chat!) 13:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC. Because the general matter is already under discussion in the unclosed previous post, because a pro-censorship result on this guideline page is not policy and cannot override WP:NOTCENSORED, because it's not clear what's "entertainment" (to me sports is entertainment), because context matters; because blanket bans bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 Applies to Decider only. CapnZapp (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 They may not be reliable for facts but reviews are opinions. It's a case-by-case basis as to whether the review deserves inclusion such as the author and their credentials. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 5: No formal determination is necessary. Sometimes the paper has smart stuff in it, and sometimes it has dumb stuff in it. If people are incapable of understanding this, they shouldn't be writing encyclopedia articles. Moreover, there's no amount of bureaucratic source classification that's going to make them capable of doing so. jp×g🗯️ 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Only for entertainment proposes. Nothing more. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I'd continue to steer far away from the Post for general news, especially politics and CTOPs; however, for entertainment news/reviews, the points raised by Jessintime and Traumnovelle stand. The Kip 06:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (entertainment to be construed broadly and include sport and celebrity) their political issues are well known, but the points above, inclusion with attribution may be valid in cases where they aren’t highly controversial and the reviewer is acceptable. FortunateSons (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I am not a fan of carveouts like this for sources that we already consider generally unreliable. The editorial standards for entertainment news are highly unlikely to be better than for any other topic, so what we're really saying here is that it matters less for the topic of entertainment than for other topics, and I don't really buy that. I also notice a lot of the "option 2" votes above really seem to be about reviews specifically, which are already allowed (with attribution) because they're opinion and not factual. I'd therefore say most of the option two arguments here fall under the "generally" in "Generally unreliable".----Licks-rocks (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - As per others, and to allow us to exercise judgement from time to time while avoiding automated or semi-automated censorship.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - Reviews are inherently opinions even if they can be considered expert opinion. I don't see any reason why we would avoid using the NYP reviews but might use reviews from many other sources. For example, why refuse a NYP movie review but accept one from say a Huston news paper? BTW, this is also one of the flaws with our RSP blanket RfCs. They are often way too broad when we should be looking at claims on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Of course exceptions can exist, just like for any unreliable source, but it's necessary to actually present and articulate those exceptions on a case-by-case basis; the default is unreliable. WP:RSOPINION content still requires some degree of reliability - we need to be confident that the source will not publish opinions that make egregiously incorrect statements, that they at least tend towards hiring people who know what they're talking about, and so on. In-text attribution alone is not a substitute for this reliability. And the Post doesn't reach that threshold - publication there, whether as a review or an opinion or whatever, confers no reliability. It can still be cited occasionally, but only in the same way that Reddit posts or YouTube videos or blogs or personal websites can be cited - publication there means nothing because they lack rigorous editorial controls and the reputation that would give their masthead meaning. And like those, that means the default can only be "unreliable." --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I think "entertainment" is too broad a category. There's a massive difference between "review of a film/TV show" and "tabloid coverage of celebrities", both of which could fall under "entertainment". I wouldn't be particularly bothered if the NYPost's reviews were found to be usable, but I don't think this RfC should be taken as an endorsement of using tabloid gossip sources about celebrities. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - The default is unreliable unless there is some reason to think otherwise. Everyone has an opinion. I certainly have never heard of the NYP as a goto source for entertainment (other than their often humorous views on politics and economics). O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this RfC as worded is maybe unnecessary. It seems clear the community thinks GUNREL sources like NYPost can still be usable (depending on context) for something like film/music reviews, but probably we should've already known that. I think a more useful consensus to come to for the actual issue at hand would've been something like "it is not appropriate for David Gerard to blanket delete all uses of NYPost without regard to the context, and he should stop". Endwise (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Journalism is, by its nature, not highly reliable and so each case needs to be judged on its merits. Looking at a sample used in the article Entertainment Weekly, I'm not seeing any particular cause for concern. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Chetsford and Aquillion, basically. Entertainment news coverage must be evaluated by our standards for factual reporting, including WP:BLP, and there, the Post doesn't really have a leg to stand on. For reviews, as opposed to news, the default presumption should be that they are simply unnecessary. The case-by-case burden is on those who wish to include them. WP:RSOPINION content still requires some degree of reliability - we need to be confident that the source will not publish opinions that make egregiously incorrect statements, that they at least tend towards hiring people who know what they're talking about, and so on, as Aquillion argues. In broad strokes, opinions published in venues whose factual reporting is generally unreliable aren't opinions that we need to cover. If I'm a subject-matter expert in one area, my personal blog might be an acceptable source for exceedingly uncontroversial statements in that area, but there would still be no reason to cite my blog post reviewing a movie I happened to see. My blog would be "generally unreliable" outside very narrow limits; using it as a source for unrelated opinions would be unencyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for reviews, no change for "entertainment news", Page Six or Decider. When deciding whether to include a review, the core question is whether the reviewer is someone who's opinion carries weight. If a noteworthy critic like Richard Roeper took a contract writing film reviews published in the NY Post, the reliability and importance of his review isn't altered by the venue it is posted in. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or Option 2, since no examples of falsehoods have been provided by the editors who voted for 3/4, and due to the presence of well-known critics, per u:S5A-0043. Alaexis¿question? 22:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Its reviews are fine, and they tend to carry some weight among critics (particularly so for the New York City musical/theatre arts scene). Additional considerations apply because there are some broader problems when using for contentious information on BLPs, but I think that the culture and entertainment reviews are fine. The notion that, as one editor puts above the New York Post must not be used for any statement concerning living persons is a bit overkill when applied to mundane information (who the lead actors are in a Broadway play, etc.), and I would stress that such language is a gross oversimplification of the source's utility in this scope. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC
  • Option 3 I would say to generally just avoid unreliable sources for everything, including reviews. It's not worth the time and effort to look at every article and decide whether it is acceptable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)*
  • Option 2, Most sources need additional considerations. The sources/articles should be looked at upon their own merits. Grahaml35 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 for Decider. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Conditional Option 2, otherwise Option 3 - I'm basically going to copy what I wrote when a similar thread came up about NYPost's sports coverage last April: Support a carve-out for entertainment, which is sufficiently tame/reliable from what I've seen. Two exceptions which would need to be included in the RSP entry for me to support option 2: (1) nothing from the prurient/scandalous side of the Post (e.g. objectifying female actors), and (2) nothing with any overlap with politics (diversity/representation in Hollywood, the Times Up movement, reviews of movies that deal with political issues, etc.). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - If this was about the NY Post sports section it should be option 1. But while there are tabloid elements to the Post's entertainment section, there is no evidence that it is generally unreliable. There is certainly no reason a review in the Post should be considered unreliable. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for Decider per RunningTiger123. Some of its interviews or reviews are usable, but it's not the highest-quality source so avoidance of highly sensitive or exceptional BLP claims would be wise. — Bilorv (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I have concerns about the New York Post's reliability, especially in political and controversial topics. However, when it comes to entertainment reviews, such as film, music, and television, these pieces often represent subjective opinions and are less likely to impact BLP integrity compared to factual reporting. Reviews, being inherently opinion-based, should be judged on the merit of the individual piece and its author rather than the general reputation of the publication. This approach allows for a nuanced inclusion of potentially valuable cultural perspectives. FailedMusician (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 since no examples of falsehoods/fabrications have been presented and no case have been made that they made it to Wikipedia. Happy to revise my !vote if such examples are provided. Alaexis¿question? 08:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Springee. Option 1 for Decider. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post)

The New York Post has been discussed nine times on this noticeboard, including a 2020 RfC which concluded that the source was "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly NYC politics with 2 qualifications: a/that it was more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and that it is particularly unreliable for coverage involving the NYC police". Discussion at #Reviews from unreliable sources indicates that there is an ongoing disagreement over the reliability of the New York Post's entertainment reviews, and the currently unanswered question at #Using Decider / Decider.com for interviews and reviews indicates that the reliability of Decider (a publication of the New York Post) is an open question. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. — Newslinger talk 22:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio. — Newslinger talk 22:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
NYP I don't read and so have no opinion. I sometimes read Decider's "stream it or skip it" and haven't gotten any feeling their reviews are noticeably inferior to most other entertainment venues... What would be the justification for changing Decider's entertainment coverage to "generally unreliable" or "deprecated"? I am asking because this discussion needs to clearly summarize any reasons put forward to blacklist this site (and "please read several miles of previous discussion, it's all up there" doesn't cut it). CapnZapp (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any proposal to blacklist Decider. Since Decider is operated by the New York Post, which was found to be generally unreliable for factual reporting in the 2020 RfC, one of the goals of the current RfC is to determine whether Decider should be considered likewise or otherwise. — Newslinger talk 23:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this should also cover pagesix.com, a celebrity gossip site ran by NYPost which does entertainment reviews as well. Endwise (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Checking the page, it seems like the only (if not primary writer) right now is Nicholas Hautman, and per his about page, He joined the New York Post in 2021 after nearly six years at Us Weekly, where he started his career. He graduated from Hofstra University on Long Island in 2016 with a bachelor's degree in journalism. Spinixster (chat!) 01:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I think that is a reasonable suggestion, since Page Six is already listed as a sub-publication of the New York Post at WP:PAGESIX. I've added Page Six to the RfC. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Do not pre-empt any conclusions Please don't act as if your preference has already achieved consensus, User:David Gerard, as you did here. Your edit summary NYP is generally unreliable, prima facie WP:UNDUE is inaccurate. The current (pre-discussion) consensus is that NYP is generally unreliable "for factual reporting especially with regard to politics", not that it is generally unreliable in every aspect. CapnZapp (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
"generally" means "generally", not "not generally" - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
No it does not. Generally means generally only when there are no qualifiers. Otherwise those be pointless to add. Do not ignore the qualifiers. This entire RfC relies on the fact that you are wrong. CapnZapp (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with some users, David Gerard. You have been removing reviews on film article that come from the New York Post without any consideration of the consequences behind that and you did so by your own biased views of the reliability of the sourcing of New York Post. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
His editing history is especially egregious since he participated in this very discussion and still went ahead and made his edits, as if this wasn't still an open RfC that could possibly rule against his wishes. If and when it does, I hope and trust he will self-revert all his premature edits. CapnZapp (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I can understand David Gerard's point of view based on the phrasing of the 2020 RfC's closing summary. For example, the sentence "Gambling is generally a poor financial decision, especially when the gambler is in debt" states two things: that gambling is generally a poor financial decision, and that gambling is generally an even worse financial decision for gamblers who are in debt. Likewise, "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics" means that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, and that it is generally unreliable to an even greater extent for political reporting. This RfC seeks to clarify whether the New York Post's entertainment coverage should be considered differently. — Newslinger talk 21:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
"generally unreliable for factual reporting" means just that. It does not mean "generally unreliable" full stop. Otherwise those three words "for factual reporting" would not have been added. There is no uncertainty about what the earlier RfC meant. It specifically spelled out "factual reporting" meaning that the "generally unreliable" rating only applies to that. Other stuff - like entertainment - was specifically excluded from the decision. David Gerard didn't read it that way but that doesn't mean his reading is valid. Just to be crystal clear: This RfC does not seek to "clarify" this as if the earlier RfC was unclear. It can, however, seek clarification since the earlier RfC did not apply to entertainment articles. I trust and hope you and I agree on this, Newslinger. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Factual reporting does not exclude entertainment reporting. For example, Decider exclusively focuses on entertainment reporting, yet still publishes plenty of non-review articles that only make factual claims. The New York Post's and Decider's reviews and recommendations also contain factual claims, as most reviews do. The 2020 RfC's closing summary said that the New York Post is "Generally unreliable for factual reporting", and it did not say that the New York Post was any more reliable for entertainment reporting than it was for most topics, so the 2020 RfC was clear that the New York Post was considered generally unreliable for entertainment reporting as well. The current RfC offers editors an opportunity to re-evaluate the reliability of the New York Post's entertainment coverage. — Newslinger talk 13:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
You yourself started this RfC quoting the current status quo: "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics". This can only be read as the RfC taking a position on "factual reporting". Obviously facts can and will appear in reviews, but you didn't start this RfC to discuss the fringe cases when an editor cites a NYP review to verify a factual claim, you presumably started this RfC to see whether the community wants to discourage editors from using NYP reviews in entertainment articles. The context right here is David Gerard trying to justify his jumping the gun by saying that the earlier RfC does mean this already, but we should not express any understanding for that POV - we are specifically talking about it here and now, so taking action before allowing this discussion to conclude is obviously premature. CapnZapp (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Even if you mean the complete opposite, that NYP was previously considered generally unreliable overall but you want to see whether the community can exclude entertainment from that assessment, his actions remain just as premature - trying to get his edits in before this RfC changes the status quo is frowned upon, to say the least. (If this is your stance, our RS/P summary should have read "generally unreliable" full stop with no qualifiers) CapnZapp (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
This User:David Gerard is just wasting a lot of people's time here on Wikipedia with his BS editing based on his own personal views; he tags pages for speedy deletion when there is zero reason to do so, removes content out of the blue, engages in edit wars; will someone block him or should we keep wasting time to keep this bully at bay? Itemirus (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
I blocked this editor for personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hearst Newspapers and AI Generated Content - SFGate and San Francisco Chronicle

Today, there is an article about Hatsune Miku published by SFGate. The article received a lot of negative attention on Twitter due to its inaccurate information - like referring her vocals as AI-generated. The website also experimented with ChatGPT for its articles, and even has a report on its use (by the company Hearst): https://www.sfgate.com/ai_use/. Other HMF sites include SF Chronicle: https://www.sfchronicle.com/ai_use/ Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 22:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of AI use going around but in SFGate's defence the twitter note that says SFGate is wrong points towards vocaloid.com/en/, where Vocaloid state VOCALOID6 is an AI-based technology. This seems like a discrepancy best discussed at talk:Hatsune Miku. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Spurious sources produced by machine learning might be something you are looking for or would be interested in. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I hope they don't over-use AI. Hearst owns a ton of great magazines and newspapers. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • If they're found to be using AI regularly they should be deprecated I know that I'm generally one of the first to bang the drum on the low-reliability of American news media and have regularly expressed a preference for academic sources over media sources, but this is just absurd at this point. So-called AI chat software is not designed to accurately communicate information - it is a predictive text algorythm that guesses at the likely statement to follow. It's the definition of unreliable. If we run the risk that news sources are intentionally using such sources then we cannot trust those sources. At all. No AI sources on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    I couldn't agree more, but SFGate aren't using it to write articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    OK, that's fine then. Simonm223 (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
It's more likely that the person writing the newspaper is unfamiliar with the specifics of fictional anime girls, than it is that the article was made by AI. I asked Kagi search Is Hatsune Miku's voice generated by AI? GPT-4 did not, GPT-3.5 Turbo said "yes" and explained that it wasn't AI in the traditional sense, but uses "recorded phonemes and applies them to a musical melody to create a singing voice" which is accurate. GPT-4 Turbo gave an unqualified yes and based it's reasoning on the same as GPT 3.5 Turbo. Large-language models seem to understand how Hatsune Miku works more than the article does. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's important to take under advisement that the term "AI", in general usage, can be succinctly defined as "when there's a computer and it does stuff". A trivial example that I saw in the last couple hours: if you go to https://github.com the landing page for non-logged-in users says "Let's build from here: The world's leading AI-powered developer platform". This is, to be totally straightforward, a completely untrue crock of shit -- there is absolutely zero use of neural networks in git, nor in the web frameworks that Github uses to implement a site where you can use git. Describing software as "AI" is a fairly widespread industry practice, so it's hard to hold non-programmers responsible for not understanding what is or isn't "AI" -- it's a meaningless buzzword that shouldn't be used in the encyclopedic voice in the first place. jp×g🗯️ 02:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Gradient.com grabien.com as a source for a quote by someone in Blood Tribe (neo-Nazi group)

See [51] I’ve never run into this source before. What it says about itself isn’t encouraging. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That does not look like a reliable source to me. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Seconding @Simonm223, I see no indication of it being RS. I also found this, which is not promising FortunateSons (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Gosh. I looked at their website and thought it was just a clearing house to try and sell random bits of video in the hopes a news org would buy them. This just exacerbates things. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the more I look, the bleaker it gets. He also writes for The Federalist (website)… FortunateSons (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Anyone can upload clips and there Rules page sounds a lot like copyright infringement with extra steps. Checking that last part you can find their BBC section,[52] none of which appears licensed.
Not only not reliable but probably shouldn't be link to at all due to copyright concerns. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, it's even worse than I thought!Doug Weller talk 07:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It's used more than I thought. Should it be deprecated? And User:Headbomb would you like to add it to your script? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I would be in favour of depreciation, yes FortunateSons (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't look like a great source, but I'd like a better investigation than objecting to a clip that accurately reports what some neo-Nazi said before adding this to my script. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
@Headbomb That seems reasonable. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I should clarify, as I misunderstood slightly. The site in the reference being used is grabien.com, not gradient.com, and my comments related to grabien not gradient. Looking again at Grabien it's idea of fair use (allow random user to upload copyrighted content, and then compensate them when others download the clips) is just copyright infringement. It's WP:UGC so would be unreliable unless the author of a particular upload was an WP:SPS, and it hosts copyright violating content so shouldn't be linked to. Gradient.com appears to be an investment group, am I missing something or is it an autocorrect mistake? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
    I would assume it’s autocorrect. FortunateSons (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
    It could be blacklisted for copyvio, but the references would need to be cleaned out first. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
    yes it was. I’ve fixed the section heading and it tried gradient again, but this time I used preview! Many apologies. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
    It happens, no worries at all :) FortunateSons (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I have a problem. The new editor who added this as their first edit has reverted me.[53]

Modern Life is Goodish for attributed opinion/work contents

I would like a second opinion for the use of two episodes of Dave Gorman: Modern Life Is Goodish, effectively a comedic PowerPoint-like television lecture, for the content and attributed opinions of Neil Sean's works, i.e. the DVD "D.R. W.H.O.: The Lost Interviews", the book "How to Live Like a Celebrity for Free" and the Metro column "The Green Room", on Sean's article; I'd also like an opinion for the use of Gorman's appearance on Richard Herring's Edinburgh Fringe Podcast for his explanation for why he used Modern Life is Goodish to give Sean a "proper kicking" and for any other content. My argument for including the source is that Modern Life is Goodish and the podcast both credit editors, and in the case of Modern Life is Goodish, will have gone through both a production company and the channel (and as evidenced by the paragraph beginning "Gorman also questioned", at least one set of lawyers). Pinging also TSventon per Talk:Neil Sean, who suggested a similar (but not identical) comparison would be "Natalie Haynes Stands Up for the Classics" being used in Hippolyta.--Launchballer 11:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The context is that an IP editor claiming to be the subject requested removal of the article at the Helpdesk here. I checked the article and found that, at that time, around half of the body of the article was sourced to Dave Gorman. I couldn't find any policy about the use of comedy programmes, but there were comments in the archives of this page that suggested that they should not be used. This is a WP:BLP article so high quality sources are needed, especially for contentious material. "Natalie Haynes Stands Up for the Classics" is somewhat different as Haynes is a classicist and Hippolyta is not a BLP article. TSventon (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
That IP editor is unlikely to be him for the reasons I gave on both the help desk and the article's talk page, and Gorman is being used for Sean's works, not for him.--Launchballer 12:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of new sourced information on the article Bulgars

OP has been blocked as a sock. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:13, 28 April 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.

In light of new genetic evidence concerning the ancestry of Bulgars, the previously assumed Central Asian Turkic origin is disproven. My edits sourced with the research were reverted. Any attempt to seek consensus in Talk is flagged and deleted. Reverted Revision in Question

Source 1: Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian Origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians. Hum Biol. 2015

Source 2: Y-Chromosome Diversity in Modern Bulgarians: New Clues about Their Ancestry (2013)

Source 3: Genetic Research on the Origin of Bulgarians and their Relations with other Nations Y. Y. Shopov Avant-garde Research of Ancient Bulgarians (2007)

Source 4: Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Bulgar". Encyclopedia Britannica, 26 Sep. 2023

The second issue is misinformation by omission:

Bulgars preserved the military titles, organization, and customs of the Eurasian steppes as well as pagan shamanism and belief in the sky deity Tangra.

The above sentence states that the Bulgars were pagans but it fails to mention that the Khan of the Onogur Bulgars - Khan Kubrat was a Christian baptized in Constantinopole.

Kubrat spent his early life at the Byzantine Empire imperial palace in Constantinople. As the 7th-century Byzantine historian John of Nikiu narrates:

This project is concerned with Kubratos, chief of the Huns, the nephew of Organa, who was baptized in the city of Constantinople, and received into the Christian community in his childhood and had grown up in the imperial palace. And between him and the elder Heraclius great affection and peace had prevailed, and after Heraclius's death he had shown his affection to his sons and his wife Martina because of the kindness [Heraclius] had shown him. And after he had been baptized with life-giving baptism he overcame all the barbarians and heathens through Virtue of holy baptism. Now touching him it is said that he supported the interests of the children of Heraclius and opposed those of Constantine.

WindWalkerOfficial (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any of that supported by Britanica. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Although many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations.
Britannica does not provide sources on any of their articles WindWalkerOfficial (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
That does not mention Kubrat, nor does it say " Bashkirs and Chuvash people claim to have originated from the Volga Bulgars", so this seems to fail wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
It's two separate issues, the first is concerned with the ethnicity of the bulgar people, I linked genetic research and Encyclopedia Britannica supporting their conclusion. The second concerning Kubrat being christian, I sourced ancient writer who's work is widely accepted, the wikipedia page for Kubrat already covers Kubrat being christian. The Chuvash people indeed originate from Volga Bulgars, a branch of bulgars who migrated north to the Volga River and adopted islam in 922, the Danube Bulgars crossed the Danube in 680 and founded Bulgaria which officialy became Christian in 870. The Chuvash and Bashkir people retain relations with Bulgarians due to their shared origin. WindWalkerOfficial (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Various of these additional claims you are making seem to have no sources. Trying to shoehorn more and more and more assertions into this discussion is very counter-productive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Talk discussion I posted was flagged and deleted, I'm not the one advocating for Chuvash representation. WindWalkerOfficial (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see that anyone has claimed that every element of the above material is found specifically in that one (Britannica) source, and even if one or another of these claims turned out to be in none of the cited sources, that would in no way invalidate the claims that are sourceable to them. I.e., these claims have to be approached severably, not as a "package", and examined on their own merits, with each source (and probably various others available through The Wikipedia Library searches of journals and other academic materials) also taken on its own merits, in WP:DUEWEIGHT with other sources (and particularly with weight given for modern science versus old historiographical claims).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree WindWalkerOfficial (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
We still regard Britannica as a very high-quality source among tertiary sources. See the entry on it at WP:RSP; the only potential issue is articles written during about a one-year period (spanning across 2009 and 2010) by general-public contributors (in a Wikipedia-style experiment), and even those are not automatically unreliable, since they're still subject to Britannica's editorial review and fact-checking. Doesn't apply to that article anyway, which was written by their professional staff (including one who's a published history author from a major press), plus there is indication of consultation with a named subject-matter-expert academic, and it's clear that the base of the article was originally imported from the print edition in 1998.

Anyway, the proponderance of fairly recent (2007+) research into Bulgar population genetics is not something WP is in a position to suppress, though we cannot also engage in WP:OR and use this material to deny any connection between the Bulgars and Turkic cultures; there is no correspondence of any kind between inherited haplogroups on the one hand and, on the other, cultural matters like language, religion, customs, etc., which are passed on memetically and socially, not genetically. Each of the specific claims above needs review as to its source support, and it was frankly unhelpful to lump all this disparate material together as if it's all one fact or one source being challenged.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback and understand the importance of scrutinizing each claim individually. My intention is to subject older claims to evaluation, particularly those based on theoretical frameworks and linguistic connections between Turkic languages and the Bulgar language which hasn't been conclusively deciphered. Additionally, considering there's no concrete evidence of Bulgars identifying themselves as Turkic, it's essential to approach the topic with an open mind and consider multiple perspectives. WindWalkerOfficial (talk) 11:04, 28 April 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: Allkpop

This discussion didn't attract much attention, but from the replies it did receive the clear result is that Allkpop should be regarded as Option 3: Generally unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:37, 28 April 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 Allkpop for K-pop-related articles?

Allkpop is the English-language K-pop and celebrity gossip site and fan blog owned by 6Theory Media, which also owns Tokyohive. The site contains extensive Korean culture-related news coverage and rumours that are aimed at non-Korean audiences, this does not itself as a generally reliable source and also claims to be cited by major news organizations. They also made occasional interviews and special reports, which counts as first-hand journalism. It also licensed to stream MAMA Awards. I consider the site itself was generally unreliable for K-pop articles.

allkpop.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com sjh (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You should provide more context but here's all the previous discussions that are about allkpop: [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]
It's also listed under WP:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources#UR as being unreliable although that's just a Wikiproject. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@Traumnovelle: Some articles like this are poor for using as a source. Although this site publishes rumours and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts, however, some information on this site may or may not be true and Allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of the claims. sjh (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
If the site itself doesn't consider itself reliable I fail to see how it can be considered reliable for Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
“Makes no warranty as to validity” is just a standard legalese disclaimer; websites of many RS have similar disclaimers. Judge reliability based on substance. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Allkpop)

Let's see... this article describes Allkpop as the "latest celebrity gossips and news" and the website claims to be "the premier source for all the latest K-pop celebrity gossip and news". This website is generally unreliable (option 3), and for the love of God, please do not use this in a BLP. That's a disaster waiting to happen. Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Davest3r08: That's fine if other reliable sources like this can be used in a BLP too. sjh (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I Agree with @Davest3r08Davest3r08 Slacker13 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Option 3: Super Unreliable. WikiProject Korea deems it unreliable and it is a celebrity gossip site. Definitely should not be used in BLPs, like ever. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Option 3 - generally unreliable:. Per various arguments provided above. Shadowwarrior8 Shadowwarrior8 21:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Option 3: generally unreliable. A good amount of their articles are sourced from unreliable Korean sites like Insight or Wikitree (relevant pages in Korean here and here respectively; though they're from the user-generated wiki NamuWiki, the articles are good for getting a feel on how the sites are viewed), and the other half is gossip pulled from biased, even less reliable K-netizen translation sites. Their third hottest article at the time of writing is this gossipy, substanceless mess. I'm having a hard time finding any coverage up to par with actual news outlets such as Korea Herald - just gossip, gossip, and more gossip. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Allkpop)

Hi SarahJH07, I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading to prevent confusion since this discussion was not set up as a formal request for comment, which would solicit input from editors through the feedback request service. If you would like to make this discussion a request for comment, please apply the {{rfc}} template to this discussion according to the instructions at WP:RFCST and add "RfC:" back to the section heading. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 21:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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

The Human Rights Coalition Australia

I have a quick question about the following source. It is an article published by the Human Rights Coalition Australia (i.e. a nonprofit organization) and is written by its director, Richard Lutz (according to the website's about page ) I have noticed that this source is currently cited in the Jennifer Lien article as the article does praise her acting as Kes on Star Trek: Voyager.

I am currently working on the Kes article, but I am uncertain if this source would be considered appropriate or reliable enough. What are your thoughts? I could not find much information on the Human Rights Coalition Australia when I did a web search, but others may have more luck or just know more about it then myself. I doubt that it would be usable, but I thought I should still open up a conversation to not only make sure, but hopefully clarify this for future editors. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

This is an undue issue, I'm not sure why the opinion of someone who heads a human rights coalition is being considered to describe an actor's career. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. I wanted to get other opinions to make sure. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any details about the Human Rights Coalition Australia beyond their website[60] or anything about Richard Lutz beyond that they are the director of the coalition. It shouldn't be mistaken for the other HRCA (Human Rights Council of Australia),[61] who are a much more established organisation.
As far as I can tell this is website of the views of Richard Lutz, and would be entirely undue in any article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it and for the links. That makes sense to me. I was highly doubtful about it, but I still thought a discussion would potentially be helpful and provide a solid answer to anyone who runs across the site in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This appears to be a grandly titled WP:SPS run by one guy for the purpose of sharing his opinions with the world. That’s his prerogative of course, but it’s no weightier a source than any other blog published by a non-notable person. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment. For whatever reason, I had completely forgotten about WP:SPS until after I posted this message. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

ClutchPoints

When Nintendoswitchfan updates NBA-related articles, they use this website as an inline citation. I don’t think it is a reliable source; whereas I get sources from high-quality sources like ABS-CBN News, GMA Integrated News, Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star, CBS Sports, Deadline Hollywood, etc. Do you think ClutchPoints is reliable? Also, please check the user’s contributions for your reference. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 05:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to let you know, while I follow ClutchPoints a lot and use them here and there due to convenience, I also do use other sources like ESPN, NBA.com, Bleacher Report, etc. which are also in my logs.
I think that ClutchPoints being an American publication with NBA reporters can be used for stats like what other editors here have told me and other editors have also used ClutchPoints for the same news.
I understand you use Philippine publications like ABS-CBN, GMA, Inquirer, and Philstar which do not always cover NBA news that quickly like other American publications.
So, I don’t personally see an issue with using American publications like ClutchPoints since I am primarily using it for game/player stats much like what I assume you use your sources for.
I do understand that it is a general consensus here that for signings and trades, however, we need to use the first-party sources that break these news like NBA.com, ESPN, The Athletic, etc. So I make sure to abide by that.
If ClutchPoints is deemed to be unfit for use as an inline citation by the other editors here, I will gladly comply and use more bigger publications moving forward. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Seems a bit premature to go straight to an RFC. Is there any reason why we shouldn't afford them the standard presumption usually given to your run-of-the-mill news organisations? They don't seem particularly distinguished one way or another at first glance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

What is the reliability of ClutchPoints for sports-related articles?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 05:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  • This isn't an RFC as it's not been setup correctly, and I doubt it should be. Has there been any prior discussions? Also this board is only about reliable sources not other users, behaviour issues should be taken up somewhere more appropriate.
    As to ClutchPoints their not some random persons personal website,[62] and have an editorial standard in place.[63] But I can't find much about them other than an Atlantic piece that's unfortunately behind a pay wall.[64] There also some use as a reference in a few books from reliable publishers, but not enough to be convincing. It might help if you explained why you believe isn't a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • This is a pointless RfC since OP has failed to explain why ClutchPoints is unreliable compared to the listed other supposedly "high-quality" sources. Cortador (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I have removed "RfC:" from the section heading to prevent confusion, as this discussion is not formatted as a formal request for comment. — Newslinger talk 08:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Computing magazine

I propose the addition of Computing (magazine) to the reliable sources list in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It seems to me that it passes all the criteria of WP:RELIABLE, as a long-established computer industry news publication with explicit editorial oversight, and a history of original journalism without any record of publishing biased, sensationalistic or untrue stories. It is also currently used as a reference in over 250 articles: see this search — The Anome (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources was for summarising consensus on sources that were frequently discussed at this noticeboard. Has Computing magazine been discussed here before? I couldn't find any discussions after a quick check, but it's quite a generic title so I may have missed some.
I don't think RSP should be interpreted as "the reliable sources list". It's not a comprehensive list of reliable sources, and it's not a pass/fail check as to whether a source should be allowed to be used. I expect a majority of sources used across the encyclopedia are not on the list and many of them will be adequately reliable in some context.
As for this particular source, it looks fine to me. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Correct… I too am not sure that it qualifies for the RSP list. That list is for perennial sources - ie sources that we have discussed multiple times before, and yet keep coming up. Can you link to a few of the prior discussions we have had about Computing magazine? Blueboar (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Student newspaper for controversy on a BLP

I don’t see any meaningful debate here after LadybugStardust was blocked, boldly snow closing Dronebogus (talk) 18:35, 3 May 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.

Brendan O'Neill (columnist) has a lot of sourcing issues, but one of them is an addition of "Oxford Student" newspaper. For example, in this edit an op-ed in the newspaper (not about self either) is cited to describe the subject "staunch free speech absolutist" and another two articles are cited for the subject being "a strong critic of transgenderism". Is this appropriate use of sources on a blp? (t · c) buidhe 20:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I changed the wording on the section about O'Neill's stance on transgender issues. However, I am staying firm on citing The Oxford Student as a reliable source. Again, in what possible way is it not? Countless other articles cite it as a source and its reliability has never been called into question.--LadybugStardust (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Student newspapers are not usually considered WP:RS. And even if they were, citing op-eds for anything but the author's POV is rarely appropriate. (t · c) buidhe 21:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Student_media. Also, none of the Oxford Student articles that I cited were op-eds. One was a neutral profile of O'Neill and the other two were neutral news articles about the protests over his speaking on campus. The Oxford Student is not "RightWingPatriot1776.com". It is a highly respected - if not the most highly respected - student newspaper that, again, is used as a source in countless other articles with no issue ever being raised over its reliability.--LadybugStardust (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
It may be helpful to review how we summarize the prevailing consensus about the reliability of student newspapers. ElKevbo (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
If you want to source O'Neill's transphobia there are other reliable sources available [65] [66]. I'm sure there are others. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
So... The Oxford Student isn't a reliable source... but PinkNews is? PinkNews doesn't even pretend to be objective. It's an LGBT advocacy website.--LadybugStardust (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
PinkNews does have a point of view, but so does any other source one is likely to news. Per WP:PINKNEWS, when the community has considered them as a source, we've found it to be reliable. Reliability is not neutrality. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
So, if using outright activism sites as sources is fine, then surely using a highly respected student newspaper as a source should be fine as well.--LadybugStardust (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not how logic works. Two different things can be judged as different things. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is how logic works, as the discussion is about which sources are reliable sources, and the argument being made is that it's perfectly fine to use activism websites as reliable sources, but it's not okay to use highly respected student newspapers. Your attempt at a smartalecky retort falls completely flat on its face.--LadybugStardust (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't cite a student newspaper for controversial or negative claims about a living person. I don't think it should matter if the person is a student or a community member or a visitor. We should only accept top-tier sources for such claims. About the only exception I could see is if the news source were widely cited by reputable sources, per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Woodroar (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The source was in reference to O'Neill being protested at the University of Oxford - and what better source for that than The Oxford Student?--LadybugStardust (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
One written by a journalist with an actual degree and post-graduate experience, edited by an editor with an actual degree and post-graduate experience, fact-checked by—well, you get what I mean. This is the source we're talking about, right? I can't even find a byline.... Woodroar (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
No, that's the source for his views on freedom of speech. These are the sources for his views on transgender issues: [67][68]--LadybugStardust (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Also, "PC language police"? Seriously? Woodroar (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, the complaint was because I used the word "transgenderism", so... yeah. It's not like I said "trannyism" or something like that. It's petty PC nitpicking over language along the lines of demanding that people say "unhoused" instead of "homeless". And no, I am not a conservative by any stretch, but I really have little patience for that kind of nonsense.--LadybugStardust (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Of course student media shouldn't be used as the source for controversial descriptions on a controversial BLP..... JoelleJay (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Again, I cited The Oxford Student for O'Neill's views on freedom of speech and later for the fact that he was protested at the University of Oxford. I'm not saying anything that's in dispute.--LadybugStardust (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP isn't just about having a reliable source, but using the best sources available (Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources). If there are other sources for this content use them, otherwise I doubt a student newspaper makes the grade. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I was not able to find any other sources for O'Neill being protested at Oxford in 2018. I found numerous other sources for everything else, yet I still got reverted with all of them, for absolutely no reason other than because any edit that I make to the article is now going to be automatically reverted by a dedicated small group of users who came to the article from here.--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I was not able to find any other sources for O'Neill being protested at Oxford in 2018 if the only source for this is a contemporary report in a student newspaper, then we should consider whether inclusion is due weight even if we were to conclude that the newspaper were sufficiently reliable. We don't have to include every fact about a subject which has ever been reported in a newspaper. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of anything else it's an op-ed, so unless it's an op-ed from a subject matter expert (extremely unlikely) I think you'd already have your answer? TarnishedPathtalk 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Once again, I didn't cite any op-eds.--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Surely there will be better sources for these claims than a student paper? A fair bit has been written about O'Neill, far more than is warranted in my view.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree… a student newspaper is not an appropriate source. One factor that hasn’t been raised yet: DUE WEIGHT. If the only news source to report on this protest is a local student outlet, I have to question whether the protest is considered important enough for us to mention in a BLP. And if other news sources mention it, we can use them instead. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with nearly everyone else: especially if we have a better RS like the one Black Kite pointed to, there's no reason to be using a student paper for this kind of statement. -sche (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
In general, I think that news articles in long-standing student newspapers like The Harvard Crimson or Oxford Student are actually pretty reliable. Op eds in them are not reliable for facts and unlikely to be noteworthy as opinions. This piece is not an op ed but a profile, which interviewed the subject of the BLP, so I don't think it's unusable. However, it's unusable for the designation "free speech fundamentalist" which is in the headline but the body says "Like a free speech fundamentalist", and we don't use headlines. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily think 'student newspaper' and go therefore unreliable by default. Each source needs to be evaluated on its merits. There are some student newspapers for example which are extremely old and have well established editorial policies and editorial boards which approve each issue. There's a lot of publications out there which have journalists who are a lot less qualified to be presenting news than undergrads and I daresay some of them are probably considered reliable or additional considerations. TarnishedPathtalk 10:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  • There may be some usable ones in certain contexts, but this is an op-ed by someone with no relevant expertise; it's definitely unusable for unattributed statements in the article voice, and it's hard to see how it could be WP:DUE as attributed opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
bludgeoning and transphobia from now-blocked user Dronebogus (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
One of the student newspaper articles that I linked to was a neutral profile of O'Neill and the other ones were neutral reports of him being protested. None of them were op-eds in any way, shape, or form.--LadybugStardust (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
It is in their profile section, where editors give their opinions and views about public figures, writing from a first-person perspective. That is obviously WP:RSOPINION. --Aquillion (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you point to any actual examples of opinionated writing in any of the student newspaper articles that I cited?--LadybugStardust (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I would like to ask LadybugStardust to read WP:BLUDGEON. As for the actual issue, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using the student paper but there’s no reason we have to use it to say “this transphobic wackadoodle is a transphobic wackadoodle” when, yes, PinkNews does exist and is plenty reliable enough for this sort of inanely obvious statement. Dronebogus (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I was not able to find another source for the incident in which O'Neill was protested at Oxford in 2018. I did find other sources for the claim about O'Neill's stance on freedom of speech, yet the people on the talk page (all of whom arrived there from here) still wouldn't accept them. Also, how is calling someone a "transphobic wackadoodle" not a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA? If I called Bruce Jenner a "tranny wackadoodle", I would almost certainly get blocked from editing for a week or so.--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Because calling Caitlyn Jenner a “tranny” is hate speech, calling someone who expresses transphobic views a transphobe is calling a spade a spade, “wackadoodle” is barely an insult, and NPA/CIVIL are about behavior on the wiki, not in general. You’d have to say something extremely egregious to violate either policy discussing a third party— and deadnaming a trans person and calling them a highly offensive slur (even for the sake of an argument) are far more egregious than saying “this person is a bigot with strange beliefs”. TBH I don’t even know what you’re trying to add at this point, but I’d recommend you both read up on the policies you’re trying to cite and deadnaming. Dronebogus (talk) 13:13, 3 May 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.

thoughtco.com

Is https://www.thoughtco.com/ a reliable source?

Example:Matilda of Flanders article has no citations. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It's on WP:RSP, under "Dotdash Meredith". The gist is it differs a lot from topic to topic. – Joe (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. My concern was the Matilda of Flanders article only has one reference(concerning her height?!). --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures for pronunciation

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/pronunciation?lang=eng is used on a LOT of pages i.e. Nephites. It also states it is not an authorative source and meant to be used as a study aid. Is this a reliable source for how words unique to the Book of Mormon are pronounced? 207.212.33.88 (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The text in question is a pronunciation guide found in the Book of Mormon on page 533. It looks like it is outside the text proper, so the commentary on it not being authoritative is in the voice of the editors and not Joseph Smith. That said, in the context of the names for which pronunciation is cited (which are unique to the Book of Mormon), I don't see how they can be seen as unreliable in the absence of scholarly research to the contrary. —C.Fred (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
To the extent that the pronunciations in such articles is just meant to describe how Latter-day Saints usually pronounce them, it's probably a reasonable use of a primary source for information that editors tend to think is due for names unusual to most readers. Naturalistically speaking, there wouldn't be any right pronunciation except for what Latter-day Saints use. According to this brief history of the pronunciation guide, it wasn't a linguistic endeavor but simply an internal denominational project whose main objective [was] uniformity of pronunciation based on the prevailing pronunciation among the church's adherents (56), concluding that if we are wrong in pronouncing Book of Mormon names, we will at least all be wrong together (57). The pronunciation guide isn't independent of the Book of Mormon (it's not part of the originally dictated text, but it's still definitely published as part of an ecclesiastical edition of the Book of Mormon), nor does it confer notability on its own; but it seems reliable for the simple matter of the generally used pronunciation within the tradition. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Since it is about how LDS pronounce terms, it makes sense that it can be used. Of course if other sources exist, such as secondary, they can be used to provide context/different views. Alternately, it can used in external links section of article. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The LDS isn't the only denomination to use the Book of Mormon, but it does make sense to privilege them over smaller Mormon movements I guess. 207.212.33.88 (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_436&oldid=1223840171"