There are (mostly old) discussion before, but the source came up in the Discussion on this noticeboard about Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor and was characterised as biased (which, in my opinion, is accurate). I would like to incorporate some of them into the article on the org, insofar as that is appropriate. I believe that it can be used, where necessary with an attribution, as it is generally considered reliable enough to be cited by significant parts of MSM, many of the involved people are subject matter experts and they generally cite specific sources and examples. Does anyone disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per reliable academic sources, I would consider NGO Monitor an unreliable source for statements about NGOs and associated BLPs. Multiple sources published through academic presses and periodicals characterize NGO Monitor's assessments as politically motivated, lacking full editorial independence, not conducting sufficient investigation to substantiate their claims, at times reporting inaccuracies, and having a pattern of singling out groups with perceived political differences rather than focusing on the substance of the alleged problems.

• Michael Edwards, foreword to NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Innovations, eds. Lisa Jordan and Peter van Tuijl (Routledge, 2006): Examples of such attacks include the NGO Watch project at the American Enterprise Institute, the Rushford Report in Washington DC and the NGO Monitor in Jerusalem, all of which single out liberal or progressive groups for criticism while ignoring the same problems, if that is what they are, among NGOs allied with conservative views. It is no accident that hostility to NGO involvement in global governance forms a key element of neoconservative thinking in the US. Stronger NGO accountability mechanisms won't do away with politically motivated attacks like these, but they would surely help to expose them for what they are. (viii, bolding added)
• Joel Peters, "Israel", in The European Union and the Arab Spring: Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in the Middle East, ed. Joel Peters (Lexington Books, 2012), 77–92: In recent years a number of right-wing groups in Israel, most notably Im Tirtzu and NGO Monitor, have launched high-profile campaigns with the aim of delegitimizing the activities of Israeli civil society and human rights organizations, especially those that advocate the rights of Arab citizens in Israel and/or address the question of Israeli violations of human rights in the Occupied Territories. (86, bolding added)
• Yasmeen Abu-Laban and Abigail B. Bakan, "After 9/11: Canada, the Israel/Palestine Conflict, and the Surveillance of Public Discourse", Canadian Journal of Law and Society 27, no. 3 (December 2012): 319–339: NGO Monitor has been characterized by Israeli academics as "right wing", as well as selective in its focus on NGOs; in particular, it ostensibly looks at NGOs concerned with human rights but fails to seriously investigate the activities of NGOs that support illegal activities in the occupied West Bank. (333, bolding added)
  • Abu-Laban and Bakan in particular identify NGO Monitor's propensity for inaccuracy in its descriptions of the basic planks of other NGOs, such as claiming Canadian ecumenical organization KAIROS supports BDS when at the time it explicitly did not encourage boycotting Israeli products: while NGO Monitor claims that KAIROS is a "primary supporter of the anti-Israel divestment movement", KAIROS denies it. In fact, in its "FAQs" online, KAIROS states that its position since first discussed in 2005 is that "KAIROS does not recommend a general boycott of Israeli goods for a number of reasons. (335, bolding added)
• Sara Kalm, Lisa Strömbom, and Anders Uhlin, "Civil Society Democratising Global Governance? Potentials and Limitations of 'Counter-Democracy'", Global Society 33, no. 4 (2019): 499–519: However, in all its reports, the NGOs that are criticised for being biased and partial have a perspective of promoting Palestinian human rights and/or taking a critical stance toward Israeli Government policies vis-à-vis Palestinians. Thus, the NGO Monitor appears to be promoting pro-Israel views regarding the conflict in a partisan way. Therefore, the organisation cannot be claimed to express universalist views, as it promotes a highly parochial perspective, mainly promoting Israeli interests. [...] Although the organisation claims to be independent—there has been accusations about strong ties between Gerald Steinberg, who is the founder of NGO Monitor, and powerful actors in the Israeli Government. [...] In terms of independence, there seems to be strong evidence pointing to that NGO Monitor might be less independent than it claims and indeed tied to strong political interests and actors. (516–517, bolding added)
• Ron Dudai, "Entryism, Mimicry and Victimhood Work: The Adoption of Human Rights Discourse by Right-wing Groups in Israel", International Journal of Human Rights 21, no. 7 (2017): 866–888: The goal of such pro-state entryism can be demonstrated most powerfully by NGO Monitor's recent practice of submitting 'shadow reports' to the UN human rights system. Shadow reports are among the most common and important tools of human rights NGOs: while governments submit their formal reports to UN human rights monitoring bodies, obviously seeking to portray a positive image, the practice of shadow reporting allows human rights NGOs to bring to the attention of these bodies independent and less flattering information and interpretation. Israel's human rights NGOs often make use of this tool. NGO Monitor's shadow reports however contain nothing but positive information about Israel, not seeking in any way to question Israel's formal submissions. In effect, they provide shadowing not to the state’s reports but to those of the other NGOs. (871, bolding added)

Assessments such as these from academic sources lead me to conclude that NGO Monitor is not a reliable source for statements about NGOs and associated BLPs. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on the claims regarding unreliability? Their bias is pretty clear, but as far as I can tell, there is no higher frequency of errors than with many newspapers considered reliable.

As this is an activist org (such as the one discussed above), it is obviously not fully independent, but many newspapers aren’t either, and as far as I can tell, there is no sign of a higher degree of bias than shown by many other comparable orgs.

By my cursory reading, there were historically some instances of poor reporting, but not beyond the usual level for comparable org, and not beyond what was shown for EMHRM, which appear to be acceptable with attribution?

Im pretty new, so it’s possible I missed something, but a (high) degree of bias is not a direct hindrance to being an RS, right? FortunateSons (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While sources having some biases isn't necessarily out of the ordinary, the overall impression I get from academic sources is that NGO Monitor is not only particularly biased (rather than just somewhat biased) but moreover lacks independence from the topic it often reports on (by which I don't just mean it's founded by Israelis, but moreover Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin's analysis which finds compelling the connections between NGO Monitor and the institutional Israeli government) and is prone to mischaracterizing organizations. While every editor has a right to make a cursory reading of a source/sourcebase, I'm inclined to base my position on these academic assessments made by trained scholars with a lot more experience in the subject area than me. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of independence, there seems to be strong evidence pointing to that NGO Monitor might be less independent than it claims and indeed tied to strong political interests and actors. is (as far as I can tell) not entirely untrue, but it refers to Steinberg being a man who, at least for a period of time since its founding, was closely affiliated with the Prime Minister’s Office. Source (from the other end of the political spectrum). This sounds biased (which isn’t in question), but I don’t think it’s more unusual than many other political organisations are. As much as the “revolving door” personally annoys me, it is also the norm, and a venn diagramm of consultants, professors and activists would have more overlap than I like, but it is also a fact of life. Is there a more specific issue that I missed? FortunateSons (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these assessments from trained academics, published in peer-reviewed publications, carry more weight than the personal, lay assessments you or I are capable of. I continue to consider NGO Monitor unreliable for statements about NGOs and affiliated BLPs. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political scientists and journalists argue about the independence of biased sources all the times, which is a normal (and good) part of scientific discourse. It is considered reliable enough that others, including AP and other major publications, cite it, so such an (in this case, very reasonable) argument towards authority does generally hold water in both directions, so I investigated their claim.

In this specific case, Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin base their analyses on two sources: „ Although the organisation claims to be independent—there has been accusations about strong ties between Gerald Steinberg, who is the founder of NGO Monitor, and powerful actors in the Israeli Government”. It cites a guardian article, which does not contain any of the relevant keywords and concerns another group, and „Mandy Turner, “Creating a Counterhegemonic Praxis: Jewish-Israeli Activists and the Challenge to Zionism”, Conflict, Security and Development, Vol. 15, No. 5 (2015), pp. 549–574“, which in Footnote 119 links what I have cited above as proof regarding the lack of independence: Yossi Gurvitz and Noam Roatem, ‘What is NGO Monitor’s Connection to the Israeli Government?’. +972 Webzine, 29 April 2014. Available at: http://972mag.com/what-is-ngo-monitors-connection-to-the-israeli-government/90239/[Accessed 23 July 2015]. Based on their writing, it appears to be their political reporting, which I would consider accurate but biased unless proven otherwise (left wing mag, good reporters). However, that does not appear to be significant enough unless we are willing to discount a very long list of orgs, certainly after the time frame where that relationship terminates (otherwise, we would have to depreciate every article written by a current or former politicial consultant, staffer etc.).

If this is the case, I would genuinely appreciate if you re-assessed your view regarding the source; if (which is quite possible) I missed something, I would greatly appreciate if you took the time to correct me. :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By way of aside, Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin's citation of the Guardian article doesn't strike me as strangely as it apparently strikes you. It's about another group, yes, but the point of the citation is to place their assessment of NGO Monitor in the context of an existing literature about Israeli institutional actors redefin[ing] what was once seen as tolerable, but albeit bitterly contested, dissent – the reports and critiques of Israel's human rights organisations – as a form of intolerable and existentially threatening delegitimisation. Kalm, Strömbom, and Uhlin's Global Society article is, I would remind, a secondary source which incorporates the three authors' own research and expertise as observers of organizations like NGO Monitor. If they were writing a Wikipedia article, we would expect every claim to be summarizing a verifiable source; but they didn't write a Wikipedia article. They, as academic researchers, have the training to synthesize literature from other writers with their observations to make the kinds of analytical claims that go beyond what a Wikipedia article would say in Wikipedia's own voice.

In any case, my view is based not only any one isolated example from the published literature on NGO Monitor but on the impression I get from the balance of academic sources. I respect your interest in my perspective on this. At the same time, I'd appreciate it if you accept that you haven't convinced me to change my mind. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guardian citation is fine, I just wanted to clarify that it is not directly related to the question at hand.

I understand that you disagree and trust their assessment, and appreciate the good faith discussion, even if I believe that the researchers view does not diminish the reliability of the source and therefore chose to respectfully disagree with you. Thank you for taking the time. FortunateSons (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons, what exactly would you like to add to the article about the EMHRM based on the NGO Monitor? In general, I would suggest to use less biased sources. If some information is only reported by the NGO Monitor, it might not be WP:DUE.

A bias doesn't mean they are unreliable. The quotes above mostly confirm their partisanship and only one mentions an inaccuracy, so it's hard to understand whether it's a one-off or systematic problem. Alaexis_¿question? 12:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they are biased. The article linked to questionable reporting about things like organ theft and statements by associated people that one can reasonably argue are antisemitic under modern definitions of antisemitism. I would have added them, probably as „NGO Monitor, (a Jerusalem-based NGO), argued that X was Y.“ You can find examples of the discussed things above in the discussion on EMHRM, if you are interested in writing them yourself :)FortunateSons (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to discuss the DUE weight of statements later, but as long as this is ongoing, I am not really interested in pre-writing and sourcing a statement that I might not even be able to include on the talk page. FortunateSons (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly has come up before. If one puts "NGO Monitor" into the search box at the top of this page for the archives you'll find a whole load of them. I've only gone through a few but they were very dismissive overall. One comment I saw said calling it reliable is like saying Electronic Intifada was reliable - and that has been deprecated. Perhaps someone else can go through the lot and get an overall opinion about reliabiliy. I definitely think its very biased views mean its opinions should be assigned little or no weight. NadVolum (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, their bias is clear in my opinion, and pretty undisputed as far as I can tell; they are right-wing and Zionist (in the literal sense of the word). However, considering the debate we just had on EMHRM, I would think that they should be in the same category; they both have bias and some questionable statements, but NGO Monitor is cited by RS and should therefore be considered equal or better (but obviously attribution is still required). FortunateSons (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a respectable NGO and NGO monitor in the same basket? Don't think so. Monitor is a trash operation spewing out endless Israeli propaganda, one merely has to look at the complete crap they wrote in respect of 6 NGOs declared illegal by Israel and for which Israel was widely condemned. Extreme bias makes the source unusable. I would accept the equally biased views of its founder as a source because they theoretically qualify as an expert and at least then we have a name attached to an opinion, can form a judgement of it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that isn’t really an objective argument. Bias is not really an argument if it doesn’t interfere with the facts, and they are right wing, but not fringe beyond what many left wing sources are. If you agree that the creator is a subject matter expert and that they are regularly quoted by RS, I don’t think that one can really disagree with being biased but reliable unless you can show a pattern of poor reporting beyond bias. FortunateSons (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just did, read the linked article. And it is not just bias, it is extreme bias (which is a reason to question reliability, if not deprecate). I don't understand the last sentence. To reiterate I accept the creator as an SPS and afaics, NGO monitor is a good candidate for deprecation, since we have had many discussions, I think converting this one into a formal RFC might be the way to go here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it is not just bias, it is extreme bias (which is a reason to question reliability, if not deprecate).

With all due respect to you, I seem to recall you coming to a different conclusion regarding EI and Mondoweiss despite their bias being extreme as well. As someone who’s been in favor of GUNREL/deprecating biased sources on either side of the conflict, the least I can ask for is logical consistency. The Kip 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a key difference. NGO Monitor's output is written by NGO Monitor. Mondoweiss' output is written by the authors of its articles, some of whom are respected experts. I'm not in favor of citing Mondoweiss editorials (for facts, especially), but the articles it publishes should be judged on the expertise of their authors. So actually I am completely consistent. Zero^talk 01:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a different issue entirely than the predictability of output that you cited below. Yes, Mondoweiss primarily publishes op-eds from individual authors; however, just like NGOM’s content, those op-eds have an extremely predictable bias to them.

I’m simply tired of users’ opinions/votes on sources developing entirely from what side of the conflict said source backs, and this applies to sources and users on either side. If a source overly favors one side of the conflict it’s probably not reliable, this shouldn’t be hard. When a user supports downgrading one source because of bias but opposes doing so for a biased source in the opposite side, I have the right to question if general bias (versus the user’s opinion) is the real concern.

And before I myself am inevitably accused of favoring one side, you can see that I’ve voted for GUNREL below after voting for GUNREL/deprecate on the Palestinian-biased EI/The Cradle/Mondoweiss while advising against using the Israeli-biased i24 and JNS as reliable sources in two non-RfC discussions. Again, it’s not hard. The Kip 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to use them. They are more akin to one of those think tanks employed to say global warming isn't happening and it is too late to do anythng about it and it is good for agriculture and it is a Chinese plot. NadVolum (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn’t really true. You can disagree with their claims, but the statements are generally fact-based FortunateSons (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's a good description. They can only be called fact-based if the facts always point in exactly the same direction. A source with entirely predictable output is worthless. Zero^talk 14:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I seem to recall you coming to a different conclusion regarding Mondoweiss despite their outcomes being rather predictable as well. The Kip 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tobacco industry and suchlike tried to avoid outright falsehooda too. Have a look at NGO Monitor on Amnesty International [1], Medicis Sans Frontieres [2], the ICJ [3]. Does factual really cover them? NadVolum (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify which of the statements is false? They provide links their sources, and while they obviously cover things in a way that is in line with their bias, I can’t find anything where they have claimed something to be true which isn’t in the 3 links you provided. Their interpretation is obviously their own and biased (which is the reason that policy requires that such claims be attributed), but I can’t find anything that goes beyond biased into falsehoods. If they have a pattern of blatant misinformation like most depreciated sources do, it should be easy to find, right? FortunateSons (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think "Amnesty disproportionately singles out Israel for condemnation, focusing solely on the conflict with the Palestinians, misrepresenting the complexity of the conflict, and ignoring more severe human rights violations in the region." is a reasonable statement like any investigative journalist might make? Or its bias is just something that can be ignored? Or how about "In practice, however, MSF consistently abuses its status as a humanitarian organization to launch venomous anti-Israel political campaigns." or "ICJ is active in lobbying the United Nations promoting false, distorted, and unverifiable allegations against Israel."? NadVolum (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s complicated, but I certainly disapprove of the way it is being said.

stricken for being off topic

In this case, I believe the answer for this issue to be fully covered by the policies of Wikipedia: we attribute claims to biased sources, don’t use our own voice in controversial cases, and make a reasonable effort to verify information when it appears to be fishy.

After all, we (as in all Editors) figured out religious disputes, military conflicts, and complex ethical debate. I think we can trust each other to differentiate between posturing and a specific claim being made about an NGO, don’t you? FortunateSons (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not complicated; it's complete crap and a joke source. "ICJ is active in lobbying the United Nations promoting false, distorted, and unverifiable allegations against Israel." - just laughable. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding „unverifiable allegations“: that may be my personal frustration, but all sides are currently doing that this and I find it highly annoying when doing research. The people (even scientists and journalists) stating assumptions as facts when talking about topics in the fog of war (unless someone secretly works for an intelligence agency with a very high clearance, in which case, go right ahead) are the bane of my existence. FortunateSons (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGO Monitor is cited by RS. Is it? I'm looking now and (excluding unreliable sources such as Electronic Intifada and Israel Hayom) this is what I see:

• extensive citations in Jerusalem Post[4][5][6][7] and a couple in

Jewish News Syndicate[8][9][10]

• Ha'aretz noting one of its employees was banned from editing Wikipedia in 2013[11]
• a 2014 controversy during which the Washington Post reported that AP had not cited in for several years,[12] after a former AP reporter claimed there was a ban on using it there[13] (but note David Bernstein of Volokh Conspiracy did describe them as a usable source in WaPo in response.[14]
• A 2016 op ed in Al-Jazeera attacking them for bias and misrepresentation[15]
• +972 ridiculing it[16][17]
• rival op eds in a Canadian Jewish outlet[18]
• a 2018 news article in EUObserver that starts "Former Israeli diplomats have accused NGO Monitor, a right-wing pressure group, of sowing misinformation that undermined EU efforts on conflict resolution."
• a 2021 op ed in the NYT that describes "a campaign, spearheaded by the Israeli government (with support from groups like NGO Monitor and UK Lawyers for Israel, which pursue these Palestinian groups in court and have been accused by advocacy groups of disseminating disinformation), targeting civil society organizations that monitor and resist Israeli human rights violations, including the continuing expansion of illegal settlements."[19]

In conclusion, two right-wing RSs use them; lots of others see them as unreliable. I'd say we could mention their opinion when secondary usage in e.g. Jerusalem Post shows it's noteworthy; otherwise avoid. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a biased source that needs to be used with care, if at all, as its use could easily be WP:UNDUE due to its partisan nature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As per my prior opinions re: EI, the Cradle, JNS, etc, I’d personally avoid using any outright biased sources with regards to anything in the I-P CTOP are regardless of “reliability,” and in that case that includes NGO Monitor. If it absolutely needs to be used, don’t do so without attribution. The Kip 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would personally only use it for background on individuals and orgs with controversial views, and not generally use them for notability as such and breaking news.

  However, they are ‚useful‘ (if you get over the language) when it comes to statements made and reports published, as even very questionable statements and reports are often ignored due to the sheer quantity of content in the digital age. FortunateSons (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think "background on individuals with controversial views" would be the worst possible use, as BLP material requires extra high quality sourcing and this is the opposite of that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes sense. Insofar as the source is reliable (which is the question at hand), I would argue that verifiable claims (such as public statements or statements made online) would be acceptable, right? FortunateSons (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It gets tricky, though, doesn't it? Plenty of clearly high-quality sources on I-P issues (including some of the most commonly cited ones, like Al-Jazeera and The Jerusalem Post) have what could reasonably be described as outright biases. It's not uncommon for sources closest to the conflict and which, therefore, produce some of the best coverage, to also have outright biases. Ultimately what matters is their reliability - whether that bias is sufficient to harm their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. To me, the most alarming thing here is the fact that they claim more independence than they actually have - if true, that is a fundamental falsehood that makes them hard to use as a source. For outrageously slanted sources there are also WP:DUE issues - when a source's coverage is too slanted, then what it covers or doesn't cover has less significance, making it likely to be undue; and even when they cover factual things, their opinion about what is important carries little weight for our content decisions. "Source that always without question advocates X is advocating X in this particular context as well" is just not something that is generally going to be due without a secondary source - we wouldn't end every article with Carthago delenda est just because we have a cite to Cato the Elder connecting it to the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your response! Yeah, it’s pretty complicated. There was a pretty long discussion above, that I believe can be summarised as „we are not sure“ when it comes to questions of independence. I believe to have found the original source by following the citations and consider it mostly harmless, but my counterpart in the discussion made excellent points and provided good sourcing, so I think it’s still up in the air.

  Regarding WP:DUE, I agree that it is pretty complicated and will (as I/P does) lead to long discussions on talk pages. However, some of the most „outstanding“ claims, such as (in the thread on EMHRM) a chairman of an NGO allegedly downplaying sexual assaults is probably DUE at least a sentence.

  Would you consider them reliable (but biased, as you said) unless there is convincing evidence that they are not independent? FortunateSons (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. The default for sources is that they're unknown, leaning towards unreliable. A lot of people above have fixated on the question of whether their bias renders them unreliable, which misses the more basic question - what reasons do we have to think that they are reliable? I mentioned Al-Jazeera and The Jerusalem Post, say; while they're biased, there's massive amounts of high-quality WP:USEBYOTHERS and secondary coverage indicating that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Where's the corresponding reputation here? I feel that this is a common problem when discussing sources that are known for their bias and nothing else - people get derailed into the fact that WP:BIASED isn't automatically disqualifying and miss the fact that it allows sources that otherwise have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to be used despite their bias. If the only thing the source is known for is its bias, and nobody has written anything positive about it at all, then it's unreliable because it lacks the reputation that RS requires. (And beyond that the WP:DUE issue remains, so I probably would avoid citing it in any place where it's the only source, especially for anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL - which is probably the only situations people are likely to want to cite it anyway.) So if you want to argue it is reliable, I would search for at least some positive coverage or WP:USEBYOTHERS to counterbalance the obviously-negative coverage above; even if the sources above don't outright say it's unreliable (and therefore wouldn't be disqualifying if it clearly had a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy otherwise), a source where the only available coverage is negative is not a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understood you correctly, you are looking for cases where a reliable sources cited them or their spokespeople? With a quick search, I have found:

AP (1) AP (2) AP (3), also NYT (1) NYT (2), and BBC (1) BBC (2) and also others [1] [2]. Is that enough, or should I look for more? FortunateSons (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From this list, the Reuters piece uses it as a source for facts (giving its claims similar status to the NGOs it's attacking such as B'Tselem).[20] The BBC and AP examples, however, are all of it (or its spokespeople) being used as a source of opinion, suggesting its opinion is occasionally noteworthy, but not that it is reliable for facts. I can't see the WaPo and NYT examples behind the paywalls, but can I ask what they are using it for, facts or opinion? My take-home is that we might want to include its opinion via RSs, but that we don't have much reason to use it as a reliable source for facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time. The links below are without paywall, and are IMO.:

NYT (1) mostly opinion related to the value of another NGOs actions

NYT (2) is Kind of both, but also a statement regarding causality, so I would say its partial

WaPo ascribing motives to others, 70% opinion, 30% statement of fact.

(Assessments are my own, please feel free to verify.) What do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an overtly biased pressure group in favour of Israel. I don't see evidence they're not independent, but they're still pretty clearly on one side of the conflict. They're not a news organization and like Amnesty International, their claims should be covered by other sources to assess if they have WP:DUE weight. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have we got an example of page of NGO Monitor we might possibly use as a citation on Wikipedia? NadVolum (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely avoid NGO Monitor. It's not just biased and partisan; it's an attack dog dishonestly posing as a neutral monitor. It regularly distorts material it quotes. I don't think it's the case (as suggested above) that it's used as a source by mainstream sources - it might be used as a source by right-wing tabloidy media such as Fox News or the Daily Mail, but I don't recall it being seen as a source of facts by serious outlets. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a short list of citations by RS above FortunateSons (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I missed that. I'll look now. I just did a systematic search of Google News and found two RSs using it and several others criticising it, pasted above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Could you check whether to include the ones I found as well? FortunateSons (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion of NGO monitor is strongly influenced by the way that the organization has manipulated Wikipedia using paid staffers. In particular one staffer who had no qualms about making COI claims against a target of Gerald Steinberg [21] while failing to disclose his own, much worse, COI. [22]. And then, to make it worse, lying about it. He utilized an elaborate strategy to pad WP articles with NGO monitor talking points.(clearly described by Nomoskedasticity in “additional comments” [23]). It was disgusting. I can’t think why anyone would consider an organization who would stoop this kind of underhand behaviour a reliable source. “A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”? No, we have direct evidence of exactly the opposite. Slp1 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-Med HRM has done similar; while problematic, and we should be taking hard looks at all coverage of these sources, I don’t think misbehaviour on Wikipedia is sufficient to find the source unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have not done similar, and that is such a bogus assertion I don’t know how you made it so casually. nableezy - 09:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Slp1. An organization or an individual employing deception to engineer the content of an encyclopedia is a useful and important indicator of unreliability. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They created their own article, and then after it was deleted at AfD repeatedly recreated it until it finally stuck. They've heavily edited that article, as well as articles on their projects and key members, and they place links to media coverage of their reports throughout the encyclopedia - and all this without disclosing their COI. It sounds similar to me. BilledMammal (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

<- One interesting thing about NGO Monitor (that is not the same as Euro-Med HRM I assume) is the unusual extent to which the article and talk page attract dishonest editors who employ deception. Very nearly a quarter of all edits to the article and talk page are by people who were subsequently blocked/banned for abuse of multiple accounts, ban evasion, COI and so on. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reliability of NGO Monitor?

What is the reliability of sites owned by Red Ventures (excluding specific sites listed below)?

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

This proposal came up at a recent discussion of ZDNet [28]. While Red Ventures itself has been infrequently discussed [29] prior to this RfC, sites now owned by it have been frequently discussed in the past, such as CNET, ZDNet, Healthline, and others. For the purposes of keeping this RfC clear due to Red Ventures' enormous reach, this applies to content published by sites during the period of time they were owned by Red Ventures, so pre-acquisition content would be exempt. This RfC also excludes the following sources as they were previously discussed at WP:RSP:

• WP:CNET, WP:MREL since being acquired by Red Ventures in October 2020, unreliable after November 2022
• WP:HEALTHLINE, deprecated
• The Points Guy, blacklisted and split between WP:MREL and WP:GUNREL.

It also excludes sources sold by Red Ventures in 2022 to Fandom as they were identified in the previous discussion as possibly needing an exception due to frequent use/not spending that much time under Red Ventures. Examples include Metacritic, TV Guide, and Gamespot (which are considered generally reliable at WP:RSP and WP:GAMESOURCES). However, this RfC would apply to ZDNet and Lonely Planet as of the time they were acquired by Red Ventures. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (Red Ventures)

• Option 3. Publications acquired by Red Ventures have come to WP:RSN and have usually been declared as generally unreliable or below. WP:CNET was declared unreliable in 2022 after Red Ventures began filling with AI-generated content, WP:HEALTHLINE was deprecated as being frequently filled with misinformation, and The Points Guy is blacklisted due to abuse. JPxG observed in this thread that ZDNet currently has an article up on "the best Linux desktops" [30] [31] that has notes from the editor still in the article. In addition, the editor did not identify multiple factual inaccuracies and the article is apparently republished every year with the same URL. [32] ZDNet also publishes articles from StackCommerce about great deals on StackCommerce's website, which are not declared as sponsored content. [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Other articles are declared as paid content though,[39] which leads me to believe ZDNet is intentionally failing to declare StackCommerce ads as paid content.

This appears to be Red Ventures' modus operandi. They acquire sites with good search engine optimization (SEO) scores, then cut costs by using AI to generate a bunch of content for affiliate marketing on the site. Futurism has identified that Red Ventures uses this strategy across many of their properties such as Bankrate. [40] [41] The Verge also has a good explainer on their editorial process,[42] and adds that Red Ventures pressures journalists at CNet to give better reviews.[43] We shouldn't repeatedly put the onus on editors to prove that Red Ventures ruined a site before we can start removing it; they can easily buy or start another. I think we should look at the common denominator here, which is Red Ventures, and target the problem (a spam network) at its source.

I'll also add that the reason I included so many exceptions in this RfC is because on a pragmatic basis it will be easier to deal with the special cases in the future, rather than now (this avoids a potential WP:TRAINWRECK). It's not because I think all of the exceptions should be treated differently and I don't think this RfC should be seen as closing the door for further discussion on those sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Ventures' official policy going forward is also to avoid disclosing AI-generated content.[44] According to the Director of SEO at the company: "Disclosing AI content is like telling the IRS you have a cash-only business," so we can't trust them to disambiguate AI-generated content from non AI-generated content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been convinced that this should be limited to web content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 Between the AI-generated and often blantantly inaccurate content, as well as the SEO/sales/marketing-oriented output, and the decisions previously made regarding CNET and The Points Guy, a fairly easy blanket GUNREL. The Kip 19:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No. I don't think it makes sense to categorize Lonely Planet as unreliable because some other company owned by Red Ventures did something very stupid. I think that this is jumping the gun: it feels like something should be done, and this is something. Frankly, categorizing an entire outlet as unreliable because one writer or one editor craps the bed is an overreaction; doing so because someone at a different outlet owned by the same parent company crapped the bed is medieval. jp×g🗯️ 21:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JPxG: It's not just one writer/editor. Lonely Planet also uses AI (their system is called Trill) to generate content for affiliate marketing. [45] [46] Specifically, the system takes images from influencers and generates "bookable content", which Lonely Planet then gets a commission off of. This is very similar to what CNET and The Points Guy do. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I should add (I found this while doing more research) that the New York Times did an expose on the AI-generated travel guide industry in August last year. [47] They ran guidebooks through an AI detector and found that the Lonely Planet guides had "next to no chance that they were written by A.I. generators." So, they don't seem to be generating their guidebooks with AI, but they do generate some kind of content with AI. It should also be noticed that according to messages leaked by Futurism, Red Ventures' subsidiaries are encouraged not to disclose AI-generated content. [48] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By definition an "AI detector" cannot reliably detect whether content is written by a large language model (as the LLM could use the detector like an oracle machine), so this New York Times claim should be taken with plenty of salt. — Bilorv (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 but I'd prefer option 4 if possible. It's high time for it. Enough is enough: if it's owned by Red Ventures, we need to go ahead and identify it as a hard WP:RS fail. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Option 4 is going to run into technical snags with the edit filter. The way the filter works is by checking urls and evaluating them against a regex to see if they're deprecated. Since the websites were (largely) fine before Red Ventures, we can't exactly deprecate the sites and slap on the filter in the same way. It might be possible if these websites were to include a datestamp in their urls, but they don't, so we're not going to be able to add them to filter 869 as we would with other deprecated sources. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 but not opposed to Option 4. Highly questionable and effectively not usable in most cases, particularly if they intend to go forward with not disclosing AI content.FortunateSons (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No. The RfC's need to outline multiple exceptions is an indication that "owned by Red Ventures" is too slippery of a category. We can have RfCs for individual outlets as they come up. It certainly makes sense to point out Red Venture's pattern in future discussions about sources they purchase, but attempting to target Red Ventures while simultaneously acknowledging that this isn't actually wholly consistent and doesn't apply to some outlets that have been under Red Ventures ownership strikes me as liable to be confusing. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I think we should deprecate Healthline because I think even if we designate Red Ventures as unreliable, Healthline is health-related and should be considered even less trustworthy. Metacritic has always been algorithmically generated (we're usually citing it for its review aggregation) and the other sources in 2022 got sold off around the time CNET started dropping AI-generated content. I don't think any of their content right now should be considered above generally unreliable, but other editors might feel differently. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No. It should be uncontroversial that whatever the pattern of parent comapany's recent acquisitions, sources at RSN-RSP are evaluated individually on their merits. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with this is that the parent company pushes the same editorial policy across the entire organization. It's a network of spammy websites and by the time we designate one they already have another. If we ban BestColleges.com [49] Red Ventures can simply start Thebestschools.org. [50] Or they can just switch to OnlineMBA.com [51] or Nursejournal.org. [52] All of these sites have similar content creation policies (generate SEO-optimized content with AI for affiliate marketing) and they all have the same reliability issues because of it according to Futurism.[53] If we have to have a discussion for every site Red Ventures owns, we'll die a death by a thousand cuts, because they have dozens of sites like those four just in the education sector alone. The content is made by most of the same people and has most of the same problems as they're all owned by the same company that does the same things. We should treat them the same as we do other spam networks that show up to RSN. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard somebody say on an already-ridiculous noticeboard. Do you seriously think that a media holdings company is creating subsidiary companies for the sole purpose of skirting Wikipedia source deprecations? Is this a joke? jp×g🗯️ 03:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JPxG: Maybe I wasn't clear enough and I apologize. Red Ventures' actual concern is Google et al catching on that their content is AI-generated and blocking the site. They're not trying to skirt Wikipedia deprecation, but they start/acquire sites, fill them with garbage, and by the time Google and others catch on, they've moved on. And as a volunteer project we're very far behind the curve.

  It's not that Red Ventures creating subsidiary companies for the sole purpose of skirting Wikipedia source deprecation, it's that by the time we get around to deprecating a source because everyone else has realized its shit, Red Ventures will already have a new thing ready. And this is inherent to the structure of Wikipedia because of how much credence we give to reliable sources judging other reliable sources (e.g. WP:USEBYOTHERS). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3, Red Ventures has perverted everything under their purview and we don't actually have a requirement that sources are evaluated individually despite multiple editors claiming that we do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 Support a blanket ban of all Red Ventures sites, per my comments in previous discussions. But I think a more reasonable cutoff date would be 2022, similar to what we do with CNET. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're blanket banning, maybe it's better to do option 4 to get an edit filter? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know how that would work with a cutoff date (i.e. I don't know if it is possible for an edit filter to detect when an article was published). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 per much of the above. JM (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 as per above. Red Ventures poisons everything it touches. Cortador (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 They're so bad editore should need to explain why they use a link but I would oppose general deprecation. If some bit seems able to resist the overall fungus growth a RfC can be raised to say it is a more reliable. NadVolum (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 per many above. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No. I'm a bit skeptical that the print editions of Lonely Planet post-2020 have evidence of problems with them; they seem to be the same sort of thing as they were before the acquisitions. And those sources are useful; there's at least one GA on transport that use Lonely Planet guides (Driving in Madagascar), and it can be quite hard to find detailed English-language coverage of transport in (for example) the former French African colonies. I think that we shouldn't be overbroad when dealing with the publisher merely because of problems with some of their online content.
  I understand the issues with several properties owned by Red Ventures, but there is zero evidence that these sorts of issues have moved to Lonely Planet print guides—even a fairly detailed and independent investigation by The New York Times, as Chess has admitted above, found no evidence of AI use in such guides. As such, I think that this RfC is overbroad in its scope, and I think that the lack of nuance here would be harmful to our ability to create good articles going forward.— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No, per Red-tailed hawk. Already, we use RSP as a broad - often excessively broad - brush, with no room for accessing individual articles within sources for reliability. This is a step in the wrong direction, making that brush even broader with no room for accessing individual sources for reliability. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3: I find the evidence here compelling but deprecating is clearly impractical in this instance. But I would exclude print content, in particular from established brands such as Lonely Planet. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 for websites. GUNREL still gives us the opportunity to evaluate specific cases. JoelleJay (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2: editors should be made aware (through RSP) of Chess's research and the risk of undisclosed AI use in any company owned by Red Ventures. However, given the breadth of sources this incorporates I would prefer to be more conservative in setting precedent. It may be that these issues only exist in web sources or under a particular CEO or in a particular time period or for certain companies where Red Venture has rolled out its AI apocalypse. In the case that there is consensus for option 3 (which I would prefer to no consensus), I would remind editors that reliability is evaluated with respect to a particular fact and so a "generally unreliable" company can create a source that is reliable for some facts. — Bilorv (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3: Basically same reason as BobFromBrockley and User:Red-tailed hawk, the websites should be regarded as generally unreliable, but print versions are fine. I don't think this exception makes this RfC invalid. Theepicosity (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 or Option 4 (online websites affiliated with Red Ventures): Per arguments provided in the survey. Red Ventures company has a declared policy of producing AI-generated content in the articles of their online websites.^[1] The online websites of the "Red Ventures" are unreliable. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No basically per jp×g. Evaluate sources individually, don't evaluate owners of sources. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3/4: Per the points raised above. Isi96 (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Red Ventures)

Let the record reflect that "a permanent and open-ended blank-check deprecation of all websites and companies in whom a majority ownership is owned by this specific firm" is an obscene, authoritarian overreaction that goes far beyond even the most wildly expansive interpretation of what this noticeboard is set up, or within its remit, to do. Deprecation is already not a policy: it's something we made up on the spot to get rid of the Daily Mail in 2017, on the basis that the site had been so bad in so many ways for so many years that we needed to bypass our existing policies for an exigent emergency.

Now, seven years later, we want to set up a system for the indefinite future in which we deprecate dozens of websites, pre-emptively and without any evidence of their doing anything untrustworthy, on the basis that they get bought by a company that at one point owned a different website that had something bad on it? I realize that the stuff that's happened is annoying, and we want to "punish" them in some way, but Wikipedia is not a means for owning the libs or punishing our posting enemies or doing callout posts on venture capital firms. These may be noble goals, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. If we find it "too hard" to individually evaluate entire websites before making blanket bans on their use, well, maybe it is just "too hard" to edit Wikipedia and we need to take a break.

The idea that Red Ventures is going to try to "get around" a deprecation or a "judgment" by making new websites is total fantasy. Media companies, in general, do not exist for the purpose of being listed as reliable by Wikipedia, and they definitely do not exist for the purpose of being listed as reliable by an unofficial club of Wikipedians who maintain a list of what sources are reliable. The idea is risible: what proportion of traffic on a news site comes from people clicking links to that site in the references section of Wikipedia articles? A hundredth of a percent? A tenth of a percent? Do we have some fantasy where the Red Ventures guys see that they've been deprecated on Wikipedia, break into a sobbing fit, and tearfully promise repentance? I don't think they give a hoot -- it's just going to make it even more difficult for editors to write articles. We do not have an "guilty until proven innocent" system for allowing people to link to websites in article citations, and we should not try to create one out-of-process because we are mad online. jp×g🗯️ 04:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the idea that this is a mechanism to 'punish' Red Ventures above in another reply, so I won't repeat it here beyond to say that what you're saying is not how I intended my argument to come across. But re: to the idea that this is unprecedented and an overreach, we blanket ban collections of websites that share editorial teams all the time. Dotdash has a special entry at WP:RSP, and so does the WP:EPOCHTIMES as we deprecated all sources owned by that group including NTDTV and Kanzhongguo. We've done the same for WP:RT.COM. In cases where a larger organization enforces the same editorial policy on multiple purportedly independent websites, it's understood that they can be treated as a group as we're ultimately judging sources largely on their editorial policy.

When the stated editorial policy of Red Ventures is to fill websites with AI-generated content regardless of if its reliable, we shouldn't have to care about their convoluted organizational structure. It's the same people running the sites with the same content-creation tooling (their euphemism for AI) on the backend and that consistently combines to create unreliable content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content of our articles should be determined by the quality of the sources that are available to write those articles. I am in favor of noting that the sites mentioned in this RfC should be used with extreme care (and that articles published on them after the implementation of these new editorial policies should be generally avoided). However, I am strongly opposed to preëmptive deprecation of sources that haven't done anything improper. This presumes a whitelist model of sourcing acceptability, which is emphatically not the way that this project has worked for the last twenty-three years.

There is no policy- or guideline- consistent basis for saying "this source is deprecated because we couldn't be arsed to look at it in detail". If we can't be arsed to look at something in detail, why would that RSN discussion matter more than a hypothetical situation in which somebody wanted to use a source in an article and was overruled by it?

The Dotdash entry says that there was no consensus on the company as a whole, and has a very long "notes" section detailing individual discussions (with differing consensi) on each of the sites in question. There is not consensus to give Dotdash a scarlet letter that immediately taints all companies it buys.

Conversely, with the other examples you give (Epoch Times, NTDTV, Kanzhongguo, RT), these are outlets in their own right, that have obvious direct editorial control over their subsidiaries; the subsidiaries being unacceptable for sourcing is obvious from the fact that they don't have any independent existence from the parent, and never did. The thing being proposed here is much more ambitious: we're trying to probe into corporate governance.

To get a little more down to brass tacks: what does it mean for a company to be "owned"? A majority stake? By shares? By class of stock? A majority stake of voting shares? Does owning 40% of a newspaper's stock mean you own the newspaper, if the rest of the ownership is split between different shareholders and none of them have more than 40%? What about the same situation, but your stake is 20%? What distinction do we make between portfolio companies, subsidiaries, and business units? What degree of integration or subordination between levels of executive management has to exist for us to say a company is really just a different company in a hat and trench coat? These aren't really questions that an encyclopedia should be in the business of determining. They should not determine the content of Wikipedia articles. We should judge sources based on whether the sources are good or bad. jp×g🗯️ 17:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I haven't !voted for deprecation for the reasons that you and others have gave. Blanket-banning isn't the right move here. Going by the rule of WP:GUNREL, the standard is Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Saying "most cases" gives us the ability to postpone where to draw the line in the grey area later. Much of your argument is that "deprecation is bad" but that's not what most people have called for at this discussion.

While I can see your point that this isn't analogous to Dotdash, I still believe that this is very similar to RT or the Epoch Times. As you said, the problem is with those outlets that have obvious direct editorial control over their subsidiaries and their lack of independence from the parent group. This is the same situation as Red Ventures; except Red Ventures is managing things at a higher level. Go read the article from Futurism about their policies: [54] They have the same guy (Lance Davis) that is the Vice President of Content for Financial Services for for CNET as well as its sister sites Bankrate and CreditCards.com. According to Red Ventures themselves, "He is responsible for overseeing and reviewing editorial content and is a member of the newsroom," And the editor in charge of their AI-generated content (Cameron Hurta) is the same person for all Red Ventures properties.

Red Ventures is not an organization that owns distinct websites with different editorial teams. While CNET and ZDNet used to be independent tech news websites, they are obviously not anymore. Red Ventures is a highly integrated company that has the same people creating unreliable content on all of their websites. As much as they try to avoid showing that in public, this is a fact that is supported by the consensus of reliable sources. If we're judging sources by whether they're good or bad, Red Ventures is with limited exceptions bad.

And in response to your last point about "brass tacks", you're splitting hairs prior to those issues being a problem. If we discover Red Ventures sites in the future that don't have these issues or don't neatly fit into this discussion, we can easily have another discussion at RSN. But from what I can see, most of their websites have the same issues, and I don't think we should start edge case poisoning the general point of the RfC by dealing with the possibility of a Red Ventures subsidiary having multiple classes of shares before that is shown to exist. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chess: I'm re-reading the RfC prompt, and I noticed that you stated this applies to content published by sites during the period of time they were owned by Red Ventures (emphasis mine), but you mentioned Lonely Planet print guides in this comment. Are you seeking to have those included in this RfC, or merely seeking to discuss web content? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Red-tailed hawk: This is a really good point. I think I screwed up when writing this RfC in terms of clarity, since it seems most people view this as a network of websites. I think it's fair to apply this only to web content since most of the points I made here are about search-engine optimization, which obviously doesn't apply if its not a website. In all honesty, I intended it to apply to the print editions at first, but I think based on what everyone has said here + the New York Times rating Lonely Planet guidebooks as not AI-generated, we can put the print stuff from Red Ventures in a different category than their websites. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to way into this individual RfC, but there examples where ownership by a head company has an editorial effect on all of the subsidiary media outlets that is toxic and we should consider that. Perhaps not to go so far as arguing for deprecation of all subsidiary outlets (which I don't really see happening here). E.g., Murdoch's empire, there is not a single one of his subsidiaries, in any country that is not tainted by Murdoch's editorial control. The talk shows in every country can not be relied upon when it comes to matters of fact, particularly in regards to politics, climate change or anything to do with any culture war issue. Why would we not as a matter of first principles declare every one of Murdoch's subsidiaries' talk shows to be WP:GUNREL without further analysis and save ourselves a lot of time? Note: WP:RSP already does that for those that have been discussed (AFAIK) but we could just save ourselves some time and generalise across all boundaries. Just a point for consideration that I thought could be abstracted to this situation. TarnishedPath^talk 10:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All op eds, talk shows, and other opinion content should be rated GUNREL and only usable (rarely) when it's a subject matter expert or for the author's opinion. (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Murdoch's talk shows are reliable even in those "rare" occasions you cite. TarnishedPath^talk 08:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's going to be a fair bit more controversial, but over the past few years WP:RSN has been heading in that direction. I would disagree with designating as unreliable all outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch as he's 92 and we don't know how the succession will play out. I would imagine the closest would be designating as unreliable News Corp, but the wide disparity between the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and books published by HarperCollins would make that nearly impossible. I don't think Murdoch is reusing the same generative AI engine to create content for Fox News and the WSJ, nor does he have a special director in charge of a unified plan to push affiliate marketing content. But if you want to treat this RfC as precedent to make your own about News Corp, go ahead. A lot of editors (not including me) would probably agree with you. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• tasnimnews.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

Is it worth revisiting the reliability of the Tasnim News Agency of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in light of the recent article referenced in the latest WP:SIGNPOST about a related state-backed propaganda and disinformation operation? Amigao (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem that Tasnim is listed at WP:RSP, so I'm not sure what any prior consensus would've properly been. Additionally, it's worth noting that article is an opinion piece, rather than an RS accusing it of a disinfo operation.

That said, considering its extensive ties to the IRGC, I would be extremely wary of using it for anything but the stated positions of the IRGC, similar to how we've treated Russian and Chinese state-backed media. Their promotion of COVID conspiracy theories makes me think WP:GUNREL is a solid option, if not deprecation similar to WP:PRESSTV. The Kip 22:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth a formal RfC then? It looks like there has been some past discussion of Tasnim (1, 2, 3, 4) but no RfC. Amigao (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn’t be a bad idea, considering the Signpost context. The Kip 19:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

What is the reliability of Tasnim News Agency?

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

Tasnim News Agency of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was referenced in a recent WP:SIGNPOST issue in relation a recent Townhall.com opinion piece concerning systematic "disinformation and state propaganda" efforts on Wikipedia. Past discussion of Tasnim (1, 2, 3, 4). - Amigao (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• tasnimnews.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

Survey

• Option 4: per nomination and arguments given by the user "The Kip" in the section above the RfC. "Tasnim News Agency" has been described by various sources as an "IRGC-controlled" outlet that disseminates "state propaganda and conspiracy theories" on behalf of Iranian political fronts affiliated with the IRGC.^[2] Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3/4 per nom and arguments above. State mouthpiece that has published disinformation. Possible reliable source for Iranian gov statements and similar so preference for GUNREL over deprecate, but as more official press agencies exist for those hard to see any loss in deprecation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 -- it's a state disinformation and propaganda outlet, that is occasionally valuable as a self-published primary source about the Iranian government's own actions but typically even then there's a better source. Per the WP:PRESSTV consensus, this should probably be deprecated. It's basically the exact same scenario. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 per the consensus from WP:PRESSTV, this isn’t far off from being the same source. The Kip 09:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 as said above, this is a medium for spreading IRI propaganda. JM (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This outlet has been mentioned only briefly in the article. Could you maybe add some details about the Covid disinformation that was added to Wikipedia using Tasnim, and provide other examples, if you have them? Alaexis_¿question? 12:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Here's one about Tasnim's Covid disinformation mixed with antisemitic tropes. - Amigao (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest moving this RfC to the same section as the initial live discussion above, as it seems silly to split the conversation? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Kip 06:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC mentions an opinion piece on the Townhall website which referenced Tasnim. I did not find the TownHall article very persuasive. It only mentions Tasnim once, where it says it was used to add "false information about the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran". However, the Townhall article does not say what false information was added and does not provide a link to the claimed addition so that the claim can be verified. The article is poor in other ways. It makes a number of claims, including about Wikipedia editors and admins, without providing a way of verifying the claims. Two of the writer's claims can be checked by looking at the Wikipedia articles to which he refers. The writer says "in the Wikipedia article on the "Barakat Foundation," details about its connection to the powerful Iranian institution known as the Execution of Imam Khomeini's Order were deleted". The Execution of Imam Khomeini's Order is mentioned eight times on the Barakat Foundation page. The writer also says "in the Wikipedia article on the "Mahsa Amini protests," a Guardian article was used to falsely claim that demonstrators chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," when the article actually reported on pro-government rallies as a response to the protests". Afaict, we have used The Guardian article correctly in the Mahsa Amini protests article, including its claim that pro-government protesters shouted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”. Burrobert (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reliability of academically-published material by Dr. Mensur Omerbashich?

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

Previous discussions: 1, 2.

Dr. Mensur Omerbashich is currently cited on List of earthquakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 1927 Ljubinje earthquake. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• Discussion opened as a result of a now-blocked editor dispute. However, further discussion and searching led to finding a previous (even larger) non-RfC discussion as well as being cited on two articles. Since this involves determining whether peer-reviewed material from a scientist is a reliable source & having previous discussions on him, an RfC to make the reliability determination is needed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4, I suppose, though I doubt this really comes up enough to be worth an RFC or a RSP entry. The discussion on Talk:Sun was about an article in the Journal of Geophysics]. Let me paste in my comment from that discussion here: Looking into the Journal, it appears that what happened here is the journal went defunct in 1988. Then Omerbashich set up a website in 2020 using the old Journal's name (and laying claim to its old impact factor and etc.). He's been using it as a self publishing venue. Each 'issue', (there have been 3) has his own work in it. This isn't a reliable source and I find claims of proper peer-review highly unlikely. Participants should also have a look at Omerbashich's blog. But here's a representative quote: this discovery instantly invalidates/makes impossible any (general) relativity theory (including Einstein's) as well as any alternatives such as MOND, which jews came up with "just in case" - to keep us/goyim dumbed down so they can easier get away with being the supreme race of our masters:) - MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4, in addition to the above I am unable to find any evidence supporting Dr. Omerbashich's claim to be the current "Lead geodesist" of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a position he claims (alongside "Head of the Bosnian royal family") on his LinkedIn. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is another website run by Dr. Omerbashich that succinctly demonstrates his relationship with the field of science in general. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither, this seems malformed. Citations aren't fundamentally about the author, they're about the editorial control of the publication venue. I would choose option 4 for 'Journal of Geophysics', to which WP:SELFPUB arguably applies as he his the editor-in-chief and I understand that at least one of his articles appears in all three published issues. However, I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater, I do not see any evidence presented to argue that Omerbashich, Mensur; Sijarić, Galiba (28 November 2006). "Seismotectonics of Bosnia - Overview". Acta Geodyn. Geomater. 3 (2): 17–29. to be unreliable. Has any such argument been made? --Noren (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4, even if something he published is correct, it looks really fringy. And here is an interesting rationalwiki article on him, just for some context. And one quote from his blog: How fascist monopoly Google character-assassinates Dr. Omerbashich to protect its masters' theft of his multi-billion intellectual property. Artem.G (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 Given the above concerns about self-publication, if he has been published in a journal not published or edited by himself he might be OK. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4, obviously. Omerbashich's blog clearly demonstrates that he is a common antisemitic crank dressing wild pseudoscience in a hollow costume of academic language. It's a sadly frequent occurence and I hope this RFC is for posterity's sake more than any kind of real debate about reliability. Penitentes (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4, seems to be nothing more than self-published pseudoscience and/or conspiracy theories. Clear WP:FRINGE source. The Kip 18:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This isn't really a question of reliable sources. We don't let editors add new theories to scientific articles sourced only the publications by the creator of the theory. They may be full professors and the theories may be published in perfectly acceptable journals, but that is not enough. We require evidence that the material has been accepted by the wider scientific community as shown by review articles or other material published by people independent of the originator. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mostly correct… there are situations where it is appropriate to briefly mention an established expert’s new and unreviewed theory (one example would be in that expert’s bio article) … but when/if we do mention this sort of thing, we would have to present it as being such. Blueboar (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4. Pseudoscience. We don't cite that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 per above. JM (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4. I did some digging on this guy and, holy shit, there's a lot going on. He seems to have usurped the name of a formerly reputable journal which stopped publishing in the 80s, put some random (real) people on its website, presumably without their knowledge, and used it to peddle his anti-Semitic conspiracies and other assorted bullshit. Although the referenced paper seems indeed to be published in a reputable journal (Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia), because of his egregious current work, Wikipedia ought to keep a very, very large distance from him. See also the relevant page on RationalWiki. — Jumbo T (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Dr. Mensur Omerbashich)

Why is this written with the subject being a person rather than a particular publication? This does not follow the pattern of other discussions. It may be too late now, but I think this would have been better written with 'Journal of Geophysics' as the subject. Is there an argument to be made against https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611279.pdf, a source currently cited by List of earthquakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 1927 Ljubinje earthquake which this RFC as written would depreciate? --Noren (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor clarification: Omerbashich's paper is listed as Further reading in both of those articles, not cited. Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I would also clarify minorly that it should be referred to also as the co-author Sijarić's paper. This raises the question: if we start to depreciate sources by author(s) rather than by publication venue, how would we handle publications with more than one author? There are many scientific papers with dozens of authors. --Noren (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need an RFC for this? nableezy - 18:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. RFCBefore was satisfied, so an RfC was more or less actually needed, given the debate that actually partially ended right before this was started. That said, in a couple of days, if consensus is clear for an option, the RfC tag could be removed and speedy closed. So yes, since there have been dozens of editors involved in discussions related to his publications. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If its about a single source on a couple of pages just have a normal discussion on is this a reliable source for this material? This page isnt supposed to be a thousand RFCs to deprecate, thats only for something that is a widespread and persistent issue. nableezy - 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "single source". This is more, from what I gather, that a clueless scientist has published a handful of actual scientific and peer-reviewed papers. Imagine if say Alex Jones published a peer-reviewed article in say American Historical Review, four in Monthly Weather Review, and ten in The New England Journal of Medicine. Do you talk about the author or the actual academic sources? Would you trust a peer-reviewed academic paper by him? This spans at least four Wikipedia articles, each with different sources. So, no, this discussion is valid as it is about a scientist, not a "single source". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which papers do you object to that were not published in 'Journal of Geophysics'? --Noren (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For something written by anyone to be published in any of those well-established and well-respected journals, the article has to survive a blind peer review process with at least anonymous reviewers plus the review from the editor-in-chief and possibly editorial board as well (I say this based on my knowledge of how history journals like the American Historical Review work). I see no reason for thinking any of those three periodicals would publish something along the lines of content in Alex Jones's Infowars, which would likely fail the initial editorial review, much less the anonymous peer review. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to how it works in geophysics or history, but in my experience in the biosciences the peer-review process primarily ensures that the experimental design & methods are appropriate to answer the questions being asked (and that the results at least appear to be plausible). Reviewers don't actually check if the results are valid/repeatable, and so the process assumes that scientists are acting in good faith and fails in the case of bad actors.

Dr. Omerbashich's willingness to misrepresent himself (as the "Lead Geodesist" at Berkeley), his co-opting of an existing journal into his own vanity press, and his beef with the peer-review process in general are concerning. -- Marchantiophyta (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over 1000 articles are currently citing some ScienceDirect Topics page. These are machine-generated summaries of the articles published in a certain topic by Elsevier. They cannot be reliable sources because they obscure the real source and context of any given statement, potentially turning into its opposite for lack of understanding. After finding a useful statement on such a page, editors should find a suitable original source (possibly one of the academic papers listed in the page itself), confirm that it supports the claim, and use that as reference.

I suggest adding ScienceDirect Topics to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as banned source, to better inform editors. Elsevier is strongly promoting its "AI" offering, and even though this is probably just some pretty standard machine learning (arguably less dangerous than general machine generation based on LLM), we'll probably see increased usage here as collateral damage. Nemo 08:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topics is already listed at RSP. I had no idea so many pages use it though. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: ScienceDirect topics

Should an edit filter be implemented to warn editors trying to add ScienceDirect topics pages to articles? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

• Yes As discussed at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#ScienceDirect_topics, an implementation of an edit filter requires a discussion at RSN. As previous discussed several times on this noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_270#Elsevier_topics:_reliability_of_machine-generated_sources, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_417#Elsevier_topics_again, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Machine-generated_text_at_ScienceDirect_used_as_source) these are not verifiable references as the cited content on the page changes over time. We have over 1,000 references to these pages which indicates that its usage is a problem. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Last night I started attempting to replace some of these links and was immediately discouraged by both the overwhelming number of them and by how many were very recently added. It is definitely not clear to most people that SD Topics would have any problems at all, to the extent that I suspect almost no one casually using it would even consider the possibility it is GUNREL. I certainly didn't realize until I saw this thread yesterday that it was AI, despite repeatedly trying to use it to find background literature for my dissertation (and this explains why I occasionally encountered wrong shit in its summaries, and why I was never able to figure out how to cite what I thought were actual review articles...).

JoelleJay (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. They are truthy bits of out-of-context information and most people adding them will not know they are unreliable. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per above. --Leyo 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per above. In my own uses of "AI" (LLM) tools to try go generate summaries, abstracts, timelines, and other "this should be easy" digests of source material, the results have been uniformly awful, with virtually every single sentence having to be corrected in one way or another (from errors of omission to errors of focus/emphasis/nuance, to frequent outright factual errors, including "hallucinations" both of claims in particular sources and of entire sources). Maybe someday we'll be able to trust such tools to properly summarize material, but that some day is not today. Never forget that what LLMs do is try to provide an answer that will look like what should be a correct/expected result. It is not a fact-checking process of any kind, but a form of simulation. That we're able to get anything useful out of it at all (e.g. it can be used to generate simplex examples of correct, though often inelegant, Javascript or Python functions to do various things, as well as regular expressions as long as they are not very complex or do not have complex test cases to match) verges on astounding.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, as we're setting editors up for failure by not warning them. Would these be useful ELs, though? Mach61 (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. On topics for WP:MED, ScienceDirect is a commonly-applied, unsatisfying source typically providing limited search results from lower-quality journals. It is frequently selected by novice editors, requiring followup editing for source accuracy in the article. More experienced medical editors would have no difficulty finding better sources by searching PubMed with the appropriate search terms. Note for the cleanup if replacing 1000+ ScienceDirect sources is the outcome: a bot can be developed to remove them (consult user GreenC), leaving a ^{[citation needed]} tag, but laborious manual checking of the sourced statement and editing by a volunteer are needed to refill with a good source. Zefr (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Similar to everyone else, I have never seen it be a reliable source for research purposes, so it should be discouraged for novice editors.Ldm1954 (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes: I was unaware that those topic pages are machine generated summaries, so an edit filter would be helpful. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Sure if machine generated content. These can be problematic, but I use the sources Science Direct cites instead since as those are not AI generated and are instead published material by researchers. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been multiple comments and discussions over here and Wikiproject medicine about the reliability but I don't believe there's been recent consensus on it.

There are multiples sources talking about it's reliability and criticising it ^[3][4][5]

When it comes to veterinary/animal related articles they are even worse. For example: https://www.webmd.com/pets/dogs/what-to-know-shetland-sheepdogs

The author has no expertise in this subject he is a 'seasoned technology professional based in Florida. He writes on the topics of business, technology, personal finance and digital marketing.' and although it states the article was reviewed I am doubtful it truely was.

In this Shetland article it claims the breed is prone to hip dysplasia - except a study of over a million dogs and 16,000 Shetlands found the breed was not prone to hip dysplasia at all and that the breed was less likely to acquire hip dysplasia than other breeds in the study with an odds ratio of 0.51. ^[6] Another study of more than a million hip records found the Shetland to have the fifth lowest rate of hip dysplasia out of 60 breeds.^[7]

The article itself is hardly professional and it'd never be accepted as a source/citation in academia.

I fail to see why Wikipedia should accept WebMD for medical claims given it's conflict of interest issues due to funding, articles written by non-professionals, incorrect information, and failure to cite references. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:MEDRS,

Medical information resources such as WebMD and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources for uncontroversial information; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly.

So, not reliable for anything contested. Bon courage (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that but I'm trying to get consensus on whether it should be used at all or if it should be unreliable specifically for veterinary context.

The breed articles appear to just have contain made up information or information sourced from unreliable sources. I believe they are making claims based on generic websites and breed clubs without reviewing any literature at all. Not all information can be contested because many of these animal breeds are just so rare/uncommon reliable information for things such as life expectancy simply don't exist. https://www.webmd.com/pets/cats/what-to-know-about-the-snowshoe-cat for example they give a life span of 14-20 years - yet there are no studies on the cat's life expectancy that I can find searching google scholar

That policy has been in place for a while and WebMD has changed a lot since then, the articles on WebMD today are written by non-professionals and editorial oversight seems to be lacking. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you've repeatedly referenced MEDRS in your edit summaries where you deleted claims about the health conditions of dogs. For example, here [55] and here [56]. These are rather large deletions. But the MEDRS standard doesn't automatically apply to animal health. WP:BMI states Generally, editors do not enforce a requirement for especially high-quality sources for non-human medicine. And given this edit summary [57] directed at you by MapReader, maybe you should do less of that. By the way, it looks like much of your own sourcing is made of primary studies that also wouldn't pass the MEDRS standard, even if it applied to dogs. Although some of your deletions are fully justified. Geogene (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this source should be banned. The Vox source cited above said "Overall, the doctors I spoke to said they didn't find anything exceptionally egregious about WebMD." ("The doctors" in this sentence refers to medical professionals writing a competing website, so they are hardly likely to be unreasonably generous to their competitor.)

The complaints about "conflicts of interest" apply with equal force to newspapers and magazines, which have always been happy to run political ads right next to political articles. The Vox complaint linked above could have been re-written as "WebMD uses Google Ads". That source, by the way, is getting some of their money from unregulated advertorial chumboxes served up by Outbrain, which wanted me to know "Top Podiatrist: If You Have Toenail Fungus Try This Tonight (It's Genius!)" and five other things (four of which looked like dubious medical advice; the fifth was about how to block ads). Pot, meet kettle.

On the specific point (i.e., whether the Shetland Sheepdog is unusually prone to hip dysplasia), the goal is to write what most reliable sources say. If most reliable sources say that it's not especially prone to hip dysplasia, then that's what the Wikipedia article should say. If the Wikipedia articles accomplishes this by citing WebMD, then that's fine. If it accomplishes this by citing a different source, then that's fine, too. What we don't want is people to cherry-pick sources that have a minority viewpoint (or outdated information) and present those as if that was the accepted knowledge on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning to that for claims on humans and animals, it may be usable if other sources support the claim too. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:Curcuminoid, I proposed the following studies as WP:MEDRS sources: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71].

My main motivation is to expand the current Curcuminoid#Research section (or Curcumin#Medical research), which seemed somewhat lacking and outdated to me regarding recent research and the actual results of research conducted so far. However, Zefr pointed out some issues with the sources, which in their opinion make the studies non-compliant with WP:MEDRS, so I would like to build a consensus on these, before using them in the article. Here's the list of issues pointed out and my reply to/interpretation of them.

• "low quality": WP:MEDRS only talks about quality in specific aspects that are easy (or even possible) to verify, such as WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDRS#Predatory journals. Since all of my sources are systematic reviews/meta-analyses of human RCTs or guidelines, they pass WP:MEDASSESS. As for predatory journals and journal quality, see the last point.
• "limitations raising doubts about the quality"/"too many limitations": WP:MEDRS makes no mention of limitations. In fact, all studies have limitations ([72], [73]) and it is the job of the scientists publishing and peer-reviewing the study to decide whether those invalidate the reported results or not. ([74])
• "small sample": WP:MEDRS makes no mention of sample sizes. Deciding whether the sample size is large enough should be done by the statistical analysis (determining significance) in the study.
• "inadequate research"/"limited, unconvincing results"/"weak underlying studies": these are arguably subjective, so it's unsurprising that WP:MEDRS mentions nothing of the sort. Even if a finding is weak or limited, Wikipedia may report on it, for example here: "The American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) and World Cancer Research Fund International (WCRF) concluded in a 2018 report that there is limited but suggestive evidence that foods containing heme iron increase risk of colorectal cancer." (Heme#Cancer). I fully agree with Anastrophe that weak science is not necessarily bad science ([75]).
• "unacceptable altmed journals": WP:MEDRS#Predatory journals indeed should be avoided, but I know of no specific restrictions/Wikipedia guidelines about "altmed" journals. In particular, the following journals have been brought into question:
  • BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies: BioMed Central does not point to any predatory (or otherwise problematic) publishing.
  • Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine: I did not manage to find much information on this one, but it is used in some other articles too. ([76])
  • Phytotherapy Research: Phytotherapy Research mentions no issues with it.
  • International Journal of Molecular Sciences: International Journal of Molecular Sciences does not mention any concrete issues with it. However, since it is from MDPI, which is a borderline source, I agree that some more scrutiny is warranted, but I found no problems with this particular study ([77]) or journal.

Do you think the studies above qualify as WP:MEDRS sources? If not, what is the concrete problem that disqualifies them? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified editors at Talk:MEDRS as they're most likely to have expertise with these types of questions. Schazjmd (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage, Headbomb , David notMD, Psychologist Guy, do any of you have any interest in helping evaluate these sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bendegúz Ács is a new editor with a poor understanding of evidence-based medicine. As I explained in some of my posts on the talk-page of Curcuminoid, I can relate to this because in the earlier years of my editing on this website I had a poor understanding as well. Similar to this user, I used to look for any systematic review for beneficial health claims without looking at the quality of the journal, if the data is consistent or reading through the methodology of the reviews and only quoting the abstracts. This is a common issue I see with many new editors who dive into medical topics for health and disease claims. The pattern is always the same. Just because a systematic review has been published does not automatically mean it is good.

Most of the journals this user is citing are not reliable, it has been explained on the talk-page why this is. The user raises the topic of The American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) and World Cancer Research Fund International (WCRF) here. I was the user who added that content a long time ago to the heme article. What this user does not mention is that there is a difference between quoting a cancer authority like the American Institute for Cancer Research who have looked through hundreds of papers and meta-analyses and just quoting from a single meta-analysis. We wouldn't use the latter if we are talking about limited evidence but if an authority has reported on this after looking at the totality of evidence, it is worth citing. The user has not looked at WP:MEDORG. Users Bon courage, zefr and David notMD have a lot more experience with this, maybe they can help this user. Unfortunately from experience most new editors in this topic area are not willing to listen. I am not saying Bendegúz Ács is a sock-puppet but their editing is similar to 3 other accounts I have had experience with, one of these was Atchoum. If you also check the archive for Curcumin a lot of the claims this user is making have already been made before. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a new editor, but I would like to think that my understanding of WP:MEDRS is pretty solid, after carefully reading and examining it - I have even had some minor contributions ([78]) to the page in that process.

I fully agree about not "blindly" accepting any systematic reviews. However, I do think that any potential issues that would disqualify a source should be explained in detail in WP:MEDRS, especially so that new users can have a chance of learning the process of finding good sources.

"Most of the journals this user is citing are not reliable": this has not been proven, and as I mentioned it there, WP:CITEWATCH gives explicit instructions for both MDPI and Frontiers Media to "Evaluate on a case by case basis", which is not the same as "not reliable" at all.

I only mentioned heme as an example where Wikipedia cites weak ("limited" in the text) evidence. I do think that content is great, and similar content could be written about curcumin (or curcuminoid), based on my sources.

"We wouldn't use the latter if we are talking about limited evidence": this is not mentioned by WP:MEDRS. Also, what determines whether an evidence is limited or weak?

I have looked at WP:MEDORG, but WP:MEDRS (or WP:MEDORG in particular) does not say that only official guidelines or position statements are acceptable, even for any particular claim. It also does not say that these sources are generally better than meta-analyses.

This is my first and only Wikipedia account, and I am absolutely willing to listen. I suspect one reason why my editing is similar to that of some other accounts could be that they also base their judgement of studies solely on WP:MEDRS. I think our common goal should be to improve our editing guidelines, such as WP:MEDRS, so that it will actually be enough for new editors to read and understand that document, rather than having to ask for reviewing the sources in a noticeboard like this.

I have looked at the archive, and the issue was indeed mentioned there before, but not the concrete studies. Zefr specifically asked one user there to propose specific WP:MEDRS reviews, which is what I am trying to do now (see Talk:Curcumin/Archive_1#Missing data). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading WP:MEDRS, and at least for now I share Bendegúz Ács's confusion about the objections. Meta analyses published in academic journals with editorial boards seem to fall at the top of the WP:MEDASSESS pyramid on the left (and therefore accepted) side of the WP:MEDORG chart. I'll add that Complementary and Integrative Medicine is published by De Gruyter, and Phytotherapy is published by Wiley & Sons, both academic publishers with strong reputations for quality work. I'm most concerned about the journal published by MDPI, because I'm familiar with how hit or miss they are.

Reading the talk page (permanent link), I'm struggling to see much beyond Bendegúz Ács pointing out that Citewatch recommends examining journals from publishers like Frontiers and MDPI (though in any case none of the four sources asked about on this noticeboard are Frontiers-published, so the Frontiers matter exists only on the curcuminoid talk page) on a case by case basis and other editors straightforwardly saying the journals are unreliable (instead of explaining the reasons for drawing that conclusion, e. g. criticism from sources accepted as reliable, etc.).

For medical topics, a lot of caution is definitely appropriate, so I'm not saying anyone should rush to restore this material to the page. What I mean is that I see how a straightforward, good faith reading of the WP:MEDRS content guideline can lead one to the conclusion that these sources are appropriate to cite. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is some nuance to MEDRS and it's easy for veteran editors to become jaded enough by the constant pro-FRINGE additions that we regard any new editors with suspicion. It's something to keep in mind. What @Bon courage mentioned regarding EXCEPTIONAL might be worth reiterating explicitly somewhere on MEDRS, as it is an important part of assessing DUE that might not be clear to people who aren't familiar with all the guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We may have to take these one by one. Here's an example of how to evaluate sources using the first one linked above. Perhaps someone else will follow the pattern for another.

• Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38085369/
• Type per WP:MEDPRI: It's a secondary source (specifically, a systematic review).
• WP:MEDSCI: Archives of Dermatological Research is a peer-reviewed medical journal published by Springer that ranks in the top 10% according to Scopus. There is No magic number for impact factors, but at 3.0, theirs is certainly respectable. It is also a relevant journal (dermatology) for the subject ("Evaluation of curcumin for dermatologic conditions").
• WP:MEDASSESS: It's a systematic review, and MEDASSESS says "editors should rely on high-level evidence, such as systematic reviews".
• WP:MEDDATE: It was published a couple of months ago, well within the ideal of 5 years.
• WP:MEDINVITRO: It does not rely on pre-clinical/non-human research.
• WP:MEDINDY: No reason to believe the study authors are hoping to become millionaires or otherwise have a conflict of interest.
• WP:MEDBIAS: No reason to be concerned about a systematic review being biased.

Overall conclusion: This first source meets the MEDRS ideal.

The next step here is note that "meeting the MEDRS ideal" does not mean you can write anything you want. It may be the ideal type of source, but that does not mean that it is reliable for any statement at all. An appropriate statement for this source might sound somewhat closer to the "promising candidate for further research" end of the spectrum than the "will solve all the world's problems" end. This is because (@Zefr, please note) although it is possible to write an extremely high-quality review from low-quality studies – Cochrane does that all the time – you cannot get definitive conclusions from (exclusively) low-quality data. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent example evaluation, it also helped me understand the guideline and its application better! Should I separate the sources here to help the review process or write specific article content proposals based on them? Is there anything else I could do to help? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zefr, Psychologist Guy, P-Makoto, WhatamIdoing could we reach some form of consensus here?

Do you find the following an acceptable compromise?

• I will not change the current content of the articles, only add new content
• I will add content with proper attribution and pointing out the weaknesses in the text, such as "However, the current evidence is limited and has a relatively high heterogeneity."
• I will add the specific findings of the studies (e.g. "A 2023 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found that turmeric/curcumin supplementation reduces levels of inflammatory markers, including CRP, TNF-α, and IL-6.")
• I will only use the first 12 sources, excluding the overarching MDPI review
• If something is problematic or not perfect with the content I add, please try to improve it or engage in discussion with me and the others here, rather than reverting (as per WP:ONLYREVERT and WP:PARTR)

Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of curcumin for treating any disease is far outside the boundaries of significant scientific agreement and conventional clinical practice. Accordingly, mention of research on it in the curcuminoid article is WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. It is reasonably safe to conclude that curcumin cannot and will not ever be developed as a prescription drug. Mention of research on it is WP:PROFRINGE, potentially misleading general users into believing it may actually be under serious study as a drug candidate - it is not. The sources offered above do not justify addition to the existing status of the curcuminoid research section or the curcumin article. Zefr (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirin isn't a prescription drug, either, and yet we have an article that talks about medical uses. Did you mean "regulated pharmaceutical product"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Use of curcumin for treating any disease is far outside the boundaries of significant scientific agreement and conventional clinical practice.": this may very well be entirely true. However, not every health effect can be considered "treating a disease". How about prevention, including general risk reduction, or symptom reduction?

"it may actually be under serious study as a drug candidate - it is not": the page of the government agency I linked above ([79]) says otherwise: "Investigations into products that may aid in the prevention of cancer and the treatment of precancerous lesions are important for the development of early intervention strategies and treatments. A few studies have investigated the potential clinical benefit of curcumin-containing products, and other studies are under way. See ClinicalTrials.gov." Even one of the current sources ([80]) in the curcuminoid research section has text that contradicts that: "Many researchers are still optimistic about curcumin. “There is evidence that the biological activity of curcumoids is real,” says Julie Ryan, a radiation oncologist at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York. She says that it interacts with many different proteins and so works differently from many drugs. Ryan has tested curcumin in clinical trials for dermatitis on more than 600 people. Although she found no significant effect, she says there were trends that warrant further study. She thinks that chemically modified forms of curcumin might prove more effective at reaching tissues." I have also found two studies from the same journal as the ones in the article (Journal of Medicinal Chemistry) that report investigations about curcumin ([81], [82]) and are newer than the ones there. Make no mistake, I am not proposing using these sources, since they are preliminary research, but in my interpretation, they show that it is under serious study.

But in any case, the fact that it has not been approved as a medication does not mean that it has no health effects.

One major claim of the current sources (all from 2017) in the curcuminoid research section is that "No double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial of curcumin has been successful." Based on the sources I linked above (much newer than 2017), this doesn't seem to be true anymore and reporting the latest results would be a great improvement to the article. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About it may actually be under serious study as a drug candidate - it is not": It doesn't matter. Whether something is, or isn't, under "serious study" as a drug candidate is not WP:Biomedical information. It is not a claim about health effects in humans. That is a claim about a business decision, which involves not just predictions of the likelihood of success, but also predictions of the likely costs and potential payoffs. MEDRS does not apply to business decisions, because there are no high-quality clinical trials in whether or not businesses choose to invest in research for a given area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I wouldn't trust any CAM journals for medical claims made in wikivoice. We want to be a summary of what evidence-based allopathic medicine says on a topic, and if it doesn't say anything then it's better to leave it out or at least make sure it's attributed in-text. JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be absolutely fine with adding in-text attribution due to the conflicting views here. However, I think including these sources in such a way would be an improvement and thus should be done, since I don't know of any guidelines specifically prohibiting citing CAM journals. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Cite sources, don't describe them. This thing about "A 2023 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found that..." is not proper encyclopedic style. I know it's popular, but it's not a good idea. If you've got a recent meta-analysis in a good journal (and it's not some weird UNDUE outlier), then you should just state the results. Be careful not to overstate them, but just state them directly, simply, and concisely.

(See also WP:MEDLANG on why we avoid the term allopathic as much as possible.)

@Bendegúz Ács, I suspect that a better path forward here is to make one small change, with a gold-plated source from a stellar journal. Start with Arch Derm Res, that Nature journal and Nutrition Reviews; if you can get two sentences into one article without getting reverted, then come back in a week or two (or five) and maybe expand it by using the Cytokine, Journal of Functional Foods, and/or Phytotherapy Research sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't use Scientific Reports for anything much. Bon courage (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATTRIBUTE would be ok to use so as to put it the source's mouth and not wikivoice. I don't see much of an issue otherwise with decent wording. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really feel a need to use in-text attribution for a statement like They have poor solubility in water at acidic and physiological pH, and also hydrolyze rapidly in alkaline solutions? I don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a generally accepted view, it should be mentioned on some page (marked as an unreliable source, for example). However, it does seem like it's used a lot on Wikipedia ([83]). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting we use "allopathic" in our article. And I mention attribution only as a last resort--if we really need to include a study from a CAM journal we should be clear it's from a CAM journal. JoelleJay (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Curcumin-in-medicine is particularly difficult since there is a widespread view that the entire field has been compromised by research fraud (see for example[84]). I'd be inclined to treat any claim about human health effects of curcumin as WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and to ensure that Wikipedia is reflecting truly 'accepted knowledge' only be interested when/if major WP:MEDORGs start taking an interest in the substance, rather than must-publish-something scientists straining for significance. Bon courage (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The removed content includes statements such as:

  • Many curcumin characters are unsuitable for use as drugs by themselves. They have poor solubility in water at acidic and physiological pH, and also hydrolyze rapidly in alkaline solutions.
  • A drug design with curcuminoids in complex with micelles could be one solution of the insolubility of the curcuminoids. The curcuminoids would be in complex with the core of the micelles similar to the complex inside the cyclodextrins. The micelles are dissolved in a suitable solvent where the headgroups of the micelles interact with the solvent.
  • Curcuminoids as loaded solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN) have been developed with great success by using microemulsion technique. The loading capacity, the mean particle size and size distribution are all factors that have to be considered when the effects of curcuminoids in different strength are observed because it could variate.
  • The advantages of SLN are the possibilities of controlled drug release and drug targeting, protection of incorporated compound against chemical degradation, no biotoxicity of the carrier, avoidance of organic solvent and no problems with respect to large scale production.
  • In vitro studies show a prolonged release of curcuminoids from the nanoparticle preparate up to 12 hours and the curcuminoids maintained their physical and chemical stability after 6 months of storage in the absence of light at room temperature. The sensitivity of curcuminoids to light and oxygen is greatly reduced by formulation of curcuminoids in SLN.
  • Solid lipid nanoparticles preparate has been developed for cosmetics where the curcuminoids are used in cream base.
  • But there are some stability issues which have not been overcome yet, further studies need to be done to find a suitable formulation which can be carried out in order to prolong the stability of the curcuminoids.
  • Nevertheless, there have been improvements in formulation of some stable model cream preparations with SLN curcuminoids.
  • It is suggested that most of the curcuminoids are incorporated at the SLN surface where they are diffused into the cream matrix until a steady state is reached. At this state the curcuminoids go from the cream to the dissolution medium.
  • A possible burst release in creams containing curcuminoids have been reported where the curcuminoids are rapidly released in a sufficient amount from the cream into the skin and is followed by a controlled release.
  • When SLN are prepared by microemulsion at a temperature with the range of 70–75 °C an oil-in-water microemulsion is spontaneously formed. The SLN are obtained immediately when they are dispersed in the warm microemulsion into cold water, with the help of a homogenizer.
  • The cold water facilitates a rapid crystallization of the lipids and therefore prevents aggregation of the lipids. After freeze drying the yellow curcuminoids containing SLN were obtained and could easily be redispersed in water and the model cream. The SLN have uniform distribution and according to electron micrograph scan they had a spherical shape and smooth surface.
  • It has been reported that increasing the lipid content over 5–10%(w/w) increased the mean particle size and broader size distribution in most common cases. That range should there for be ideal concentration for formulation of the SLN.
  • Incorporation is one thing that needs to be considered in formulation of SLN. Concentration of the lipid, emulsifier and co-emulsifier solution is a key factor on this conversion of the SLN. If the amount of emulsifier and co-emulsifier are increased but the lipid amount is constant the surface of the SLN which is formed will be too small to adsorb all the surfactant and co-surfactant molecules, and a formation of curcuminoids solution micelles will be created. This will then increase the water solubility of the curcuminoids and they could partition from the SLN into the micelles that were formed during a wash procedure. This will reduce the final incorporation efficacy on the surface of the SLN.
  • The curcumin derivatives demethoxycurcumin and bisdemethoxycurcumin have, like curcumin itself, been tested for their antioxidant activities in vitro.
  • Antioxidants can be used to extend the shelf life for food and maintain their safety, nutritional quality, functionality and palatability. Pure chemicals of curcumin and its derivatives are not available in the open market.
  • This isolation method was used to demonstrate the antioxidant activities of curcuminoids, where they isolated pure curcuminoids from the main liquor. One research reported that curcumin was the strongest antioxidant, demethoxycurcumin the second strongest and bisdemethoxycurcumin the least effective. Curcuminoids nevertheless showed activity against oxidation.
  • Curcuminoids act as a superoxide radical scavenger as well as singlet oxygen quencher and gives the antioxidant its effectiveness. Tetrahydrocurcumin, one of the main metabolites of curcumin, is the most potent antioxidant among the naturally occurring curcuminoids.
  • The curcuminoids are capable of inhibiting damage to super coiled plasmid DNA by hydroxyl radicals. It was concluded that the derivatives of curcumin are good in trapping the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical as efficiently as curcumin which is a well known antioxidant.

  Most of this is about carrier bases and cosmetics. There's nothing in here about human health effects, unless you start from the POV that accurately identifying something as an antioxidant is itself a inherently and always claim that the substance improves human health. I don't think that's a fair POV. Rust inhibitors are antioxidants, and yet nobody thinks that swigging a bottle of Rust-Oleum is going to improve their health. (Also, we need an article on the antioxidant paradox.)

  Most of this content was replaced with a claim, sourced to news and review articles from 2016 and 2017, that Everybody Knows™ that curcumin is never going to produce a commercially successful pharmaceutical drug. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is indeed very important to mention and emphasize, but I don't think it's enough to automatically invalidate all claims about health effects. Even the article you linked shows that there are many research papers published that don't reference Aggarwal's work, and I have also verified that the individual RCTs in the sources I am proposing are not from Aggarwal.

  Your overall approach about WP:EXCEPTIONAL does sound reasonable, but I would like to have this in WP:MEDRS itself, because this is an important and severe restriction - it is much easier to find WP:MEDRS journal articles than WP:MEDRS guidelines from WP:MEDORGs. Especially since WP:EXCEPTIONAL's "multiple high-quality sources" could also be interpreted as "multiple fully WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, including journal articles". Based on this interpretation, I think my sources would at least be enough for some more content in the articles' Research sections. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As JoelleJay says above, the usual problem in the "SCAM" topics ("supplements, complementary, and alternative medicine") area is that someone will write something that is clearly not a human health claim, like "This substance is red" or "It is used in cosmetics", and one of our zealous anti-woo warriors will revert it because they don't want Wikipedia to say anything positive, or preferably even neutral, about a substance that someone might want to swallow in a misguided quest for better health.

  It is very easy for these editors to become cynical, and our software is set up to send them biased feedback. You can only get 'thanked' if you revert someone; there's no button to push when you check an edit and decide that it's good enough. So you review 100 edits, revert five – and it's always one of those reverts that gets encouraging feedback, not the ones that you left alone. This results in editors slowly developing the view that the community approves of reverting, appreciates reverting, and maybe even wants a little more of it. You start seeing yourself as the Defender of the Wiki as well as the Protector of the Ignorant Masses. It's very hard to maintain a balance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it's important to reserve WP:MEDRS for WP:BMI, and I think it's worth keeping a particular watch on claims of health benefits (and harms) in general. Personally I'm less concerned even with some other biomedical aspects, like pharmacology. Given the context for the curcumin research field I would be uncomfortable about Wikipedia given credence to curcumin for health claims while at the same time the FDA is busy rebuking companies for making these kinds of claims (e.g.[85]). So yes, I'd be thinking WP:EXCEPTIONAL could be a useful standard here. Bon courage (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you see anything in the sentences quoted above that looks EXCEPTIONAL to you? (That first bullet point probably explains why swallowing a capsule of turmeric is pretty pointless.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. It's really just benefits and harms which would get my EXCEPTIONAL antenna twitching. Bon courage (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I absolutely agree, and this issue is similar to the recent discussion on the WikiProject Medicine talk page. The communication towards new editors should be improved, but I find it even more important that WP:MEDRS is complete, so that there are no "shadow rules" that some experienced editors respect, but are not stated anywhere, so new editors have no chance of knowing. So far, I've seen the following "shadow rules":

  • study limitations should be taken into account, if there are too many or they are too significant, the source is invalid
  • small sample sizes invalidate sources/results
  • altmed/CAM/MDPI/Frontiers Media/Scientific Reports journals are unacceptable (or at least require attribution)
  • health claims in areas that experienced (substantial?) research fraud are WP:EXCEPTIONAL and thus require WP:MEDORG sources. A related assumption is that WP:MEDORG sources are always better than journal articles in terms of quality, or perhaps WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require clinical practice guidelines (on the top of the left pyramid in WP:MEDASSESS) or just multiple strong WP:MEDRS sources.

  I could probably add a few more, but these are the most important/sensible ones I've seen in the replies I have received so far.

  Now I feel like I am at an impasse here, for two reasons. First, there seems to be no explicitly stated concensus about these rules, so it wouldn't feel fair to comply with them, especially since they seem to require a wider discussion and concensus. Second, it also wouldn't feel fair to completely ignore them, since I have to acknowledge that I am a much less experienced editor than the ones who told me these rules, and this could potentially cause more reverts and conflicts. Do you have any recommendation on how to resolve this deadlock? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not right to think everything can be codified into "rules", especially for a niche twig on a niche branch like curcumin-as-biomedicine. The bottom line is that Wikipedia needs to be reflecting accepted knowledge as reflected in high quality published sources, and that objective draws on nearly all Wikipedia's principal WP:PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, I am not focusing here only on curcumin-as-biomedicine. The "shadow rules" I mentioned seem to be much more generic than to be limited to that niche twig of a niche branch.

  I am also not saying that everything should be codified, but I do think it is a reasonable expectation that if a new editor thoroughly reads and thus fully understands WP:MEDRS, they should not encounter reverts where much more experienced editors claim that the sources they deemed WP:MEDRS based on their understanding are, in fact, not. Of course, here I am not talking about cases where the new editor fails to understands some part of WP:MEDRS and that leads them to an incorrect decision. Do you think this expectation is unreasonable?

  In my, admittedly perhaps somewhat idealistic, understanding, WP:MEDRS (and the underlying WP:RS) should be enough to decide what is "accepted knowledge as reflected in high quality published sources" in medical topics. Even if this may not the case today, don't you think that we should strive to achieve this? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of more concern is the inherent contradiction between the first two suggested "shadow rules" and the MEDRS rule that Wikipedia editors should not perform peer review themselves. That means, among other things, that Wikipedia editors should not be saying that a reliable source can't be used at all because – in the personal opinion of the Wikipedia editor – the sample size was too small, or that the study limitations are too big. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, do you have any comment on this, Zefr? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think if a reader has "thoroughly" understood MEDRS they'll know it's not an algorithm that can be used to decide "reliability" by rote as a property of any source, as evaluation of context on a case-by-case basis is inherent (remember the image of the spinning plate). Source suitability can almost never be reduced to a traffic light system (much as some editors strive for this) because always WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. And ultimately MEDRS is just a guideline helping to identify good sources. There are then policies determining whether stuff should actually be in articles, including WP:VNOT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Bon courage (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For example: MEDRS does not give editors an excuse to reject a source entirely because the Wikipedia editor has decided that the sample size is too small (even though real-world peer review accepted it). However, Wikipedia editors do have to think about the text that the source can support. Even a top-quality, gold-plated MEDRS ideal source is not useful for writing "Wonderpam is scientifically proven to cure all ills". A source based on limited information might only be useful for a statement like "Wonderpam has been researched" or "Wonderpam is sometimes used as a treatment for scaryitis" (or other suitably weak statements). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And in reality I can recall times at WT:MED and elsewhere when a apparently 'MEDRS' source has been rejected because it's obviously flawed (e.g. it's clearly nonsense, funded by Big Tobacco, claiming human health effects citing animal research). In truth there is a "shadow rule" for all Wikipedia, in that generally speaking reasonable people will form consensus through evidence and reasonable discussion, rather than totally relying on "the rules". It's not even really a "shadow" rule in that it's codified in the WP:IAR policy. But the WP:PAGs are useful lies to children, and are a handy discussion shortcut in obvious cases. Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that WP:DUE is another important not-so-secret 'shadow rule' here. If the MEDRS-style source says something significantly different from all the other similar quality sources, you don't have to go into stuff about Big Tobacco; the tiny-minority POV shouldn't be presented in the article no matter how good the source is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and for obviously flawed sources, we should definitely override the general guidelines. But so far, no one has pointed out any specific obvious flaws in these sources that would require overriding the guidelines.

  By the way, even I have an example: the first source that I wanted to use for the Curcuminoid article and which was included in the edit that was reverted and which revert started this whole discussion. This source claimed that it was based on "randomized controlled trials", but one of the trials included was not randomized at all and this trial had a significant impact on the results. But I have not found such an issue with the sources I mentioned in this noticeboard. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I agree with all those principles. But I feel like if the question is whether a particular source can be considered WP:MEDRS, any reasoning against it should be based on the text of WP:MEDRS in some way. So for example, if it stated something along the lines of "The most reliable statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies are often better sources than even the best journal articles", I would have no problem accepting your argument that WP:EXCEPTIONAL means in this case that only WP:MEDORG sources are okay for health effects of turmeric. Based on WP:MEDRS's current text, this interpretation is not obvious at all (see "the reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals").

  Whether any content should be written based on these sources is another question, and most of the negative comments I received did not argue against that, they argued against the sources themselves. If you would like to discuss this aspect, I would like you to examine this particular statement in the current Curcumin medical research section: "According to a 2017 review of more than 120 studies, curcumin has not been successful in any clinical trial". Don't you think that if, assuming that the source supporting this statement ([86]) and my sources are of equal quality (apart from mine being much newer), including at least both would make the article better? I'm asking this because my sources show that this statement from 2017 is no longer true. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bendegúz Ács, I must admit I haven't followed the discussion closely, but it seems to me that you might have been distracted by the many advice you’ve got and also the many Wikipedia’s rules and essays (WP:UPPERCASE).

  I don’t think we have any “shadow rules”. It’s more about common sense, editorial judgement (and good knowledge of the subject, e.g., from extensive reading before you do your editing) and likely some experience as well. IMO the most important rule here perhaps is WP:IAR, which Bon courage has pointed to you already. You may want to WP:BE BOLD as well. We don’t need permission from anyone to edit. There’s no hierarchy here. You said you’ve read through WP:MEDRS and fully understand it. Edit war of course is not the way to go. But as others have suggested, you can just try adding some content bit by bit using the sources that you are most confident with, and with carefully chosen wordings. I think you’ve got many good advice from some of our very experienced users already. No one can promise your edit won’t be reverted without knowing what content/text you would actually add. As WAID already told you, a good MEDRS source that can be used doesn’t guarantee you can write whatever claims with it. I have highlighted the more important advice from WAID for you and other new users: [87]

  “

  Source

  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38085369/

  Type per WP:MEDPRI

  It's a secondary source (specifically, a systematic review).

  WP:MEDSCI

  Archives of Dermatological Research is a peer-reviewed medical journal published by Springer that ranks in the top 10% according to Scopus. There is No magic number for impact factors, but at 3.0, theirs is certainly respectable. It is also a relevant journal (dermatology) for the subject ("Evaluation of curcumin for dermatologic conditions").

  WP:MEDASSESS

  It's a systematic review, and MEDASSESS says "editors should rely on high-level evidence, such as systematic reviews".

  WP:MEDDATE

  It was published a couple of months ago, well within the ideal of 5 years.

  WP:MEDINVITRO

  It does not rely on pre-clinical/non-human research.

  WP:MEDINDY

  No reason to believe the study authors are hoping to become millionaires or otherwise have a conflict of interest.

  WP:MEDBIAS

  No reason to be concerned about a systematic review being biased.

  Overall conclusion

  This first source meets the MEDRS ideal.

  The next step here is note that "meeting the MEDRS ideal" does not mean you can write anything you want. It may be the ideal type of source, but that does not mean that it is reliable for any statement at all. An appropriate statement for this source might sound somewhat closer to the "promising candidate for further research" end of the spectrum than the "will solve all the world's problems" end. This is because ... although it is possible to write an extremely high-quality review from low-quality studies – Cochrane does that all the time – you cannot get definitive conclusions from (exclusively) low-quality data..

  And more:

  Be careful not to overstate them, but just state them directly, simply, and concisely.

  (See also WP:MEDLANG on why we avoid the term allopathic as much as possible.)

  ... I suspect that a better path forward here is to make one small change, with a gold-plated source from a stellar journal. Start with Arch Derm Res, that Nature journal and Nutrition Reviews; if you can get two sentences into one article without getting reverted, then come back in a week or two (or five) and maybe expand it by using the Cytokine, Journal of Functional Foods, and/or Phytotherapy Research sources.

  .. MEDRS does not give editors an excuse to reject a source entirely because the Wikipedia editor has decided that the sample size is too small (even though real-world peer review accepted it). However, Wikipedia editors do have to think about the text that the source can support. Even a top-quality, gold-plated MEDRS ideal source is not useful for writing "Wonderpam is scientifically proven to cure all ills". A source based on limited information might only be useful for a statement like "Wonderpam has been researched" or "Wonderpam is sometimes used as a treatment for scaryitis" (or other suitably weak statements)..

  ”

  That said, given the heated discussion, I’m not sure if you should continue editing the Curcuminoid article or perhaps you would like to try something else. Anyway, the principles are the same.

  As a side, I don’t think posting 10+ sources at a time for others to review is a good idea. It makes everyone’s life difficult ;-) Slower is better perhaps. But like others, I appreciate your enthusiasm. I believe you will be a good editor and I look forward to see what you are going to accomplish. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW, I agree with others that only biomedical information needs MEDRS compliant sources. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a question and curiosity around news sources themselves and what makes them notable. (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

If news sources are often typically used as references in news articles, what makes them notable enough to have their own pages on Wikipedia? Do we have any guidelines on this? - how do we determine whether a news source is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia?

To clarify, I'm not asking what makes a news source reliable as a source, but what makes a news source notable for inclusion on Wikipedia specifically? It just seems like a kind of chicken-and-egg thing to me since we rely on news organizations to often establish notability of other subjects, would be curious to hear thoughts & get links to other pages that might talk about this Mr Vili talk 04:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr vili, we need independent reliable sources to talk about an organisation to make it notable. In case of news sources, those would be other news sources not owned by the same owners, books by people not employed by the organisation, independent academic papers discussing the reliability, etc. of that source, and so on. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia considers a news source as "generally reliable" in the terms of the WP:RSP, does that factor into it's notability at all? Mr Vili talk 05:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't, but it's almost always intertwined. When evaluating if a source is notable, we often look at how it's cited in other reliable sources. That is one of the contributing criteria for WP:NMEDIA. TLA^tlak 05:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NMEDIA isn't an actual guideline but the sort of things mentioned there can sway people in AFDs. A newspaper that keeps getting referred to by top-tier newspapers may get an article that just says it exists if nothing more, simply because AFDs will keep them. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I recognize that but I guess it could be considered in the back of the mind. A lot of newspaper articles are stubs, so it makes sense. TLA^tlak 06:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit of a problem as noted before. A media site that is cited a lot and contains good news stories and is reliable is not so likely to have sources describing them as organisations which are more interesting in that they get involved in producing fake news or other trash. And yes the highly cited boring sites do get AfDs and smaller articles describing their interesting stories rather than the organisation itself. Since this does happen we probably do need to recognize there is this problem with the notability guidelines and do something about it. NadVolum (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally in favor of having as many articles (or information inside a larger article) about the sources we cite as feasible, but we do run into a problem with what to say. The first sentence is easy ("The Mulberry Advance is the weekly newspaper in Mulberry, Kansas") and sometimes we can get a second sentence ("which at one time held the distinction of having the lowest circulation of any newspaper in Kansas"), but then what? We run into WP:WHYN problems – the practical problems of trying to write an encyclopedia article that complies with the principle in NPOV's WP:BESTSOURCES that all articles should be WP:Based upon independent sources. Without sources, it's hard to write a proper encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s an interesting question, but I don’t think that this noticeboard is really the right place for a general discussion on notability of news orgs. Perhaps someone with more experience could suggest a better place? FortunateSons (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliability and Notability are very different things. To give an example … Sean Hannity is certainly Notable, but is deemed completely unreliable for sourcing information. Meanwhile, there are thousands of news reporters out there in the trenches who are deemed very reliable, but are not at all Notable.

What makes a news outlet reliable is having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. What makes a news outlet Notable is having other sources discuss them (whether for praise or criticism). Ideally these other sources would be scholars (such as historians), but being discussed by other news outlets is enough. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is worth mentioning that a news source can be clearly notable and yet utterly unreliable. Examples include Der Stürmer and its modern namesake The Daily Stormer, as well as the amusingly bizarre Weekly World News. I agree that the quality of our coverage of smaller news outlets is lacking but I have found that such articles can usually be improved and expanded with sufficient research. Cullen328 (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm contacting you following an exchange I had in the MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Advercity_websites.

Indeed, on numerous wikis, the French company ADVERCITY has cited itself in hundreds if not thousands of articles as a reliable reference source. In reality, their websites are nothing more than a compilation of various official sources, listed on their site. Where I'm disturbed is that they claim to be an official site, often from a public administration such as a town hall, in order to increase publicity for their sites. I think banning these sites might be a good idea, as it would prevent these unreliable sources from being picked up by other members who are unaware of their actions.

The sites concerned here are :

1: commune-mairie.fr

2: conseil-general.com

3: communes.com

4: acte-deces.fr

5: mairie.net

6: mairie.biz

7: db-city.com

What do you think? Torrora (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, considering that the French Wikipedia community, which probably has the most insight here, decided to do the same ([88]). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this could probably be added to the Global Spam blacklist. TLA^tlak 03:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, I've made a request for Global Spam blacklist.

Perhaps you could give your point of view on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist too? Torrora (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this a few months (December) ago and totally forgot to post about it here.

I found a group of websites with news/blog posts that are pretty clearly AI generated, and use AI generated images on them. I don't think I've fully fleshed out the full list of sites, but this is what I have found so far (They all link to each others in various ways):

• Isp.page
• Ts2.ai
• Satproviders.com
• Isp.today
• elblog.pl
• ts2.space

Some of these do seem to be used as references in various Wikipedia articles.

Of special note is ts2.space. Back in December when I was first investigating this (This was the original site that led me down this rabbit hole), they had a blog section filled with similar articles (and linking to the above sites). I don't seem to be the only one to notice this, as the TS2 Talk Page has someone complaining about the AI Articles on it. Interestingly, the edit history of the TS2 page has some hints as to what happened, suggesting that someone bought them out and is "transforming" the companies (See this edit and this edit).

I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia in general, so I'm not sure what the best next steps would be. Cmdrraimus (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a form of news aggregation, no, we should use the sources they use, and not them Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see sources? Some articles ([89], [90], [91], [92]) are generated from YouTube videos, do you consider the videos sources?

However, some other articles from this network do not mention any sources, or the source is not linked properly ([93], [94], [95], [96]). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Slater, we should use their sources. Regarding AI content in general, use is generally considered incompatible with Wikipedias policies (for good reasons). FortunateSons (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked them, and most of them indeed seem to be entirely AI-generated, often based on YouTube videos. I also found two more websites that post AI-generated articles from this network, cremasb.com and worldreportnow.com.

I support blacklisting the ones that host the AI-generated articles themselves or directly redirect (cremasb.com, worldreportnow.com, elblog.pl, ts2.ai, satproviders.com, isp.today), which I believe is the appropriate protocol for spammy websites that may confuse Wikipedia editors. I did not find evidence of AI-generated content on ts2.space, ts2.tech and isp.page. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding TS2.space, they definitely had AI articles before on their blog, which appears to have been scrubbed clean now. That was actually the first site that led me to discover all the other sites. If you look at the site in on the internet archive, you can see examples of it. And some of these now non-existent articles are used as references here and there on Wikipedia.

Regarding isp.page, I included that one because some of their articles state that they were originally posted on the other links that use AI generated material (ISP.today and satProviders off the top of my head). Given the fact that they seem to link to multiple members, and the homepage has a icon for isp.today, I suspect that they are related.

Additionally, I've been using the Link Search , and some of these are being randomly added to articles that have no relevance. An example being Eco_Femme, which just has a link to the isp.today homepage as a citation 22.

What should my next steps be on dealing with these sources? Cmdrraimus (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend posting them in MediaWiki talk: Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go post about it over there. Before I do, how did you find those additional pages posting the articles? Just a google search, or something else. I'm wondering if I should take a little more effort to try to flesh out this group of sites. Cmdrraimus (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just followed some random links on the original websites you posted. I don't think it's worth investing more time in this for now. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll post what you and I have found so far to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions. Thanks Cmdrraimus (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Here lies the internet, murdered by generative AI: Corruption everywhere. Good essay. -- GreenC 23:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Great article, spam on the internet has been growing immensely due to generative AI.

  This analysis ([97]) is also worth reading on the topic.

  I think the main issue is not the use of generative AI itself for content generation, but the lack of editorial oversight and quality control. Journalists and other content creators have to learn how to use generative AI responsibly, so that it is not done at the expense of quality.

  With that said, sites with a complete lack of editorial oversight, or even of human presence, like the ones identified here, are nothing but pure spam and thus should be banned from Wikipedia.

  Bendegúz Ács (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And things are going to get harder. I'm curious though about what happens when they start feeding back into themselves and we get an AI equivalent to Citogenesis. The feedback loop might eventually make it easier to identify AI generated stuff. Cmdrraimus (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If it makes you feel better—we've been at that point since at least 2018, in my mind. It's not particularly difficult to identify lexical slop being endlessly rearranged, whether by man or machine. Remsense诉 22:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh yeah. I just think its going to get worse in the next year or two before things get better. Cmdrraimus (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is already some research about that phenomenon, and it is called "model collapse". Wikipedia has no content about it yet, but there are some sources ([98], [99], [100]). Maybe a mention about it could be added somewhere like Large language model or Generative artificial intelligence. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the reliability of JPost? They ran an article yesterday claiming Hamas is creating a "false narrative that Gazans are starving and dying as a result" despite every major humanitarian organization in the world stating there is a catastrophic level hunger levels in Gaza right now. Perhaps even more disturbing, the article includes the quote "Sinwar is ensuring that food does not reach the Gazans" yet when you click on the hyperlink, it directs you to an article about Israelis blocking humanitarian aid for Gaza! This is blatant journalistic malpractice and wanted to ask about its broader reliability since JPost is currently cited in around 10,000 articles. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source that refers to all Palestinians arrested by Israel as terrorists. It might well be time to have a closer look at this one. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it should not be an RS for this conflict, really. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not familiar enough with JP to have an opinion in general, but I note this article is tagged "analysis", an ambiguous term that sometimes connotes "opinion" and sometimes more in-depth expert analysis, depending on the publication. In this case, it's clearly the former. The author is a social psychologist who works on branding and has no expertise in this topic. So as a minimum, we should note that "analysis" by JP contributors should be treated as opinion not used as a source for facts. To stop using their actual news content, I'd want to see more evidence of unreliability first. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed… analysis equates to opinion, and both reliability and Due Weight depends on who the specific analyst is. Analysis should always be attributed in text, and never used for non-attributed claims of fact. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis does not equate to opinion; consider Statistical analysis. But I agree that this particular source should be treated as an opinion piece. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JPost is generally considered mostly centrist or center-right, and while they are somewhat affected by bias, there are definitely worse major publications when it comes to the I/P conflict. It has a significant national and international readership.

Regarding reliability, it generally meets the standards set forth for most sourced, and is considered „mostly factual“ by MBFC, and „mixed“ by ground news (citing MBFC and Ad Fontes). They are broadly cited by Wikipedia and also by many in the MSM; therefore, they are (generally) reliable. That being said, rules regarding the citation of opinions obviously need to be considered. FortunateSons (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t entirely disagree with your conclusions, but worth noting Ad Fontes and MBFC are considered generally unreliable at WP:RSP. The Kip 21:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, thank you very much for giving me the opinion to clarify what I (poorly) attempted to imply: while both have significant issues, they do generally provide decent context about how a source is perceived, which has some value here (as generally discussed in the RfCs). FortunateSons (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d personally shy away from using JPost for reporting on the conflict, but considering the “Analysis” tag, wouldn’t this just be considered under WP:RSOPINION? The Kip 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given its obviously false reporting on this current conflict I think they should be considered as generally unreliable. TarnishedPath^talk 14:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a pretty obvious opinion piece, and one that is not notable, so it's not an issue for us. I would be worried about using the JP for facts (rather than viewpoints) on Gaza which are contradicted or not mentioned by reliable sources outside of Israel, but it is generally going to be reliable on reporting the views of the Israeli establishment. It doesn't make stuff up but it is a very biased source in the current climate, so a lot of care should be taken. --Boynamedsue (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has nothing indicating it is an opinion piece except it is so repellant. However I see the analysis word. There's bits in the main article about Israel- Gaza where analysis is being promoted over what Hamas itself said was its reasons on the basis that external analysis was more reliable. I'll take this as opinion though. I would not write off JPost because of it any more than I would the New York Times above. We need news about the war and so many other sources are just unusably bad. NadVolum (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is technically below, just for the benefit of readers :)

Otherwise agree on the outcome. FortunateSons (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This website looks more like internet and twitter scraping then a real news website. In their disclaimer they state: De redactie van deze club / site vergaart zijn informatie uit openbaar toegankelijke bronnen. Hiermee kan geen garantie gegeven worden op de kwaliteit van de informatie of leveranciers. Nader onderzoek van zakenpartners is de verantwoordelijkheid van degene die een transactie aangaat. De redactie aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor kosten en schades die bezoekers lijden als gevolg van aanbevelingen in de club of deze site. Overname van artikelen is toegestaan mits bronvermelding (English: The editorial team of this club/site collects its information from publicly accessible sources. This does not guarantee the quality of the information or suppliers. Further investigation of business partners is the responsibility of the person entering into a transaction. The editors accept no liability for costs and damages that visitors suffer as a result of recommendations in the club or this site. Reproduction of articles is permitted provided the source is stated)

To me, this looks like a source that needs to be avoided. The Banner talk 13:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a plain old news aggregator. Definitely not usable, better to consider using the content it aggregates to cite things. TLA^tlak 04:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Among others a personal witter-account? The Banner talk 19:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercept, itself a WP:RSP, has written an article today exposing the NYT's deplorable fabricated article entitled 'Screams Without Words', written on 28 December 2023. This article went on to be the basis for many other stories in supposedly reputable media, and was largely used as a justification for the atrocities committed by Israel against the Palestinian population in Gaza in the weeks that followed. The blood of thousands of Palestinians is on the hands of the NYT for publicising such disgusting fabrications.

Such a flagrant lack of journalistic integrity, not only to hire two non-journalists to begin writing for them in October and November 2023 (Anat Schwartz and Adam Sella, coincidentally nephews by marriage), but for at least one of those people (Schwartz) to be an anti-Palestinian extremist, having liked Tweets calling for Gaza to be turned into a "slaughterhouse", is reprehensible. This afront to journalism is surely enough to have the New York Times permanently removed as a reputable source, at very least for coverage of the Gaza genocide. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a permanent decision is in the purview of this noticeboard or the general community, but on reading the Intercept article, I do find myself concerned. There's been the bizarre coverage of trans medical care for the past couple years, now there's this un-journalistic badgering of family members of victims and stretching unverified claims without evidence into front-page spreads. I'm not sure at this point what the right step is, but I don't think it'll be right to consider the New York Times, and certainly at least the article the Intercept is reporting on, WP:GREL for content pertaining to the state of Israel's actions in Gaza. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a conflict full of disinformation and high emotions on both sides, I would rather wait how this story unfolds. As of now, the original story stays on the NYT website. Note even The Intercept grudingly admits there may have been sexual violence during the terrorist attack, but veils it into some weird phrasing indirectly blaming "several hundred civilians" in a "second wave". Pavlor (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the full context is The question has never been whether individual acts of sexual assault may have occurred on October 7. Rape is not uncommon in war, and there were also several hundred civilians who poured into Israel from Gaza that day in a “second wave,” contributing to and participating in the mayhem and violence. The central issue is whether the New York Times presented solid evidence to support its claim that there were newly reported details “establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7” — a claim stated in the headline that Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war.

The Intercept's critique of (and my concern about) the New York Times is not about whether or not any sexual assault happened, but about whether the Times presented sufficient evidence to support its claim stated in the headline Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war, i. e. an organization systematically and deliberately deploying sexual assault. I wouldn't call this a "grudging" admission or "veil[ed]" language; the Intercept is honing in on precisely where the evidence apparently warrants ambiguity but the Times chose to say it as clear fact. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take all bombastic revelations like in The Intercept or in the original NYT story with a grain of salt. NYT may remove the article and publish an apology, or stand by its content. Other RSs will probably add their own findings to this story. Then we may judge. Pavlor (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree the NYT has a decades-long history of (imperfect but) excellent reporting, is considered “the newspaper” by many and is broadly (directly or indirectly) cited by a great amount of significant RS.

Its coverage of the war against between Israel and Hamas has definitely been imperfect, but so has Al-Jazeera's, the BBC's, and a long list of other sources considered RS. A topic-based depreciation would be inappropriate even if every claim you made was accurate, the best it would prove is that one specific article is insufficient to show that sexual violence in conflict was planned instead of incidental.

Regarding the article itself - I don’t love it either, but as far as errors in journalism go, I wouldn’t consider it any worse than the hospital story that the vast amount of RS fell for - at least it’s conjecture instead of such a harmful translation error. I agree with my fellow editor above, we just have to wait for the benefit of posterity to figure this out, and I would encourage citation with attribution for controversial claims coming from RS newspaper regardless of the so-called ‘side’ they are on. FortunateSons (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back this morning I agree that calling for the NYT to be permanently removed was a little hasty, to say the least. However, my issue is not so much with what was contained within the article (though the hounding of Gal Abdush's family is abhorrent journalistic malpractice). My issue is more with the hiring of Schwartz and Sella, given the timing of their first articles, given the nature of these articles and given the following investigation into Schwartz' conduct on social media.

If the NYT are essentially hiring friends of friends as journalists; people with no, or incredibly limited and amateur, prior journalistic experience, to write on such a contentious and delicate topic, I think they are setting a very dangerous precedent, especially given their reputation as "the newspaper" for so many.

With relation to the article specifically, I accept that during such a chaotic time, and with so little access to the given area for foreign journalists, there will inevitably be mistakes or mis-reported stories. However, The Intercept's article on what Schwartz wrote is accusing her of far worse. In essence, they are saying that she was so desperate for a story that she failed to do her due diligence as a journalist - which is understandable given the fact that she is not one.

Again, given that the NYT is so widely reputed as a very good source, her fabricated and sensationalised accusations were used in part as justification for Israel's response to the attack by Hamas on 7 October. To skew public opinion on such an important matter is criminal, and I've no doubt that a large number of people justified the slaughter of thousands of children because of Schwartz' words.

I do believe that, given the deplorably callous actions by the NYT in the coverage of this topic, we should not use the NYT as a reputable source for any further reports on the Gaza genocide. At very least, articles written by either Gettleman, Schwartz or Sella should be blacklisted. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that you moderated your position.

I think this issue should be split into 3: journalistic conduct, story content, and hiring.

1. conduct: if what the intercept (which I would consider less reliable that the NYT, but reliable unless proven otherwise) alleges is true and complete, that is a set of actions that would disgust any journalist I have had the pleasure (and occasionally displeasure) of meeting/talking to. That being said, for the purposes of Wikipedia, I wouldn’t consider that that be significant; it is first and foremost a human issue, but not one of reliability.

I think it’s important to add that “skewing public opinion” is not really a good point here. If the content is untrue, that’s enough not to use this specific article, and if it isn’t and you consider the changing of public opinion to be sufficient, then we would have to depreciate all pro-Palestinian sources based on a (just to be clear, highly tenuous) claim that support for Palestinians may assist one or more terror organisations in their goals.

2. Content is something we cannot know at this time. Some of what the intercept writes is plausible, some less so, but unless you are a member of the NYT staff, none of us are going to be able to verify some or all of that. We just have to wait for more reporting (from both ‘sides’) and see how this plays out. Trust me, this is as annoying to me as it is to you, but our shared impatience is unfortunately not an adequate reason for taking quick and decisive action. In the same way, we shouldn’t depreciate the NYT on an entire topic based merely on the fact that one potentially inaccurate story may be used as what you describe as a genocide, a claim (just for the benefit of uninvolved readers) considered to be likely inaccurate by many including some legal scholars, governments and some judges at the ICJ (Germany, Israel, Uganda (?), but I could be wrong, so take this with a grain of salt).

That being said, anyone justifying the intentional, direct and legally and militarily unjustified targeting of children on either side of this conflict is an unpleasant person to say the least (and to stay within policy).

3. Hiring. Oh, hiring. While definitely a complicated issue, it is pretty normal to have nepo hires. While not great, if that was the deciding factor (experience in adjacent media and a relevant professional field, assigned to work with more experienced colleagues) we really would have to depreciate half of MSM or more, something I am opposed to for a long list of obvious reasons.

• Therefore, this article definitely needs attribution (and should be removed if a retraction occurs, which it hasn’t, afaik). Issuing a ban for the NYT on this topic as a whole or 'blacklisting' the (significantly more experienced) journalists is a widely excessive measure in my opinion and should not be undertaken. Regarding her, I would definitely recommend additional caution for future articles, but as caution is already encouraged for I/P, doing anything beyond that is unnecessary.

FortunateSons (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercept article says The central issue is whether the New York Times presented solid evidence to support its claim that there were newly reported details “establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7” — a claim stated in the headline that Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war. but I couldn’t see in the original NYT article that they do actually make this “deliberately” claim? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While there are some reasonable concerns about the NYT over some matters here (and over gender-related matters as someone noted earlier), we should not be leaning it on whether the headline was accurate, because headlines tend to be at best not precise. We don't accept headlines as reliable sources even when they're in a generally reliable source because (per WP:HEADLINES), we acknowledge that they have neither the goals nor the vetting of the articles. As such, we cannot judge the reliability of a source based on the accuracy of its headlines. (This is not intended to derail any concerns over content of the article itself.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I do understand Nat Gertler's rationale above, I think that if you title an article "‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7", you are quite clearly making the assertion that Hamas deliberately committed acts of sexual violence as a weapon of war. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a legitimate concern here in relation to the particular events and I don't think the NYT should just get a free pass source wise for those events. Although they are apologizing in a roundabout sort of a way, which is a good thing in principle, but still. Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had been holding back on whether to believe these stories about October 7 and now this just makes the whole business even foggier. I just did not see militants on what was essentialy a suicide mission taking the time or even having the capacity to do rape, it is more the sort of thing that happens when they feel safe. Looking at this and Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel just makes everything more opaque but I can see the New York Times first part about "the woman in black dress" was badly founded and they should have known it. Other bits may hve a better basis but how am I supposed to judge when a reliable source like the New York Times does that? I have noticed other sources biasing by going in for questionable stories instead of just leaving out stories they don't like which I'm used to. I'm not going to say the New York Times is unreliable yet, especially as they're all getting worse and yet I need some stakes in the ground, but it is extremely annoying. NadVolum (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While there are clearly some issues with how NYT managed the investigation of such an important topic, which is concerning, I don't think we should introduce any significant change in how we use NYT in general or indeed its other reporting on this topic. The most I would say is that we might want to avoid citing this particular investigation, or checking how it's been used if we do cite it. I also think that, given the what a long-standing RS the NYT is, we shouldn't rush into a decision. No doubt other RSs will scrutinise this (see e.g. CNN) and we can review in light of that. Finally, I felt the Intercept undermined its case by citing deeply unreliable sources such as Grayzone. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All co-signed. Zanahary (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercept article says The central issue is whether the New York Times presented solid evidence to support its claim that there were newly reported details “establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7” — a claim stated in the headline that Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war.

Therefore, the burden you have to show if you want to say the New York Times fabricated this article, is that there wasn't a pattern of gender-based violence on October 7th.

Journalists are expected to gather their own information from disparate sources. They don't have to use inline citations like we do because it's expected that secondary sources are experts at determining what information is accurate. We judge a source's skill at gathering information based on whether their output is correct.

Despite the claims otherwise here, systemic sexual assault was committed against Israeli civilians on October 7th. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. What we may be seeing is something else which is also awful which is a form of necroviolence. NadVolum (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess Despite the claims otherwise here, systemic sexual assault was committed against Israeli civilians on October 7th.

Would genuinely be curious to know what you base this on? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC, NBC news, AP news, and The Washington Post agree there was mass sexual violence on October 7th. You say The blood of thousands of Palestinians is on the hands of the NYT for publicising such disgusting fabrications but the blood of Palestinians might as well be on the entire western media by that definition. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mass sexual violence Which source is that in? Selfstudier (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And mind the slippage of systematic sexual assault versus mass sexual violence, possibly systematic and possibly not. Dreadful violence took place, that sources agree upon; what is under question is what the structure of that violence was. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the coverage by numerous sources during the prelude to the Iraq war, Basically the media fell for the WMD crap. As a result, the public cheered the bombing of Iraq called “shock and awe”. In 2004, the NYT published a lengthy article highly critical of itself for putting too much faith in claims by government sources.[101] I've noticed over the last month, NYT and CNN coverage has changed substantially. The NYT is printing regular stories about the mass killings of Palestinians. The overall tune is changing. Like so many things, I think we need to wait for the dust to settle. But clearly the NYT article mentioned by the OP should not be used as a source. O3000, Ret. (talk) O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What got me about that was the way they said he must be doing this that or the other to hide these weapons, and as each proved false people just said he must be even more evil and devious than we though rather that it is getting to look less likely he had these weapons. NadVolum (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Nixonian New York Times Stonewalls on a Discredited Article About Hamas and Rape from The Nation and New York Times Launches Leak Investigation Over Report on Its Israel-Gaza Coverage from Vanity Fair, couple more to go with the CNN source mentioned above.Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is not a good enough reason to have the NYT wholly (or even partially, as per the Israel–Hamas war) deprecated. The leaked flap over its imminent promotion via podcast - which led to its cancellation on that platform - speaks volumes. Still, I would not wait for the NYT to officially retract the discredited article, which has been shown to be nothing more than a thinly-disguised piece of wartime propaganda. Therefore it should not be used as a direct reference, but only mentioned in passing whilst referencing sources such as those mentioned above. Havradim leaf a message 19:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still reliable. The test for a generally reliable source is not "never fucks up ever". It's just disappointing to see that the lessons learned from the Nayirah testimony seem to have been forgotten. Daveosaurus (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chipping in just to note that The Intercept is not, in fact, a blindly reliable source; the RSP specifically notes that it is a biased source, and this bias needs to be taken into account when using it. Toa Nidhiki05 20:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good contribution, thank you! If we read the AfDs, they are less than stellar to say the least. FortunateSons (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are biased, including the NYT. Selfstudier (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but some more than others, and this is definitely some. FortunateSons (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generic statements about reliability are beside the point. It has been shown that the NYTs, while using stringent criteria for selecting journalists who come from a pro-Palestinian background, flagrantly suspended this overrsight in publishing unverified claims by a genocidal propagandist for Israel with no professional credentials as a journalist, allowing itself to be a venue for extremist interpretations that, given its prestige, fed the flames of what we all know is an informational war game based on incenditary assertions. I've been reading for 20 years reliable reports of the sexual humiliation of Palestinians detained by Israel, while duly observing these are treated as marginalia, if ever noticed, by the NYTs. It did not apologize when exposed, but reportedly engaged in a witchhunt to find the source of leaks.It undermined its own credibility here, already in question for making much of the 36 Israeli children murdered on Oct.7, while glozing over the point that 13,000 Gaza children have been killed in Israel's onslaught, with a further 17,000 left orphaned, without any kin in their once extended families alive to care for them. Nishidani (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investigating leaks is standard practice for most companies, and so is some degree of bias. However, as many of the claims are now considered plausible by the UN while the Guardian claim is backed by UNRWA specifically, you can’t argue for the latter and then disparage the former.

Additionally, while wrong, nepotism is just normal in journalism and not a sign of unreliability. FortunateSons (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable. While the Schwartz piece turned out unreliable, like unreliable was NYT's reporting on WMD in Iraq, this does not mean all or most of NYT reporting is unreliable. Even the best academic journals retract articles from time to time, which however doesn't make them automatically unreliable. We have a guideline for that: Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. This is what's happening – editors seem to refrain from relying on Schwartz's garbage. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the solution would be to follow context, and evaluate according to "the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports". Blanket bans bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This topic of Collider recently came up in a discussion at The Acolyte (TV series). I have been told it's reliable and I don't see much discussion about it here. It's probably an okay source for interviews and some stories about films, but I wouldn't consider them reliable enough to be the only source for something like a release date for a show that's months away. Their track record is hit or miss when it comes to original reporting, but I could be wrong. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_334#Collider. The site is highly reliable within the television and film/pop culture genre. This includes sourcing them for exclusives/"scoops". WP:VNT would apply in those cases. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stating your opinion again, I brought it up here because I disagree. I'll leave the content dispute to the article. However, I'm looking for a consensus on this topic. Apparently this hasn't been widely discussed. It's certainly hasn't been discussed enough here to call it a slam dunk reliable source. Nemov (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a discussion should be had regarding the reliability of Spiked (magazine) as a source for citations so we can add it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and inform editors of its reliability or lack thereof, if appropriate. Helper201 (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed a handful of times before, see the RSN archives. It's primarily a publication of opinion and so therefore typically not a useful source for factual claims. It's writers typically have a strong right-wing political bent, so a lot of the time adding their views may be WP:UNDUE weight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following sources are considered unreliable, but I don't think we should consider a source unreliable just because we don't like the platform. There is not a single "reliable source" that writes about this issue, because it is getting silenced by the media.

We should consider the sources on an individual basis. Please, don't reject them just because. Please, take your time to read through them. Most of them also have their own references and sources.

Sources:

1. Vaush on rationalwiki.org
2. article on thepostmillennial.com
3. Vaush Opens Porn Folder On Stream (knowyourmeme.com)
4. clips from his streams, posted on YouTube
5. thread on r/VaushV subreddit
6. article on eviemagazine.com
7. article on nationalcybersecurity.com
8. article on xkilllakillfan69x.wordpress.com

I still have some faith in society. I still believe there are people that don't want this issue to be silenced and forced under the rug. Matthias197 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the matter is severe and deals with a living person is reason for us to be extra scrupulous about sourcing. I don't recognize every source here, but a few of them are immediately and clearly not sources that we would ever consider acceptable for this sort of material -- an open wiki, a self-published blog, a subreddit.... they all fly in the face of our rules on sourcing material about living persons from self-published sources. I'm not sure who is supposed to be silencing this, but it is in the nature of Wikipedia to follow reliable sources, not to lead them based on unreliable ones. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my statement: the topic is severe. The matter appears to be just an unpopular opinion, and assumptions that people wish to assert based on that. Thinking something could be legal is not the same as condoning something, much less engaging in it. (A friend and I once planned to take the "yes" side on a "should the Nazis have been allowed to stage a march in Skokie, Illinois" debate, but any attempt to cast us a pro-Nazi rather than taking the ACLU side of free speech would've been confronted with the fact that we were both folks that the Nazis would've gleefully killed.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not. And do you really think there's some worldwide media conspiracy to cover for this youtuber? Sheesh. VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a clear violation of BLP, you need to wait for an RS. FortunateSons (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think we can source a child pornography accusation to anything less than a gold-plated RS, you may need to review WP:BLP - David Gerard (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting conundrum sometimes. A person's existence and basic activities are covered in enough reliable sources to justify an article, but then some social media outrage-of-the-moment fails to gain coverage by that same media, as it is just not as important as the fans and foes think it is. So to the outside non-Wikipedian, it looks like we're "censoring," when of course nothing of the sort is happening. Matthias197, consider the possibility that this just doesn't matter.

I'd also like to take the liberty of toning town the section title, as putting a person's name and "CP" side-by-side is a bit overboard. Zaathras (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(coming from Talk:Vaush) Posting this here in case anyone comes across Evie Magazine (eviemagazine.com) in the future and wanted to check the archives. I went back today to their homepage and saw an article titled "What Is A Woman?" (archive), by the same author of the one linked above, which proudly misgenders a trans man and uses the phrase "gender ideology" unironically. The further it goes the less sane it becomes. Wholly not reliable if they cannot accept the widespread scientific consensus of gender & sex. SWinxy (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles do indeed get weirder the deeper you go. Some light reading on the publication: [102], [103]. We should not be using this in any way. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "widespread scientific consensus of gender & sex" are you referring to, because there is no consensus. Conservatives insist that gender and gender are the same thing. Only liberals think otherwise. Matthias197 (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Everyone has to be a 'conservative' or a 'liberal', and has to conform in every way to this, over every topic. No room for anyone to be anything in between, or to be undecided. Talk about enforcing roles on those who'd rather decide for themselves what opinions they'd like to hold... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are all horrific violations of BLP and not remotely reliable as sources, absolutely not. The Kip 02:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today, USA Today is listed as a generally reliable source st WP:RSP. During an AfD discussion I noticed that they now allow 'contributor' posts without editorial oversight that are essentially advertising. This is the article I took notice of, but looking at the 'Contributor Content' category, most of these articles are of a similar type. When googling I also see sites claiming to sell the service of writing promotional contributor articles. At a bare minimum this should be discussed and noted on the Perennial sources article, but I also want to open a discussion about USA Today overall. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there's a tag that says "Contributor Content" like that, we are still good with other articles presumable written by staff. We probably should definitely add to the USA Today entry on RSP something equivalent to Forbes on contributors. Masem (t) 21:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Masem. As long as they're clearly identifying the paid material, then fine. USA Today goes the extra step and adds a disclaimer at the bottom of the article, and also shows it in the URL, which makes it easy to scan for. I'll typically look for USA Today CC posts every other day or so. The Forbes ones are not identifiable by URL, and are much more difficult to identify without bringing up the article. I fear this is part of a much larger trend of 'alternate revenue generation' where normally reliable publications are selling their brand, be it 'sponsored content', 'brand spotlights', or these 'contributor contribution' blogs.Sam Kuru (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has complained that I added reference to reports that actress Emily Willis had been hospitalized for an overdose earlier this month.

The sources I have included are:

• "Porn Star Emily Willis Hospitalized After Apparent OD, Critical Condition". TMZ. February 5, 2024. (a yellow-light source)
• Gomez, Jade (February 5, 2024). "Adult Film Star Emily Willis Hospitalized Following Overdose". Complex. (I am unaware of any discussion of the reliability of this source; it is cited in several hundred articles)
• "Porn star Emily Willis in a 'critical condition' after overdose". www.indy100.com. February 5, 2024. (a website of The Independent)

The subject is not likely to be reported on at all in higher-level sources. I am aware that the non-TMZ sources are basically reporting that TMZ has reported this, but I doubt that they would be without reasonable reliability on the reporting being relayed. BD2412 T 00:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412 There is no reason to assume that either Complex or Indy100 have done any verification of TMZ's reporting. The fact that they explicitly say that the information comes from TMZ suggests that they are not willing to take responsibility in case this turns out not to be true.

In any case, we require high quality sources to report something of this nature. We obviously don't have that in this case. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the cited sources are of sufficient quality is what this discussion is intended to decide. BD2412 T 00:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412 TMZ is not a high quality source. That's not even up for debate. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's being debated right now. BD2412 T 00:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that this was the reliable sources noticeboard, not the biographies of living people noticeboard (where I think we should be having this discussion). Since TMZ already has its own WP:TMZ shortcut, I suspect that there's little to be gained by discussing it again, but obviously I will abide by whatever consensus is reached here. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412 As I stated on your talk page, I would have no concerns about removing this on BLP grounds if the page weren't fully protected. This is the reason the page is fully protected - because users keep adding the TMZ report. Can you please remove the entire section about the overdose until the issue is settled? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, the Indy100.com report is not entirely reliant on the TMZ report. It relays details from the TMZ report, but not the fundamental claim that "Emily Willis is in a critical condition after suffering an alleged overdose". BD2412 T 00:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For that claim, it says "according to reports" in the first sentence. Which reports aren't specified there, and it looks likely that it's the TMZ source entered later. In any case "according to reports" means they are not putting it in their own voice. (And "alleged" makes not at all clear who is doing the alleging.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has there ever been a requirement that a reliable source be "putting it in their own voice"? We cite to sources reporting on background all the time. They are reporting it. If there is a controversy, we can cure any ambiguity by directly quoting the source, or using the same qualifying language. BD2412 T 03:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're using reliable sources for what they say. If they're saying X happened, that's different than saying Y said X happened. And in this case, we don't know whether they are talking about TMZ or some other report. A report from TMZ, or from an unknown source, saying that someone but we don't know who is alleging an overdose, that's a couple steps away from actually knowing she had an overdose, and seems very much like the sort of thing we'd want to avoid in a BLP. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing seems extremely tabloid-y and lurid, I'm not sure "alleged overdose" is even remotely DUE for the article at this time, or maybe ever, unless it sees better reporting. Parabolist (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What in the article would be considered DUE based on the level of sources generally in use? The rest of the article is sourced primarily to IAFD, IMDb, Adult DVD Talk, AVN, Penthouse, Twitter, XBIZ, and YouTube, rounded out by Deadline, and My News LA. BD2412 T 01:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how the existing sourcing relates to the due weight consideration of including or not including something like an alleged drug overdose? Those seem to be unrelated concerns. Are you saying that if an article has generally weak sourcing that it is ok to include something in a BLP that is sourced to TMZ? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is BLP, and what is DUE for one of those is extremely rigorous, and the other sources in the article have no bearing on this. We have the exact same respect for every BLP on here. The implication here is that because this is an adult actress, and the sourcing reflects that, so we're allowed to be more tabloid, and that's fairly ridiculous.Parabolist (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not DUE, then why are more sources reporting on this than reported on literally any other aspect of this subject's life? By that measure, it appears to be the most notable thing that has ever happened to them. BD2412 T 23:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412 I think this discussion should have been started in the BLP noticeboard in the first place, but if it needs to continue it should probably continue there since we don't seem to be talking about sourcing here. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this answers your main question, but you mentioned Complex being evaluated as a source, just to point out, it’s rated green on User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter, though I’m not sure which original source list that rating came from.

BhamBoi (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scripts that highlight sources are maintained by independent editors. They are invaluable as something to highlight source use in an article or draft, but are not much use in discussions like this -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real opinion on Complex – I don't think I've ever come across it before – but my understanding is that indy100 is a tabloidy clickbaity spinoff of The Independent – their main site is independent.co.uk. I agree with Counterfeit Purses here: the fact that the rest of the article is badly sourced does not mean that we should be sourcing a claim about a living person's drug use and/or medical history to TMZ. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)::[reply]

I think we do, however, generally note when notable figures are hospitalized for drug overdoses. AVN, which is already used as a source in the article, is now reporting that the subject's family has launched a crowdfunding campaign to cover her continuing medical expenses, which suggests a rather serious health event. BD2412 T 22:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412, I use Complex as references, and I'd say it's WP:GREL for internet-related matters (which Wills is). The Gray Lady once noted that AVN (magazine) is like a paper of record for porn-related matters. Putting these two together, I personally think it's worth adding a bit about this information. TLA^tlak 04:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I'm tla Emily Willis is not an "internet-related matter". They are a living person. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are an internet porn actress... TLA^tlak 04:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An "internet porn actress" is a living person. Which means that WP:BLP applies. High quality sources are required for biographies of living people. High quality sources are required for inclusion of something like a drug overdose. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that, which is why I'm disregarding TMZ and other tabloid-style publications. AVN is the strongest source here, Complex is quite good as well. Obviously they aren't the best sources in the world, but they are certainly generally reliable. TLA^tlak 05:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complex is reporting n what TMZ said: "According to TMZ..." and "The outlet also reported...". Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Complex is reporting" should be the end of the inquiry, if Complex is an RS. We have never, to my knowledge, required an RS to exceed that standard, whether for a BLP or not. If there is a rule requiring that reporting by one source not refer to another, I'd like to see it. BD2412 T 16:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a reasonably respected essay on this, Wikipedia:Fruit of the poisonous tree. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TMZ, however, has not been designated an unreliable source. A reliable source citing a not-unreliable source is not exactly contemplated by that essay. Of course, the underlying claim has since also been reported by AVN. BD2412 T 17:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the term "overdose" generally occurs either in the realm of illegal or illegally obtained drugs, or the use of a prescribed drug in a manner beyond what is prescribed... which, according to at least some sources I find, is also illegal. So inclusion of "overdose" is a WP:BLPCRIME matter. Inclusion of the hospital stay, which now has better sourcing, is not. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler: That is incorrect. No such thing is asserted as necessary in our own article on drug overdose, and it is possible to overdose on aspirin, and certainly on legally obtained prescription medications. There is no legal implication whatsoever. If there was, we would use whatever non-criminal terminology referred to a reaction to excessive intake of a substance, but here we do not need to use any different term. BD2412 T 17:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that including discussion of overdose is not a BLP crime issue, but overdoses are a highly charged topic with definite negative connotations and we should still be very careful about whether to include such claims. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412 Please consider resigning your admin rights. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Counterfeit Purses: If you have a concern with how I have exercised administrative rights, please take that up at WP:ANI. BD2412 T 17:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AVN, which is already used as a source in the article, is now reporting that the subject's family has launched a crowdfunding campaign to cover her continuing medical expenses, which suggests a rather serious health event. If AVN is an RS for this sort of thing, we could use it to support that Willis has been hospitalised, but it makes no mention of drugs or overdoses, and so we cannot use it for that. If the only possibly good source for the drug overdose is explicitly reporting it as "according to TMZ" rather than in their own voice, I would be pretty uncomfortable about our including such a claim in the article; if it's really DUE then surely other reliable sources will pick up on it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an RS determination for the Toronto Sun? It appears unrelated to the deprecated The Sun (United Kingdom), and has now also published a story on this: Porn star's family seeks donations for medical bills after drug overdose". BD2412 T 21:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not looking good for Emily Willis if this is true... new TMZ article titled "EMILY WILLIS IN A COMA AMID HOSPITALIZATION Fam Preparing for the Worst". March 7, 2024. says she hasn't regained consciousness since the event over a month ago. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if IMDbPro and Box Office Mojo considered reliable sources? It's common to see Box Office Mojo being used for box office gross data and sometimes for crediting, but there's no discussion about their reliability. While IMDb on its own is deemed unreliable, I was wondering about the credibility of IMDbPro and Box Office Mojo, especially considering they are owned by the same company. Lililolol (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can check out WP:IMDB, it's not a reliable source but can be used as an external link for a page about an actor, director film, etc. In regards to Box Office Mojo, according to WP:FILM/R, it's generally reliable for information/verifiability but probably not establishing notability, although I'm guessing a film cited there likely has some reviews/analyses in trade publications like Variety or Deadline Hollywood. TLA^tlak 22:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oko press is cited in Wikipedia but it described themselves as propaganda tool created by mainstream Agora media to create impression that it is independent. oko press own communication announced it https://oko.press/stoi-oko-press-szczera-bolu-informacja-o-naszych-finansach if some tool is created only in order to fight other ideas it is propaganda. Can be propaganda a reliable source? i request to ecxlude oko press from list of reliable sources for Wikipedia. Jarek19800 (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC discussion started below this. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: OKO.press

What is the reliability of OKO.press?

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

Previous RSN Discussion: February 2021 (Considered generally reliable)

For some background, OKO.press is mentioned or cited on 129 articles across English Wikipedia. After a talk page discussion on Visegrád 24, it was mentioned that the source may not be reliable. Given this source is cited in CTOPS articles (including Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, LGBTQ articles, and Israel-Hamas war articles), an RFC is needed to reassess reliability. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (OKO.press)

• Undecided so far. I will do some research and make a determination !vote soon. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 — The source seems to be reliable in their reporting. I have not found inaccurate reporting in their articles. This may appear to be a little bit of an Al Jazeera, where if it is state-sponsored, the reliability of their reporting of facts does not seem to be impeded. As mentioned below this !vote by Kip, the original nominator/idea starter of this RfC, Jarek19800, was that OKO.press was propaganda based on this article, which I have to admit, I am unable to actually translate past a “please subscribe” style addition they have. As the idea of this was Jarek19800s, could you provide an article indicating OKO.press either reported something factually wrong or a secondary non OKO.press source saying it is propaganda? Unless that occurs, I must stick with option 1. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The RfC was started by me due to duel-CTOPS nature involved with where the possible issue about this source originated from and I will note, COI is a very high possibility here, which was brought up at AN, leading to the perm EC protection on the page. Basically, RFC was a technicality since this has been at RSN before and is CTOPS related. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Al Jazeera; as far as I can tell Agora, who partly funds OKO, is independent rather than state-controlled. The Kip 23:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 The claim above of the piece admitting they’re “anti-PiS propaganda” seems to be… off-base, to say the least. Admittedly I’m reading a Google machine-translated version, but from what I gather, the linked piece says they were founded independently with some funding from Agora due to well-documented concerns about the PiS’ increasing control of Polish state media. Biased? Perhaps a little, but on the whole they seem to be doing valid research/reporting, and I’m not exactly sold by some of the original nominator (Jarek, not WEW) arguments regarding it being “blatant propaganda.” France24 and Politico’s endorsement of their reporting + the Index on Censorship award work even further in their favor. As per usual, attribute for opinion pieces, but facts-wise they seem a-okay. The Kip 06:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your remarks. I will try to be as short as possible which can influence some clarity. Let's follow your logic: main media company in Poland Agora creates a platform Oko press in order to fight PIS. After eight years (current) there is a new govt anti PIS and 95% of media market is completely in hands of anti PIS media including Agora. If following your logic Oko press would be reliable source they shall go against this media monopoly now,shall not they? in fact they continue to fight PIS. More generally can be a media monopoly reliable by definition? Moreover head of Oko press Pacewicz is former Agora executive so let's forget about independent funding of Oko press.Personally I prefer to judge reliability of media by its origin and definition(for example it is obvious for all that any mainstream media in russia now is not reliable source) than on base of one or two false informations but I will check what I can do also in this direction. By the way how I can prove that some information was false when there is a media monopoly in the country and the false info is local from media which covers only local issues ? Jarek19800 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "for example it is obvious for all that any mainstream media in russia now is not reliable source". That idea did not get much traction on RSNB recently. But even if this is the case, Poland is a very different country. My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument essentially boils down to “they’re propaganda because they disagree with PiS and are popular,” which is entirely personal opinion, and your claim of a “media monopoly” is both wholly uncited and outright false in the first place. Sorry that I and others disagree. The Kip 05:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1, same as Gazeta Wyborcza. It seems to be a legitimate investigative journalism site. There are no indications they promote any falsehoods or unreliable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 - Google Scholar search results are quite encouraging regarding the publication's quality^[1][2] Other peer-reviewed publications cite it,^[3][4] so there's also a WP:USEBYOTHERS case to be made. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion (OKO.press)

• I would not describe prior discussions about this source as having a consensus for reliability. the February 2021 discussion was not formally closed and did not have a clear consensus. The same can be said of the October 2021 RfC not identified above, which had a numerical majority for general reliability but saw a lot of sockpuppet disruption and didn't have much in the way of real discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I did not realize a 2nd discussion occurred. Would you be ok if I add that in the discussion? Also just to note, the prior discussion I linked earlier was considered in a different discussion (I don’t remember which of the 129 articles it was on), to be reliable under a 7-2 vote premise. That assessment was not my own doing, but more like a copy/paste of the assessment in that discussion…whatever article talk page it was on. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This move to RfC seems a bit abrupt. The discussion in the thread above didn't even get off the ground. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Having an explicit political agenda doesn't make them unreliable (per WP:BIASED). Are there examples of them publishing falsehoods? Alaexis_¿question? 21:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There doesn't seem to be; to be quite blunt, this issue seems to have been raised entirely on the argument that being founded as a counterweight to PiS-biased media and partly funded by a liberal-leaning news organization makes them "propaganda," which is an extremely flimsy basis for such a claim. The Kip 22:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In 2018 polish Ministry of Justice published a statement accusing Oko.press of making false claims about financing public campaign by that ministry. [104] I couldn't find any articles investigating it further, though. Saletri (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  let's focus on fake news spreaded by oko press. this one confirms that they are propaganda tool used to take part in political war without any link to reality. all articles will be in Polish unfortunately and from media which are not a mainstream (media monopol in Poland) but fact checking is more accurate here https://www.tysol.pl/a73905-ekspert-do-oko-press-jestescie-propagandystami-lukaszenki-i-putina-bede-was-rozliczal-z-fake-news Jarek19800 (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering the PiS government was notorious for attempted media crackdowns, I’m not sure if I’d trust their word when accusing an independent outlet of making false claims. Governments are rarely reliable sources for criticism about themselves. The Kip 05:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I ask you the Kip to be deleted from this discussion on the reason that you started to chase me on Wikipedia with a manner to delete my factual revisions of the articles. By chance you make it by hiding the facts concerning Soviet murderers which I hope has connection with defending left- wing media portal. of course we can try to say that only by coincidence you deleted my change on Mikhail Kalinin few days ago but such idea has is stupid so you have no reliability to discuss media reliability. Jarek19800 (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You asserted on the article that he held sole responsibility for the massacre, when the source provided simply listed him as a co-signatory. Feel free to re-add with a source confirming the former claim, but on Wikipedia we don't engage in original research. Nice personal attack, by the way. The Kip 21:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not opening the discussion on topic of if relevant was my add to article. it is about you chased my add ons to articles on wikipedia on base of this thread here. it is of course just coincidence in both you defend left-wing elements. anyway in my opinion it is not ethic and wikipedial to transport your personel feelings from one article to another one only on base of author. In my opinion you should not continue to comment this thread to keep Wikipedia neutral as much as possible. Jarek19800 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Having explicit political agenda doesn't make them (media) unreliable" true but on one condition: if there is no media monopoly in country or if opposite political media are not judged as unreliable. it means that political agenda in media is allowed only if media market is really and in reality free which is not a case in most countries including currently Poland. Jarek19800 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi everyone, I'm following the discussion and just wanted to add my 2 cents on the issue: OKO.press seems to be one of the media sitting on the fence when it comes to reliability. I read some of their articles (translated, though), but I cannot say that I have sufficient knowledge on the Polish media landscape to make a definitive call here. Why I am writing this comment is to say that reliability is not a black-or-white type question, as some articles may have a more political lean than others, reliability can depend on the contributor writing the specific piece, and finally, reliability changes over time.

  However, just to be on the cautious side, I suggest that we shouldn't use them as a sole or predominant source supporting the reliability of other sources, such as Visegrad 24 (because this is how the whole conversation began). Milentie Pokojni (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi I agree . it will put us forward until I will have time to present more comprehensive analisys of the total lack of reliability of oko press and open new thread. In meantime I found pretty reliable summary of current situation with media in Poland

  https://deadline.com/2024/03/poland-tvp-donald-tusk-recovering-1235844739/

  it is not perfect because forgets that for example in tv market we used to have 3 mainstream media Polsat- owned by Polish oligarch who was secret collaborator of communist secret police,TVN- owned by US left- wing owner and Public TV which was invaded and taken over in night by current left- wing govt security forces. by accident all 3 tv's are fiercely pro-government and have ca.95% of tv market. Conservative part of population which is not less than 30% has 5%. if this is media monopoly or not judge yourself Jarek19800 (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Arabic source reliable? It claims to be a journal, How can we know whether it is reliable or not? A user claimed it is "a credible magazine with plenty of monthly issues for many years" providing this https://web.archive.org/web/20210925115625/https://www.tahawolat.net/Magazine.aspx?PageNumber=2&Magazine=1 ( I do not know if that is actually true ). Their website makes me believe they are neither reliable nor notable, a reliable Arabic journal looks like this An-Nahar

Whatsupkarren (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to give the context of the claim it is making and the article, or you aren't going to get many answers. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A user added to the article Wadi al-Nasara that a large part of Wadi al-Nasara's population comes originally from Lebanon, (for obvious nationalistic reasons) this claim is entirely based on this article https://web.archive.org/web/20180319084712/http://www.tahawolat.net/MagazineArticleDetails.aspx?Id=567 Whatsupkarren (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you obviously have doubts about this source, what is their basis? Also, with regards to the suggestion part of the population came from Lebanon in the 19th century, is there any reason to doubt this? It wouldn't seem an unusual claim in itself.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the reason I doubt this is because, 1) as I see it, this journal isn't notable and seems to be very random, 2) there doesn't seem to be any other source that says Wadi Nasara's population came from that place. The author of the article isn't a known historian either and did not say from where he had brought his information. Whatsupkarren (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and you are very familiar with the Lebanese press and have never heard of this magazine? And are you very familiar with the place itself? For example, have you spoken to people from there about this topic and they have not mentioned this? Have you read similarly in depth texts on the area which do not mention this? Sorry for the many questions, I am trying to establish whether this would be an extraordinary claim.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've never heard of this magazine before and can confirm it is not a notable magazine, and yeah it doesn't have a Wikipedia article in Arabic let alone in English unlike other notable Arabic magazines such as Al-Ahram and Al majala. and I know this is not the only way to decide whether a magazine is reliable or not but really I don't think just because it is a mag that prints stuff maybe on a monthly basis it becomes useable as a source. I mean who is the founder of this magazine? Who's behind it?

And no I've never asked someone from the wadi if his ancestors came from Lebanon that'd be a bit awkward. I have searched in Arabic sources about that and couldn't find anything apart from books mentioning some families that came from the Hauran region of southern Syria. Whatsupkarren (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the answers. So I think you probably need to speak to somebody Lebanese to gauge reliability in this case, try the Lebanon wikiproject? I have taken the liberty of tagging @Nehme1499: as I know they put in a lot of work on the Levantine Arabic article and maybe have better criteria than me to evaluate the reliability of the source.

Could you perhaps include the exact quote (translated into English) that sources the link to Lebanon? Is it mentioned several times, or is it a throwaway remark? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, but I don't see how speaking with Lebanese users can solve the problem here, we need reliable sources to support a claim, otherwise, we're engaging in original research, I believe it is on the user who's using that source to prove why the source he/she is using is reliable, I have opened a talk page on the relevant article. Hopefully User Chris O'hare will engage in it cuz they said they wouldn't.

And yes the article says: The history of families in the wadi Al nasara overwhelmingly dates back to Christian villages in Lebanon in general, and specifically the northern ones. Their displacement journeys began in 1856 during the first Lebanese sectarian war. Whatsupkarren (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If your problem is not knowing whether a Lebanese source is reliable, then talking to a Lebanese user is the only possible solution to that problem.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently cited Artnet News in the Mark Rothko article as the source for several specific details (# of paintings returned by Rothko's gallery to his children and foundation after a post-death lawsuit, additional context as well). Wondering, both in this specific context, and in general, how to evaluate Artnet News' reliability and appropriateness.

This source is the news publication/editorial arm of Artnet, which is a company primarily known for its auction history and price database. The publication is generally considered reliable as a source for news on arts exhibitions and the art world. They also often include more specific detail in many of their articles on the art market than higher profile art publications or general news sources that also cover art. But obviously this is still the editorial arm of a commercial entity with financial stakes in the art market; does this seeming conflict of interest make this source unreliable on issues that have to deal specifically with the art market?

In this case, the cited article details how multiple descendants of famous artists have had to deal with the financial/legal/logistical hurdles of managing their families' estates, which usually comprise a significant amount of artwork by the artist. These are details that are not usually made public, and while I'm sure the reporter worked hard to get the scoops, the question could certainly be asked if the company's financial interests impacted the access or editorial process.

I think there are a lot of questions to be asked about arts publications in general and their editorial independence (as much as I may love their writing and coverage), but I wanted to ask about this as Artnet News has only been glancingly discussed in the archives. I personally think it's still reliable in this case and that the parent company's financial interests don't impact their reporting, but I wanted a second opinion. Thanks in advance! 19h00s (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a COI there, but no more than any news company which is owned by a for profit entity (which is most of them BTW). I've found Artnet News to be generally reliable and editorially independent. As for impacting access... Is that actually an issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me and that's my feeling as well. Appreciate the second set of eyes on this! Thanks :) 19h00s (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artnet News is good trade press IME. They even kept their coverage pretty good in the NFT boom, with all the grey money that came along with that - David Gerard (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving's The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe is being cited in Dornier Do 19 and Junkers Ju 89 to cite a quote by Herman Goering. While this was written before he went full Holocaust Denial, do we really want to be using him as a source. Irving has been discussed here before Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_271#David_Irving_--_The_Mare's_Nest and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_323#David_Irving_and_Hitler's_dogs.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't cite him as he's a writer not a historian as determined by the Lipstadt verdict. Reegards Keith-264 (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would I his history is so heavily filtered through his politics he should never be cited. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irving's credibility as a serious historian was under question long before the Lipstadt trial etc. I have little doubt that more credible sources could be found discussing the Luftwaffe's abandonment of heavy bomber development in the late 1930's, and explaining why they arrived at this decision can hopefully be done in a manner that doesn't involve a context-free anecdote from Göring, regardless of whether it is authentic. A questionable source, being cited for something that shouldn't be in the article anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. At issue is not only the citation of a discredited author (Irving) but also the dependence on an anecdote from a historical participant rather than on analysis from more recent scholarship. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Dornier Do 19 article also references Richard Suchenwirth [de] - who does appear to have been a historian who was an actual Nazi rather then a sympathiser - to argue that Germany's lack of a heavy bomber significantly damaged Germany's war effort.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen better sources for that claim, its not new or controversial. Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, it seems I am guilty of occasioning this current debate with my edit of the Dornier Do 19 article with this edit. Although I was forgiving of Irving in my edit summary, he is indeed persona non grata. I cited Suchenwirth about the 'Ural Bomber' fiasco, because I had been working my way through his Command & Leadership monograph without having actually read the de:wp article. Immediately after making my edit, I found on the very next page a cite for the "how big my bombers are" quote: USAF Historical Studies, No. 174, Pt. 1, pp. 36 [pdf 53] and Pt. 2, p. 303 [pdf 137]. See also Studies Nos. 160 & 189 on the same page. Whatever his politics, Suchenwirth's studies appear to be well-referenced, having interviewed the majority of interested parties after the war. He seems to be equally scathing about most of the topmost players (Milch, Jeschonnek, Udet and Göring), apart from Walther Wever, who seems to have been an especially capable leader; Suchenwirth's assessment of Wever seems close to hero-worship. Anyway, is there any earlier reference to Göring's throwaway line? How far does 'later scholarship' depend on Suchenwirth? Is he similarly discredited? MinorProphet (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn’t the relevant volume of the German history of the war cover this material? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irving was found by the judge in the libel action he brought against Deborah Lipstadt to not be a historian, and was long regarded as not being reliable by other historians. The expert report prepared for the trial by Richard J. Evans notes that Irving included falsifications of history in works concerning Nazi Germany not directly about the Holocaust, including from an early stage of his career as a 'historian'. As such, Irving is not a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the specific findings in the Lipstadt libel action is that Irving could not be trusted to accurately quote and/or translate a source. These problems existed well before his turn to Holocaust denial. He's not usable as a source. Mackensen (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see how anything published by Irving and nowhere else could be WP:DUE. For our purposes, he is not a subject expert or a reliable source on any subject, and, to cite a much misused policy essay, WP:NONAZIS.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we make an exception for The Mare's Nest (his first or second book, I think), about the V-2 program? Our own article vouches for it: "The book has been widely cited by authors covering the V-weapons programme. Even after Irving's reputation was destroyed after his exposure as a Holocaust denier, Michael J. Neufeld of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum has described The Mare's Nest as 'the most complete account on both Allied and German sides of the V-weapons campaign in the last two years of the war.'" Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so, no. First of all, the book is sixty years old. That's an eternity in World War II scholarship. Second, if Irving is the sole source for a claim, then the claim is doubtful and/or undue. Third, Neufeld went on to note that Irving "minimized the Mittelwerk/Nordhausen story about which he certainly knew more." Fourth, citing Irving anywhere will encourage citing him elsewhere which we shouldn't do given that we know most of works have serious problems. We can and should do better. Mackensen (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman. wrote about how he worked around this in an opinion piece in 2013. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The approach outlined in that op-ed seems good to me. We should subcontract to other scholars, preferably where people are writing after the problematic nature of Irving's scholarship and beliefs ("I am a baby Arian, not Jewish or sectarian, I have no plans to marry an ape or Rastafarian...") became clear. If a qualified historian believes his scholarship is still useful in establishing facts occurring in the Nazi period, the we can attribute the facts in question to them. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a number of articles use https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ as a reference for persons incarcerated in US federal prisons. It's mostly used for identifying in which prison a person is incarcerated and their release date (both future and past dates). It's obviously a primary source; how reliable is it? 76.14.122.5 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a primary source in the context of articles about incarcerated people, as it is not published by the people themselves. See the example about "An article about a person" in WP:PRIMARYCARE. Also, please keep in mind that primary sources are not always bad (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), and I would even go so far as to say that that government registry you mentioned has the ultimate authority in these cases. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks reliable in the sense that it looks authoritative for the specific facts it provides. It's definitely a primary source, so a concern would be how to establish the due weight of a prisoner's location. I looked at a couple of existing citations and note some other issues:

• XXXTentacion#cite_note-52 just cites the top-level URL without any prisoner ID, so we cannot verify.
• Joaquín_"El_Chapo"_Guzmán#cite_ref-4 does give the BOP Register Number, but doesn't say where we got this number from, so are we sure it's the right person? In this case, probably yes, but perhaps caution would be warranted for less distinctive names. Regarding this particular person, I note that the name on the BOP website is slightly different to the name in our article, so the BOP website is possibly not reliable for determining exact names (or maybe it is and other sources have got it wrong).

Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. It seems that the prudent path is to use the site with caution. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that in the vast majority of potential uses of it, we should be silent, per WP:DUE. --JBL (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How reliable is mxdwn.com, specifically for entertainment related articles? This is their about page and this is their editor-in-chief (I am not sure if this person would be considered an industry professional or journalist). Spinixster (chat!) 03:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most Library of Congress format descriptions include assessments about licensing and openness (in the Disclosure field of the "Sustainability factors" section) of many common media formats. Is this information technically and legally reliable to support the assessment of these formats as "open format" and "free format" in {{Infobox file format}}? Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably as good as it gets, yes. Bon courage (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Weaponization of antisemitism, the opening sentence of the lead is:

The weaponization of antisemitism, also described as the instrumentalization of antisemitism, is the making of false charges of antisemitism for political purposes.^[1][2][3][4]

Is + 972Mag reliable in support of the sentence (cite 4)? The most recent substantive discussion of 972Mag was in 2015 here. Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an RfC, 972 would be a 2 (probably). They have a significant left-wing bias and can be rather ‚anti-Israel‘, so I would recommend all the grains of salt and clearly attribute opinions, specifically on Judaism, Israel (and Israeli orgs) and Antisemitism.

That being said, they do decent reporting, including investigative, and do provide value, so many uses are acceptable. FortunateSons (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this specific use case, I would probably refrain from using them, as they have some rather niche/fringe views, particularly in regards to the IHRA definition. FortunateSons (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is not being used in reference to IHRA and the cited quote does not mention IHRA either. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solid source, attribution at most. nableezy - 14:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A good source, a fair amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS without qualification in peer-reviewed literature: Journal of Genocide Research, California Western International Law Journal, Harvard Law Review (this was just the first page of Scholar results for "972 mag" -972mag.org, and ignoring a few MA theses that also popped up). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Use by others is a good way to measure reliability. Seeing these citations in peer-reviewed academic periodicals, I'm optimistic about this magazine's reliability. At this time, I support a WP:GREL assessment. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No. 972's anti-Israel slant means it should be avoided in statements of fact regarding Israel, Palestine, Judaism, and antisemitism. Better sources should be used. Zanahary (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is precisely the opposite of what our policies say, and even if it were true that this Israeli publication that predominately publishes the work of Jewish Israeli journalists were "anti-Israel", you dont get to say that only Zionist sources are allowed here. nableezy - 19:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nableezy, I never said that. Dial back please. Zanahary (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said that because of a supposed anti-Israel slant it should not be used in these topics. That is, again, precisely the opposite of what our policies say, and even if it were true that this Israeli publication that predominately publishes the work of Jewish Israeli journalists were "anti-Israel". And, again, you dont get to demand that only "pro-Israel" sources be used. NPOV does not mean censoring viewpoints one does not like, and reliability has nothing to do with bias. Even if the completely unsupported notion that this source is biased was true. nableezy - 20:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You dont get to demand that only "pro-Israel" sources be used

  I never said this. Zanahary (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you just said the obverse, that supposed "anti-Israel" sources may not be used. nableezy - 20:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll let the remaining misunderstanding sit, since it looks like you're done accusing me of "demanding" that "only Zionist sources are allowed here".

  To any editors reading this thread who would like some clarity on my view: I think +972 has an anti-Israel bias, and an opinion editorial published by the magazine should not be used as a source to define a concept pertaining to antisemitism. Notable views expressed in said source can be included in the article, if attributed. Zanahary (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not an "opinion editorial", it is by Mairav Zonszein, somebody who has written at Just Security, Jewish Currents, The Nation, Haaretz, New York Review of Books, Time, and I can keep going. 972 is a professional news and analysis site run by professional journalists and editors, and no it does not have "an anti-Israel bias", an assertion made with 0 supporting evidence. nableezy - 20:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The piece's authorship has no bearing on whether or not it is an op-ed. You should go hassle FortunateSons for asserting exactly what I said without links to back his view up. Or you could AGF, explain your view, and ask for substantiation of views that aren't yours. I'm out of patience for your weird, unprovoked aggression, though. Zanahary (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Responding to bogus assertions made without evidence and showing they are bogus and lack evidence is not weird, unprovoked aggression, and claiming bias has anything to do with reliability shows a failure to understand WP:RS at its most basic level. nableezy - 21:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You didn’t show anything to be bogus. You pointed out that I hadn’t backed up my evaluation of the source. A source’s bias does pertain to how it ought to be used. But if you so strongly disagree, you’re sure of your interpretation of my comments, and you have competence concerns, go ahead and raise them. Zanahary (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's stay on topic @Zanahary, @Nableezy. - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will grant to nableezy that even if saying that a periodical being critical of the state of Israel means it should be avoided in statements of fact regarding Israel, Palestine, Judaism, and antisemitism isn't the exact same as saying only Zionist sources are allowed, it's very close to saying that. If editors avoid sources that criticize the state of Israel, doesn't that end up with the remaining 'usable' sources being those which are not critical of the state of Israel—those which either implicitly are uncritical of or which explicitly favor elements of Zionism. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarified above: "I think +972 has an anti-Israel bias, and an opinion editorial published by the magazine should not be used as a source to define a concept pertaining to antisemitism. Notable views expressed in said source can be included in the article, if attributed."

  I also didn't say "sources that criticize the state of Israel"—that's every good source—I said that +972 has an anti-Israel bias. Zanahary (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zanahary - Could you please briefly and concisely explain why you've stated that 972 has an anti-Israel slant or bias that affects its reliability? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The site's short "About" section says that it specifically "spotlights the people and communities working to oppose occupation and apartheid", which are charges pertinent to Israel and shows that it is openly a source with an agenda to criticize particular aspects of Israel's policies (as opposed to thorough coverage of the Israel-Palestine region, with no stated aim to "spotlight" any one opposition cause). In 2021, the outlet published an editorial criticizing the labeling of Hamas as a terrorist group. I don't even think 972 would deny that they have a bias, considering their stated advocacy aims in their mission statement. Thus, I think that statements of fact in this article should be sourced to better outlets (and also, not to opinion pieces like this one in question). Zanahary (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These supposed biases you've pointed out here (is "opposing occupation and apartheid" anti-Israel bias?) have no bearing whatsoever on the factual reliability of the publication. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've stated several times, my comment pertains to the use of a 972 opinion piece as a source for a statement of facts/the definition of a term or concept. I've explained my position on that matter clearly. Zanahary (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It sounds to me like you have conflated "Israel itself" with "a set of policies", as if anyone opposing the current policies is automatically opposing the country itself. However, perhaps they see their view as so pro-Israel that they want their country to be free of apartheid and occupation.

  Imagine someone saying that a source is "opposing racism" and that means they have "an anti-American bias", because there is so much racism in America's history and societal structure. Another person would say "Of course they oppose racism. Americans believe that All men are created equal. Opposing racism is a pro-American position." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t think that analogy applies here. It’s more like if an outlet that only writes about Israel and Palestine said that they’re committed to opposing a culture of martyrdom and religious repression of women’s rights. It’s not ambiguous which of the two nations they make it their mission to criticize. Zanahary (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WhatamIdoing's comment demonstrates that "opposing occupation and apartheid" can be labelled as either anti-Israel or pro-Israel depending on who is doing the labelling. It's not a useful way to talk about sources in the context of reliability. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And I think it would be clear that an opinion piece published by that outlet would not be an appropriate source to define and establish a phenomenon of bad-faith rhetorical charges of Islamophobia or racism or anything similar. Zanahary (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing in the piece to indicate it is opinion. nableezy - 00:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyone curious to see if this is an opinion piece or a piece of news should go ahead and read it. Zanahary (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's analysis (not opinion) by a resident editor, so higher than news. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence of the article gives the meaning of the title phrase as a way of defining the article topic. The question of source bias would matter if there was any other definition of "weaponization of antisemitism" out there, in which case we would need to present the alternatives or change the title. But there isn't. Even if the consensus was that this phenomenon doesn't exist, it wouldn't make a difference as we have plenty of articles on non-existent phenomena. Here we have an article on the topic that usefully provides the definition. Some of the article consists of opinion about the phenomenon, and we can consider whether those opinions should be attributed if they are cited in the article body. But for the definition itself, which is all that the lead sentence requires, it is a perfectly fine source. Zero^talk 03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Bias of the magazine aside, while the piece reads a bit like an op-ed I don’t see why it’s unusable as a source here. Would probably shy away from its reporting on the conflict, though. The Kip 05:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 972 is mostly opinions and carries the voices of the Israeli extreme left. It is a very small website, with little editorial oversight, and doesn't have a favourable reputation. Occasionally it hosts experts who belong to the same extreme left groups who post worthy content that is quoted by others, but other than that it is mostly garbage. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Mostly garbage"? Really?

  Also can I ask how you came upon this discussion?

  - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually it is not small and has a large editorial board of experienced journalists. It has a bad reputation among the extreme right, but so do most reliable sources. Zero^talk 08:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A range of sources are actually needed for balance, so if you're saying that it represents a portion of Israeli society that is otherwise marginalised, that's a great thing and a point in its favour. Not sure what "extreme left" means, but I assume it isn't militant communist. If we are talking Israeli politics, and we just mean to the extreme left of the extreme right, well then that just gets you back to the center, so presumably they're just ordinary chaps that oppose occupation, apartheid, genocide etc., i.e. normal positions that anyone from anywhere on the political spectrum in most countries would get behind. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia's article +972 Magazine in the section on Reception has "The same year, Israel's right-wing NGO Monitor accused +972 of being antisemitic for applying the apartheid analogy regarding Israel's treatment of Palestinians", which I think is a pretty straightforward example of what weaponizing antisemitism as described in the magazine's article is about! The author is well respected journalist and can be considered an expert in the field. I can see no problem with use for the definition though other parts of the article would need attribution. NadVolum (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For interest, that was added by an NGO Monitor employee here, and given that 21% of the edits to that page are by dishonest people that are now blocked for abuse of multiple accounts, ban evasion etc. the article may not exactly be a high quality source. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't agreeing with NGO Monitor! Perhaps they have also been at Self-hating Jew which seems to be used quite often against Jews who criticize an action of the Israeli gvernment - but that isn't mentioned in the lead. NadVolum (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The reliability is not the problem here. I'm 100% sure that no one's words have been misrepresented in the article. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV: whether this particular view is sufficiently widespread to be mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Alaexis_¿question? 14:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not clear that the views in source even factor into the page at this point. The source is simply used as one of four for a very generic, straightforward and common sense definition. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The implicit POV is that this is a notable phenomenon. Zanahary (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bring it to the NPOV noticeboard, this is RSN. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The source's POV is pertinent to their reliability for specific subject areas. Zanahary (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Really not how NPOV works. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can’t argue with that! Zanahary (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After that is done, it can join the referral to NOR noticeboard here, which also went nowhere. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]