Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 445

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 440 ← Archive 443 Archive 444 Archive 445 Archive 446

Scientific consensus statement signed by scientists, published by advocacy group

I don't need it particularly for anything but I'm trying to decide if a particular source is self-published. It's a scientific consensus statement signed by about 20 people, published by Save Tesla Park. It's unclear whether the scientists are associated with Tesla Park (which might make it self-published), but even if they are, does the sheer number of uninvolved people qualify as editorial review under the reliable sources policy? Or can advocacy group's publications (e.g. the Sierra Club, which is pretty big) qualify as non-self-published sources if they have good enough reputation (and possible editorial review)? For context, Save Tesla Park is a small-ish local group, I think, but not that small. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

For context this is related to the Corral Hollow article Mrfoogles (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
It does look like it is published by an advocacy group. What is claim is it being used for in the article? If is was published in a different setting like a newspaper or book or journal, it may be considered a RS. Sometimes advocacy group publications can be considered RS, but it matters on the claims being made. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
It looks like its from the same group as "savemountdiablo.org"
https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/A-stalled-housing-project-asks-Should-we-17029697.php
https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/flock-california-condors-spotted-contra-costa-18390891.php
Originally thought it was a NIMBY front group, but SF chronicle suggests no? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd say this is self-published as it not a peer-reviewed scientific assessment, and/or Save Tesla Park hasn't provided editorial oversight. Cortador (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree, a self selected group for advocacy rather than something by a scientific organization. If some secondary site says something about them then that's where any justification for including would come from. NadVolum (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Concur with @Ramos1990, @Cortador, and @NadVolum. If the goal is to represent the viewpoint of this specific group of scientists or Save Tesla Park, the statement could be used as a primary source to reflect their position. But for scientific claims about the ecological value of the area, it would be preferable to use peer-reviewed studies or reports from established scientific organizations or government agencies. If reputable secondary sources have reported on it or the broader debate, those would likely be more appropriate sources. W9793 (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: 972 Magazine

What is the reliability of 972 Magazine?

See previous discussions at RSN: [1], [2], [3], etc. See previous discussions in article Talk space: [4], [5], etc. Chetsford (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Survey ( 972 Magazine)

1 for the Levant: While 972 used to be a group blog, it is now a more conventional online magazine with editorial controls [6]. There is evidence of WP:USEBYOTHERS including The Washington Post [7], PBS [8], Al Jazeera [9], Vox [10], NPR [11], and CNN [12]. It has engaged with The Guardian on collaborative journalism projects [13]. It has named gatekeepers [14] and a physical personality by which it can be held liable for what it publishes. Use should be limited to news/events in the Levant; the publication's budget [15] precludes the realistic possibility it has original newsgathering capabilities beyond its home region and any reportage from outside the area are likely précis and should be referenced to their source. There is no evidence of USEBYOTHERS for coverage of topics outside the Eastern Mediterranean. Chetsford (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Clarifying addendum as to purpose of RfC: Dispute and contention have been endemic with this source, and the hundreds of articles in which it is used, on an ongoing basis for 10 years, with the most recent discussion ending without clear resolution just three months ago (e.g. here [16], and here [17], and here [18], and here [19], and here [20], and here [21] and numerous other places). Due to these frequent and ongoing disputes, often metastasizing into discussions that are left unresolved, I am left with current and active concern and confusion as to whether or not I can use or remove this source from an article and this question can only be resolved by formal community input, as all informal processes -- exhaustively and repeatedly attempted over the last decade without previous resort to RfC -- have failed. Chetsford (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
1ish for investigative pieces, 2 for opinion pieces: We should probably still use WP:OPINION policy for opinion pieces and only use opinion pieces with attribution. Some of the investigative pieces seem to have garnered respect from other respected news orgs, such as the Lavender AI piece being cited by WaPo. Does anyone know which articles are opinion pieces and which ones are investigative, and how to tell?User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Bad RFC The concept of pre-approving sources isn't valid. Any editors objections in the future can't be heard in this discussion, as that is the nature of causality. Without any current concerns with the sources there is simply no need for an RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
No valid reason to have this RFC per discussion below. In addition, there is no reason not to use this source.Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Option 4 and this whole deprecation system (or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Bad RfC "Option 4" deprecation (or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is) should only be proposed as part of an RfC with a very good reason, it should not be a standard option on an RfC at this noticeboard. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
1. An excellent source. Rigorous reporting, invaluable investigations. Crucially, in contrast to e.g. al-Jazeera it does not try to be comprehensive, but only reports on issues where it has itself properly sourced the information, so it is far more reliable than other Israel/Palestine outlets even though its coverage is more narrow. Of course, opinion should be treated as opinion, and it doesn't always clearly differentiate news and opinion (much of its content is "analysis"/"commentary", i.e. somewhere between news and opinion), but this issue c an easily be dealt with case by case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
1 - Bob has this covered fairly well, but professionally run and staffed, and has a stellar reputation internationally. nableezy - 22:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

1: It's a very competent source. I've never seen anything other than good work coming out of it. Normal rules apply to opinion, of course. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion ( 972 Magazine)

I don't think an RfC on this source is needed at this time, per RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. The source is only used in about ~150 articles, and the most recent discussion on the source was nine years ago. BilledMammal (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The most recent discussion was three months ago (sorry, neglected to add the March '24 discussion to the lead; now fixed). It's been cited ~500 times [22] (albeit not exclusively in mainspace). Given its extremely limited editorial focus, I feel that meets the threshold of wide use. Chetsford (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Is there any active discussion that the source is unreliable? Even the discussion from March seems to have consensus that it's reliable. This appears to be getting the source pre-approved, which is unnecessary and not a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
"Even the discussion from March seems to have consensus that it's reliable." My read on the March discussion was the exact opposite. Fortunately, we'll be able to sort-out these divergent interpretations via RfC. Chetsford (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
The March discussion was the result of disputed usage at an article but note that the cite remains in that article so it can be said that the objections were not upheld. If there are not any other recent disputes, then it seems that the credibility of the source is not being seriously challenged so this RFC may not really be needed. Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
While not doubting the genuineness of your belief, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the outcome of that discussion. As for the source at the center of the last dispute remaining in the article in question, I'm inclined to apply Occam's razor to assume it simply means no one bothered to remove it, rather than it representing a coded message that the source is reliable. Given our impasse, some means of resolution is apparently needed. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
The first type of consensus is by editing, so yes the source staying in the article does show some form of consensus. Also there is simply no current issue to be discussed, having an RFC just because shouldn't be how it's done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
"Also there is simply no current issue to be discussed" While not doubting the genuineness of your belief, you have stated your interpretive assumption the last discussion arrived at a clear conclusion that 972 is reliable and I have said my interpretation is that it arrived at a clear conclusion that it's unreliable. That seems like an issue that needs to be resolved. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. "The first type of consensus is by editing" The second type of consensus is through formal process when an editorial impasse occurs, as is happening here between you and I. Per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS ("When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit... several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment...") I have chosen not to remove 972 from the article in question -- despite my interpretation of the March discussion -- only in the interest of maintaining editorial decorum and order. With due respect, it seems unnecessarily pointy and procedural to intransigently insist it first be removed to create a formal record of disagreement before you will indulge any further discussion on the topic. Chetsford (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
If you want to discuss once more that particular cite, that can be done, at the relevant article, or even here, once again. There is no need to have an RFC to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
"If you want to discuss once more that particular cite" I want to address all the citations in which it's used across the project, and in every article in which it appears. Chetsford (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Somewhat agree with BilledMammal. No need to start a discussion for a source that is not used that often. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
It would be used more often if people stopped claiming it was less than reliable. nableezy - 11:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Other than the March discussion have there been others where it has been claimed to be unreliable? If there has been it would certainly give more meaning to this RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
"Other than the March discussion have there been others where it has been claimed to be unreliable?" Here [23], and here [24], and here [25], and here [26], and here [27] (and more I'm omitting for purposes of brevity), plus numerous instances where editors have reverted statements sourced to it sans discussion with non-RS edit summaries, etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
No not discussions from a decade ago, recent discussions. Who recently has been claiming it's unreliable? Diff of edits were it's been removed as unreliable would be as good (if they are recent). Otherwise go use the source, if someone objects start a discussion with them, if you can't come to a consensus come back here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
This continually moving target where you won't engage in discussion unless your demand for examples is met, then when examples are provided they're not of sufficient currency, then when those of sufficient currency are provided they're not of sufficient quantity, is difficult for me to track, though this may be a personal failing and, if so, I apologize.
In any case, it seems we're at a discursive impasse that informal processes are incapable of resolving and a formal process would be the best way forward. If you'd like to start an RfC on the applicability of the RfC I won't object, though, I'd suggest it'd be needlessly procedural and would be easier to simply participate in the RfC or not, at your singular discretion. This will probably be my last comment on the matter as I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I appreciated the conversation. You raised many interesting points on the ontology of the RSN that are worth future contemplation and I can assure you I will spend time thinking about them and seeking-out ways to incorporate them into my own editing. Chetsford (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Is questions of reliability necessarily the reason why its not used often? I mean it clearly still is used, often with attribution.
Though, I suppose based on Chetsford's reasoning, if folks have questions about reliability, we should consider doing this RFC to confirm reliability, even if some of those questions happened a while ago. Having more choices of reliable sources is always good. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • While I agree with it being generally reliable, I also concur with those above that an RfC isn't really necessary here - there's not much discussion of use in recent times, and what does exist generally agrees it's reliable. The Kip (contribs) 05:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Verification of a phrase

There is a disagreement between editors on whether this article (archived) from The Daily Telegraph verifies the phrase "battle of Kherson". SaintPaulOfTarsus has indicated twice ([28][29]) that it does not, however, I have found the phrase in the article. A discussion was being opened up here since it seems other editors need to verify to see if the article verifies the phrase or if it does not verify the phrase.

P.S. I do not know where else to go for a verification-related issue (excluding the article talk page with 52 views in 30 days) and WP:V mentions that for discussion on sources, this is the place to come, hence why I opened a discussion here as this pertains to a verification-related discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Greetings WeatherWriter, you seem to have misinterpreted my use of the failed verification template, feel free to leave a message on my talk page first if there's any ambiguity with my edits in the future. I wasn't disagreeing that the phrase "battle of Kherson" can be found in the Telegraph article; rather my issue is with the sentence The battle of Kherson began on 24 February 2022, as part of the southern Ukraine campaign of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, specifically the first part of the sentence. I'm sure we can agree that no exact date is specified in the Telegraph source. Anyone else reading this can consider this matter resolved. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Blog comment

Gaza Health Ministry#Other analysis cites an opinion from "Ken M", an anonymous commenter on Lior Pachter's blog. This would normally run afoul of WP:USERGENERATED, but there has been an interesting argument for keeping it: the comment was quoted in another blog by James Joyner, who arguably has some relevant credentials.

Does inclusion in Joyner's blog successfully "fix" the reliability of the anonymous comment? My sense is that this could work in principle, but in this case Joyner doesn't really discuss the comment, so he's not really corroborating the argument and lending his credibility to it. He does call it an "insight" though, so that's something.

This was discussed a little on the article's talk page, but input from uninvolved editors would be helpful. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Ken M? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I assume it's coincidence but that's interesting! — xDanielx T/C\R 00:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that this is a situation of a citation/link rather than a source/reference. Content has to be cited to a reliable source, i.e. we write based on the sources, but we can link to whatever. That is to say: if Lyin' Larry's Blog O' Lies publishes an article called "Edward Snowden Is The King Of England", this is obviously untrue, and should not be cited as fact anywhere (and indeed shouldn't be cited as opinion unless it's WP:DUE. But if someone in a real publication mentions this blog post, it's helpful to our readers if, when mentioning that, we also link them directly to the post. This doesn't mean Lyin' Larry's Blog O' Lies is a reliable source, just that (given that someone else already established it's noteworthy) we're giving people a way to see what he said. jp×g🗯️ 02:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree in principle, but is this noteworthy in this case? It’s one blog citing a comment on another. Seems undue. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

panarmenian.net

i recently removed a link to https://www.panarmenian.net from WP:WikiProject Armenia because it's marked red by a script i use, owing to being designated as unreliable over at WP:New page patrol source guide, and it was restored by (courtesy ping) Archives908. looked into it further, and it's only been actually discussed once at RSN with minimal participation back in 2020 (/Archive 314#Panarmenian.net and pan.am (PanARMENIAN.Net)) and as a brief aside to another discussion in 2022. it's used in quite a lot of articles, so i think it'd be good to nail some consensus down if possible. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

it should also be noted that our own article on PanARMENIAN.Net has several valid maintenance tags indicating that it's promotional, so i don't think it will be particularly useful for our purposes here. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
This is an established media outlet, you can find their editorial team's contacts here. Are there any reasons to doubt its reliability? Alaexis¿question? 20:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
i don't know; that's why i'm opening this discussion - it's been marked "unreliable" for a few years but there's not been much discussion about it; if it's a good source then our project pages should reflect that. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
That's not the first time I encounter highlighting that is not based on any community consensus. I'll ask this question at the script's talk page. This noticeboard is for discussing sources in context. Alaexis¿question? 21:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
this isn't an issue with the script itself, as the script just reflects what our various source lists, such as the NPP source guide, say. i'm not sure what the benefit of moving a discussion here to a much less visible location is, and i think it's worth actually discussing this source on its merits. the link above doesn't give much detail about their editorial team - no names, credentials, or anything. it seems like most of their stories don't have bylines either, from what i can tell. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
It *should* reflect the WP:RSP, but now it doesn't and this is a problem.
As you can see at the top of this page, this noticeboard is for discussing sources in context and the initiators of discussions are supposed to "supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." Alaexis¿question? 10:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Its article is almost purely promotional. Unsourced praise, a mission statement, awards and recognition and notable projects none of which are valid by our policies. I've stripped a lot out. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Closed archived discussions, again

RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six) was archived on 2 May 2024. Tpbradbury edited the archive to "close" it on 28 June 2024. David Gerard reverted on 30 June 2024. Red-tailed Hawk put it back on on 2 July 2024. I hope that Tpbradbury will read earlier thread Closed archived discussions, and the threads it references from before that, then self-revert. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE should not be necessary when the very act was wrong. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The closure faithfully represents the discussion's consensus. Would you prefer that the user have unarchived the discussion, inserted the exact same closing statement, and then waited for the bot to come around and archive it again? I'm struggling to understand what we gain from that other than extra steps to attain the fundamentally same result. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I do think we should unarchive discussions before closing them, unless some extreme space issue makes such an action unwise. A new thread with a pointer to the closed discussion would also help. I don't think we have a rule against closing archived discussions, nor do I think we should have one. Our backlog at WP:Closure requests is frequently longer than the archiving period, and I don't want to encourage "bumping" behavior. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
For reference it was a requested close. CNC (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I hear the NOTBURO argument, but it would be nice if there was some way for participants to be notified when a discussion is closed, even if it's closed in the archives. Right now, neither watchlisting nor subscribing will tell you when an archived discussion is closed. Pulling it out of the archives and closing it will (I believe) notify both page watchers and thread subscribers. I'm not sure if there is another, better way, to accomplish the same thing. Levivich (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
There's no need to unarchive discussions, but I would suggest adding a notification to the board that the RFC has been closed. Unarchiving discussions just causes the board load to become overburdened and difficult to load. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The archiving on the page is short to keep the board functioning. Do the close in the archive, and notify the noticeboard it's been done. There's no need to bring sometimes extremely large discussions back from the archive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I think we should make it so the noticeboard doesn't archive stuff unless it's closed, or at least make it respect something like a "pending-close" template... We have an entire stupid beer disaster because the bot decided to archive that UNBELIEVABLY GIGANTIC ADL RfC, which I have to manually bring back, which messed up the archiving for a while. How idiotic would it have been if that whole discussion had just gotten archived after months of discussion without anybody bothering to close it?? jp×g🗯️ 20:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    There was already a close request at WP:CR fir the ADL discussion and it had details of which archive it could be found in.
    As an example of a better option. The RFC for Mondoweiss was archived, the close was posted to the noticeboard, all without making loading the noticeboard an issue. As the close went to review it obviously didn't cause any issues with visibility. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    This sort of practice is sensible. Balances the WP:NOTBUREAU concerns with the ability of watchers to see that a discussion was closed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
So for example, this RfC I noticed the bot removed the tag from (yes, I occasionally stalk archives). I would like to close it with the relatively clear consensus that has been established; should I return it to the noticeboard with a closure, or simply notify of a closure? For reference sake it's not a particularly byte heavy RfC, and despite the lack of CR, I believe it should be closed. CNC (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
It should be unarchived and then closed. Most people don't have the archives on their watchlists. PackMecEng (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Right, follow the rule at the top of the archive page ("Do not edit the contents of this page.") and follow Help:Archiving a talk page ("... unarchive it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive.") But not on a discussion that's been effectively closed, as here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Soccerdonna

I feel like this thread will just be a formality based on the fact Soccerdonna.de is part of Transfermarkt (noticeboard thread) - and, frankly, far more England-centric (more likely to be unreliable if not actively biased).

A few days ago, a question about handling RS at List of most expensive women's association football transfers was asked, and I lamented how some entries were still reliant on Soccerdonna transfer profiles. And then I remembered that transfers at Transfermarkt aren't RS, so there's no reason not to apply the same to Soccerdonna.

As there are four entries on that list that have Soccerdonna as the only source, and another that has it as the main source, I thought a community discussion should be held for Soccerdonna specifically before removing/editing those entries based on Transfermarkt being non-RS. Kingsif (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that both Transfermarkt and Soccerdonna both have a login button, I think Soccerdonna falls in the category of WP:USERG. If it is judged as unreliable, many pages which has this site as sources will need to be changed[30] as well as the article linked above. Looking at the terms and conditions, one of the sentences from point 4.1 says You are responsible for all content such as texts, data, photos, photo series (hereinafter "content") that you send to Transfermarkt., so I'm guessing anyone can edit. Therefore I will vote in saying this would not be WP:RELIABLE. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
A lot of these links are coming out of the Sport links (see module), have shared it over there. CNC (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Snopes Author Attribution Changing

Hi all, I've noticed Snopes, started by David and Barbara Mikkelson, across the years is changing author attribution for very old articles. It's difficult to see many examples as URLs have changed in very recent years, but

Unattributed / David & Barbara -> David [1a][1b] [2a][2b] [3a][3b] [4a][4b] [5a][5b]
Barbara -> Barbara & David [1a][1b] [2a][2b]
Barbara -> David [1a][1b].

I cannot tell when these changes were undertaken, but the original attribution was up as late as 2011 for at least some of these. This is troubling because it seems the changes happened around / after the Mikkelsons divorced, Barbara no longer was active in the website, and before David stepped as CEO due to poor journalistic ethics. It is possible it is not nefarious.

At this time I am unsure who to attribute authorship of articles to. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Important to note there are still articles attributed to Barbara. [1][2][3] Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Without any further details, or any third party commenting on it, I would just put this down to articles being updated and the author details changing as the updates are done. It could be related to the divorce, but if that is the case it wouldn't impact the articles themselves (other than the author details changing that is). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

pakmag.net

I need an opinion on this source pakmag.net, which is heavily utilized in Pakistani articles related to film and actors. Per external URL stats,, it's being currenly used in at least 350 articles. The website's footer states, PAK Magazine is an individual effort to compile and preserve Pakistan's history online... and I am not responsible for the content of any external site.... which suggests it is a self-published source. Should we permit its usage in our articles? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This is one individuals personal website (some digging turns up this, although it's two decades out of date), and there's no indication they would be considered a subject matter expert in anything relevant. The website claims to only be compiling information, so it should be possible to find the same content elsewhere. Definitely a case of 'better source needed'. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Kinesiology Review at Feldenkrais Method

Is this statement source appropriate for inclusion in the article?

A 2020 review of recent literature in Kinesiology Review found "research clearly supports the effectiveness of the [Feldenkrais Method] for improvement of balance and chronic pain management."

Stephens, James; Hillier, Susan (2020-08-14). "Evidence for the Effectiveness of the Feldenkrais Method". Kinesiology Review. 9 (3): 228–235. doi:10.1123/kr.2020-0022. ISSN 2161-6035.

Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 17:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's opinions. I'm content to consider this thread closed as not reliable for the claim. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 19:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Kinesiology Review)

  • Kinesiology Review is not indexed by MEDLINE, which is a major red flag for medical citations. One of the authors (Stephens) seems to be a practitioner of this form of Altmed (his affiliation is an individual practice offering such) and would appear to have a COI. This is not the kind of source that we should rely on for this kind of WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim about altmed. - MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • This Kinesiology Review review of recent evidence is peer-reviewed; the journal has a well regarded editorial board; the finding is supported by other sources. Kinesiology Review is indexed in Web of Science and has an Impact Factor of 1. This is the type of source MEDRS looks for in its structure and function. The fact that one of the authors is an expert in Feldenkrais is a feature not a bug: we want experts involved in research, and that's only one of the two authors. (For example, if this was a study related to cardiac surgery, it would be expected for a cardiac surgeon to be involved in its conduct). Ocaasi t | c 19:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Kinesiology Review publishes primarily applied kinesiology not Kinesiology unless I am mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    [31]: The academic discipline of kinesiology is taught and researched in colleges and universities and is to be differentiated from Applied Kinesiology and other fields that use the term “kinesiology” (dental, spiritual, holistic, bio-spiritual) some of which lack grounding in the scientific study of physical activity. So, it really seems to be about kinesiology, not applied kinesiology. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    They don't like the term... But they do actually publish applied kinesiology, notice how they're saying that only some of which lack grounding in the scientific study of physical activity when they all lack such grounding? They cloak Applied Kinesiology in the veneer of kinesiology but its the same woo woo bullshit, the American Kinesiology Foundation doesn't support academic kinesiology they're attempting to break down the wall between the academic and the applied. Look at this study for example, one of the authors is an applied kinesiology practitioner (and not an academic or scholar unless I'm missing something, but a practicing physical therapist). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Since the paper is 4ish years old, I tried to check if other RSes had cited it and the [results are pretty unimpressive with only one citation in a journal from a reputable publisher and nothing at all that would qualify as mainstream medical literature. So, based upon what I have seen so far, I am skeptical that this a WP:MEDRS-compliant source that can be used to support claims such as the method's effectiveness for pain management. Abecedare (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Low-impact, non-MEDLINE journal article making unusual claims for a known pseudoscience. Avoid. Bon courage (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_161#Reliability of Kinesiology Review? for a previous discussion about this article. WPMED people weren't impressed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hypable, Fansided, and Wordsrated in list of best-selling books

In the list of best-selling books, Hypable had been used to support Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets having sold 77 million copies. Fansided had been used to support the Harry Potter books afterward having sold 65 million copies. I removed these entries because I found these sources to be inadequate. These sources seemed to in the same camp as sites like the Valnet properties in which the focus more on entertaining than informing an audience. As such, I removed these entries. However, an anon has reinstated the entries, using a website that seems even more questionable: Wordsrated, which is primarily a tool to help with word games.

Of course, there is a chance that this is all just a gut feeling on my part. I've already started a discussion at Talk:List of best-selling books#Harry Potter, but I figured I'd also start discussion here to focus on the sources themselves. What are your guys' take on this. Lazman321 (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  • There's no indication that fan-facing book promotion websites have the independent reliability to know those stats – if they are accurate, a better source will have reported them. Based on Wordsrated's other fact boxes, it almost certainly just copied the information from Wikipedia at some point (WP:REFLOOP). I would remove them pending better (pre-dating) sources. Kingsif (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your response. I'll remove the entries. Lazman321 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Aleteia

Two past discussions. One said no way and the other is a very deep dive into Catholic publications.

Used at 2021 Canadian church burnings to source police-blotter stuff about three different fires three years ago. Elinruby (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It's good for attributed information on church subjects. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
it's being used to reference fires. Unattributed.Elinruby (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
attributed to fires that occurred in Churches, isn't it? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
yes, the fires in question were at churches, but "attributed" here means saying "according to "Aleteria", and we are not doing that. 20:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't feel this would be the best source for factual information such as incidences of church burnings, as it isn't always clear with its sources of information, and many articles read as opinion pieces. Overall, other sources would be preferable.
It openly describes itself as focused on Catholic evangelism, which I find concerning for using it as a main source.
The quality of articles seems to vary greatly depending on the topic, author, etc.
Some appear to be clearly opinion-based while some seem to be fairly plain descriptions of events related to the Catholic Church like a new bishop appointed.
It actually has featured some very interesting and nuanced discussion of fraught topics such as Residential Schools, (e.g. in this article where the individual being interviewed about Residential Schools admits the severe abuses and harm that occurred, acknowledging the existence of gravesites, references denialism, and overall discusses the topic with a fair amount of nuance [1])
Overall, however, I don't personally think it's reliable enough to stand on its own, particularly on a highly controversial topic such as the Canadian church burnings, which have been the subject of conspiracies. Use of other news sources to support claims would be beneficial. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@Fluorescent Jellyfish
From where would you think ample reports of Church burnings will come from other than the sources related to the Churches?
Let me put an example which I have come across few years ago.
Some giant news media which I don't recollect now, something like BBC or Guardian, reported
in detail on the survival story of a man who was stranded in sea alone, there was a local media report too in English on the same story around the same date. The only difference between the two news reporting was survivor's story relating to God/Bible/Jesus. This giant media selectively censored that part of his quote from their reporting. If say a wiki article on survivor exists and I am about to add his story how bible/Jesus made him strong when he was stranded in sea alone bh citing the local news, wouldn't then some editor remove the content saying unreliability of source, ie., the local news? In short if source to context isn't analysed, every part related to Christianity wouldn't be there in Wikipedia as these giant medias only shy when it comes about Christianity not when Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism is at discussion.
So instead of discussing reliability of source as a whole, source in relation to the context where it is used as source is the one which is needed to be analysed and discussed.
The exact context including the part of sentence which used Aleteia as source hasn't been provided here yet. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
"From where would you think ample reports of Church burnings will come from other than the sources related to the Churches?"
Incidences of church arsons are also reported in many news sources that are known to be more reliable, such as CBC [1], The Edmonton Journal [2], and various other sources for individual incidents. Therefore it doesn't seem necessary to also include citations to a questionable source like Aleteia. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
@Fluorescent Jellyfish
yes, if there are news for the fire at first three churches from sources that are already deemed as reliable sources, then it is sufficient. If the information on the burning of fourth Church is only available from publications such as Aleteia, it has to be heard and placed in Wikipedia. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Why must a spurious source reporting on something nobody else is be included? What does it "have to be heard and placed in Wikipedia?" Lostsandwich (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
It does not... See WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, evangelical and .org/advocacy groups should always be considered unreliable by default. They are not only biased, but biased to the point where, in my experience, few people outside the organization consider them trustworthy. (There are exceptions, but they're for well known, exceptional organizations.) Reliable sources are supposed to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and the onus here should be on anyone who considers Aleteia reliable (or even "good enough") to prove it. Woodroar (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Aleteia is not an Evangelical Christian website, but a Catholic one. I'm a bit confused as to the appeal to that here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Sectarian sources can be reliable, especially independently managed ones. This is one such entity. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Looking a bit deeper, Aleteia appears to be consistently one of the better Catholic news websites. Since 2015, it has been operated by Média-Participations, a longstanding publisher based in Belgium. Aleteia has been involved in a consortium of fact-checkers who sought to dispel myths about COVID-19 and vaccination that were circulating in Catholic circles, and that consortium seems to have been fairly reputable. And I do see the website cited for facts in scholarly works (e.g. 1, 2 3, etc.). The website does seem perfectly fine in terms of reliability for these sorts of "police blotter" items. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I do agree that Aleteia has articles that feature good nuance and quite factual reporting (and I admire their efforts to fight misinformation around Covid vaccines).
It's a really interesting source, because the quality and non-biased presentation can vary s quite a bit.
For instance, this article features some pretty thoughtful discussion of the ongoing crisis in Democratic Republic of Congo, and the need for aid as well as the potential role of the Western desire for resources. And this one about a coalition of Canadian Catholic schools suing tech companies over social media's effect on kids, it shows its sources and presents the subject in a pretty plain manner. Overall, most of their news reporting looks pretty decent - not, like, top quality, but definitely not bad - and I'm pretty impressed!
This, for instance, is a really good article on Residential Schools in the US, and specifically used terms like "forced assimilation", etc., not shying away from the realities of it.
When it comes to the non-news articles (like opinion pieces), it can get a bit dicier. I'd definitely urge caution when it comes to opinion articles as opposed to news articles, and making sure the reporting is clear on where the info comes from.
But honestly overall, having spent a couple of hours exploring... I have to revise my prior opinion somewhat to give them more of their due. I think that Aleteia could be used with caution, as it appears fairly reliable in many situations. It might be a good idea to support their claims with other sources, particularly for topics where they evince a slant (e.g. abortion, medical assistance in dying) but I am fairly pleased with their accuracy in general.
Yeah, I'd say usable with caution. Fluorescent Jellyfish (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Like any WP:NEWSORG, Aleteia contains both factual content and opinion content. When it comes to the non-news articles (like opinion pieces) that you mention, we generally would treat them in line with WP:RSOPINION. That is to say, those pieces would be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. This would distinguish from their news reporting, which appears to be quite good. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't have an issue overall with the inclusion of the information, it seems reasonable and not strongly biased (the article spends some time mentioning the Residential Schools)
But am I misreading the references on the wiki article? Nowhere in the Aleteia article is "St. Kateri Tekakwitha Church in Indian Brook, Nova Scotia". Lostsandwich (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)icle.t re
Nope you were not. It has been removed and replaced with a CBC article Elinruby (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
That's a very interesting observation. I am running out the door but will make a point of checking that later. We have already had one instance in the topic area of a source being both unreliable and misrepresented. As for the remarks about 'evangelist' above somewhere, yeah, the word as used here is not referring to the American neo-Christian movement, but to an older movement in the Catholic church to spread the word of God. Missionaries were evangelists. At least that is what dim memories of Catholic school are telling me. Elinruby (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
They're published and supported by the Foundation for Evangelization through the Media. They are not an Evangelical Protestant organization, correct, but they are nevertheless evangelists. Their About Us page mentions the "spiritual goals of the project" and "promote[ing] the Church’s presence in the media". Woodroar (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
While the term evangelical is used to refer to fundamentalist Protestantism in the U.S., it literally means to be in adherence with the Gospel. There is no evidence that the use of the term evangelization is a reference to Christian fundamentalism. TFD (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I think everyone realizes that Elinruby (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Correct. Perhaps I could have said "evangelizing" instead. In any case, their ultimate goal is to preach the Gospel—and that, to me, is incompatible with a "news" organization. Woodroar (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
It's devoted to spreading the word of God and it's being used in the context of the harm done by people who thought the were spreading the word of God to show how the word of God is under attack supposedly. Elinruby (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I would say that in this context it either needs to be attributed or not used at all, they don't seem to be able to be trusted anytime their reporting is in an area in which the Catholic Church has a signficant interest (for example aledged arson against the Catholic Church). If this weren't related to the Catholic Church I wouldn't have a big issue with them, but in context I think that they're generally unreliable due to their strong bias and evangelical bent (those who don't think that Catholics evangelize probably shouldn't be commenting here). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment. No evidence of unreliability has been presented so far. There is some use by RS like the NYT, Le Monde [32] and Le Figaro [33], so it looks alright. Alaexis¿question? 14:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Thats the evangelizing people have been talking about... Its beyond the realm of traditional media and gets you stories like this one "10 Problems that Christ-centeredness answers"[34]... It certainly wouldn't be approriate or accurate to use this souce to claim at Addiction that only treatment plans which direct the subject to seek Jesus Christ are effective. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Has *anyone* tried to use it in this way? This thread is about church fires. Alaexis¿question? 21:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something none of the stories you brought up to support their reliability were about the church fires. You asked for evidence of unreliability, you recieved it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I was demonstrating WP:USEBYOTHERS which is an indicator of the reliability of the source. Alaexis¿question? 13:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Then what is the problem with my evidence which clearly demonstrated unreliability? Theres no good way to spin that, its either a complete disregard for fact checking or they know that they are publishing pious lies about adiction. In either case its a generally unreliable source, there is no way to publish that article and meet WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
This is not evidence of unreliability. They are not saying that "only treatment plans which direct the subject to seek Jesus Christ are effective". Honestly I don't think that statements like "Christ-centeredness addresses our personal issues" or "Are you addicted? Christ sets you free" are falsifiable. I agree that they should not be used in articles, but in fact they aren't. When it comes to facts, we have evidence of use by others and no evidence of publishing falsehoods. Alaexis¿question? 21:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
"Successful paths toward freedom from addiction such as Alcoholics Anonymous turn us toward him, because “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”" does appear to be saying that only Jesus Christ can cure addiction, which would be within the teachings of the church. The clear suggestion is that without Christ the addict can not overcome their addiction. These are all presented as facts... Which means they are falsifiable... Which means that they are published falsehoods... For wikipedia's purposes it doesn't matter why something isn't true, it just matters that it isn't true. Pious lies are as much of an issue as malicious ones. Its just as unreliable to say that Jesus Christ cures addiction as it is to say that garlic juice cures addiction... They literally publish this helpful prayer guide "Dear God, someone I love is an addict. I know there is nothing that I can do to get through. Logic, the perfect words, even love is not always enough to break through the haze. You are the only one who can help ________ find the motivation and the hope within to break free from the chains of addiction. Lord, you came to earth to free us from our sins. Pour out your grace on this world so in need of your love, especially upon _________, whom I love so much. Amen." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
You have to understand that there are inherent contradictions between being religiously orthodox and being accurate, all of the sources you mention are using them within that context. Its not hard to see either, the contradiction is in their mission statement: "The Aleteia site offers a Christian vision of the world by providing general and religious content that is free from ideological influences." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


There is now a discussion at WP:NORN here about the related article 2021 Canadian church burnings Elinruby (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Indian Residential School Survivor Society

[35] does not appear to meet standards for RS, thoughts? It's a dead link to a blog, although it *is* archived. It is being used at St. Mary's Indian Residential School to support "many other former students have fond memories of their time at the school" among other less questionable claims such as the number of students and that they were mostly Stó꞉lō, which seems likely given the location. This is from the About page: The IRSSS’s Education Project was created with support and in conjunction with the community-based Vancouver Foundation. It is designed to help educators teach their students about Indian Residential Schools by developing accurate, balanced, and engaging lesson plans and resources to supplement Social Studies and other course curriculums. I am thinking self-published advocacy although I think they are a legitimate voice that RS should listen to. But not themselves RS. Elinruby (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The link that you've provided itself notes only one source in a "further reading" section (it's unclear if this is intended as a citation). There's no indication of authorship for the page or any indication that it was fact-checked. I would say in this case, that page shouldn't be used for facts. If the IRSSS is being cited for an interpretation of facts, that should be attributed. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Although surprising to hear....statement can easily be sourced to other publications .....like Friesen, J.W.; Friesen, V.A.L. (1991). Western Canadian Native Destiny: Complex Questions on the Cultural Maze. University of Michigan. p. 112. ISBN 978-1-55059-355-6. I was raised by nuns. I have good and happy memories of my school life. The nuns were very good to me.... Moxy🍁 00:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't doubt it but it's currently not sourced to something else and changes are having to grind through noticeboards because the topic is plagued by a) defenders of the faith b) TL;DR c) editors who have never thought critically about the topic and d) something about reparations from Americans who know nothing about the history. Elinruby (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Who here is causing a problem? ..Talk:St. Mary's Indian Residential School has zero talks?Moxy🍁 11:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
And its sourcing sucks and doesn't need to. it is not, as I have pointed out all over this noticeboard, as though the sources are lacking. In 2021, yes, it was a bit of a struggle to source that there were plans to use ground-penetrating radar at a given school without using a press release, but three years in there are now local RS such as the Chilliwack Progress and peer-reviewed sources like the journal of the Canadian Medical Association for pretty much anything, I am finding. Elinruby (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The question was about a specific source. I answered that question. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes you did, and thank you. Ignore Moxy. He's been following me around making rude comments. I am not sure why. Elinruby (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Sono Nis Press

The article on St Joseph's Mission relies very heavily on Whitehead, Margaret (1982). The Cariboo Mission: A History of the Oblates. Victoria, British Columbia: Sono Nis Press.

The publisher's About page [36] seems reasonable. The source is mainly used to source administrivia about who was the principal at the residential school when, which is somewhat important given the criminal convictions among the staff. The source doesn't seem to be listed at Google Books, however, although I see it in several bibliographies there.

My own impression is that it might be a rather uncritical history, based on some other search results, but I am not actually sure how much that matters for things like: The Oblate priests lived in the same building that the boys lived in, while the Sisters lived in the girls building.

However when you get into things like this: The priests of the Mission relied on grand church-opening ceremonies to replace Indigenous rituals such as the potlatch, which they had now banned. Bishop Pierre-Paul Durieu founded the Indian Total Abstinence Society of British Columbia in 1895 at Saint Joseph's Mission to encourage prohibition on all reserves. Band chiefs under the Durieu system were encouraged to publicly whip people in order to encourage members to follow church rules, a practice which was tacitly endorsed by the government. However, a court case in which a priest and chief were found guilty of assault after administering thirty lashes to a 17-year old Indigenous girl for promiscuity led Bishop Durieu to found the Total Abstinence Society instead. (The government overturned the sentence after an appeal by the church.) The Society would become responsible for holding new converts to their pledge to give up alcohol, and to punish people who fell short.[1] I think it is a lot shakier. And am I the only one who finds the chronology there unclear? Normally I would try to clarify it based on the source, but since I haven't found the source online...Elinruby (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd like some input; thinking of adding a refimprove tag to article given that it relies so heavily on this one source and the report of the Truth an Reconciliation Commission. Elinruby (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Whitehead is a history professor, her area of study appears to be this specific issue, and the work appears to be used by others. So the work looks reliable. I can't say anything about the specific content, as I can't find the source online either. You could try making a request for pages 93–97 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
As to tagging the article you could use {{one source}} rather than refimprove. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
That is a good suggestion, thank you. And I missed the fact that she is a history professor. I will go ahead amd change the tag as you suggest. I feel a little better about using the source so heavily now, and will go ahead and address the repeated references. In some cases I would have questioned the notability of the staffing changes, but given the criminal convictions I think that in this case it is important to note who was in charge at a given time. Appreciate it. Elinruby (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Whitehead, Margaret (1981). The Cariboo Mission: A History of the Oblates. Victoria, British Columbia: Sono Nis Press. pp. 93–97.

Solomon Islands Historical Encyclopaedia, 1893-1978

Curious if anyone has thoughts on the Solomon Islands Historical Encyclopaedia, specifically its article about Peter Kenilorea (https://www.solomonencyclopaedia.net/biogs/E000525b.htm). The entire website appears to be written by one person, Clive Moore, but he's an academic historian and has written about the country in other publications. My other immediate concern is that in this particular entry, it lists Kenilorea's date of birth as 19 May, but most other sources list it as 23 May, including government websites. Another consideration is that Moore worked personally with Kenilorea as his editor when Kenilorea wrote an autobiography. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Practically, SIHE is Clive Moore's personal blog and not peer-reviewed; however, as you say, Moore is an academic historian and a highly regarded one. So, WP:EXPERTSPS applies, which means that we ought to report both the dates. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't have access to the full work, but this snippet from Kenilorea autobiography could be useful[37] "... 23 May 1943, a date I accepted as my official birthday until, only recently, I discovered, in July 2003, amongst Dad's old records, that "Kauona Keninaraiso ona Kenirorea was born on 19 May 1943". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Bare Bones ezine

https://barebonesez.blogspot.com/2011/12/robert-bloch-on-tv-part-four-alfred.html This ezine seems to be comprehensive in the material that it catalogues. It also has legitimate print issues. The issue is that it's hosted on blogger. Could anyone kindly take a look? — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 21:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that that article states that one of its sources is Wikipedia, this appears to be a WP:CIRCULAR issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Is pv-magazine.com reliable?

There is clear consensus that the source is reliable enough to come off the blacklist. Some editors consider PV Magazine to be generally reliable, and others are skeptical of its use of press releases. There's rough agreement that it's usable in some cases. Editors should be cautious about using its articles to establish notability. Almost all editors felt that its flaws were not considerable enough to justify continued placement on the blacklist. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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

3 independent editors (@Chris Capoccia @Reywas92 and me) have requested to remove PV-magazine.com from the spam blacklist (you'll have to reach the website yourself as I can't link to it). Admins declined the request as they claim RSN should decide if it is reliable first. So here we are.

It was blacklisted due to spam in 2011 (yes that's 13 years ago) and it remains there despite at least 14 requests to delist it by as many editors stating over and over again that this is an important source in the sector and it is absurd that it should still be blacklisted after all this time.

Here is a rundown of the 14 previous attempts:

  1. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2011#pv-magazine.com declined If a non-COI editor makes a later request, it could be reconsidered.
  2. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2013#pv-magazine.com ignored
  3. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2013#Pv-magazine defer to whitelist . One admin proposed to delist it but was ignored "It seems that Pv-magazine is the authoritative reliable source for photovoltaic topics, and it is often difficult (I have tried) to find alternatives"
  4. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2015#pv-magazine.com First Declined due to "no rationale to overcome the past spamming." (not sure what that means)
  5. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2016#pv-magazine.com ignored
  6. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2017#pv-magazine.com ignored
  7. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2018#pv-magazine.com declined without a reason (same admins) and Defer to Whitelist
  8. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2019#PV Magazine declined by the same admins and Defer to Whitelist
  9. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2019#Please could a different admin consider pv-magazine.com declined by more admins
  10. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2020#pv-magazine basically ignored
  11. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2020#pv-magazine.com declined, same admin same reason
  12. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2021#pv-magazine.com ignored
  13. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2021#pv-magazine.com declined again by same admins
  14. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2021#PV-Magazine declined again by same admins

Also there have been 8 whitelist requests of which several have even been approved (with admins even commenting Reliability of a site does not have a lot to do with the blacklisting, it is the abuse that triggers it Source).

All of those requests include links and specific attempts by editors to add this source to various encyclopaedia articles.

Basically this spiralled from a simple spam blacklist in 2011 to a total ban for reliability reasons but it doesn't seem anyone really believes this source is unreliable.

I believe this source is reliable. Thoughts? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 20:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The rationales for past declines were omitted from the description above. Here's some context.

  • The first delisting request listed above (May 2011) was a from a spammer who admitted the intent to spam, so naturally the request was declined.
  • The third one listed above (October 2013) suggests moving the domain to XLinkBot to see what happens.
  • The July 2016 request wasn't "ignored" (I struck that out above), the delisting was requested by the editor-in-chief of PV Magazine. It was answered. Requests from anyone with a COI are not actionable.
  • "a lot of the material on this site is regurgitated (aggregated) from the original (basically this is a primary source for most information, it is almost exclusively scraping information from primary sources and rewrites it" - February 2019
  • "As per prior requests, this is basically a trade paper that is based in large part on press releases and they are known to watch this page with a view to resuming linking, e.g. by employed writers.... There is no shortage of peer-reviewed engineering journals that are a substantially better fit for Wikipedia" - October 2019
  • "appears to be mainly churnalism" - January 2020
  • "Most of the material is churnalism, more than original journalism. They republish material. Examples, quoting from their front page: [examples given]" - May 2020
  • " it has useful information that it regurgitates from the original source. Only very little information on this site is original... we do have that standard, we remove primary sources / replace them with proper sources" - April 2021
  • "This is mostly just a primary source masquerading as a secondary source." - November 2021

I declined the most recent request, and asked that, once and for all, we get a wider community consensus. For the spam blacklist, administrators make use of this noticeboard to aid our decisions, both to add and to remove entries from the list. It has been a normal practice for us to request a link to an RSN consensus for delisting requests.

For my part, I'm in favor of letting XLinkBot handle this domain instead of the blacklist. As for reliability, it's likely a reliable source, but unnecessary to use if much of the material in it is simply regurgitated from other sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not impressed with the reliability of this source. Doing some spot checks, I see a bunch of non-independent content (articles written based on press releases and articles packed full of quotations). In my opinion, this source would never pass GNG.
I am not sure I agree with this idea that low quality sources should be un-blacklistable though. There are numerous examples of generally unreliable and deprecated sources that are not on the blacklist.
Here we have multiple experienced editors stating that this source does have some articles that would be useful to cite. I am inclined to trust our experienced editors rather than just reflexively keep this on the blacklist.
By the way, can you please link to a couple of the "higher quality" articles that you'd like to cite if this is unblacklisted? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Unreliable or deprecated sources that aren't on the blacklist, aren't listed because they haven't been spammed. Once a source gets on the blacklist due to spamming, we need to know (a) that we aren't risking future spamming by de-listing it, and (b) that its reliability makes it worth de-listing at all. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae I also haven't reviewed the entire website obviously so I agree the reliability of each single article should be evaluated by editors on a case by case basis depending on the context (like all sources!). However I am 100% sure that they should not be entirely blacklisted as a totally unreliable source as they do publish original high quality content. This is demonstrated by the fact that we have explicitly added some links to the whitelist and that top sources (such as The Guardian) cite them and use them as sources.
The article I wanted to cite is www.pv-magazine.com/2024/06/06/worlds-largest-solar-plant-goes-online-in-china-2/. It's a basic article but it reliably covers a niche topic and provides key data for articles such as List of photovoltaic power stations. I've checked and I don't think the topic has been covered very much by other sources. I don't see the point of not using such a source for simple facts (e.g. a new large PV plant is online). In the case of Midong PV (the largest PV plant in the world) our article is incorrectly stating that it is under construction while it is already in use. Blacklisting this source has made our encyclopedia worse.{{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Anachronist could you clarify what XLinkBot does? I've never heard of it. Thanks! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Gtoffoletto: See User:XLinkBot#Purpose & Scope. It lets established users add links but automatically reverts them if an unconfirmed editor or anonymous IP address adds it. That would allow you to link to pv-magazine.com but still disallow spamming from new accounts or IP addresses. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/03/25/turkey-introduces-duties-on-pv-module-imports-from-5-countries/ is not simply regurgitated but links to the official non-English government regulation. I think it will be easier for most readers of Solar power in Turkey if I cite this as well as the official announcement. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
And when I do a google search for news of “turkey solar panel taxes” https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/05/11/turkeys-solar-ambitions-range-beyond-its-borders/ appears second below an irrelevant article. I cannot see why I should waste time looking further down the search results when I want to keep the above Wikipedia article up to date Chidgk1 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Gtoffoletto for getting this started. I am not familiar with XLinkBot, but I believe this site should be removed from the spam blacklist, 13 years after the incident. Some articles that could be helpful include www.pv-magazine.com/2024/06/29/solar-leading-baltic-states-to-energy-security/ for Renewable energy in Lithuania, Energy in Latvia, and Energy in Estonia; www.pv-magazine.com/2024/04/13/weekend-read-take-off-at-last-for-egyptian-pv/ has information about Energy in Egypt#Solar and Benban Solar Park; www.pv-magazine.com/2024/06/28/israeli-startup-launches-agrivoltaic-pilot-in-desert-with-double-axis-sun-tracking/ could be used in Solar power in Israel or Agrivoltaics; www.pv-magazine.com/2023/12/28/california-rooftop-pv-companies-face-high-risks-says-insurer/ could be used in Solar power in California; www.pv-magazine.com/2023/05/17/lebanon-signs-11-solar-ppas-but-financial-closure-remains-challenging/ could be used in Energy in Lebanon; www.pv-magazine.com/2024/05/23/solar-buyers-market-but-us-developers-face-price-premium/ might work in Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act; www.pv-magazine.com/2021/12/18/the-weekend-read-24-7-hourly-matching-a-new-granular-phase-of-renewable-energy-sourcing/ has info usable at Renewable Energy Certificate (United States). While a lot of their articles are industry news that may not be encyclopedia-type content or have sufficient depth for GNG, I find pv-magazine a useful source for information about solar technology and installations. This is a subject area that is often lacking up-to-date or localized information on Wikipedia, and pv-magazine can help fill that gap, including with its international versions. In addition to some topical analysis, many articles report on official data, academic publications, or foreign language news that are not easily accessible elsewhere, even if editors should be advised that there may be primary sources that could be cited directly. Even if it's not the best or only source in all cases, I don't believe it is likely to add incorrect information and do not believe it should contine to be blocked entirely. Reywas92Talk 12:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Reywas92: See User:XLinkBot#Purpose & Scope. I think that would satisfy everyone, allowing established editors to add it while still maintaining some spam protection. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Anachronist, this seems reasonable. Reywas92Talk 15:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
XLinkBot hasn't run for over a year. It isn't an option unless the maintainers fix it. MrOllie (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Really? I didn't know that. @Versageek: @Beetstra: What's the story with XLinkBot? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm all for being prudent but if the bot doesn't work I really don't see why this precaution would be needed. It's been over 10 years since the last spam incident? I don't see any reason to suspect anyone will spam this again. I think the company that spammed this definitely "got the memo". And if it is spammed: the spam blacklist is one admin action away. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Okay, well, it might be a trade rag, but I'm hitherto unaware of any kind of Wikipedia policy where trade magazines with mid reliability are put on the spam blacklist, for Pete's sake -- is there an actual compelling reason it needs to be on there? The spam blacklist is not supposed to be the "spam-but-also-we-just-kind-of-keep-stuff-forever-once-it's-on-there-if-we-think-it's-mid blacklist". jp×g🗯️ 20:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    You're unaware? I've participated in the spam blacklist maintenance for years. Sites get put on the spam blacklist for spamming, period. They get blacklisted regardless of reliability or lack of it. PV-magazine.com had a history of spamming, therefore it was blacklisted. Once on the blacklist, administrators are reluctant to remove a blacklisted site unless they can be assured of two things: (a) it's unlikely to be spammed again, and (b) it's actually worth de-listing because it's a reliable source. Here we're discussing the reliability as an aid to an administrator decision to de-list. And that reliability, based on the prior discussions listed above, is questionable. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    It's certainly easy to be unware of this process because Wikipedia:Spam blacklist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist still do not say anywhere that a site must be established here to be reliable before they can be removed. Reywas92Talk 13:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
    Agree with @JPxG. This looks like an inappropriate use of the spam blacklist to me. It should be about spam not reliability. Of course there is no point in reinstating something that it unequivocally unreliable (e.g. WP:BREITBART). But this definitely doesn't seem to be the case. There is no consensus for deprecating this source or even claiming it is generally unreliable. Time to fix this. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    I'll remind you that this discussion isn't about the blacklist, it's about reliability. I'd like to see more participants chime in. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Regarding process and policy, assessments of reliability are editorial decisions rather than administrative ones. Normal Wikipedia practice is to allow automation to interfere with editorial decisions only when it's needed to prevent disruptive levels of vandalism and spamming. If automation is interfering with normal editorial processes then frankly it's the automation that is being disruptive.
The community has historically discussed, but not chosen to use, automation to block the addition of links to non-spammed, generally-unreliable sources.[41] Even total crap like Russia Today is not on the spam blacklist. A site that is not at high risk for future spamming should be removed from the blacklist and if any editor feels it should be re-added on reliability grounds, the onus is (or should be) on them to get consensus here to re-add it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe reliability should never decide what's on the spam blacklist, but this suggestion would at least help for this case and maybe verywellhealth.com. Does the suggestion mean change the WP:RS guideline? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Peter Gulutzan. I'm not sure what suggestion you're referring to, but as far as I can tell, nothing in the above discussion calls for changing the WP:RS guideline. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Er, I read "A site that is not at high risk for future spamming should be removed from the blacklist and if any editor feels it should be re-added on reliability grounds, the onus is (or should be) on them to get consensus here to re-add it." as a suggestion. I understood wrong, eh? Okay, never mind. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
What a wonderfully eloquent comment. Absolutely agree with @Clayoquot. Well done. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 19:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

opensource.apple.com and its mirrors

I have been trying to write an article on the Wilson-Kaplan direct-mapped (WKdm) virtual memory compression algorithm.

Its latest incarnation was declined (again) due to the reviewing editor stating that Github was not a reliable source and therefore causing the draft article to lose a secondary source which reduced the number of sources in most of the explanation of the algorithm to just one (primary) source, which is obviously not a sufficient number of sources.

The source code to which the secondary source in the draft article linked was on Github, but the specific repository was under Apple's official account and it was the official Apple mirror of the OSFMK / XNU source code repository available on opensource.apple.com .

The sources under question are links to specific source code files containing block comments in the OSFMK / XNU source code that provided a secondary explanation of the WKdm compression and decompression algorithm.

In summary, my question is whether source code in the repositories on opensource.apple.com and their direct mirrors (eg. on Github) can be linked to for secondary sources ( in my case eg. here ) -- opensource.apple.com is cited 117 times ( [42] ) in the enwiki.

Jdbtwo (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused these aren't secondary sources, they are (unless I'm missing something) implementations of the algorithm. They do not contain analysis or evaluation of the algorithm. They could be reliable in a primary sense that they could be used to show that the algorithm has been implemented into certain code, but they are not documentation of that code or secondary sources on the algorithm. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I guess they aren't secondary sources then -- the draft article has sources that would definitely qualify as secondary sources, as in the analysis of the benefits, performance etc. of the algorithm. I am a little confused because I thought the the original 1999 research paper would qualify as a primary source and any other explanation of the algorithm at least once removed from said primary source would be a secondary source.


Anyway the complaint that the reviewing editor had with the latest incarnation of the draft article was that "Github is not a reliable source." This is why I posted my question regarding the reliability of opensource.apple.com as the sources under question are in a mirror on Github of an opensource.apple.com repo, but they could easily be changed to point to the repo on opensource.apple.com.


As I stated in my reply to Bluethricecreamman, maybe this is just a lost cause and I should give up.
Jdbtwo (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
source code is def not a useful source for wikipedia, I think. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK probs applies, more specifically we aren't a source of technical info or implementation details for algos, and even tho comments aren't implementation, they are in the sourcecode.
If that algo isn't notable enough except as technical implementation, the article probs wont be approved. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, as I stated above in my reply to ActivelyDisinterested, the complaint that the reviewing editor had regarding the sources was not that they referred to large block comments in Apple's source code, but that "Github is not a reliable source." The repo that the sources reference was Apple's official mirror on Github of the corresponding repo on opensource.apple.com, hence my post here.


I know that source code itself is probably not reliable on Wikipedia, but what the sources in question in the draft article reference are large block comments near the beginning of the source code files which contain high-level descriptions of the algorithm.


The sources under question are used in the high-level explanation of the algorithm in the draft article -- the "Notable implementations" section of the draft article contain notable implementations of the algorithm, including Apple's OSX, the OLPC project, the Darwin-XNU kernel and others.


Maybe I am just beating a dead horse though.
Jdbtwo (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I have no clue about the consensus, but in general, I think source code comments should not be a reliable source. It's WP:PRIMARY at the very least (also in software engineering, deceptive comments regularly lie about what the code is doing anyways)
Try to find someone who references the comments maybe? Like a wired.com or something article that talks about how "According to the source code, x happens" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliablity of idlebrain.com for Telugu cinema

There have been earlier discussions on Idlebrain.com, as seen here. Additionally, articles here and here praise and mention the website as reliable.

The credibility of Idlebrain.com is well-documented with cited references on their wiki page. Highlighting some of them:

- In August 2002, Geetanath V. of *The Hindu* opined that Idlebrain.com was the most happening among the various film websites. - In April 2006, Y. Sunita Chowdhary of *The Hindu* called Idlebrain.com "a leading player in its segment." - In its October 2008 issue, the lifestyle magazine *Hyderabad Josh* noted that Idlebrain had a sizeable following among movie buffs in metropolitan cities of India like Hyderabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, Pune, and Bangalore. - In August 2009, CNBC TV18 wrote, "Idlebrain is an online Telugu movie ready reckoner for film buffs who find themselves working in a distant land." They also noted, "While most film websites run on industry gossip, what strikes you about Idlebrain.com is information about overseas screenings for Telugu expats starved of their regular dose of popular movie stars." - The website won the Andhra Pradesh Cinegoers’ Association award for the Best Telugu Film website in 2008.

Moreover, Idlebrain.com is highly referred to and trusted by Telugu cinephiles and has built quite a reputation in Tollywood.

Given this extensive recognition and credibility, can we establish Idlebrain.com as a reliable source for Telugu cinema? Wiki Reader 997 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

(Here after the discussions at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films) The points raised by the user are good and the praises by The Hindu and other sources are valid, it seems. However, on a surface level and after skimming a little bit in the website, I could hardly find it any different from a WP:BLOG. Nowhere in their about us section or disclaimer section have they disclosed their sources or any presence of an editorial team which can validate the reliability of their publishing. The layout and design of the page is very mediocre and doesn't look professional and reeks of self publishing. The lack of an editorial team is what concerns me the most. They are just another Sacnilk.com like cite for Tollywood it seems. Based on these observations, I'd place them in the unreliable category at WP:ICTFSOURCES table. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

amomama

Does anybody have any expertise or familiarity with AmoMama? I'm looking through a few of their articles from throughout the years:

These all come across as unreliable supermarket tabloid journalism at best, and I don't feel sanguine about using the source, but I would really appreciate the input of more well-versed editors. Thanks, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a low quality internet tabloid. I would avoid citing it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, I thought the same, but didn't want to judge it unilaterally. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
As soon as I opened the site, I got a popup about blocking malware from one of my browser extensions, so that's never a good sign. Schazjmd (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
That's great to know and certainly indicative, thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Worldatlas.com

Feels super clickbaity and there is a small team working on it but it appears to be used in a lot of articles. 48JCL 18:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Per [43], I get a WP:BLOG-ish impression. In cases like Balearic Sea I don't expect them to be wrong, but a stronger ref couldn't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
They have a fact-checking policy and an editorial team, for what its worth. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Is Reform UK a reliable source for its MP James McMurdock

Specifically his work history, especially given the comments at [44] - which I doubt is an RS we could use but informative. The article also uses a tweet and GB News. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Without looking at the article, I'd assume it's reliable to a WP:ABOUTSELF extent, "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;" etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Seems as though it’s been edited out. But the article uses GBNews, not sure it should. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't know much about them, but it seems the intent was sourcing a video where he says something the article quotes. However, [45]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

There are also a number of allegations flying around in relation to this MP. I attempted to add one of them, which if true was a matter of legitimate public concern, using thelondonecomic.com as a source, but I was told that this is a deprecated source. Maybe it should be, but would it be useful to have a discussion on this issue, since I don't see it mentioned at "perennial sources"? PatGallacher (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

While The London e-comic sounds a bit dubious, I don't find much on the London Economic in the RSN archives either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I think these articles attract a lot of new editors. Farage’s article is off, the section on Reform is more about him, eg his range of gins, nothing about the fact the party is a private company in which he owns the majority of shares. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I only have Gordon's atm, not much of a range I'm afraid (attempt at humour). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Kuffaar added some text with a source to the Divisions of the world in Islam and Kafir articles and upon his semi-protected edit request, Kowal2701 added the same to the Jihad article. Now, IntGrah has reverted those - see this and this asking Kuffaar to achieve consensus for adding that sentence. I don't know how to, "achieve consensus", so I request one of you to restore that sentence in both articles. For your information, https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam#Quotes mentions that sentence (the last sentence).-Ganeemath (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

This, "jihad" is mentioned in the Wikipedia article Milestones (book) also.-Ganeemath (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I’ve removed it from Jihad following CheeseDealers comment Kowal2701 (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
@The Cheesedealer and Kowal2701: The source says, "Offensive Jihad: Where the Kuffar are not gathering to fight the Muslims, the fighting becomes Fard Kifaya with the minimum requirement of appointing believers to guard the borders and the sending of an army at least once a year to terrorise the Enemies of Allah. It is the duty of the Imam to assemble and send out an Army unit into the land of War once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army he is in sin. And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of Jihad is for maintaining the payment of Jizya. The Scholars of the principles of religion have also said, "Jihad is Da'wah with a force and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until the remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam." Defensive Jihad: This is expelling the Kuffar from our land and it is Fard Ayn, a compulsory duty upon all.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, silly me did misread it. — 🧀The Cheesedealer talk 14:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
That content can be reliably verified doesn't mean it must be in the article. Rather all content that does appears in the article must be reliably verifiable. The discussion of what content should or shouldn't be part of the article should take place on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
OK, I have started a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam?searchToken=dgtqo0atw1slp3u345mionkcq#Removal_of_sourced_content -Ganeemath (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
We need some experienced editors to come and comment on the Talk page there.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I've notified WP:WikiProject Islam, hopefully that will bring some additional input to the talk page discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks!-Ganeemath (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested: So many editors have responded above at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Sources_for_Muhammad but nobody is bothered to respond on the Talk page I posted a link to above. What else can be done to draw the attention of other editors to come and take a look at the Talk page I posted a link to above (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam?searchToken=dgtqo0atw1slp3u345mionkcq#Removal_of_sourced_content)?-Ganeemath (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:Dispute resolution has advice on how to deal with content disputes. Also remember that other editors may not be able to respond immediately. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Paucity of reliable right-wing sources

The problem: There is a paucity of right-wing reliable sources that are trustworthy and usable. A few possibly good ones are mentioned in the hatted "Good and bad sources table" below.

Please name more right-wing sources that can be trusted. A test is their position on the myriad false or misleading statements by Donald Trump, especially his Big Lie of a stolen election. Are they honest about these things? If not, they are not RS and should be downgraded or deprecated.

If there is something in the hatted areas below you want to discuss, then please quote it and use that here. We need to keep the discussion up in this one thread. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal opinion is that with Trump (and probably even earlier around 2013-2014, as the Gamergame situation brought more of this to light), the sources on the right have either closely tried to stay close to just being to the right (like WSJ), or allowed themselves to drift far to the right to fight the explicit left-leaning bias (and to back up the type of cult of personality that Trump exuded), whereas the left-leaning sources haven't really changed beyond small shifts either direction). Hence, why I think we are never going to see an equality of reliable right leaning sources compared to what's on the left, at least for several years from now.
I could argue a few sources on that table between the middle and leans left columns, but that's minor and doesn't affect your fundamental point here. Masem (t) 19:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I largely agree. You mention the Gamergate situation and how that affected right-wing sources. I'm pretty sure you and others can provide even more information about that. I tend to focus on Trump's influence as the "great mover" for right-wing sources, as mentioned below. Look for "Trump's effect on the Overton window of media coverage." Until that time, no one with his type of influence had openly declared war on all media sources that didn't repeat his lies. I'd really like to hear your thoughts on specific sources mentioned below (or not). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I do now remember that even before GG, there was the basic Culture war in the early 2010s that was considered the trigger of GG, and of course laid the framework of misinformation to fight it. Fox News may have led the charge prior to that, but numerous factors gave way to the host of other sources.
The one thing that I do think might be unfair to use is labelling the two right-leaning columns as related to Russian disinfo. Could there be Russian disinfo at play with those? Personally, highly likely. However, until we have evidence from RSes, to back that, probably best not to label them that way. you can talk to how they do do misinfo (eg deny climate change, deny COVID, claim election interference, etc. in addition to presenting Russian disinfo) and hence why they will never be RSes until they distance themselves from it.
Also I would add the WSJ editorial board separate from the WSJ itself, and that would go into the "strong right" column. Masem (t) 20:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Excellent points.  Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Are you confusing "liberal-leaning" with "left-leaning"? Many in the left don't consider liberals to be left insofar as liberals are for capitalism and only support fiddling at the edges of the status quo on matters of individualism, which isn't a left or right issue per se. TarnishedPathtalk 00:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath: although you aren't asking me, I'll share my thoughts. I am a retired American who has lived in six countries with vastly different political systems, and lived in Europe most of my adult life. Liberals, and most of the left-wing in America, are capitalists. Only the most radical left-wingers are Social Democrats (who use mixed market capitalist economies), Socialists, or Communists.
I'll mention two different types of sources that back this view in different ways. Below you write: "occupyDemocrats are liberals, not left-wing." The "Media Bias Chart" from Ad Fontes Media rates Occupy Democrats as "Hyper-Partisan Left". Pew Research Center doesn't even use the terms "left-wing" or "right-wing" (although they occasionally say left or right). Instead, they substitute "liberal" and "conservative" for "left-wing" and "right-wing". See Political Polarization & Media Habits. That's a goldmine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Where I'm from Social Democracy isn't radical, in fact it's the stated ideology of the right faction of the Australian Labor Party (ALP). The right faction of that party is the controlling faction nationally. The ALP is the current party in power at a federal level and I wouldn't consider Australia to be a bunch of radicals. TarnishedPathtalk 03:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
My wording above isn't very clear. I'm describing the American POV. In Scandinavia, Social Democracy isn't radical either. In America, it's considered so, even though, seen from European and Australian eyes, it isn't. My understanding is that the progression toward the left end of the political scale is in the order I described. I'm personally a Social Democrat who thinks traditional socialism is too radical, and communism far too damaging to be used at all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Masem. However, I have noticed a decline in the quality of left-wing sources since the start of the pandemic, but it is not comparable to that of right-wing sources yet. Scorpions1325 (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Is there an actual paucity of right-wing reliable sources? Is there a lot more left-wing sources in comparison, such that it destroys wikipedia's credibility?
We easily filter out the worst left-wing sources, like occupyDemocrats, too.
Another possible test for right-wing sourcing is whether they acknowledge man-made climate change. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
occupyDemocrats are liberals, not left-wing. Liberals occupy a centrist to right-wing position insofar as that they support Capitalism and only propose fiddling at the edges of the status quo on matters of individualism. TarnishedPathtalk 00:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't agree. See my response to you above. (This has to do with differences between American and European views on left and right.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
That is not the universal definition, nor the most accepted definition, nor the original definition, nor the sole definition, nor (and most importantly) a definition that is supported enough to be complaining every time people use a more attested one. XeCyranium (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose the deprecation aka depreciation in this case. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
A good addition would be the Washington Free Beacon. It was previously listed as unreliable due ~entirely to a discussion [46] with two examples of 'false' claims, one of which is mostly true. They cite their sources and usually include links to evidence in their articles, all of their articles are attributed to a writer, and they're sometimes cited by reliable sources eg NYT as in [47]. That's because they sometimes break important stories, as in that example. Hi! (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a daft thread. It is not our job to try and find reliable right-wing sources. It is to assess what reliable sources say and relate it to our readers. It's not our problem if a lot of fairly popular right-wing sources are unreliable. A much bigger problem is the ongoing campaign to decree that sources which have right wing views on social issues are unreliable by default. In the long run this is going to kill our credibility.--Boynamedsue (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

What is going on here? This seems well off topic for the board, and to what end? It seems weird to be putting a "russian misinformation" lens over this, and exceptionally weird to claim that Gamergate was a significant influence on mainstream news media (I was "on leave" at the time, but as far as I can tell, it was an incredibly inside-baseball online troll war that largely passed mainstream news media by). And why is it only about newspapers? What about books and journals? And why is this thread orbiting American politics and Donald Trump, as if views on Trump were the sole determinant of what "right wing" means? I can't see a useful outcome here. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Gamergate had a significant influence on mainstream news media and mainstream politics. It was one of the pivitol moments in the rise of the contemporary Western right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
[citation needed] RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is going about things the right way... Reliable sources do a decent job seperating news and opinion content, it shouldn't matter how far left, right, or center the WSJ and NYT's editorial boards go as long as the reporting stays solid and reputable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
    • That isn't really the point. You are right that left, right, or center makes no difference "as long as the reporting stays solid and reputable". Source bias is okay, as long as it doesn't distort the facts. It's when we get into the far-right and far-left fringes that their bias is so strong that it affects their reporting. They start pushing narratives that please them, even if the facts are ignored or reported in a false light. My interest with this thread is more about learning of other right-wing sources that are generally reliable, IOW not radical. Please name some. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
      • That is the point as far as I am concerned. You are wecome to name some somewhere else, don't abuse this noticeboard and I will not be joining you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
        • Sorry about offending you. That wasn't my intention. I thought I knew why I created this thread. The backstory, which isn't described, is that we always have driveby comments and vandalism with claims of left-wing bias and not using enough right-wing sources. I'm a lefty and fully understand why there are so few reliable right-wing sources, and why most left-wing sources are more reliable, but I wanted to talk to the experts here (This board is about sources, right?) about the topic and get some suggestions. That's all. I'm not pushing any particular agenda. Just seeking to pick the minds of experts here. I learned a lot from Masem.
If there is a better venue to discuss this, please say so. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I do not accept the single-issue litmus test that OP proposes for "right-wing" sources. I cannot imagine such a litmus test being proposed for "left-wing" sources. Pecopteris (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@Pecopteris: I understand your initial reaction to my quick-and-easy litmus test for right-wing sources. I assume you're referring to this: "A test is their position on the myriad false or misleading statements by Donald Trump, especially his Big Lie of a stolen election. Are they honest about these things? If not, they are not RS and should be downgraded or deprecated."
That actually covers hundreds of issues, not one "single-issue", because Trump lies about literally everything, including things he doesn't need to lie about. It's just his instinct to always lie. See Trump’s false or misleading claims total 30,573 over 4 years in 2021. It's a really good test, because it establishes whether they have a connection to facts and the concept of truth in reporting. If they fail that test, they totally fail our most basic requirements for being considered a RS.
That's policy, not my idea. It's the idea behind this noticeboard. It starts with how competence is required to vet sources for reliability, very relevant at this noticeboard. Then how we judge whether sources use fact-checking and try to be accurate. These are central issues to the RS policy and this board, so we are very much on-topic in this discussion.
I also mentioned a huge one that controls the GOP and all MAGA, his Big Lie of a stolen election and his lies about (non-existent) voter fraud. You mention a "litmus test". Ironically, his Big Lie is often described as Trump's litmus test of loyalty. Not only did he make "shooting someone on 5th Avenue" a litmus test that has proven true, he has made acceptance of his big lie a litmus test. He is big on loyalty tests, especially fealty to his grotesque lies. See For Republicans, fealty to Trump’s election falsehood becomes defining loyalty test
I'd love to hear suggestions for quick-and-easy litmus tests for left-wing sources. Maybe best on my talk page. The same litmus test applies to them (they reject the lies), but maybe you can think of others, but they would be quite different and not related to believing a lie, but more about defending certain facts, like "vaccines are good", "climate change is real", etc. See some suggestions here: User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that the reason why we get accused of left-wing bias is because of some specific narrow issue with lacking right-wing sources. We have always been accused of bias (Conservipedia was created long before RSP was a thing.) The reason is simple - as an encyclopedia, we have an WP:ACADEMICBIAS. And large swaths of the right-wing movement in the US currently have an anti-intellectual strain to them. The things that make people on the right see us as biased aren't subtle nuances in our sourcing, they're the result of a conflict in our fundamental non-negotiable missions - things like a refusal to entertain creationism, or presenting anthropogenic climate change as fact, or dismissal of other positions that are clearly academically WP:FRINGE. More generally, while we should avoid articles that have lopsided sourcing, it's important to understand that many people will differ about how they categorize sourcing, and that the pop-culture / talking-head divisions in US politics don't necessarily reflect the divide in higher-quality academic sources. The balance we aim for should, when possible, be what you'd see in academia and similarly high-quality sources, which isn't necessarily the same as what people get on the evening news. Part of the reason why those pop-culture media-bias charts aren't very useful to us is because I think they tend to reflect that vibe-based pop-cultural divide, rather than a more rigorous understanding of what's academically mainstream and what is more exceptional, opinionated, or further towards the fringes.--Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

But remember, currently it isn't only about wp:ver. Currently the wp:RS 'shorter list" is also used to determine wp:weight etc on political viewpoints. So that means that what you just said is that on political topics, Wikipedia is coverage is biased towards what academia says.  :-) North8000 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


More about this problem
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The paucity of reliable right-wing sources is a problem. This is part of the reason we frequently receive accusations of a left-wing bias in articles. Documenting the bias in a source is proper and compliant with NPOV, but it would be nice if we had more right-wing sources that were reliable and usable.

The accusation reveals an ignorance of sourcing requirements, and how, because there is a paucity of right-wing reliable sources for political topics, there will naturally be a seeming "overuse" of left-wing sources, simply because the right wing has become radicalized, moved far to the right, and thus abandoned the field of accurate coverage to the left-wing sources. Very few right-wing sources are left that are moderate and reliable. Some are named in the hatted table below.

It is sourcing, not editors, that create the left-wing bias in articles, and that bias is factual, not just left-wing opinion. This is related to the fact that "Reality has a well known liberal bias" (Stephen Colbert) and that "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias" (Paul Krugman). Right-wing editors who fight to RGW make attempts to "neutralize" such content so it's NPOV, but they thus reveal their lack of understanding of NPOV, neutrality, and factual reporting. They want to create a false balance.

For more about this, see Trump's effect on the Overton window of media coverage


Good and bad sources table
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Main page: User:Valjean/Sources table

The groupings below are based on the "Media Bias Chart" from Ad Fontes Media. "(RM)" means controlled by Rupert Murdoch.

Generally good sources
Left Skews left Middle Skews right
The New Yorker The Guardian Reuters The Wall Street Journal (RM)
Vox The Washington Post Associated Press The Christian Science Monitor
The Atlantic The New York Times BBC Foreign Policy
The Nation NPR ABC News The Economist
Vanity Fair PBS NBC News Time magazine
The Hill
(depending on author) 		Politico CBS News The Fiscal Times
MSNBC Axios Bloomberg News National Review
Mother Jones CNN USA Today The Dispatch
The Daily Beast The Week
Bad, unreliable sources
Hyper-Partisan Left Skews right Strong right Hyper-Partisan Right
(some Russian disinfo)		 Russian disinfo
Bipartisan Report New York Post (RM)
 Fox News (RM)
 The Federalist RT
Occupy Democrats WSJ editorial board One America News Sputnik
Daily Kos The Daily Wire Drudge Report Zero Hedge
AlterNet The Daily Caller Breitbart News
MintPress News The American Spectator Newsmax
Palmer Report Daily Mail InfoWars
Patribotics Townhall
The Grayzone
(some Russian disinfo) 		RedState
The Western Journal
Blaze Media
The Gateway Pundit
WorldNetDaily
LifeZette
The Epoch Times

See also: Currently deprecated sources

novinite.com , outono.net , thenewdaily.com.au , vvng.com , allisrael.com , thespectator.com , tampabay.com , canberradaily.com.au

All claiming the recent shot's at Donald Trump was an assassination attempt before official confirmation. All well-established political and national news outlet's are not reporting this. They are just hyperbolic for clicks and should not be used on 2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally or Donald Trump

[48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54] & [55]. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: There is an open RM in which these sources are being cited. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Tampa Bay Times is a mainstream newspaper, associated with The Poynter Institute for Media Studies; presumably reliable. Canberra Daily is an Australian local newspaper, but the story byline is to the Australian Associated Press. The New Daily is an Australian newspaper, owned by, but editorially independent from, Trades Union-operated investment funds. These seem presumably reliable. Not certain why we would reach across the Pacific for sources, but if we did, the Australian Broadcasting Commission's ABC News is also supportive. The Spectator is a publisher of opinion content, and should attributed; to both the author and the publication.
I would, however, urge caution per WP:RSBREAKING and WP:NOTNEWS. Rotary Engine talk 03:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
As the page has now been moved and there was never a real question of the reliability of these sites, I don't think this needs any further input. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, this is clearly a SPS, as it's an anonymous blog by a single writer. I also question the reliability of this site. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Online publication in India as source for archaeological findings in British Columbia

[56]

The source that is being reintroduced in that diff quotes unnamed band official as "attesting" to a "paucity of excavation work and absence of bones", which is, I guess, *one* way of saying that the community is divided about whether to excavate any remains that are found, and therefore there have not been any excavations to date. The source's exquisite drive for accuracy and meticulous attention to detail is reflected in its quote from one of the foremost denialists of residential school deaths, whom it refers to as "she" even though his name is Jacques. This is not a mistake a Canadian publication would make, and indeed, it is owned by a corporation based in India. It is most certainly not an authority on indigenous affairs in British Columbia and by no means the only source available about the underground radar findings in Kamloops. 04:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Code Talker: reinserted the material, along with another uncited sentence to the same effect. Perhaps he has reasons he would like to share. Elinruby (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I saw this when following a link to the page on WP:RPPI and I was also doubting that this was a proper source. It's extremely iffy as the lone source for this. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
It's extremely iffy as the lone source for this
Time Now wasn't the only source. Times Now was reporting on a Canadian news agency called Western Standard's coverage on the issue that made headlines.
There are other agency apart from Western Standard independently reporting the same issue such as Blacklock's Reporter.
See this [57], [58] for the sources and lines അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
As discussed elsewhere on this page, Western Standard and Blacklock's also appear to be unreliable sources. If the main sources reporting on this are all unreliable, mostly or entirely with similar editorial bias, that makes this look quite questionable indeed, and Times Now getting even basic details of the people they're quoting wrong doesn't instill confidence that they're reliable, either. (The overall effect of seeing so many unreliable biased sources being used is to suggest there's a POVPUSH going on.) -sche (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Western Standard is not a RS, they are a biased source, similar to Rebel News, in that they push an agenda similar to what Trumpites in the US publish. Oaktree b (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

PS I have just noticed the Times of India RfC above. This website is owned by the same corporation as the Times of India. Elinruby (talk) NB - Daniel Case just now ec-protected the article but a good 40% of the issues are coming from editors with accounts, so this is not resolved. Elinruby (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC) @CodeTalker:

Well, if those edits are coming from autoconfirmed accounts, it is. For now. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Daniel Case Don't get me wrong. Because the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc were the first to announce underground radar findings, Kamloops Indian Residential School is the nexus of the denialism, and protecting it is huge. I have removed this sort of stuff from these articles...too many times. So what you did allows long-standing accounts but not new ones, is that what you are saying? I am not sure how many edits everyone has but this will definitely cut down on the Sandy Hook BS that's been going on. So thank you. Elinruby (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
EC is 50 days and 300 edits. We can also revoke it if it is abused. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@Daniel Case Not 30 days and 500 edits? I think you transposed the numbers. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes I did. Thank you (Although I think that ratio might not be a bad idea for some editors ...) Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
noting here that the source was previously reverted back in [59] by Riposte97, who may wish to comment. Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby claiming that editors who disagree with you are engaged in 'denialism' and 'Sandy Hook BS' is simply not productive.
Regarding the source, I think it should logically follow the Times of India RfC as a subsidiary thereof. Riposte97 (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree, since the same corporation owns them. You do know, however, that the reliability of the Times of India is being questioned in an RfC just a few sections up? As for your objections to "denialism", huh. We go by sources and that is the word that they use to describe people who are convinced that there are no bodies in those graves Elinruby (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
RfC in parent companies do not necessarily follow to subsidiaries. One only needs to take a look at Murdoch's empire for why that isn't the case. TarnishedPathtalk 13:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
That's fine. But doesn't it suggest that it deserves some scrutiny? Not that it matters, since the thing about the pronoun indicates MT and and I mean, look at it. Meanwhile I got 64,000 hits on Scholar, some of which would have been American residential schools. Still shows there is no need for this sketchy source definitely-not-best source Elinruby (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Of course scrutiny is warranted given everything presented above. TarnishedPathtalk 12:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Not sure the pronoun should be a reason to question the source… has gender identity been checked? Someone named Jacques could actually be a “she” under Canadian law. Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think I can convey how impossible that seems to me as a French speaker, but I realize we are in English here, so look, returns from an image search. That is not a woman. [60] Elinruby (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
note beard.Elinruby (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby, I think you didn't address the main issue in your post. Are there other sources whose reliability is not in dispute that contradict the claims added here (that no bodies were excavated and no evidence of graves was found)? Do you believe that they are false, and if yes, why? Alaexis¿question? 06:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

So the question would be: How would they know and what is THEIR source? Did they dispatch reporters to BC or are they just repeating what has been told? Presumably British Columbia or Canadian sources would know more about this because it's a local story. The CBC covers stories like this all the time with a lot of depth and neutrality. So the simple question is: what do they have to say? They should have priority for sourcing over foreign media. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: No question the CBC is a reliable source. On a par with the BBC. I would put CTV a little lower than that but not much. The daily nearby (!) would be the Prince George's Sentinel, afaik a broadsheet, and a tabloid in Hope does come out with a print edition. The Hope Standard is one of several online news sources run by something called Black Box Media, but they do a pretty professional job of keeping track of road closures and the local emergency levels. Also stuff about elections and bylaws and what ever. There are about 10 to 12 of those in places like Williams Lake and Agassiz. The Vancouver Sun is a fine paper of course. Globe and Mail is equivalent to the New York Times. Toronto Star is kind of People Magazine. I assume people know the Washington Post and the New York Times. I put a sample of journal articles in the thread above titled Canadian House of Commons and the Pope. Elinruby (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
These are all other sources are or could be used in the article. What do you want a source for, exactly, Alaexis? Elinruby (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I may be missing something, but I understand that the source was used to support this edit which added two claims to the article:
  1. As of March 2024, no remains have been excavated
  2. As of May 2024, investigations into the reported mass graves at the site have ended with no conclusive evidence of such graves.
Do you believe that they are false? Are there sources whose reliability is not in doubt that contradict these two claims? If yes, the question would be a no-brainer. Alaexis¿question? 20:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  1. As of when I was updating the article there had been two or possibly three excavations by archaeologists. Neither of them found bodies.
  2. there are many sites. Investigation has not ended in the sense of closing the file at most of them. There are many sources for this at individual schools. At some locations they are unsure whether they want to excavate, and at others they are debating where. There are lots and lots of sources for that also. Think ANI: consensus has not been achieved in some places for an excavation. There is absolutely no reason to use this questionable source, not with so many RS available. Elinruby (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  1. Then there are the bones they found in Qu'Appelle [61], but that wasn't a body, see, and neither was the skeleton they found at Blue Quills [62]. This is what we are dealing with here. At another school they kept accidentally digging up bodies while trying to fix the water supply, and there there is another where bodies were sliding into the river after a flood. So it is possible to define "body" and "excavation" in such a way that you can say no bodies have been found in an excavation as a result of this discovery.

Now do you understand? Elinruby (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your logic. If remains were found near other schools, then this information should be added to the articles about those schools. If you agree that nothing has been found at this particular school, what's this whole discussion about? Alaexis¿question? 19:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
ok. (to self:this does not seem to have made the news outside of Canada.) They ran underground radar at Kamploops and got hits. Then some other First Nations ran underground radar and they got more hits. The various First Nations where this was the case (there are quite a few) are in various stages of deciding whether or not they want to do an archaeological excavation. Kamloops in particular is undecided. They already have whackos showing up with shovels to dig up the graves. So meanwhile, for reasons that are unclear to me, some bloggers and fringe sources have been pushing a narrative that there are no bodies, or there are no graves, or... pick your Alex Jones flavor of choice. At least three articles in the topic area have had people repeatedly adding that no bodies were found with the same tabloid sources. That is the issue. Why it is here at RSN at this moment is that apparently some of the fringe and Catholic sources are so fringe that they have never been discussed here. At least one of them is funded by some sort of Alberta oil tycoon; the details escae me but I can look them up if you are interested. Meanwhile I am trying to keep the Kamloops article, one of those involved, from from saying over and over again that no bodies have been found. The article already says that the community has not yet decided what to do. I do not know wny this stuff keeps being inserted. However I would like to establish that the publications in question are not very careful about accuracy and therefore should not be used as a source in this sensitive topic, where they have been pushing a hoax. Fluorescent Jellyfish made a long post to the Kamloops talk page about the hoax part. Does that help? Elinruby (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
TL;DR no bodies have been found in excavations at Kamloops because there have not been any excavations in Kamloops. Tt is unclear whether the community in Kamloops wants to excavate. People are not required to dig up their dead relatives if they don't want to. Elinruby (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
To me this just doesn't look like a reliability question. We could say "No excavations have been carried out" or "No excavations have been carried out and no bodies have been found". Both are true statements (based on what you wrote) and so it's up to Wikipedia editors to decide on the right wording.
To take a step back, one could argue that a given source is unreliable for a specific claim because it's contradicted by others (which is not the case here). Or one could argue that a source is in general has low standards and should not be used for a given topic. To make that argument you'd need to focus on Times Now and show that it's not a reliable source in general and I don't see any evidence of that in this thread. Alaexis¿question? 07:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Except for the fact that it is pushing disinformation, but what's a little thing like that between friends? Elinruby (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
What exactly are you referring to? Which claim constitutes disinformation and what RS prove it? I already understand the context, so could you be more specific? Alaexis¿question? 20:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Please see this diff to the OP of this thread Elinruby (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Of course this is a garbage source for this material, if the only thing you can find is some news source a half a world away from what it is covering that should clue you into whether or not you should be including something. nableezy - 22:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
We should probably get that written into policy somewhere. Along with Elinruby's "People are not required to dig up their dead relatives if they don't want to" comment above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the claim originated with this 'article' [63] and was repeated by similar generally unreliable right wing sources like western standard [64] (note this is cited in the article and is an WP:RSOPINION and coastal front [65]. Work seems to be ongoing and there haven't been any digs so the conclusive tone of those articles is troubling. Further RS are warning about denialism [[66]] [[67]] which is likely at play here. Finally, it seems that the First nation has softened it's language and these crappy sources are taking that farther than they should [[68]]—blindlynx 22:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for Whitelisting a Reputable Music Website

Hello,

I am seeking help to get a domain whitelisted that is a reputable source for Nigerian music and cultural content. I tried to add a link to a Wikipedia article about Olamide’s latest music project, but the domain is currently blacklisted on the global spam blacklist.

The website contains relevant and valuable content about Olamide’s project that would enhance the Wikipedia article.

Could someone assist me with the process to have this domain (naijawide dot com) whitelisted?

Thank you for your help!

Best regards, Naijawide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.89.23.114 (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Given the similarity of the website and how you've signed your post can I suggest you read WP: Conflict of interest and WP:Search engine optimization. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Lithub.com

Is this article on Lithub.com reliable for factual information? They have an masthead, but it's not clear what level of fact-checking they do. Also, the author of this story has an attenuated familial connection to the article subject, but she's also a retired professional genealogist and it would be weird for her to lie about her findings. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there some particular point you're interested in? I can't see any worries with the site, but the article is written in a very flowery fashion. I wouldn't trust statements such as It was the expression of a man who sees everything but withholds comment or When he was amused his smile went wide, his eyes sparkled under bushy eyebrows, but I can't see why it wouldn't be reliable for factual details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, except for lax proofreading. Did the man really have "an eighth education"? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
We all make mistakes (and typos). That doesn't concern me. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Requests for sources to be added

Please note, these are from my point of view. I would like to add a website, with a summary and name of the source:

Source Summary How it should be classified
PinkNews Said website is a news website aimed towards the LGBT community. Many people, especially those part of the LGBT community and allies consider it reliable. Generally reliable
GB News GB News is a British television channel. Such usage is often condemned because of its right wing biases. Deprecated/generally unreliable
TalkTV TalkTV is a news channel located in the United Kingdom. It is similar to GB News because it is also biased and right wing. Deprecated/generally unreliable
ITV Many people in the United Kingdom consider it reliable. It is also the holder of ITV News. Generally reliable
Channel Four Many people in the United Kingdom consider it reliable. It is also the holder of a channel of the same name and its news programme. Generally reliable
Miraheze Miraheze is no different to Fandom. It allows you to make your wiki, and the wikis are similar to Wikipedia. Generally unreliable
Roblox Roblox is a video game created in 2006. It is sometimes cited on articles. No consensus
This website (dare I say its name?) Said website campaigns for inappropriate human-animal relationships and claims that these types of people are “queer” and a part of the LGBT community. Some supporters even try to add the letter Z for the LGBT acronym when members of the LGBT community do not claim nor accept them. Any links and citations should be whitelisted prior to usage. Blacklisted/deprecated

OMGShay 92 (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources are only added to WP:RSPS if they are discussed multiple times by the community. We also don't generally discuss sources in the abstract, without some context about what it's being used for. Also, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that there's "no consensus" about Roblox's reliability. I'm not even sure how a video game could be cited as a source for factual information. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Also, zooey.pub is not cited by any articles, so there is no need to evaluate its reliability at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Based on some searches it doesn't seem to be cited anywhere, but just listed as a link in Roblox articles or with the URL as text for reasonable stuff. (And just removed from one article due to that being vandalism.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
You've misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It's only for documenting discussions that have occured. It is not, and it not meant to be, a complete list of sources.
Unless another editor is questioning the reliability of a source you want to use, and you want a third opinion on the matter, you are at the wrong noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Zaine Kennedy is nominated for AfD by myself. I question whether the sources such as https://britishspeedway.co.uk/championship/scorpions-bring-back-kennedy/ are non-independent to be used for establishing notability. A user has questioned this in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaine Kennedy. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It's the website of the company that runs the races he takes part it, there is a direct financial link between the company and the subject. I don't see how it could be considered independent, reliable yes but not independent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Byline Times a reliable source for James McMurdock and Reform UK

I've looked at this source before and was dubious. But now I've found this discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 338#Byline Times (bylinetimes.com, NOT byline.com) I'm convinced its not. We use sit for a lot of articles.[69] On the other hand, our article Byline Times is full of praise. Doug Weller talk 07:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

They were still relatively new during the last discussion and didn't have any use by others, but from a quick search that is no longer the case. I don't think it's the best sources, their investigation tends to follow their bias, but I'd think it more 'marginal' than 'unreliable'. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested does it matter if it's being used in a BLP? At McMurdock's page it's used for the 2nd sentence in "He worked in the banking sector for Barclays Capital, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers – specialising in energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing. How long he worked for these banks is unclear."
I'm inclined to believe it, but it seems to be the only source. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
If it's banal details I might use it, but WP:BLP does state Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Given the source that could be an issue with certain subjects. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested And when there are no other decent sources, WP:UNDUE surely applies. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, or possibly WP:BALASP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Three tech websites

howtogeek.com for software

Is this source reliable? It is cited 51 times already on enwiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=howtogeek&title=Special:Search&ns0=1

from https://www.howtogeek.com/page/about/:

>How-To Geek, founded in 2006 and acquired and owned by Valnet Inc. since 2023, is a digital publication focused on technology that reaches millions of readers each month on our website and across social media [...]

>How-To Geek has been recommended as an expert resource by industry groups like the Wi-Fi Alliance and newspapers like The New York Times. Organizations like the BBC and Wirecutter have directed their readers to us for our helpful tutorials. Technology news outlets like Techmeme, The Verge, Slate, Digital Trends, TechCrunch, and John Gruber’s Daring Fireball have linked to stories we’ve broken. We’ve been cited as a source in books like Team Human by Douglas Rushkoff, a media theory professor at the City University of New York’s Queens College and CNN contributor. How-To Geek has been used as a resource for everything from university textbooks to late-night TV. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why this shouldn't be reliable for tech related details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Considering the above accolades from other tech platforms, I would consider it reliable for technical advice. For citations on specific claims, however, it might be possible to track down the original "secondary" source which howtogeek.com uses in its articles. SmallMender (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

geeky-gadgets.com for software

Is this source reliable? It is cited 125 time already on enwiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=geeky-gadgets&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1

It appears to only have two full time writers as implied here: https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/about/ J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems a bit more marginal than howtogeek.com, as it doesn't have the external recognition of that site. I'd be a bit more cautious with anything exceptional that isn't backed up by other sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

dataconomy.com for software

cited 25 times already: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search="dataconomy"&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1

has multiple writers but the main writer for most articles from a quick look seems to be the Editor-in-Chief listed here https://dataconomy.com/about-us/ J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This looks somewhere in-between the last two, it has some use by other but not as much as the first one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested thanks for your review J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera - factual errors

I reviewed about half of the 76 articles (excluding videos, opinion articles, and live updates) that Al Jazeera submitted under their Israel Palestine conflict tag during the past two weeks. I included every error I identified, regardless of significance:

  1. Israel bombs Gaza school housing displaced Palestinians, kills at least 40 and US weapons parts used in Israeli attack on Gaza school: Al Jazeera analysis
    Claimed that fourteen children were killed, as well as nine women. While this matches the initial figures put out by the the al-Aqsa hospital, this is false. The hospital issued an update hours later, correcting the figures to nine children and three women.
    The first of these articles was likely published before the update was issued, but we would expect a reliable source to issue a correction. Further, the second was published after the correction was issued, and after other reliable sources were able to publish articles with the correct figure.
  2. Israel occupying Palestine echoes France colonising Algeria: Analysts
    Claims the Second Intifada started off largely nonviolent. This is false. It began on 28 September 2000 when Ariel Sharon visited Temple Mount, and on the first day 25 Israeli police officers were wounded, and least three Palestinians. The second day it escalated further, with widespread rioting that left seven Palestinians dead and three hundred wounded, along with 70 Israeli police officers.
  3. Nuseirat, anatomy of Israel’s massacre in Gaza
    Claims that before fighting begun while Israeli forces were still moving into position Israel started bombing the area, hitting the busy market the hardest. They also say that the intent was likely to spread as much panic as possible, as well as inflict maximum casualties. This is false: these air strikes began later, when Israeli forces who had rescued the hostages came under attack while trying to exfiltrate. The problematic nature of this falsehood is exacerbated by the partisan spin they put on the story in regards to the intent.
  4. Wikipedia war: Fierce row erupts over Israel’s deadly Nuseirat assault
    Incorrectly claims that on Wikipedia edit wars are considered vandalism, along with other similar mistakes.
  5. ‘Absolute priority’: UN agencies must work unhindered in Gaza, G7 says
    Claims the GDP of the G7 is $40.27 trillion, making up 40% of global GDP, with the source being www.g7italy.it. The site contains no claims about GDP, and the real figure appears to be $43.86 trillion, making up 43% of GDP. This contains two issues; publishing incorrect information, and making false claims about the source of the information - in this case, the latter is far more concerning.
  6. Israel in Gaza, Palestinian fighters in Israel, what the UN accuses them of
    Claims the Palestinian Ministry of Health (aka Palestinian Ministry of Health - Gaza) says that 15,000 children have died. This is false; the health ministry says 8000. Few sources have reported the 15,000 figure, but it appears to have instead come from the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education and Higher Education. (One, two)
  7. US says Hamas is to blame for ceasefire delay – but is it Hamas or Israel?
    Claims Hamas accepted an Egyptian-Qatari proposal. However, after this was initially announced, and well before this article was published, it was revealed that Egyptian intelligence had altered the terms, and the proposal was not the one Qatar had approved.
  8. Will South Africa’s new coalition gov’t change tack on Israel-Palestine?
    Claimed South Africa has condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is false; South Africa has repeatedly refused to condemn the invasion. The closest it came was a demand that Russia "immediately" withdraw issued at the start of the invasion, but that is not a condemnation, and even if it were it would mean that this statement is "merely" highly misleading.
  9. Netanyahu slams US for ‘withholding’ weapons to Israel
    Claimed Israel closed the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt. This is technically true, but it is highly misleading; Israel shut the crossing when they first took control of it but sought to reopen it. It remains shut due to Egypt.
  10. Gaza fighting continues despite Israeli ‘pauses’ announcement: UNRWA
    Claimed Israel has sealed shut the vital Rafah border crossing with Egypt. This, unlike the similar statement above, is false; the border is "sealed shut" because of Egypt, not because of Israel.

This suggests that at least a third of Al Jazeera's articles on this topic have factual issues, although the total is likely to be much higher as I expect I missed most errors even within the articles I did review.

It is possible that some of these are included because of errors on my part rather than on Al Jazeera, but unless most are I don't believe we can't consider this source reliable in this topic area; there are too many errors, and too many significant errors. BilledMammal (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Regarding the last two, I can see multiple reliable sources claiming that the Rafah crossing is shut because of Israeli military activity there (i.e. WaPo), or at the very least report that this is what Egypt claims is the case, or that Israel and Egypt blame each other for the situation. So that one certainly isn't as cut and dried as "It remains shut because of Egypt".
  • Also in the "Claims the Palestinian Ministry of Health (aka Palestinian Ministry of Health - Gaza) says that 15,000 children have died.", I can find no reference to that claim in the link provided.
  • Also, are we really ragging on a source because they don't understand how Wikipedia bureaucracy works? Most RS don't, we've seen that repeatedly over the years. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    Regarding the last two, outside of headlines (which, per WP:HEADLINES, are unreliable), the Washington Post source doesn't claim that Israel closed the crossing; it merely says it was closed, and that The United States, Egypt and Israel are in talks to reopen the crossing.
    Regarding the Palestinian Ministry of Health, look at the infographic in the section "What did Israel do in Gaza?"
    Regarding Wikipedia bureaucracy, I did consider that the least concerning, and was tempted to exclude it - I only didn't because I decided I should provide everything I found, and allow editors to decide for themselves what is and isn't significant. BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    Moved to #Rafah Border Crossing
     – BilledMammal (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    I'm getting a strong much-ado-about-nothing vibe from a lot of these examples that can easily be chalked up to the fog of war, the fast-paced news cycle and the fundamental fuzziness of some of the information. The first example appears incorrect. The first AJ piece attributes the casualty claim to its progenitor, which makes it a static claim in time. It is not in AJ's voice, so there is technically nothing to correct. That figure was put out at that time by its source. I have been seeing this confusion a lot lately: the idea that publications have some sort of onus to correct attributed statements that are subsequently amended or disproven. They can, but they don't have to. The next couple of examples involve debatable timelines. Then we have some minor slights involving attributed figures – one possibly outdated, the other presumably correct but misattributed. Then another debatable piece of narrative, and only one genuine oddity, which is the statement about South Africa. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    The first item contains two AJ pieces; the first one I can understand how you see it as attributed, but the second one, US weapons parts used in Israeli attack on Gaza school: Al Jazeera analysis, indisputably puts the figure in Al Jazeera's own voice - and was published after the update was issued.
    Can you explain why you believe the timelines of the second and third are sufficiently debatable to make Al Jazeera's claims accurate? As far as I know, there is no dispute that the Second Intifada erupted with violence, and the timeline of the raid appears to be non-contentious and supported by Palestinian witnesses; the bombing began after the hostages were retrieved and the shooting started, not before. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    So the second Al Jazeera piece doesn't appear to have adjusted, no, although it is rather simultaneously published with the piece you present. As it has videography, it might also have been prepared some time in advance of its publication date. As to why no correction ... ? Has that hospital update been published widely? Al Jazeera explains the second intifada as beginning after the riot on the 28th, beginning with largely civil disobedience. On Nuseirat, why are we trusting the NYT (not a great source on the IP conflict since December) over AJ? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    It was published thirteen hours later; seven hours after the Guardian article was published noting the correction. As for the wideness of publication, AP published it.
    Regarding the Second Intifada, that article published on September 28 2020, on what Al Jazeera called the twentieth anniversary of the uprising, said it began on the 28th: The second Intifada ... began after ... Ariel Sharon sparked the uprising ... on September 28, 2000. Even if you interpret that as meaning it began the next day, that still includes the riot that resulted in seven Palestinian deaths, three hundred Palestinians wounded, and 70 Israeli police officers wounded - that isn't anyone's definition of "started off largely nonviolent".
    Regarding Nuseirat, it's not only NYT. I included an AP source above, and others include the ABC, the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, NBC News, and more. Sources and witnesses are clear that the bombing began after the hostages were retrieved, not before. BilledMammal (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    I see a bunch of sources relying heavily on IDF testimony. Simply being an outlier doesn't make AJ demonstrably wrong – such events are often only properly pieced together weeks, months or even years later. Currently, all we have is competing narratives. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    The Guardian, the New York Times, and AP all say in their own voice and with reference to Palestinian witnesses that the bombing began soon after the Israeli team entered the apartment building. BilledMammal (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    The SA statement is not that odd, demanding a withdrawal > a condemnation. Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
A substantive and lengthy discussion, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 434#Al Jazeera reliability, only a couple months ago, did not lead to any change in WP assessment of this source. It included this early comment from opener:
"We’ve seen this before with Al Jazeera; in the last discussion I presented evidence of them declining to retract false claims about the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion after fresh information emerged.This isn’t the behaviour we expect of a reliable source; we don’t expect them to be perfect, but we do expect them to be transparent and own up to their mistakes. I think it’s past time to consider Al Jazeera as "additional considerations apply", at least on the topic of the Israeli-Arab conflict."
Given this background, it would seem desirable that opener set a formal RFC on the question. Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Given that this is the first systematic review of the source in this topic area I felt informal initial discussion was better than jumping into an RfC, in line with WP:RFCBEFORE. It has also been suggested we should consider it on three topics:
  1. Israel-Palestine conflict
  2. Topics related to the Qatari government
  3. General topics
Since only the first of these has had such a review I don't think we are ready for an RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, I have taken a look at your examples and don't see anything appalling there at all, so may as well shut this down or move to an RFC on the question. Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
The second topic is important. AJ is state-run and most people don’t even know. The scope of what is considered “linked” definitely needs to be clarified too. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
"State run"? Says who? Seems more like the BBC afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
See this. BilledMammal (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
That's a rather generic discussion about the issues that it may have, in exactly the same way as sources such as the BBC, presumably with an emphasis on domestic reporting. It's unclear what specific issues this translates into other than domestic favouritism. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
So run the RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
When was AJ last quoted on a topic related to Qatar where its input was questioned with regards to that in a dispute that turned otherwise intractable, thus warranting an RFC? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • How is it the conversation about Al Jazeera and its worth as a RS goes round and round and round in circles when it is basically the propaganda arm of Hamas?? Because it's too important as a source of anti-Israel sentiment. This isn't to say that there shouldn't be anti-Israel sentiment - but there's criticism of Israeli and then there's Al Jazeera. Over the years, how many stories from Al Jazeera have there been praising Israel? How many have there been criticizing Hamas? Even if it went to any sort of vote to strike it down as such, I don't there would be much chance of it passing. All this while there's a parallel discussion about removing the ADL as a reliable source...

Neutrality and balance are important here and when it comes to adding content here, that should always be the priority. Difficult find either of these 2 things in an Al Jazeera article about Israel, especially if the Al Jazeera journalist is on the Hamas books. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Why is it that you think a news source should be praising Israel or criticizing Hamas? nableezy - 18:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
All our major mainstream sources are defective. Most of them are Israeli or pro-Israeli. They may check better than al-Jazeera their facts, but as often as not they do not mentioning facts that al-Jazeera reports. Selectivity bias is more the problem here. To expect that by eliminating al-Jazeera, our key non-Western, Arab source for what happens in Gaza, esp. after the Israeli government shut it down, looks uncomfortably, eerily, like censoring anything that does not reflect a Western mainstream view. We are wasting time here, and NPOV should have told us that we cannot cover the I/P conflict by expurgating, with whatever itsybitsy technical pretext, all sources that don't reflect our Western/Israel perspective.Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Much of the list is nonsense reflecting the editor's POV and scarcely stands or warrant examination. I'll take just one piece apart.

  • (2) Claims the Second Intifada started off largely nonviolent. This is false. It began on 28 September 2000 when Ariel Sharon visited Temple Mount, and on the first day 25 Israeli police officers were wounded, and least three Palestinians. The second day it escalated further, with widespread rioting that left seven Palestinians dead and three hundred wounded, along with 70 Israeli police officers.

In fact it did, unless one only scrapes up one's historical information from reading wikipedia's articles. 'Rioting' is the standard Israeli term for what everywhere else in democratic societies is called a 'protest' or a 'demonstration'. BM's POV is showing. 75 police weren't 'wounded', they suffered minor injuries. 3 Palestinians weren't injured, they were shot, and a furtherr two severely beaten up. All this is the second phase however. Sharon's hour-long visit, surrounded by 1,000 policemen in riot gear, went off without incident aside from a piddling incident when he tried to enter Solomon's Stables, which is a mosque. 20 Palestinians blocked their way, and a scuffle ensued. Through all of this over the following week apart from one incident) Palestinians protested en masse, and, with the expenditure of over 1,000,000 bullets within several days, missiles and machine-gunning from israeli helicopters, 47 were killed, and 1,885 wounded, 80% of whom were shot in demonstrations where no threat to security police was present. So Al Jazeera is quite within its rights to state that the Palestinian uprising in that first week was (more than) 'largely non-violent'. What was massively violent was the Israeli reaction, in fitting with Nathan Thrall's dictum that on each of the four occasions where Palestinians have gone on strike, demonstrated en masse, in an initially peaceful manner to protest the Mandatory or Israeli occupation, the response has been, rigorously, extremely violent repression by the authorities. Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it's a silly complaint too, as it's subjective what counts as primarily nonviolent, but the terms "were injured" and "suffered injuries" are usually understood as synonymous. XeCyranium (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I've been hit quite often in stone fights, and was shot (with an airgun) several times. A source describes the Israeli police injuries from punches and stones as 'minor', rarely anywhere near as damaging or frightening as being shot with a bullet, live or rubber-capped. The Israeli tallying of injuries is often suspect. It can refer to people grazing their knees when they stumble as they run to an air-raid shelter.Nishidani (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Peace and War, by Anthony H. Cordesman, has an excellent timeline of the start of the Second Intifada. In the first few days alone there are large scale riots, clashes between Israeli Arabs and Jews, Palestinian sniper fire, and dead on both sides. To claim that sniper fire and riots are peaceful is almost Orwellian, and not something any reliable source will do. BilledMammal (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Your 'excellent' timeline comes from Anthony H. Cordesman, who, notoriously, got most of his 'history' of events by taking notes from Israeli briefings and quoting IDF spokespersons. Everytime I've read him, I've looked at his sources, and they are press handouts, extraordinary for a scholar of his standing (but then again he belonged to the upper echelons of the 'Security Establishment'). Don't take my word for it. Norman Finkelstein is one of the world’s foremost experts on both Gaza and the systematic disinformation in mainstream sources reporting on that endemic conflict. He made a close analysis of just one paper by Cordesman and concluded that Cordesman’s work ‘was based entirely on briefings in Israel’ (p.40) and repeatedly drew on comments by the IDF’s spokesman, incident per incident. He concluded that ‘Cordesman’s ‘strategic analysis’ consisted of reproducing verbatim the daily press releases of the Israeli airforce and army spokespersons,' and Cordesman 'obligingly dubbed them ‘chronologies’ of the war,’(p.41) Norman Finkelstein Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, University of California Press, 2018 ISBN 978-0-520-29571-1 pp.39-42.
Though I have never removed Cordesman from articles, because he qualifies eminently as RS, he is not reliable on the IP conflict, also for many additional reasons, like his well known advice to Israel and the PA to adopt the same counterinsurgency policies against Palestinians that the British used in Northern Ireland, i.e., excessive force, disregard for human rights law, and torture. His views on this were so extreme Amnesty's Marty Rosenbluth called his blueprint 'bizarre'.
Your campaign against Al Jazeera expresses a 'sensitivity' to misreportage and yet, twice on just one example given, you yourself made a false claim, and justified it when criticized by citing (no page number, no awareness of later scholarship postdating Cordesman whose book 'War and peace' was written hastily in the thick of the early days of the conflict) a source that virtually plagiarized its content by relying on IDF press cuttings.
There is no simple way of ascertaining reliable source material for a conflict whose reportage hallmark is stamped by bias on all sides. A blanket ban on the only daily Arab source that provides a perspective sensitive to Palestinians, together with reliance on known decidedly pro-Israeli sources, is a recipé for laziness. And please note that you repeat the word 'riots', as all pro-Israeli sources do, to describe mass protests, on Palestinian soil, against the Israeli army which invariably spins popular outrage at an occupation as 'clashes' between 'Jews' and Palestinians, when they are mostly parades of protest against an army that shoots at 'disturbances' of the kind you can see in any Western street most weeks. Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
you yourself made a false claim Only according to you. Personally, I think any source that claims riots and sniper fire is peaceful is almost Orwellian, and evidently unreliable. I would also recommend against relying on authors like Finkelstein who frequently publish on sites like The Unz Review - known for its publication of far-right, conspiracy theory, white nationalist, antisemitic writings and pro-Russia propaganda. However, I won't get too focused on Finkelstein, as even if we accept his rejection of Cordesman there are thousands of sources that demonstrate that the Second Intifada did not begin peacefully. Since this discussion is unlikely to be productive I'll just provide a small sampling of those that are easily accessible and leave the discussion; I'm sure you'll find issues with all of them, but I'm confident my point has been made.
  1. Arab Uprising Spreads to Israel, published October 1, 2000

    The rioting and gunfire seemed to spread everywhere today--to Arab towns and cities in northern Israel's Galilee region; to Jaffa, the scenic old port town just south of Tel Aviv; to Rafah on Gaza's border with Egypt, where a pitched gun battle was punctuated by Israeli missile fire; even to Ramat Rachel, an upscale kibbutz on Jerusalem's southern outskirts where molotov cocktails exploded this evening.

    Israeli forces and Palestinian police and gunmen traded fire in nearly every major West Bank town and city, from Jenin in the north to Hebron in the south.

  2. "Between Humanitarian Logic and Operational Effectiveness: How the Israeli Army Faced the Second Intifada":

    But unlike the first Intifada, which was basically a civil uprising against the symbols of an occupation that had lasted since June 1967, it very quickly lapsed into an armed struggle between Palestinian activists and the Israeli armed forces. Almost from the very start, armed men took to hiding among crowds of Palestinians, using them as cover to shoot from. The IDF retaliated forcefully, each time resulting in several deaths

  3. The Current Palestinian Uprising: Al-Aqsa Intifadah

    On October 1, Israeli helicopter gun ships fired on Palestinian sniper locations in apartment buildings near the Netzarim junction after Palestinian snipers started shooting at the Israeli military post.

  4. Rioting as Sharon visits Islam holy site, published September 29, 2000

    Young Palestinians heaved chairs, stones, rubbish bins, and whatever missiles came to hand at the Israeli forces. Riot police retaliated with tear gas and rubber bullets, shooting one protester in the face.

  5. Al-Aqsa Intifada timeline

    30 September: In one of the enduring images of the conflict 12-year-old Muhammad Durrah is killed during a gunbattle between Israeli troops and Palestinians in the Gaza strip

  6. Broken lives – a year of intifada

    The Netzarim junction, where Muhammad al-Dura was killed on 30 September 2000, was the scene of many riots involving demonstrators throwing stones or Molotov cocktails in the first days of the intifada.

  7. Chapter 4 The Second Palestinian Intifada

    The Palestinian uprising, soon termed the al-Aqsa intifada, began with groups of Palestinian teenagers throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at Israeli soldiers manning checkpoints at border crossings, but it quickly escalated. There were increasingly fierce clashes between armed security forces of the Palestinian Authority and the IDF. Palestinian snipers directed fire against Israeli civilian neighborhoods on the outskirts of Jerusalem.

  8. Violence escalates between Palestinians, Israeli troops, published September 30, 2000

    At least seven Palestinians and one Israeli soldier have died and hundreds of demonstrators have been injured in three days of fighting, according to Palestinian and Israeli officials.

  9. Sharon Touches a Nerve, and Jerusalem Explodes, published September 29, 2000

    Tightly guarded by an Israeli security cordon, Ariel Sharon, the right-wing Israeli opposition leader, led a group of Israeli legislators onto the bitterly contested Temple Mount today to assert Jewish claims there, setting off a stone-throwing clash that left several Palestinians and more than two dozen policemen injured.
    The violence spread later to the streets of East Jerusalem and to the West Bank town of Ramallah, where six Palestinians were reportedly hurt as Israeli soldiers fired rubber-coated bullets and protesters hurled rocks and firebombs.

Even Al Jazeera previously recognized that the Second Intifada started with violence, demonstrating how their quality has declined:

28-29 September 2000
Former Israeli army general and then opposition leader Ariel Sharon visits al-Aqsa mosque with his entourage, sparking a violent reaction from Palestinians.
Israel reoccupies the Palestinian territories amid fighting between the Palestinian resistance and Israeli army.

BilledMammal (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
2. "Young Palestinians heaved chairs, stones, rubbish bins ..." – sounds like it was a slighty rocky student protest on 29 September ... followed by a massively disproportionate response. Oh how history rings and echoes! Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
This newspaper snippet approach to history is inane. The point in the original al-Jazeera post was that the Palestinian intifada (mark 2) began with (1) an Israeli assertion the status quo would be broken on Al-Aqsa by allowing Jewish prayer on the 3rd most sacred site to Muslims, and the one remaining symbol Palestinians have for their fragmented warred down sense of identity. Sharon's walk itself caused no violence (2) The provocation some time later caused student reactions, and as the news spread through the West Bank, Israel's usual hyperoverreaction - shooting protesters kicked it. The statistics for Israeli shootings all over Jerusalem and the West Bank in the ensuing week underline that the 'violence' BM is attributing to the Palestinians (this is the standard Israeli POV) was overwhelmingly one of the use of massive shootings of Palestinians, for several days, causing close to 2,000 casualties with one Israeli killed. He refers to Muhammad al-Durrah without a link. The images of that atrocity were shown everywhere, and inflamed not only Palestinian but world opinion. I noted on the Al-Aqsa intifada page years ago, Jacques Chirac's comment to Ehud Barak, outrage at the Israeli use of helicopters missiles and machine guns to put down the widespread protests which followed al-Durrah's death (the suspicions seeded years later against the French video are not relevant). Violence quickly became a hallmark of the Palestinians' uprising, no one disputes that. The intifada became violent after a million bullets were shot by the Israeli army, and not, as BM would have it, from the outset from Palestinian 'rioters'. BM in citing a notoriously lousy source (Cordesman), to defend his reading of al-Jazeera's remark, only tends to confirm one's impression that his benchmark for true/falsenees here is apparently based on an assumption an official Israeli POV is reliable, and any source contradicting it false. Newspaper evidence dating from those days is absolutely immaterial, useless, because as always they are enmeshed in a frantic pursuit of partial reports, which necessity obliges us to use, but which, if these articles are to assume an encyclopedic dimension, must be edged out whenever secondary academic historical sources become available. In the meantime, getting at the one Arab source that has been accepted, would leave us with only Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Ynet and the New York Times, as the default mainstream papers, a recipé for making structural the subfusc Palestinophobic tenor which characterizes most of them the basis for I/P articles.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
As I said to another editor, arguments about lessening our criteria for reliability with the intent of "expanding" the number of sources from a particular point of the world/viewpoint/etc should not even begin to be discussed. Wikipedia policy does not care if every source from a region is unreliable. In such a case, other sources from other regions can be used to cover the subject, or failing that, with consensus for individual points and solid reasoning other sourcing cannot be found, the less-than-reliable sources from the region can be used with attribution. In fact, there are already regions of the world that don't have any "generally reliable on all topics" sources - North Korea, Russia, Myanmar... to name a few. Wikipedia is not in the business of accepting sources without attribution just to "cover all sides". If your only argument is that we must keep the source because of their POV, that's not a valid argument and in fact flies in the face of our actual policies on reliability which do not reduce or lessen the requirements just because a source has a different POV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
And I would add that in writing, in response to a close 3 page scholarly analysis of Cordesman's amateurish fudging of the Al- Aqsa Intifada, you cannot come up with anything other than a cheap, tawdry and offensive ad hominem attack on its author, Norman Finkelstein, drawing on the standard POV pushing smear recycled for low brow consumption by the usual suspects. I.e.

authors like Finkelstein who frequently publish on sites like The Unz Review- known for its publication of far-right, conspiracy theory, white nationalist, antisemitic writings and pro-Russia propaganda.

Is close to a BLP violation, apart from the laziness of responding to a serious analysis by implying Finkelstein supports a white racist antisemitic rag. It's shameful but says something about the intolerance of dissonance to any source that might dare advance a different perspective than that customarily trotted out in the name of defending Israel.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @BilledMammal: I disagree.
    • Regarding your 1st claim Al-Jazeera's article with the outdated casualties looks like it was published at 02:22 on 6 June (not sure which time zone, maybe UTC?). That was published before Guardian got the correct figures, not after. And Al-Jazeera did update the new figures when they came in: right here.
    • 2nd claim responded by Nishidani above.
    • 3rd claim. Firstly, Al-Jazeera doesn't explicitly say bombing began before IDF moved into position as their article isn't necessarily in chronological order. Assuming the AP article is in chronological order (because if it isn't, then nothing about the chronology can be inferred), it quotes a witness saying "Clashes and explosions broke out" before the IDF team got stuck. Finally, the AP News doesn't make any assertions in its voice, but simply quotes witnesses and the IDF. It is entirely reasonable for them to come up with different stories (either by mistake or by design) without it being AJ's fault.
    • 4th claim. Agreed, clearly AJ hasn't read WP:Vandalism carefully.
    • 5th and 6th claims only make sense if we consider the list of references below their infographics to be exhaustive. It doesn't seem like they are strict with citing all their sources, but that's still better than newspapers who sometimes (often?) don't list references at all.
    • 7th claim. The allegation of Egypt altering the terms is based on an unnamed sources. While the refutation of that allegation was based on named sources (Diaa Rashwan) willing to stand behind their statements. So I wouldn't blame AJ for not giving much weight to anonymous hearsay.
    • 8th claim. Politico says "South Africa and much of the rest of the continent have experienced a different evolution — shifting from initial, tepid condemnation of Russia, to being non-aligned to — at times — seeming supportive of Russia’s war.". I think both Politico and that particular article of Al-Jazeera made a mistake (actually its possible the AJ article has a typo because if you consider the paragraph they likely meant to say SA has not condemned the invasion). An earlier AJ article said "Pretoria has refused to condemn Moscow’s invasion". VR (Please ping on reply) 22:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
      1. I provided two articles, and as I said the first was probably published before the correction; the second was published after.
      3. The source is quite clearly chronological - and even if it wasn't, it does say Israeli special forces began the operation at 11am under heavy air bombardment on the camp.
      5 and 6. While publications don't need to cite their sources, when they choose to do so they need to get it right - and failing to get it right is a reliability issue. 5 also has factual issues, which makes misattributing the claim worse - they're effectively saying their source got it wrong. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
      1. At what time do you think the articles were published?
      3. I'm not seeing where the AJ article says "Israeli special forces began the operation at 11am under heavy air bombardment on the camp". Instead it says "It began around 11am, with what witnesses say were several civilian trucks and cars entering a neighbourhood near the camp’s market."
      5 and 6. Again nowhere did AJ said they had published a comprehensive list of sources. They could have published some sources but not others.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
    On 1st claim, updating the figures on a live article that is fast-moving and will bury them is not the type of retraction/correction we expect from reliable sources. Reliable sources would've gone back and added a footnote explaining that initial figures were revised and are now corrected, or at a minimum edited the article to fix the figures. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    on 8th claim, al jazeera has already published an infographic talking about South Africa's policy of strategic nonalignment here.
    It can be explained that South Africa's position on the war is intentionally confusing, as their foreign office has previously called for russia to withdraw from Ukrainian territories before.[70]
    I think if the position is meant to be strategically confusing to the point that Politico, a well known and well regarded newssite, has stated South Africa has provided support for Ukraine that Al Jazeera probably should not be judged for similar sort of mistake when doing the news race, especially when they are publishing much more in depth analyses about South Africa's position that are correctly explaining the full position of the government. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
This topic was opened right after ADL was declared WP:ADLPIA in the 2024 RFC, after editor lost his POV. Its clearly some tit for tat exchange in a POV war. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that this appears to be entirely civil POV pushing. Combined with the fact that the last discussion on Al-Jazeera was started only 2.5 months ago, and VR's debunking of the specific claims of error above, I am not convinced that this thread should stay open because I'm not convinced there's anything productive to say here. Loki (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Please drop the WP:Personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS, both of you. You're incorrect, and even if you weren't your concerns are inappropriate to raise here. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
We are clearly correct. This is a waste of time and a repeat of an earlier forum around Al Jazeera's reliability regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the timing after the ADL decision is obviously clear.
There is no reason to post this except that you are upset to have lost the ADL povwar. (I don't even know if this is that much of a change, we can still cite ADL, just use attribution as always?) User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Come on Sawer, this is inappropriate and aspersive. BM raised a bunch of factual errors—even if you think they don't constitute a reason to change how we regard AJ, or indeed that they aren't even errors, there's a conversation to be had here about facts, and "the initiator of this conversation has a secret plan" is not how that conversation starts. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
And yet, VR has a bunch of arguments that these aren't factual errors, as do the rest of us.
Much of the non-Israel-Palestine factual errors are due to WP:AGEMATTERS or are small errors that we could identify in other articles, and are a function of a fast moving news cycle forcing quick prints that are quickly corrected. Other reliable sources make the same sorts of errors. For example, the issue with Al Jazeera covering wikipedia is cringeworthy, but so were any of the others talking about the ADL "ban" (its not banned, just use attribution)
The rest are POV issues due to Al Jazeera clearly having an opinion and POV on the Israel-Palestine conflict, a position we have decided in many forum posts before hand.
I'll cast aspersions when the reputation is clearly rotten, the pattern repeats. And you will no doubt argue I need to be banned because this time is somehow unique. And so goes the cycle of internet debates. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
you will no doubt argue I need to be banned If you can’t participate in this discussion without casting aspersions and getting mad imagining a hypothetical attempt to ban you, maybe you’d better just abstain. But certainly don’t lob weird accusations at me. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see anything that would be considered a "factual error" here. If they are using attribution, and that attribution later changes, it is not their fault, as is the case with any other RS. AJ is not an encyclopaedia, it is a news source that reports on live-time events, whose interpretation differs on a day-to-day basis. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
They don't use attribution in this source, which was published after the corrections were issued. BilledMammal (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Unlike User:Makeandtoss above, I think that there are definitely some factual errors presented. Attributing a claim does not absolve you of responsibility to issue a timely correction (whether by editing/altering the article, or by posting a new article) when the attributed-to source changes their story. The first example also shows quite clearly that AJ has continued using inaccurate information well after other reliable sources have ceased publishing (and in some cases issued explicit corrections/retractions of old stories) such information. The second example clearly states Both Intifadas started off largely nonviolent. Our own article on the First Intifada states that by the second day, protestors were throwing petrol bombs, rocks, and other violent activities. Second Intifada also shows that it didn't "start off largely nonviolent". AJ is free to have its opinion on whether people intended to remain nonviolent. But stating that as a fact when it flies in the face of historically confirmed instances of violence within 24-48 hours of the months-to-years-long intifadas. Example 3 was quite clearly shown by BilledMammal - falsehoods by omission or by "misleading" timelines are not what we expect of a reliable source. To put it another way, if they weren't presenting the article as a timeline, they could say the information in whatever order they want. But since the article is purported to be a timeline, it's a factual error to say To provide air cover, Israeli forces started bombing from above right after talking about the cars just entering the area, and before discussing any further activities. That's intentionally misleading in a timeline. Example 4 is a non-issue, many reliable sources display a lack of knowledge of WP policies/procedures/terminology. Example 5 is barely an issue - it appears there is discussion hidden in the documents of the GDPs, and the 40% (well, rounded to 40%) is actually present in official documents from that conference. GDP is inherently a subjective measure, since different authors/politicians can include or exclude various "borderline" things, or calculate them in different ways. The World Bank site hasn't been updated for any country since 2022 (most recent data) - it's perfectly reasonable for AJ to assume that the G7 meeting that occurred within the last couple months has more recent/up to date information. Example 6 - AJ cites Al Jazeera, Palestinian Ministry of Health, Palestine Red Crescent Society, Israeli Army, Israel's social security agency. Ultimately, I doubt it's possible to verify that none of the other sources (including their own investigation) have come up with 15,000 as a number, and there are a handful of other sources (including the UN) that have published numbers over 10,000 that, if extrapolated, would be near 15,000 in mid June. Example 7 - misleading, but not outright false. Incomplete does not equal intentionally false. Example 8 - more research is needed - the article doesn't state that South Africa condemned it, but that the ANC government did. It's possible for political parties to act independently of official government foreign policy. Example 9 - again, incomplete is not misleading. Example 10 - not even sure this is misleading. Israeli army maintains operational control over the land of the checkpoint, and thus it's not really misleading to say they've sealed it shut. Whether they've expressed an intent to open it or not, that doesn't make it open.
So, where does that leave us? I count 3 examples of intentional falsehoods (or information presented in such a way to lead the reader to assume an intentional falsehood), 1-3 that are misleading, 2 that are incomplete information, and a few non-issues. That all said, 3 clear examples of intentional falsehoods or presenting information in a way that any reasonable reader will make inaccurate inferences - all of which have had ample opportunity to be corrected, retracted, or edited to present the information in a clear manner? To me that's clear that they cannot be trusted to publish factual information only on this topic at least. This is different than the ADL discussion above - in that discussion, many editors made claims of bias and how that bias means they can't be factually accurate. In this case, we not only have strong evidence of bias, but strong evidence of intentional factual inaccuracies. An RfC is the next step. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
On the intifada stuff, as highlighted by Nishidani, it's both subjective and a matter of perspective. If there are nationwide protests and violent incidents at only one or two locations, those protests could still be termed "largely nonviolent". Highly debatable. Timeline stuff ... also unclear. There was bombing before and after for sure. As for during, I'm not convinced that there is a single, authoritative chronology anywhere to benchmark this against. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't only one or two locations, it was nearly every major West Bank town and city. That can't be termed "largely nonviolent", and reliable sources don't term it "largely nonviolent". BilledMammal (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of perspective, nor is it subjective. If protests erupted in multiple places simultaneously, then sure, "started nonviolently" may be acceptable. But our own articles on the topic, as well as reporting from many sources that BilledMammal identified, all agree that both intifadas started with violence, or if they didn't 'start' with violence, erupted into violence so quickly after to make "started nonviolently" deliberately misleading.
I also feel it's very, very telling that Al Jazeera themselves used to continuously call the intifadas violent from the start - they only stopped doing so once the term "intifada" started being actually viewed as a call for violence. So basically, they've began starting to try to "rewrite history" just because it doesn't fit their bias/narrative now. And that's textbook inappropriate behavior for a reliable source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
On a purely procedural note, we really shouldn't use our articles as a measuring stick here. Articles with timelines are particularly susceptible to selective sourcing and chronicling. More generally, bad news speaks louder, so there is a media bias tendency to fixate on violent incidents over non-violent protest, which is generally dull. Take for example the 2018 Great March of Return, which began as an almost overwhelmingly non-violent action, and yet this is something that you would almost struggle to determine from the current Wikipedia page. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The violence started within 24 hours in both cases according to reliable sources. This is in comparison to months-to-years-long protests in each intifada. That's akin to saying that "I started as a bundle of a few thousand cells" - well, sure, I guess that's technically true, but it's irrelevant and misleading because I have been alive for decades. And that's if we accept your claim that they were nonviolent at the start - which multiple reliable sources present in our articles (which are a good place to start to look for sources, as you probably know) already refute.
It's ironic though, because I was explicitly calling out the source in question (Al Jazeera) has engaged in selective sourcing and chronicling in response to another point - to the point that they are deliberately misleading people. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Largely non-violent does not mean there was no violence. That is a tendentious reading of that report, and their reporting is backed by other reliable sources. See for example Hallward, M.C. (2011). Struggling for a Just Peace: Israeli and Palestinian Activism in the Second Intifada. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0-8130-4071-4. Retrieved June 20, 2024. The first weeks of the second intifada consisted of "an unarmed popular revolt," and it was only after heavily armed Israeli soldiers killed several dozen young demonstrators that Palestinian soldiers joined the confrontation. Palestinian suicide bombings inside Israel did not begin until three months later. nableezy - 21:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Something need not be an armed conflict, or include "soldiers", to be violent. The fact the quote you give pulls out "soldiers" and "suicide bombings" as its definition of when it becomes "violent", ignoring the rest of the violence that didn't have professional soldiers or suicide bombings. That's what's actually tendentious - trying to redefine the word "violence" to be "only violence that I think is bad enough to be called violence". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The source: an unarmed popular revolt. Berchanhimez: trying to redefine the word "violence" to be "only violence that I think is bad enough to be called violence" Who is it being tendentious again? nableezy - 22:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Someone need not be armed to be violent. You are trying to redefine violence to mean armed violence. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Ill let that stand on its own. nableezy - 22:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The First intifada is widely regarded to have been largely non-violent. The idea that "all agree that both intifadas started with violence" is total nonsense. If you are relying on an unreliable source, such as Wikipedia, to prove otherwise, Id be happy to provide you with reading material to correct that misimpression. nableezy - 21:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Example 5 is barely an issue
Well done on finding that - I spent a lot of time trying but was unable to. I've struck that issue. BilledMammal (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I conducted additional research on Example 8 - more research is needed - the article doesn't state that South Africa condemned it, but that the ANC government did:
The Bloomberg article isn't an exact match, while the earlier two are a little out of date, but I think this is sufficient to establish that neither the ANC nor South Africa has condemned the Russian invasion? BilledMammal (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I can't access the FT article, and I'm not sure I like the first one - since before the quote you pulled, it says Pretoria faces mounting criticism for failing to condemn Russia - making it more likely that "The ruling ANC" is being used to refer to the government in its official capacity - at least in my view. Obviously it's still unclear. Ultimately, I appreciate that it's an issue - and that you did the more research - but I'd say the disagreement over how to word the nuances of the ANC's party opinion, the ANC's member opinion(s), and the official government opinion makes this something not important to focus on. In other words, you've provided what I see as at least 3 much stronger true factual inaccuracies/deliberately misleading/omission of information/etc - those would be best to focus on as reason for unreliability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
As a helpful trick, if you're unable to access an article because of a paywall adding "archive.li" to the start of the URL usually provides the content, including with that article: https://archive.li/https://www.ft.com/content/a14b6cc9-a709-4b0f-a027-6839fb7505bd
However, I think you're right that we should forget about these less significant/more ambiguous issues and focus on the three strongest examples. BilledMammal (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I removed "frequent" from the section header. Selfstudier (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
First off, this is nothing to do with AI/IP, which is what you claimed this was all about when you opened this discussion. Secondly, On 1 February AJ reported "Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, South Africa has been careful not to condemn Russia’s invasion including declining to support a UN resolution on the matter." Perhaps this needs more looking into yet. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
As someone else suggested somewhere here, it's actually pretty plausible that it's simply an unnoticed typo. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
That Al Jazeera has a feature about the neutrality of South Africa regarding Russian aggression suggests that they agree with the consensus that SA is pursuing strategic non-alignment, which necessarily has confusion built in.
That Politico and other MSM has stated that South Africa has some degree of condemnation/disapproval suggests that strategic ambiguity regarding the conflict exists, similar to how US both sometimes acknowledges China's claim to Taiwan and refuses to have an embassy to Taiwan and vehemently opposes China's aggression on Taiwan at the same time as part of some strategic ambiguity plan they maintain. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
the wikipedia page of the second intifada gives off the impression that initial uprising and rioting by palestinians followed the pattern of a general strike, and that the lionshare of initial violence was perpetrated against palestinians, especially with regards to the post visit riot section indicating 7 palestinian deaths and hundreds of injuries for only 70 israeli injuries... Much of the phrasing indicates that it was protests and riots that turn violent
but arguing semantics won't go anywhere, this is clearly a matter of viewpoint and arguing that Al Jazeera is biased for having the viewpoint that the intifadas started off peaceful is rehashing the whole conflict. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Like many others who have commented, I find that almost all the claimed cases of "factual error" aren't cases of fact or error, just situations where OP would prefer something be characterized differently than AJ characterized it. The few cases that are questions of fact, like citing the figure a source was providing at the time the report was made (at or shortly before the time it was published), are also underwhelming. The claim above that this story says the Palestinian Ministry of Health [says] 15,000 children have died also seems to be wrong: AFAICT the "15,000 children" number only(? am I missing something?) occurs in an infographic which is sourced to a multitude of sources including not only the PMH but Al Jazeera itself (their own investigations or prior reporting); since it seems the issue is not with the number—which is also reported in some other places—but with its supposed attribution to the PMH, but AJ does not actually attribute it to the PMH, this supposed error too seems upon investigation to be another non-issue. -sche (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think Al Jazeera is generally unreliable for certain areas including I-P, for a few reasons

  • General factual errors, per BilledMammal.
  • Failures to properly retract errors, e.g. in the Jamila al-Hissi case
  • Framing questionable statements as (unattributed) statements of fact, e.g. in the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, which they referred to as "Israel’s attack on Al-Ahli Arab Hospital", "the deadly Israeli air attack on al-Ahli Arab Hospital", etc. well after that assumption became dubious.
  • Overall lack of scrutiny against certain narratives, e.g. often quoting unsubstantiated speculation.

— xDanielx T/C\R 01:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The questions we need to ask here are "Does Al Jazeera ..."

    • 1. frequently make factual errors relative to its overall output?
    • 2. fail to promptly issue corrections to errors?
    • 3. double down on errors?
    • 4. publish under a censorship regime?
  • If #1 is true where a source is publishing factual and avoidable errors in every third story, then the editorial staff are inept and the source isn't reliable.
  • If #2 is true and corrections are not published, then the source isn't reliable in that it lacks self-correction expected in journalism.
  • If #3 is true and the source peddles in conspiracy theories or hoaxes, then it tabloid and is not usable.
  • If #4 is true, all publications are suspect when covering any POV counter to its censor's interests.

I'm not convinced the at Al Jazeera hits any of these points based on my (light) reading of the discussion so far. We cannot expect a source to always be correct, only that they correct themselves when they are and that errors are kept to a minimum. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding #4, its important to note that Qatar was among the first Arab countries to establish relations with Israel. Qatar hosts the largest US base in the Middle East. A recent Israeli article notes that Qatar would readily agree to a US demand to expel Hamas leaders, and that article goes onto note that Qatar only allowed Hamas leaders in at "Washington's behest". There appears to be no reason here why the Qatari government would force Al-Jazeera to be pro-Palestinian. VR (Please ping on reply) 00:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Even enemy states often have some kind of (informal) relations and negotiations, such as the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. Qatar is one of 28 (UN) states to not officially recognize Israel, and of course provides funding to Hamas. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I've read most of this long discussion and my take is as follows. (a) At least a significant number of the inaccuracies that Billed Mammal raises are not insignificant. However, they are not significant enough that we should move away from a generally reliable status. Generally reliable is not synonymous with always reliable, and there is no reason to sacrifice an existing good source for a non-existing perfect source. All reliable sources make mistakes of this order. Yes, AJ is biased, which leads it to be slow in reporting or correcting some things and hasty in reporting others - but this is a reminder that we should always be triangulating anything contentious in this contentious topic area, and carefully attribute anything that has been challenged. (b) I am disappointed by the conduct of some editors in this discussion. The use of phrases like "inane" and "nonsense" and attributing nefarious motives or as revenge for other decisions - let alone effectively making an accusation of being an agent of Israel, as below - do not serve this project well. If a case is being made that really is "inane" or "nonsense", then simply refuting the logic or providing the contradictory evidence is enough to secure consensus; ad hominem attacks undermine that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of specific examples

  • Are there significant examples outside of the two contexts which at this point we've more or less beat to death (Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Qatari domestic politics) or are the alledged issues limited in scope? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    How many contexts would be enough to be a problem? Side note, holy shit this page is huge. Arkon (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
    The claim was made that the factual errors are freuqent, if that is the case I'd expect to find them in all of the topic area. We don't seem to be able to reach a conclusion on whether the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an issue and we already note the Qatari domestic politics... So this is the time for those who think that AJ is widely unreliable to demonstrate that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Just from this review there are some suggestions that the issues will extend beyond IP as some of the issues, while in articles tagged as IP, aren't themselves related to IP. I'll try to conduct a review within the next week, hopefully before any RfC is opened.
    I'll also try to conduct a review of topics that Qatar has a COI on - perhaps the World Cup - as while we have sources saying that in this area Al Jazeera can function as an arm of the Qatari state we haven't yet determined if it makes factual errors while doing so. BilledMammal (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    My understanding of the critical coverage is that the critiscism is less about non-factual coverage but about selective coverage... Non-factual coverage is a big deal for us here, selective coverage is not just because of how we operate (plenty of reliable RS present their POV/bias through selective coverage, overall they cancel out). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I do wish people wouldn't treat only those whose identities have been confirmed as dead. The OCHA figures are for those whose identities are known. People can be dead and noted as fatalities without their names and id numbers being known The Health ministry figure of 7,797 dead children being compared to 15,000 from Al Jazeera was for those childremn whose identities were known. And if you look at the citation to the Eeducation ministry they point to thie https://www.palestinechronicle.com/horrors-of-war-unicef-says-70-children-injured-every-day-in-gaza/ which cites the health ministry. NadVolum (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


Rafah Border Crossing

Moved from #General discussion
 – BilledMammal (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
What a waste of editors time. Reading https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-69012303 I suppose there is a row over who is to blame at the Rafah crossing. But honestly considering what has happened at the other crossings controlled by Israel are we actually supposed to believe Israel isn't effectively blocking this one as well? In that BBC article it talks about a full blown famine in northern Gaza. NadVolum (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
My call - all of this is WP:RECENTISM. It’s a war zone. That certain crossings or areas are currently inaccessible isn’t surprising or noteworthy. Next week it will be some other crossing or some other area. NOT NEWS! Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Reasonable call on the face of it but...this is all linked to the aid/starvation issue -> no crossings = no aid = starvation. Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I would still say too RECENT. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Then the entire war is too recent on that basis. We should all stop editing immediately. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that it's recent. But if anything, a news organization (such as AJ) has a responsibility to either (or both) identify their information as preliminary, estimated, etc., and/or engage[] in fact-checking and ha[ve] a reputation for accuracy [as signaled by the] publication of corrections - quote is from that section of NEWSORG with minor edits bracketed to make it fit the sentence. AJ has done neither in some cases - they've deliberately said Israel bombed at a time that they didn't (as verified by other news organizations outside the region), they've stated that a certain number of people died without identifying it as an initial report, and even worse, even after the information was corrected by the hospital not only did they not publish a correction, but they published another new article with the now-known incorrect information...
A news organization has an even higher editorial responsibility with the accuracy of its "breaking news" or similar reports. Al Jazeera doesn't routinely publish corrections and has been shown to continue parroting incorrect information even in articles they write and publish well after the information is corrected. That is not the responsible editorial practice we expect - well, we don't even know, because they don't even publish a corrections policy, and there is no method to contact them to ask for a story to be corrected. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
You replied to a bit about the Rafah crossing completely ignoring it. But anyway are you going to engage your corrections policy after having reading "Evidence of retractions and corrections" below? NadVolum (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Systemic bias

Echoing what Nishidani said above, attempts to remove AJ from wikipedia will worsen our WP:Systemic bias. Currently, of the 5-10 news sources listed at WP:RSP that are at least partially based in the Arab and Muslim world, AJ is the only one considered reliable. We are artificially creating an WP:SBEXTERNAL problem by axing sources coming from a large fraction of the world.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

agree Elinruby (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree vehemently. Systemic bias is already a problem of titanic size and scope...why we would go out of our way to proactively make it worse is unfathomable to me. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
This argument would forbid the designation as unreliable of any source whose inclusion would superficially remedy geographic biases on Wikipedia. Sources that get facts wrong should be treated differently. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that sources getting the facts wrong is concerning. However, plenty of RS get facts wrong, without us re-examining their reliability. I find that editors are often very excited to downgrade non-western sources for minor offenses that would never lead to downgrading a western source.
One example that I often cite: The New York Times, deliberately and over an extended period of time, repeated misinformation fed to them by the CIA about Iraq's WMD program. The terms "misinformation" and "propaganda" are both used by multiple high-quality RS to describe the NYT's coverage of the WMD story. NYT's misleading reporting played a significant role in generating support for the invasion of Iraq, which was a pointless war, based on lies, that resulted in misery, death, pain, and destruction on a level that is almost unfathomable. Oops. If we were to measure "unreliability" in terms of real-world harm caused by misleading reporting, the NYT would be a candidate for the most unreliable source in modern history, surpassed only by WWII-era German newspapers that promoted the Holocaust.
The NYT has a documented history of spreading misinformation about other topics, as well, such as Israel/Palestine and trans issues. My user page has a (woefully incomplete) list of RS that have covered NYT's misinformation, factual mistakes, and propagandistic content. Yet to my knowledge, there has never been serious consideration of downgrading NYT's reliability - and at this point, I'm fine with NYT being labeled "generally reliable"...although if we downgrade Al Jazeera on the basis of "they've made a handful of factual errors", I'm going to emphatically insist that we downgrade NYT as well.
My point is: I find that many editors are quick to suggest downgrading non-western sources (or sources critical of western governments) for peccadillos that would never lead to a re-assessment of a consistently pro-western-government source like NYT. We all know that if a source uncritically repeated talking points that came straight from the FSB in order to justify Russia's unprovoked invasion of another country, that source would have been deprecated immediately.
I have observed a double standard here that does, indeed, deepen systemic bias, and for that reason, I'm not convinced that a re-assessment of Al Jazeera is appropriate, their occasional factual blunders notwithstanding. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
agreed. If nothing else, for Israel-Palestine, if Al Jazeera says something particularly biased, we already give attribution.
Sidenote: It appears this topic was opened in retailiation for the change (?) in status for ADL when discussion Israel-Palestine... Which practically is just still giving attribution to any claim made by ADL on the topic? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, this source is biased, but this does not disqualify it per WP:V, just as sources on the other side like Anti-Defamation League and Times of Israel (discussed recently on this noticeboard). It is another matter that it frequently makes errors tilted to the certain side of the conflict, as illustrated in the discussion above. As about balancing one POV by another POV (assuming they are reliably published), I think it follows from WP:NPOV but rather skeptical about good content created by political partisans. My very best wishes (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • If a source is deliberately reporting false information, and does not abide by our expectations of issuing corrections/retractions to correct themselves, then that's a good bias for us to have. WP:RS is not only policy but is one of our most important policies. We should never lessen our requirements for reliability in the name of "avoiding systemic bias". I also don't think this discussion is advocating for AJ not being reliable overall - but in terms of their reporting about the country of Israel and the territories of Palestine, they have demonstrated a lack of reliability. Wikipedia isn't here to create the news, or to "fix" the lack of reliable news from a certain part of the world. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    The claim that they have reported "false information" is hogwash, based only on the idea that sources that regurgitate Israeli army press briefings should be accepted as gospel and those that do not as liars. But that is not, last I checked, how Wikipedia worked. nableezy - 21:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    It's not hogwash, though, because three solid cases of them providing false information, not issuing any retraction or correction, and deliberately placing information in an order to intentionally mislead inferences by their readers have been shown above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    That remains to be seen. Considering that most of the rest of the "frequent" examples turned out to be not so solid after all. AJ is green at RSP for a reason. Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Each of the claims of a solid case of them providing false information fails further scrutiny. The claim that they are deliberately placing information in an order to intentionally mislead inferences by their readers is fantasy. nableezy - 22:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Which ones? And is there independent verification besides what Israel says? NadVolum (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    al-Sardi school casualties, Second Intifada violence, and Nuseirat bombing timing.
    1. US weapons parts used in Israeli attack on Gaza school: Al Jazeera analysis
      Claims Fourteen children were killed, as well as nine women and at least 74 other people were wounded in their own voice. This is false. Several hours before the article was published the organization that provided the death toll corrected the figures from an initial report of fourteen children and nine women to nine children and three women. This has independent verification by al-Aqsa hospital and AP.
    2. Israel occupying Palestine echoes France colonising Algeria: Analysts
      Claims the Second Intifada started off largely nonviolent. This is false, as documented by a multitude of sources, with widespread gunfights, use of petrol bombs, and rioting. This has independent verification from countless sources who document this violence in their own voice.
    3. Nuseirat, anatomy of Israel’s massacre in Gaza
      Claims that prior to Israeli forces reaching the apartments the hostages were held Israeli forces started bombing from above, hitting the busy market the hardest, likely to spread as much panic as possible, as well as inflict maximum casualties. This is false; multiple independent sources have documented this in their own voice and relying on reports from reporters on the ground and Palestinian witnesses. Instead, the bombing did not start until after the Israeli forces arrived at the apartments.
    Importantly, these errors all advance a specific point of view; Al Jazeera is indisputably a partisan source, and this demonstrates that they present false information in support of it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    All three of these have been discussed, and your claim that any of them is false, rather than in the first instance based on information that was later changed, in the second also backed up by other sources, and finally based on different eyewitnesses is, as discussed above, based on nothing but your own perspective. You want us to say that these other sources are right and this source is wrong, and there is zero basis for it. And for the first, an Al-Jazeera report says The hospital morgue later amended those records to show the dead included three women, nine children, and 21 men. It was not immediately clear what caused the discrepancy. nableezy - 23:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Regarding the first, the information was changed before the article was published, not after. Al Jazeera also puts the claim in its own voice, so it doesn't matter that someone else was incorrect first. Finally, publishing the correct information in a brief live blog post doesn't address the issue of publishing false information in articles - no more than previously saying the Second Intifada began with fighting between Israeli soldiers and the Palestinian resistance addresses the issue of later publishing false information contrary to that.
    The others I think I've sufficiently proved with reference to large numbers of reliable sources, and so won't discuss again here. BilledMammal (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Largely nonviolent is not no violence, that is, once again, a tendentious reading of the source. And it was not false information, it was information that was based on what was being reported by health officials, and an AP reporter per ABC (Australia) for that matter, at the time (that source says The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in the nearby town of Deir al-Balah received at least 33 dead from the strike, including 14 children and nine women, according to hospital records and an Associated Press reporter at the hospital.) Again, a tendentious reading of the source. nableezy - 23:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Not at the time; Al-Aqsa Hospital had corrected it hours earlier. And even if they hadn't, Al Jazeera put the information in their own voice. A reliable source needs to be able determine what is appropriate to publish as fact in its own voice and what to attribute, and when it makes a mistake issue a correction. If they fail to do this then we are unable to trust that information a source publishes as fact in its own voice is true, which is the definition of an unreliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    That is, once again, a tendentious reading of the source. That article links to their story on the attack, which attributes the number to the Media Office. An analysis that is focused on the weapons used and not the casualties is being used here as though they are just making up the numbers. nableezy - 00:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    Reliable sources that publish articles based on information that is later “changed” are expected, by our policies and our editors, to not only issue retractions, corrections, or to edit their coverage accordingly, but to do so in a timely manner. The evidence shown is that there are articles based on “changed” or “inaccurate” information that have gone over a week without such a response from Al Jazeera. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
    Well then youve got a problem with Reuters as well for not updating their initial reporting either. nableezy - 00:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    Reuters doesn't put the claim in their own voice. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    They also dont update that the source updated their information. And, as I said above, you are distorting the in their own voice bit here. That is a story on the weapons used and links to their article on the attack where the material is indeed attributed. nableezy - 00:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    Well, Reuters has a mechanism to report errors - so report it to them and see what they do with that report. We don't expect sources to be perfect. We do expect them to be a) open to feedback from other news organizations and the public, b) have a clear mechanism to request changes/corrections to articles with inaccuracies, c) seriously investigate any reports of errors and determine if changes/retraction are needed, and d) clearly publish and make clear when a retraction/change was necessary for people who had read the prior inaccurate information.
    Reuters has a history of being very good at retractions and corrections when necessary. Sometimes they do this in a brand new article, acknowledging past errors. That said, even if Reuters has failed on this one topic/data point, that does not significantly change the fact that their history is, unlike Al Jazeera, one of quickly correcting and publicly doing so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
AJ reports unreliable information, which was pointed again and again in RFCs. My RFC a few months ago was closed for example because of completely unrelated issues such as "name calling".
The method seems to be very clear - every time there's a factual issue with AJ, here's a 101 Wikipedia tactic on how to solve it:
1. Claim it's the first time, or happens only once, and does not show any systemic issue / bias.
2. Claim that AJ retracts the article (even though it doesn't always happen, and when it does, if you keep on publishing false information and retracting it because of backlash - that is not the hallmark of a reliable source).
3. Claim that AJ Arabic is different than AJ English, even though the report is against AJ English.
4. Claim that it already says that it's biased on the conflict, even though the current wording makes the impression that AJ Arabic is the only real issue.
5. Claim that AJ is the only reliable source in the Arab world, i.e. prefer to lower the standards, ignore the issues, and claim it's reliable because "we have no other choice", which is a fallacy and problematic in many dimensions at best. Being the big one is certainly not the only one, and does not make a source reliable giving factually true information. Unless of course you believe RT because it's the biggest in Russia or any other "biggest", "only option" or anything else.
6. When that fails - start claiming that the authors of the RFC or the responders are Jewish / Israeli / whatever so they're biased, which is what happened multiple times in the last RFC - effectively saying that Israelis or Jews can never be reliable for anything related to Israel. Speaking of bias...
7. Close the RFC because of those unrelated comments regarding the intent of the RFC opener, completely disregarding that about 50% of the editors deemed it unreliable, and the actual faults found.
That's exactly what happened time and time again, and I wouldn't be surprised if it'll happen again here. That's why I have stopped contributing - that system cannot be fought against, and because we have Israeli editors on this discussion, their voices don't matter anyway per point 6 and as evident by the closing of the last RFCs. The only solution left is to be submissive and claim it's reliable because we said so. Bar Harel (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal you're playing against a biased system claiming it's reliable. If AJ will claim that aliens launched a nuclear bomb on Russia and retract it, they still count as reliable according to Wikipedia's standards as evident by the dozen RFCs against AJ. If it can't be verified because the bomb went in the sea and did not explode, then they get the benefit of the doubt as "no one can be sure what happened". Even if it would be deemed incorrect by a dozen different countries, it wouldn't matter as it's "the only Arab source", so they can effectively say whatever they want. There is no way that Wikipedia will deem AJ as unreliable, even if people writing its opinions column would kidnap hostages. Wait a minute... Bar Harel (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
In terms of systemic bias, there are other news sources such as The New Arab and Al Arabiya, both which were created in response to to Al Jazeera’s bias.
From the New Arab Wikipedia article: In 2015, Fadaat launched Al Araby TV Network as a counterweight to Al Jazeera and its perceived bias.
From Al Arabiya: An early funder, the production company Middle East News (then headed by Ali Al-Hedeithy), said the goal was to provide "a balanced and less provocative" alternative to Al Jazeera.

I think The New Arab and Al Arabiya should be on Wikipedia’s reliable sources list. I do not like Al Jazeera because of their biased reporting of witnesses on Al Shifa siege. The hospital director who lied on Israel not providing fuel and incubators (there was photo evidence of incubators) and the false witness who said the IDF raped people and set their dogs on them. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Good luck trying to get either of those sources as reliable on WP:RSP. You'll get much the same pushback as AJ is getting now.VR (Please ping on reply) 00:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I extremely strongly agree with other members here who have voiced concerns regarding that censoring Al Jazeera would completely slant Wikipedia in a far too onesided manner regarding the reporting of conflicts in the Middle-East, currently particularly the ongoing massacre against Palestinian civilians.
It is possible to find a conflict of interest in virtually any western news source owned by governments, corporations, or oligarchs, which would be almost all of them at this point, and even sources such as CNN and The New York Times insistently used to claim that there were WMDs in Iraq, to further the goal of invading the country, just to make one significant example.
The best we can do is to allow different perspectives, not just ones that further the agendas of the extremely far-right government of Israel.
Also, hasn't BilledMammal extensively attempted to censor Al Jazeera in Wikipedia previously, and had that attempt rejected? David A (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
AJ Jazeera as a reliable source needs to be judged on its merits and this alone. Sentiments along the lines of We need it to keep the Israeli government accountable are irrelevant. On this logic, Fox News would be fine because its needed to keep Biden in check. Any fringe new source in the world would be fine.
Al Jazeera isn't the only hope of balanced reporting on Israel - there's New York Times, CNN, BBC, Reuters, etc
And even if this isn't the case, it doesn't mitigate the flaws and faults of Al Jazeera as a RS. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
You're making point number 5 in my guide up above. You claim we have no other option, so whatever Al Jazeera says is reliable. They might as well say that I ate a toast this morning, but Al Jazeera would be the only news source that says it, so it has to be true. It keeps the balance against the toast-haters.
You're also making point number 6. You claim that BilledMammal tried to censor Al Jazeera. I don't even know what it means, but let's say he did. So because BilledMammal censored Al Jazeera in a random article, it means that whatever they say is true and reliable?
The vast majority of arguments in this entire RFC, and the ones before, have nothing to do with Al Jazeera publishing true facts. They're about blaming other editors for doing god knows what or claiming that "we need a good balance" so we're going to let Al Jazeera publish even if they publish wrong things. Plenty of arguments with merit were brought - cases of Al Jazeera stating false information time and time again, but they're being rebutted with "BilledMammal did something wrong somewhere else". Bar Harel (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Still waiting for an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll be honest with you, I don't even know if there's a point for it. I read the entire ADL RFC and I didn't even want to respond. It was a purely political RFC, with only vague resemblance to a process that actually relies on facts.
Throughout the entire RFC, only a single "false" fact from 2006 was brought back from the dead in order to claim that ADL is unreliable. Claims were made against the CEO and whatever unrelated statements he gave, and about whether anti-Israel sentiment is anti-semitic or not. The only two news sources that were brought as claiming that ADL is unreliable are the Jewish Currents and The Nation, and even they didn't say that the ADL published wrong facts, but said they were biased. Nobody ofc thought that maybe the Jewish Currents themselves are biased - after all, their WP article claims that they are aimed at "progressive Jews" - but their claims against the ADL must be 100% accurate and even those claims don't doubt the reliability or truthfulness of the information.
This RFC will turn into political voting very fast, and unfortunately there are less Jews and Israelis in the world so I feel like it has no chance of going anywhere, even if Al Jazeera will claim that they invented the wheel. People are supporting 972 magazine here because it's a small outlet against the vast majority of the Israeli opinion and even accept lobbying organizations as long as they're not pro-Israel like AIPAC or ADL, because suddenly lobbying can be reliable - but when it's pro-Israel, it is already a questionable source. Bar Harel (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
There's no point in an RFC but there's a point in this enormous going absolutely nowhere discussion? Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
If you're asking seriously, I don't believe there is. The majority of the discussions about Al Jazeera end up being completely unrelated to the subject at hand. It's a very good way of keeping the status quo - simply divert the discussion and it'll go down the drain. Pointless to fight it really. Bar Harel (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I wrote before: "The only solution left is to be submissive and claim it's reliable because we said so". The project's strive for reliability or neutrality goes down the drain in order to promote political goals, and you can see it just about everywhere - this discussion is only one of many. Bar Harel (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Who is doing the diverting? I am looking at the contents list to the left (on a PC) and most of them are introduced by persons arguing against AJ reliability. Look at the most recent one, for example, "More examples of misinformation and antisemitism from Al Jazeera" and so it goes on. Above, you brought up ADL and 972 (I assume because you disapprove of the outcomes), what is that if not a diversion? Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Completely disagree. Endless diversions, even within this very thread a few posts above. I brought the ADL and 972 to answer you and show a problematic pattern within these RFCs, which is not adhering to facts, but dealing with unrelated things again and again. Bar Harel (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This problem is not exclusive to the Arab world. We have very few reliable sources from China or Russia. However this happened not because we don't want to use good sources from those countries but rather because these governments are happy to manipulate the content of the media they control to further their interests. Alaexis¿question? 14:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Evidence of retractions and corrections

One of the characteristics of a reliable news organization is that it engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy [such as] the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. I would love to see evidence of Al Jazeera's correction/retraction policy, and how readers/others can request review of an article for a correction/retraction. The only thing they have anywhere prominent is in their "Code of Ethics", which states Acknowledge a mistake when it occurs, promptly correct it and ensure it does not recur. - one sentence that isn't actually followed as evidenced by the re-use of old numbers in articles published after the numbers were corrected by their source - and no corrections on any of the articles.

As comparisons, the following news organizations all post their corrections/retractions policy publicly and visibly (linked from every page or at most from one level down from any homepage/article): NYT (linked from Contact Us prominently as "Report an Error in Coverage"), NBC (Contact Us, linked on bottom of every page, and direct emails for authors/editors provided on every article), Australian Broadcasting Corp (Linked from Editorial Standards, themselves linked from every page), BBC (linked from Contact Us), [SCMP https://www.scmp.com/policies-and-standards#corrections] (Linked from Policies and Standards in footer of every page), Reuters (corrections link at bottom of every page), Associated Press (linked from Contact Us and other places), The Globe and Mail (entire policy posted and contact us links to a request), The Guardian (Complaints and Corrections linked from every page). And this isn't just limited to western/developed world sources - even sources such as The Wire (India) (RSP generally reliable, clear information on contact page of how to report errors), The Hindu (RSP generally reliable, clear contact us to the editor and published editorial policy), Indian Express (RSP generally reliable, clear contact us for reporting issues), Kommersant (RSP generally reliable but questioned, clear feedback for errors), Rappler (RSP generally reliable, published editorial policies and AI policies)...

This is just a sampling of sources rated as GREL on RSP, trying to pick from all around the world, or that editors seem to consider GREL from my memory. I've also included some that are "yellow" (unclear, add'l considerations, etc) or only reliable for some topics - because ultimately, even those sources tend to have published editorial policies, published corrections policies, a specific form for reporting errors/corrections, and/or have a clear link to corrections from their homepage/articles. Al Jazeera does not have a published editorial policy aside from "Code of Ethics" which is woefully lacking, and does not have a clear mechanism for reporting corrections/errors - only a general "feedback" form that does not mention errors anywhere. Obviously it's not necessarily required that a news organization go as far as to publish an entire editorial policy online, but a reputable and reliable source as shown by most other reliable sources will at a minimum have some evidence of accepting error reports and posting corrections in a timely manner. In fact, the one full retraction I can find evidence occurred during their coverage of the conflict was the removal (without any record) of an interview/article that had been up for over 24 hours regarding IDF soldiers raping civilians. Stories were edited/removed after the better part of 24 hours without so much as a formal acknowledgement of their inaccuracy in the first place.

Given that the editorial procedure is important in determining whether a source can be considered reliable or not, do editors have any other evidence that suggests that Al Jazeera complies with having a robust editorial policy and the issuance of timely, and publicized, retractions when they do get something wrong? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Here's Al-Jazeera's editorial policy. It literally only took Googling al-Jazeera editorial policy to find it. Loki (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Namely pp.25ff.Nishidani (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Reading these, and the ones provided below by Starship.paint, they all seem to be concerned with live broadcasts (it is mandatory to swiftly rectify any error committed during any bulletin or live show, apologize to viewers, etc). Is there one that applies to their website?
It also mentions publishing corrections to the Aljazeera Net webpage. Can anyone find that? Unfortunately, my ability to search for it is limited as I don't read Arabic. BilledMammal (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
One shouldn’t have to result to “googling” it to find a corrections/error reporting policy for a reliable news source. Reliable news sources openly admit they make errors sometimes because nobody is perfect, and they make it easy to report them and see their policy for actioning them, including publicly admitting and correcting.
Not to mention, as identified below, that Code Of Conduct references broadcast media, their TV - not their website at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
One should be able to put a random string of letters into a url and just conjure up their policy? Huh. nableezy - 02:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
If I am on the homepage of a news site, I should not have to “google” their policy for retractions or corrections, nor how (or if it’s even possible) to report errors to them. Every comparison I identified above has their policy linked clearly, most with the words “correction”, “errors”, or similar - from either their main page or their contact us page (itself linked from the main page). Al Jazeera has only a one sentence “nothing burger” in their Code of Ethics, and no mechanism for reporting errors that’s clearly labeled as such. Further, please feel free to engage with their retraction frequency and show some evidence that they actually do retract articles with errors on the same or similar frequency to other reliable news organizations. Hint, they often don’t, and the few times they do is often simply by removing an article altogether, with no public acknowledgement of the error or public statement of retraction/correction. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
See also, Al Jazeera Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct. Found within a minute or so. starship.paint (RUN) 02:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I did reference the Code of Ethics. The long PDF listed above refers to broadcast errors.
Even if they intend to apply that to print/digital prose news, the evidence suggests they do not apply it. Googling for retractions and corrections on their website shows no more than one every couple years. Not what’s expected if they’re correcting a majority of the errors they’re publishing.
Furthermore, them having a long PDF and a short version of the same words that references broadcast does not mean they actually make it easy to report errors, actually investigate those errors, and take action on those errors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Avenue to submit errors for Al Jazeera: link What would you like to provide feedback on? / I would like to provide content feedback / Please choose one of the following options: / Content Suggestion / Content Correction starship.paint (RUN) 02:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    So, thanks for finding that. The problem is that I searched - I spent the better part of 45 minutes doing research for this section - and I looked all over the contact us form(s) listed on their website, and nowhere does it suggest that by clicking on "AJ English feedback" will I get the option to report an error. If you review the contact forms I identified above, most allow a simple email to be sent - and those that don't present the error submission form either by clicking a link that goes straight to it, or prominently giving an option for error correction on the page without having to select other things first. So no, I do not consider it equivalent to the other reliable sources I'm comparing it to, because you have to click contact us, be presented with general enquiries, then somehow know that it's under "AJ English feedback" that gives you the option to submit a correction.
    And this is honestly slightly off topic - the discussion is also over what they do with the corrections/errors reported - because they do not issue timely corrections/retractions, and on the rare chance they do, they usually simply remove the article rather than actually publicly acknowledging and remedying their error. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    Believe they call ^^^ moving the goalposts. nableezy - 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    I made the goalposts clear in my original opening of this section. My goal is for any editor that has actual evidence that their editorial policy has more teeth for their internet news coverage (not their broadcast media) than the one sentence Acknowledge a mistake when it occurs, promptly correct it and ensure it does not recur. Furthermore, and to begin, it would be great if any editors could actually provide any evidence that they follow that one sentence, given that the only retractions I find that their English language site has published are from 2022, 2021, 2020, 2018, 2015... and going through the first 100 or so Google results (as I've been doing so far) for retraction site:aljazeera.com shows no more than 1 per year generally speaking, and often times none. Of note, there has not been a retraction since May of 2022 - at least not one that was publicly retracted rather than just deleting an article. This is quite odd - have they simply stopped making errors in 2022? They've become perfect? It's quite difficult to investigate corrections/edits added to the top of an article, or put inline within an article - but please feel free to provide proof that they actually do issue them more frequently than ~0-1 per year overall.
    And especially proof that they've issued retractions, corrections, or error notices for articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict - as only one of those retractions, and the one from way back in 2015 at that - was related to Israel or Palestine in large part. I find it very hard to believe that with all of the reporting Al Jazeera has done, and noted factual inaccuracies or ambiguities as above, that they have not made an error requiring retraction or public correction while covering the Israel-Palestine topics in almost a decade. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    It would require significant time for other editors to do the necessary research to find corrections or retractions there were. We don’t have a file of Al Jazeera corrections lying around in our computers, so the evidence is not going to magically appear just because you asked for it. You had the advantage of knowing you wanted to open this talk page section. For other editors this is just being dropped on our heads. starship.paint (RUN) 05:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    I am not asking for it to be presented now, and I don’t think there needs to be a deadline for presenting it. I opened this section so that other editors could attempt to refute the appearance of a lack of corrections/retractions. I understand that this is going to take time, and that’s one reason why I haven’t supported BilledMammal going and opening an RfC on the subject. That’s the whole point of this notice board, is it not? I did some preliminary research that suggests two problems - 1) their retraction policy for internet news is only one sentence, and the method to report issues is obfuscated behind multiple contact links and is not clearly stated, and 2) that either because of reason 1 (difficult to find report for your average reader) or another reason such as unreliability as a whole, that their retraction and correction rate seems to be lower than expected for a source publishing as frequently as they do. This is, for that reason, a very pertinent request to make - for any editors who wish to to begin researching so that, in the event an RfC is opened, the information has already been found and editors don’t have to then go hunting for it with a deadline of “before the RfC closes”. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    I don't intend to open the RfC until early July; part of the reason I opened this discussion, rather than diving into an RfC, was to give editors time to do research.
    And FYI, I didn't discuss this with Berchanhimez or anyone else prior to opening this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    As I said before, I am personally content for an RFC to be run right now, I think that should be done so as we can properly deal with unsourced commentary such as I do not like Al Jazeera because of their biased reporting of witnesses on Al Shifa siege. The hospital director who lied on Israel not providing fuel and incubators (there was photo evidence of incubators) and the false witness who said the IDF raped people and set their dogs on them.
    The only question I have at this point is whether the RFC should be limited to the question of reliability as regards AI/IP, perhaps we should just deal with that aspect. Selfstudier (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    I think it should be limited to reliability as related to Israel-Palestine - and I'd even be willing to go one step further and say that it's only for narrowly construed topics of the conflict itself (and not tangential topics such as protests/etc). I just spent 30 minutes or more going through and picking apart the "corrections" that someone kindly compiled - and the evidence suggests that, even if they historically have published timely retractions/corrections, that since Oct 7, 2023 the timeliness, quality, and quantity of those corrections regarding the I-P conflict have all decreased - to the point that I can't find a single one issued since late January/early February - and those both took a couple weeks or over a month to issue.
    However, before a RfC is started, I think it is a good idea to continue to try to compile evidence and discuss it - and at the same time, some administrator attention to address the editors attempting to deflect/distract from the discussion and cast aspersions on others for discussing it is necessary. Whether this is in a request/restriction to not have threaded discussion in the RfC, or whether it's by warnings/sanctions against participating in the RfC if the editor will not comment on the actual substance of the issue, I don't know. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
    So to be clear, the initial problem raised: "no editorial policy and no feedback mechanism" has in fact evaporated right? All that's left is "I shouldn't have to Google", and, "how would I know to click 'feedback' on the 'contact us' form to provide feedback?" ... Yeah? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Searching for the wrong word is a nice way to not get any results. Here is a fraction of what I found in the first few pages of google hits searching for "correction". Many of these are I-P related. [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] In conclusion, it is utterly false to claim that Al Jazeera rarely issues corrections. On the contrary, they do so frequently and I'd be surprised if it isn't more often than many other news sources who nobody thinks to challenge. Zerotalk 09:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep, just compare that to the ever reliable Daily Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/12/photo-baby-dead-hamas-israel-palestine-blinken/ on the dead babies story. No retraction on that page that I can see. Even the Times of Israel https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-takes-foreign-journalists-to-see-massacre-site-in-kfar-aza/ is better saying in a correction the story of the 40 babies 'has not been confirmed' - and then saying 'You see the babies...'! And how about all the burnt bodies the media referred to without saying how most of them came to be burnt? Al Jazeera is well up the scale with its corrections.
As to bias if Al Jazeera was trying to bias the story about the number of women and children killed in that school where Hamas was being targetted it would have been easy to put in a bit asking why any women were killed at all since there was a mens room and a womens room and the IDF were supposedly being so precise. Do you think anybody is going to be swayed in any way by a couple more or less being killed because they put out the earlier figure rather than checking every five minutes for the latest figure and updating? NadVolum (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I specifically said they rarely issue retractions publicly - and in fact there are instances where instead of issuing a public retraction of a completely inaccurate story, they've simply removed that story entirely from their website. On the topic of the corrections you found, about half a dozen or so are from 2023, and are about the I-P conflict. And that's great - it shows that, at least generally speaking, pre-October 7, 2023, Al Jazeera has a good track record of issuing timely retractions and corrections.
But that's not what's in question here. BilledMammal opened this discussion specifically about the war in Gaza against Hamas. So, looking specifically at their coverage after Oct 7, 2023, I'll pull just those links out and discuss why only some of them are evidence of legitimate editorial processes:
  • 24 Oct - not a correction, just the addition of a statement that hadn't arrived before publication.
  • 30 Oct - fine correction - but keep in mind this is a correction that is anti-Israel in nature (I intend to show that they have a habit of quickly correcting when it makes Israel look bad or doesn't affect the meat and potatoes of the story, but not when it may make Hamas/Palestine look bad). While undated on the website, Internet Archive shows it appearing at most 5 days later.
  • 15 Nov - correction of a factual error within a day of publication. Neutral correction.
  • 12 Dec and 17 Dec - two corrections, both issued on 19 Dec, meaning the inaccurate information was in the first article for a week. While misquoting can happen, it should not take an entire week to resolve it. And again, this is a neutral/pro-Palestinian correction.
  • 15 Dec - minor editorial error that doesn't have a date published for the correction - relatively minor error overall, only tangentially related to the conflict, but it's interesting there is no date published on the correction (unlike most corrections). The correction had not yet been published one week after the article, but was present a little over 2 weeks later. I can't be arsed to go through and find exactly what date and time it was added - but regardless, it's yet another example of a correction taking over a week.
  • 29 Jan 2024 - this correction took a month and a half to make, and left pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli information that was incorrect in the article for that entire period. Odd that they can issue corrections when it favors one side within a couple days to a week at most, but it takes over a month when it is damaging to the side they're biased towards.
  • 29 Jan - this isn't a correction, it's a clarification and quite honestly doesn't really even add any context to the article.
So... to summarize, the most recent ones presented are from the end of January - so going on 5 months without any. And even then, of those that are presented that are actual corrections (so minus the ZIM 29 Jan correction and the 24 Oct YT statement), there are 5 total. Only one of those corrections was issued within a day of publication. Another (the anti-Israel removal of the warning incorrectly reported as given) was reported within a "few days" of publication. Two others were corrected/reported about a week to two weeks after the first publication of the inaccurate information. But the kicker here really is the second to last bullet point - the last correction for which we've been presented here. It took over a month to issue that correction. And the pattern has continued past the ones you identified but not by more than an additional week or so - editorial mistake took almost 2 weeks to correct in early February (neutral to "less harmful to Israel" territory). I have yet to find a single correction of any article about the conflict issued in the past 4 months or so.
It is not likely to be fruitful to surmise why it took them over a month to issue a correction that would be vaguely pro-Israel or anti-Palestine. But it's not limited to corrections that are of that nature - the majority of news organizations have a track record of fixing errors within a few days of publication at most. Perhaps the issue with Al Jazeera is due to bias, perhaps it's because they intentionally obfuscate their editorial policies and how to report corrections/errors, or perhaps they simply don't care about being reliable. While it is true they have issued a couple corrections of articles published after January, none I've seen have been related to the I-P conflict. It would be quite odd for them to have published inaccurate information about once per month related to the conflict for the first 3 months of it, but then have suddenly never published any inaccurate information about it since - wouldn't you agree?
Ultimately, the evidence shows that they rarely retract articles entirely, and that while they do publish corrections, they do not publish corrections in the timely manner that is generally expected of a reliable source, nor have they posted any corrections on articles published February onwards. This shows, for whatever reason, that while they may have used to have a good editorial control, there has been some change - either in editors' willingness to correct information that is less beneficial (after correction) to their desired opinions of Palestine, or in their staff's ability to do so in a timely manner. Example 1 BilledMammal provides is ripe for a correction - the numbers were updated within 24 hours, and now two weeks later there still hasn't been a correction of it.
TLDR: Something has changed at Al Jazeera - whether they have intentionally withheld corrections from articles when it damages their viewpoint, or whether it is honest editorial mistakes, the quality, number, and timeliness of corrections on the Israel Palestine conflict have all greatly decreased (if not become nonexistent) since October 7th, 2023, and especially severely since Late January/Early February 2024. I have no problem with them being considered reliable before October 7th, 2023. But there needs to be serious consideration given to sources after that time about the I-P conflict, up to the point of potentially considering them generally unreliable due to a steep decline in editorial processes in this topic area since that time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
So do you consider the Times of Israel correction saying they had not got confirmation of the 40 beheaded babies enough then while the article still talks about babies and the stuff you have above about Al Jaazeera is somehow damming? That story about the babies really did have a propaganda effect. NadVolum (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
When I provided a list of corrections, on random topics in random order, I knew for sure that someone would claim that they aren't the right sort of corrections, that they took too long, whatever, whatever. If I answered those objections, further objections would be raised. Everyone here knows that an argument can be made for virtually anything. It means nothing, and a few anecdotes don't establish anything close to Berchanhimez's general assertions. Zerotalk 00:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Incidentally, in all my examples, something is specifically highlighted with a section heading "Correction". I didn't include any examples where an article was updated on the basis of further information, even though such articles are very common (but hard to search for). Those examples also count as evidence of reliability. Zerotalk 00:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
And some of those corrections are simply “we got a statement from the involved party that they didn’t provide to us before publication”. So you actually did provide evidence of that.
And if new information comes out, and an article is updated, then we do expect that to be prominently called out. Reliable sources don’t try to “hide” their corrections and updates. They prominently display them so that past readers know when visiting that something has been updated/changed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Taking one of the corrections you listed above: AJ notes the correction in bold and at the top of the story. I'd say that counts as "prominent" display.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Here are just some of their corrections post-Oct 7: [96], [97], [98] etc. And here are post-Oct 7 corrections that make IDF activities look more positive: [99], [100].VR (Please ping on reply) 23:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your last example, basically they acknowledged that they don't have any information about the IDF activity in that area on that day but the article is still there, saying that "Israeli snipers" did it without any caveats. Not sure it's a great example of doing corrections. Alaexis¿question? 22:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
It's called witness corroboration. Also plenty of Occam's razor. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

A step back to look at the metacontext of this complaint

All information in Israeli news outlets on the war must pass the censor who often rewrites it. Independent media access to the Gaza Strip is banned. The IDF censor blocked the publication of 613 articles in 2023, and rewrote (‘redacted) a further 2,703 over the same period. That means operatively that we are using as our core sources (here unchallenged) Israeli news outlets that repress reportage under a military regimen.

No journalist can enter Gaza except as an embedded person whose reportage is controlled by the IDF. It even seized all of the broadcasting equipment used by the Associated Press near Gaza until heavy pressure from the US forced Israel to cancel its decision The reason for seizing AP’s broadcasting cameras were that AP fed images to Al Jazeera, Israeli actions have killed 108 journalists and media workers in the Gaza Strip, and arrested a further 46 (effectively disappearing them) The son of Al Jazeera’s Gaza bureau was assassinated by an Israeli strike, as was a cameraman, making the number of Al Jazeera journalists killed by Israel since 1996 13. High numbers of journalists have been arrested and even killed in the unrelated West Bank. The most famous case was Shireen Abu Akleh, almost definitely taken out by an Israeli sniper, responsibility for which was challenged intensely by the IDF in protracted media statements that were consistently modified as independent evidence undermined them. No charges were laid against the sniper. It is one of the charges laid against Israel in the International Criminal Court, with al Jazeera a party. The war has been ‘sanitized’ within Israeli media.

Each evening, Israelis are sitting down to watch their prime-time television news programs to see what happened that day in this war.And each evening, the pattern is much the same — night after night pictures of Israeli soldiers walking through streets of Gaza; Israeli tanks driving across fields in Gaza; interviews with families of hostages taken by Hamas on October 7; a military progress update by Israel's Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari. There will rarely, if ever, be a picture of a Palestinian. . . All of which means that most Israelis do not see pictures of injured Palestinian women and children or the destruction of Gaza into kilometre after kilometre of rubble to the point where it will be difficult to rebuild it.

The suffering of Gazan civilians barely features, veteran journalists say, three months into an Israeli offensive that has killed more than 22,000 people, displaced nearly 2 million, and left nearly half the population on the brink of famine and stalked by disease. “In general, the Israeli media is drafted to the main goal of winning the war, or what looks like trying to win the war. If you want to try to find some similarities, it’s along the lines of the American media after 9/11,” said Raviv Drucker, one of Israel’s leading investigative journalists. . . “[Israelis don’t see the pictures from Gaza that most of the world is seeing,]”

Israel banned Al Jazeera, the one media outlet it could not manage to bring under its control and the key one for showing the world what actually occurs on the ground in Gaza-material repressed in Israel -, on the 5 May saying it endangered national security. The ban was for 45 days, renewable.

The ban was renewed for a further 35 days (shortened by a court order) on June 6 but, according to Reuters extended to a further 45 days on 9 June.

That is the metacontext hovering over BM’s opening up this thread, two weeks later, suggesting Al Jazeera was unreliable as a Wikipedia source.Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, could do with an article, Al Jazeera and Israel, the long running saga of.... Selfstudier (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Or compare that to this where they argue literal Israeli propaganda is a reliable source. It’s an attempt to ensure only avowedly pro-Israel sources may be used. And the basis for it is consistently lacking when one actually looks at the claims made. nableezy - 09:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Took the words right out of my mouth. Not only that but since Oct 7 the frequency and severity of Israeli censorship has considerably increased. Zerotalk 09:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I think something ought to be done to put a stop to this abuse of process. M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Well put, Nishidani. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there's really a shortage of press that's critical of Israel, with highly reliable sources like AP and NYT covering the conflict in reasonable detail (less than Al Jazeera, but most significant developments). More importantly though, there's no policy based argument for relaxing our WP:RELIABILITY standards based on such concerns. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
There was a recent UN report which received broad support at the UN and is already journal material, including the Journal of Genocide Research.
AJ reported it and so did the BBC. I couldn't find any reports from US media. Selfstudier (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
It looks like CNN covered it? And while BBC, Reuters and Times of Israel aren't US based, they also seem like reliable sources that could be used for that. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify on censorship -- it's a pretty typical wartime use of government power, even in a democracy. There isn't a conspiracy to fix narratives or hide major events; the Israeli press constantly criticizes the military from every angle. The military censor mainly blocks tactical coverage of ongoing operations, pictures of identifiable Israeli casualties, and especially the publication of names of casualties before the families have been contacted. The names are usually allowed out a few days later, clearly marked by "הותר לפרסם" (=now permitted to publish). Western outlets would publicly complain the instant they were prevented from publishing anything of analytical or political import. Similarly, outlets covering the US military were required to submit articles to the Department of Defense before publishing during the Gulf War. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
The Israeli military censorship regime is not restricted to wartime. nableezy - 19:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
C'mon now. Israel banned all of AJ for being too pro-Palestinian. That's not censorship? VR (Please ping on reply) 23:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
This entire subsection is an attempt to cast aspersions on the motivations of editors who are attempting to start and have a discussion on the reliability of the source in question. Even if the aspersions cast about BilledMammal are true (which I doubt), it doesn't change the fact that editors (including myself) have been trying to have a serious discussion about the issues BilledMammal brought up. I suspect the goal here is not only to cast aspersions, but to make this discussion so unwieldy that if/when an RfC is started it will be hard for editors who are monitoring only RfCs or are invited to it by the RfC bot and wish to contribute to the discussion to do so. This subsection will not change anything about the discussion of reliability - it does not matter that Israel is censoring media for the purposes of this discussion on the reliability of Al Jazeera. This section should be shut down and any editors attempting to stifle legitimate discussion by casting aspersions/disrupting the discussion process may need to be removed from commenting on this matter. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Suggesting an editor is casting aspersions against another when they did not is itself questionable, and disruptive. I simply placed the raising of this spurious (in my view) issue about AJ's reliability in a larger context, which is that Israel censors a huge amount of war material and is particularly concerned by Al Jazeera being extraterritorial to its comprehensive afforts to control the narrative/reportage inside Gaza. Zero provided 26 diffs which contradicted the wild assertions based on a handful of dubious cases that AJ doesn't self-correct. What was the response? Silence. These humongous threads full of random assertions and their tedious rebuttals are a waste of our editing time, in the way they demand immense distraction from article composition and correction. If any RS source makes an error, and most do quite often, it can and almost always is corrected by talk page review. One cannot solve the problem by throwing out the baby with the barfwater. Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Sources are not evaluated in "context", aside from the one exception of sources can be compared on similar necessary corrections to see if some (reliable) sources make them and others (less than reliable) don't. The larger context is irrelevant - it does not matter that another source was recently considered unreliable or discussed. The reliability of one source with completely different ownership does not impact the reliability of this source, and there have been legitimate concerns raised.
You're correct that Zero provided 26 links (not diffs, but mental typo presumably :P) - but if you'd notice, the majority of them are pre 2023, and of those since October 7, 2023, only 6-7 relate to the I-P conflict (I found an additional one myself too). Of those 6-7, they took over a week to publish in half of the cases, and all of them were before late Jan/early Feb - not a single correction/retraction has been found since then, even when BilledMammal identified clear need for them (inaccurate numbers corrected by health ministry, etc). If nothing else, this shows a clear decline in reliability on the I-P conflict since Oct 7th. I personally am not even interested in looking at their reliability on other subjects, hence why I have structured my discussion replies to be specifically about the I-P conflict. Why Zero and others (such as yourself) continue trying to make this a dichotomy of "they're either reliable on everything or they're not, and since they're reliable on other things like science they must be reliable on the war too" I don't understand. I get that you say the response was silence, but there's no rush, and I prefer to take my time to be able to address all pertinent information when I formulate a response. Sorry if that makes you think "silence", but I had posted that response about 10 minutes prior to this. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that you had already started replying here and didn't see it.
There is not random assertions. Discussions of reliability are necessarily tedious - you have editors who believe it may be unreliable and others that believe it is reliable, and thus the discussion of reliability necessarily is tedious as it requires investigating their history and especially recent history of their editorial processes' rigor. Discussions about the editor's motive for starting this thread detract and distract from the ability of editors to have the tedious discussion that will preclude a larger RfC on the topic. And by the way, I stand by my claim that you are casting aspersions by opening this subsection. There is zero other reason the "metacontext" adds anything to this discussion, because it doesn't matter what happened with another discussion about another source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Discussions of reliability are necessarily tedious, especially unnecessary ones. Selfstudier (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary, but they haven't issued a single correction on any article published about the I-P conflict since early February while they had issued about one to two per month between Oct 7th and that time? Funny how they somehow magically stopped making any errors in that topic area at that time. And the last two corrections they did publish took almost two weeks and over a month respectively. If that's not evidence that the editorial team has either stopped caring about corrections/errors as much, or that they are being required to limit them for bias reasons, I'm not sure what is. Sources' reliability can change - in fact, multiple sources on RSP are treated as generally reliable for a time period, and after a certain "cutoff" they are considered wholly unreliable (either in certain topics or altogether) as a result of changes in their reporting.
So what's unnecessary about this when without this discussion, there never would've been the analysis of the retractions and corrections that shows that there has been a steep decline (if not complete cessation) in their corrections related to the I-P conflict since Oct 7th and especially since early this year? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
You've made your point. Try to exercise some discursive restraint, so that the already unmanageable mega-threads don't develop into unreadable subthreads. Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
they haven't issued a single correction on any article published about the I-P conflict since early February while they had issued about one to two per month between Oct 7th and that time - well from Feb-May 2024 I believe there was a relative drop in the amount of fighting after victory at Khan Younis and preparations for the attack on Rafah. There’s a section on that in our article. Perhaps, simply, less controversial events happened. Or fewer errors were made. One need not immediately assume malfeasance. starship.paint (RUN) 03:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
My biggest concern in the area is how they handled the Al-Shifa rape hoax, from late March 2024. Reliable sources are defined by their ability to assess the veracity of information presented to them, and determine whether it is sufficiently solid to present in their own voice, to presented attributed, or to not present at all.
However, we don't expect such sources to be perfect, and they are permitted to make mistakes - but when they do how they handle the mistake becomes important. This is particularly true when their mistake resulted in them spreading deliberate disinformation.
In Al Jazeera's case, when they discovered the story was a hoax they didn't publish a retraction, and while they have silently deleted some of the coverage some is still up. This behavior demonstrates that their process to correct errors is flawed, and insufficient for us to consider them a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Not sure live blog of recent/breaking news events would be a reliable source anyway - my understanding is that the general consensus is that "live blog" events are not generally reliable as many reporters/editors have access to post on them and they generally have separate (if any at all), more rapid/relaxed editorial review before posts are allowed. And in live blogs, it's generally more acceptable to issue a correction/retraction as a new post to the live blog, since by the point it's realized one is needed, the original post is likely too far "down" in the timeline to be seen by many people anyway, thus a correction on the one post itself is likely useless.
I agree that the fact there are multiple stories for which Al Jazeera has simply deleted entirely rather than replacing them with a retraction notice shows that, since Oct 7th at least, there has been a shift away from acknowledging retractions and an attempt to hide the fact they published incorrect/inaccurate information. And that's not what a reliable source is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Al Jazeera's live blog is currently treated as reliable. There are 3689 references to it in mainspace, most of which appear to support claims in wikivoice. If nothing else, I think we need to make it clear that the live blog is not generally reliable, and should not be used to make claims in Wikivoice.
Regarding how to issue corrections, I would agree that it would be acceptable - even ideal - for Al Jazeera to have retracted that story by making a new post on their live blog, but they didn't do that either.
This is why I see Al Jazeera's behavior in regards to this hoax as so concerning; they published disinformation that generated widespread outrage, and when a few hours later it was found to be a lie made no attempt to correct the record and instead silently and partially removed it. A reliable source would be concerned that they had misled their audience and seek to correct the record, but Al Jazeera was not - and I think the fact that the nature of the misinformation was aligned with Al Jazeera's bias is relevant to why they had no interest in correcting the record. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't silent. Their former managing director himself called it "fabricated"[101]. Plenty of retractions in other news sources don't elicit a comment by senior staff, let alone a managing director (albeit a former one).VR (Please ping on reply) 23:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
A reader shouldn’t be expected to read another news source to learn that a story was retracted. That’s the entire point - a reliable source should not “hide” their retractions, and especially shouldn’t be blabbing about them on other news sites while hiding the retraction on their own site. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

State funding and influence

There are multiple reliable sources which confirm the influence the Qatari state (which is an absolute monarchy) has on AJ:

  • The Qatari Crisis and Al Jazeera’s Coverage of the War in Yemen by Gamal Gasim
  • Al-Jazeera’s “Double Standards” in the Arab Spring by Zainab Abdul-Nabi
  • Dominika Kosárová, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya: Understanding Media Bias

Alaexis¿question? 22:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Accuses Al-Jazeera of having selection bias. Of course it has selection bias! American newspapers focus far more on US politics than international. Can you really blame Middle Eastern media for focusing on the war in Yemen?
2. The Arab Spring was a seismic event, and it makes perfect sense for AJ to "aggressively" cover it. AJ's "aggressive" attitude (wherein they send their journalists into places other journalists don't go, do investigative journalism and ask uncomfortable questions) is a good thing.
3. All it says AJ is WP:BIASED, which doesn't make it unreliable. Most news sources have a bias and stick to their bias for commercial reasons (WaPo's anti-Trump stance is basically a part of its brand).
Let me ask you a question, Alaexis. The UN report that "At least two female Palestinian detainees were reportedly raped" in recent months was picked up by Al-Jazeera[102], Guardian, CNN[103] etc. But it was not picked up by Times of Israel AFAIK. Does that make ToI unreliable? VR (Please ping on reply) 15:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you got my point. The problem is not just that AJ has a bias. The problem, as these articles make clear, is that their biases are driven by the interests of the Qatari rulers.
  1. They started covering the war in Yemen waged by Saudi Arabia more after the crisis in the relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
  2. The change of AJ's coverage followed the change of the Qatari policy. AJ started broadcasting "blatant propaganda that directly serves Qatar and its agenda"
  3. The AJ's bias reflects their state-sponsor's interests
Their coverage is directly affected by the interests of an absolute monarchy with no freedom of press to speak of.
Also, WP:BIASED doesn't say that the bias can be ignored. Even if it had no factual errors it would still mean that we need to balance their bias per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources. Alaexis¿question? 20:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Again, there is no basis in policy to consider a source unreliable based on the source of bias. For example, consider that state-sponsored CBC News is required, by Canadian law, to have certain biases (eg in favor of French Canada and multiculturalism) and they are even listed on its website.
"no freedom of press to speak of" There is plenty of government interference in Israel against pro-Palestinian media[104], and likewise Germany[105][106] and France[107] have cracked down on pro-Palestinian speech. If we only accepted sources from countries with a perfect free speech record, we'd have very few sources left.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of the quotes is to demonstrate that the bias exists and it's driven by the political interests of Qatari rulers. This has all kinds of implications: we need to make sure that information from this source doesn't have undue weight, sometimes attribution need to be used.
Comparing Qatar with Germany or France is... interesting. The are no countries with "perfect free speech record" but every rating you'll find will tell you that the situation is Qatar is much worse. Alaexis¿question? 14:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of the quotes is to demonstrate that the bias exists and it's driven by the political interests of Qatari rulers The RSP entry already covers this. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Not really, it says "some editors" think so. Alaexis¿question? 08:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is another example of Qatar using AJ for their political purposes [108]

Alaexis¿question? 20:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

2010? That article also says "It has been seen by many as relatively free and open in its coverage of the region" Selfstudier (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Possibly, with the exception of its coverage of Israel. And I think this is a wonderful compromise - it can be used as a reference for news on the region that has nothing to do with Israel. Win-win for everyone, especially Wikipedia. Don't you agree? MaskedSinger (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
No, only a win-win for the Israeli government and the cause of hiding most of its crimes against humanity. David A (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Which crimes would this be? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. We don't need to have that discussion here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
"compromising" on al jazeera by arguing it is not useful for WP:ARBPIA when the original premise of this post is that al jzaeera is WP:ARBPIA is not a compromise at all.
a compromise means meeting in the middle, and the point of this originally is to talk about the reliability of aljzaeera wrt Israel/palestine. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I just had a check of Reporters without Frontiers at https://rsf.org/en/index and Qatar ranks at 84 compared to Israel at 101. So... who exactly is throwing stones at who here about press freedom? NadVolum (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
One of the best arguments for AJ is that it was banned by Israel and no-one else.
Israeli military censor bans highest number of articles in over a decade The sharp rise in media censorship in 2023 comes as the Israeli government further undermines press freedoms, especially amid the Gaza war.
"Israeli law requires all journalists working inside Israel or for an Israeli publication to submit any article dealing with "security issues" to the military censor for review prior to publication, in line with the "emergency regulations" enacted following Israel’s founding, and which remain in place. These regulations allow the censor to fully or partially redact articles submitted to it, as well as those already published without its review. No other self-proclaimed “Western democracy” operates a similar institution." Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Obviously Israeli sources have their biases (though I don't think that AJ or any other Qatari sources criticise their government like Haaretz or 972 do). Using only Israeli sources for a topic related to the conflict is obviously not a good idea. But no one is suggesting it, so it's a bit of a strawman argument. Alaexis¿question? 19:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
@NadVolum If you'll check any of the previous years since the start of the ranking system at Reporters without Frontiers (2023, 2022, 2021, ...), you'll see that Israel was ranked above Qatar for years.
The majority of the ranking went down this year after Israel has killed and detained journalists during the war, some of them allegedly operating with Hamas, and because of state laws against Al-Jazeera - also due to their ties with Hamas.
If Israel believes Al-Jazeera is unreliable - being a tool for propaganda and incitement, or finds Hamas operatives within Al-Jazeera and chooses to ban it, I don't really think that makes AJ suddenly reliable does it? Nor does it say much about freedom of the press when you arrest or bomb journalists who shoot anti-tank missiles for a living. Bar Harel (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Reporters without Frontiers is a well recognized source and Wikipedia editors are not. They didn't suddenly become reliable - Israel and Qatar have been in the same ballpark for a while. It may well be that Israel killing 200 journalists has contributed to Israel getting a worse rating, I don't know, but I don't think they should be targetted as a group just because some might be bad. NadVolum (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I talked about this earlier, but credible sources, such as the Egyptian director of AJE in this article, indicate that at least the English version of Al Jazeera has successfully resisted overt control from Qatar by arguing that soft power from journalistic integrity is worth more than pure propaganda.
It's def not unbiased... but what source is unbiased? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
But what about the accounts that Al Jazeera journalists work for Hamas? We don't have to tip toe around this. If this is the case, than surely when it comes to WP:NPOV this has to be taken into consideration.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-demands-answers-al-jazeera-215356871.html
https://www.timesofisrael.com/wounded-al-jazeera-reporter-in-gaza-an-alleged-hamas-operative-flown-to-qatar/
And Qatar has been funding Hamas - https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/lretnzx9l
Wikipedia isn't solely dependent on Al Jazeera for anti Israel content - there's the BBC, New York Times, etc. Even the Israeli press is critical of Netanyahu and the Goverment. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
How many of those didn't say 'Hamas-run Health Ministry' unnecessarily impuning the reliability of the HealthMionistry in Gaza? NadVolum (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
That first link is a repost from Fox News, an american conservative news station known for using "terrorist" and "terrorist-sympathizer" every night to describe anyone they don't like.
Times of Israel is known to have a right wing bias.
No clue about Calcalistech, apparently its just an Israeli tech magazine, might be reliable... but I think it's well-known that Qatar and other Iran-proxy governments have provided aid to Hamas. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
from 2014 until today when Qatari financing is done in coordination with Israel, the United States and the United Nations. Right. Selfstudier (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
So what? Everyone knows that there was coordination, with the infamous suitcases in which money was brought to Israel to be sent to Gaza. Logistically it would be pretty hard to transfer money without some kind of coordination with Israel. As an aside, there are now even claims that Netanyahu himself got Qatari money [109].
However this does not disprove a well known fact that Qatar has been supporting Hamas. Alaexis¿question? 20:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The US supports Israel, and...? As things stand right now, I can't see much difference. At any rate, they are aware and it doesn't seem to bother them very much. Can't say it bothers me that much either. Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but the US media offer a wide range of views and they don't all change tack when the US government has a fallout with a foreign country. And yes, I know about the Iraq WMD debacle but that was 20 years ago and even then there was plenty of dissenting views. Qatar has no such vibrant media environment. AJ is probably the most independent media there, but even it has to follow the government's policy as the articles I've shared above show. Alaexis¿question? 16:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
We're not in Qatar, are we? AJ is a global newsorg, right up there in the rankings an all. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Russia Today is also a global newsorg, so what? Alaexis¿question? 21:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
RT is deprecated, AJ is green. And this whole thing is just a complete waste of editor time. If you want an RFC, go ahead open one, else..? Selfstudier (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
You're right, that would be the natural next step. Alaexis¿question? 22:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Information supporting reliability of Al Jazeera English

First, I think this subsection is talking about Al Jazeera English (AJE), so I will use that, instead of Al Jazeera Arabic (I think that site has its own policy, and we should agree to focus on this one) Some studies[1] confirming Al Jazeera English has verification processes that compare to others (i.e. BBC News), in terms of using Double sourcing, and other editorial verication processes.

Another study suggests that news sites have bias, and that some western sites, such as BBC, necessarily advantage one side of the conflict, and another frames the conflict in humanitarian and moral environment.[2] In particular, some sources indicate that AJE (at least in comparison to other al jazeeras) has resisted significantly against regulation from authorities that fund the news source, arguing that real journalistic independence for AJE provides soft power to Qatar.[3]

Thanks for adding sources to the discussion. I'm not sure that Maziad's article supports the reliability of Al Jazeera English (AJE) for all topics:
So they acknowledge the generally good reputation but describe how its reliability was compromised when Qatari/Muslim Brotherhood interested were directly affected. Alaexis¿question? 11:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Do you mean showed signs of being compromised or are you describing something other than that quote? Its tempered by "Part of the problem, however..." and is expressed in a given context and is making a statement about that context not saying that overall their reporting is of compromised accuracy and credibility. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
This is a quote, so we can't know for sure what the author meant. Whether it refers to the reporting on Egypt or to AJ in general, my point was that this article describes reliability issues similar to the ones raised elsewhere in this thread, and therefore isn't unconditionally "supporting reliability of Al Jazeera English". Alaexis¿question? 21:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

More examples of misinformation and antisemitism from Al Jazeera

  1. Al Jazeera posts video of holocaust denialism
    Al Jazeera has removed a video about the Holocaust from its AJ Arabic channel after it sparked outrage for claiming the genocide was “different from how the Jews tell it”.
  2. Al Jazeera News anchor tweets that Jews are descendants of the Khazars, a conspiracy promoted by White Supremacists ideology.
    [110]
    [111]
  3. Al Jazeera airs antisemitic lecture which defames Kare Bluitgen
  4. Al Jazeera hosts interview with Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar
    Mahmoud Al-Zahhar claims that Donald Trump may be a Jew, and that "the most important thing in the Jewish religion is Jewish money"
  5. Senior Hamas officials in Gaza award a certificate of appreciation to the Qatari Al-Jazeera channel
  6. Al Jazeera hosts TV show in which host minimizes Holocaust and endorses Hitler
    Here, for example, is Qaradawi speaking about the Holocaust to the audience of his popular Al Jazeera television show on January 30, 2009:
    Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them—even though they exaggerated this issue—he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.
  7. Al Jazeera staff resign after ‘biased' Egypt coverage
  8. Al Jazeera column falsely claims that France prosecuted a man simply for saying 'Dirty Zionists'
    In fact he also said "dirty race" [112], which AJ does not mention.
  9. many more examples here Hi! (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ahmad, Normahfuzah (January 2024). "Journalistic Verification Practices From the BBC World News and Al Jazeera English". Howard Journal of Communications. 35 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1080/10646175.2023.2233096. ISSN 1064-6175. Even though employees acknowledge the importance of delivering accurate news, AJE relies more on journalistic knowledge and experience and is given autonomy to make reporting decisions from partially verified sources in special circumstances. This, however, does not mean that the channel is lacking in its verification. Merely, AJE embraces the challenges of new media technology positively by emphasizing the importance of sound editorial judgement and ample journalistic experience when dealing with social media sources and verification. Similarly to the BBC, AJE too places importance on truthful reporting. The fact that the news channel has had numerous attacks to close down its operations by various governments in which it operates indicates the organization's continuous effort in providing truthful stories to the public at large
  2. ^ Zghoul, Lamma (February 2022). Al-Jazeera English and BBC News coverage of the Gaza War 2008-9: A comparative examination (phd thesis). Cardiff University. The findings show this translated into markedly different editorial choices: Overall, the BBC's 'decontextualised balance' approach often disadvantaged the Palestinian perspective by under-reporting Palestinian rationales and deprioritising contextualisation, whereas AJE's 'morally informed objectivity' resulted in coverage which centred the humanitarian dimension and was explicitly sceptical of official Israeli narratives.
  3. ^ Maziad, Marwa (April 2021). "Qatar in Egypt: The politics of Al Jazeera". Journalism. 22 (4): 1067–1087. doi:10.1177/1464884918812221. ISSN 1464-8849. Al Jazeera does not simply obey higher up command, as many perceive it to be'.7 Rather, the managing directors, editors, journalists, reporters, and even administrators have cooperated and clashed, and viewed their media profession in ways that altered how Al Jazeera acted, in practice, (Migdal, 1994) vis-à-vis Qatar's imagined directives for foreign policy. 'The State of Qatar might have started Al Jazeera as a source for its soft power
Did these incidents occurr for Al Jazeera's English version, or for the Arabic version? Or are they mixed together? David A (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
MEMRI stuff should probably be taken with a pinch of salt. Selfstudier (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Or something stronger. And then we have some bloke's tweet, which is not the network speaking, and an award awarded to the network, which is not its problem. Then a video that was taken down, which actually proves editorial controls. And a random resignation. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for your evaluations. David A (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrapping this up

This discussion has been ongoing for over a month, is now nearly 200k in size, and risks becoming a perpetual merry-go-round of disagreement. I don't see how more discussion is going to change the current situation. Can I suggest any editor still interested in changing the status quo should consider further options. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

If it's a perpetual disagreement about whether Al Jazeera English is reliable or not, then why is it marked as reliable with the following remark? "Editors perceive Al Jazeera English to be more reliable than Al Jazeera Arabic." or "Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly Al Jazeera Arabic, is a partisan source on the Arab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest"
Clearly many editors perceive Al Jazeera English to not be reliable at all, or biased at the very least and those remarks clearly ignore them and the god knows how many discussions about Al Jazeera that are opened repeatedly.
Closing the discussions again and again is akin to writing a conclusion that is completely unrelated to the facts at hand or half of the editors' remarks. We cannot agree on reliability, we cannot agree on it being biased or not, so the conclusion is that some editors believe that AJ Arabic is biased and the rest is fine? Bar Harel (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The consensus currently is that shown at RSP, workshopped at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Why is Al-Jazeera green? there is no perpetual disagreement. Are there some editors who disagree, sure, but that's not the same thing. Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest that if you want some kind of change then you should consider starting a RFC, or working with other editors to come up with the wording for a RFC. General discussions such as this, especially on contentious topics, are unlikely to be the cause of any change. Only editors intested in the topic area, or who hang around this noticeboard will have taken part in this discussion. A RFC would invite the wider community to take part in a consensus building process. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
To be clear endless discussion across multiple issues that would be impossible to close are never going to change the RSP, no-one is trying to close down discussion only move it towards something constructive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
this discussion was created to relitigate al Jazeera in light of the deprecation of the ADL as per WP:ADLPIA
We should close this and soon, it is both a waste of time and a repeat of previous discussions. It is highly unlikely it will change the status quo, especially as this is not an actual RFC.
what is the process for closing? do we ask a WP:UNINVOLVED admin to close this? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Just a clarification but ADL was not deprecated, it was judged unreliable in the I/P topic area. It sounds bureaucratic but the terms have different impacts, see WP:DEPREC and WP:GUNREL.
I don't think this needs closing (I'm not sure there is anything here to close), it could just be left to be archived.
It could be worth having a RFC, as there is disagreement and it would hopefully put a stop to these endless threads. But that would be up to any editor interested in doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Bluethricecreamman The previous discussions reached no conclusion, and the status quo isn't really a status quo considering it is pretty one sided. ADL or not is unrelated to the reliability of Al Jazeera, but akin to the ADL discussion - I do fear that an RFC will turn into a political vote regardless of the actual facts at hand or the opinions of the, yet large, minority.
However, considering the amount of discussions and what seems to be a continuous disagreement with Al Jazeera's current marking, an RFC may eventually be a good idea. I personally have stopped contributing for a bit because this subject outraged me and together with other personal issues I'll be unable to manage the headache of an RFC this requires. @BilledMammal, as the original starter of this discussion, would you like to do the honor? It will be a hard RFC to close and navigate, will probably turn into a large project. Bar Harel (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll draft something in user space in the next few days; I'll ping you and a few others to help with it, and once we are satisfied can open it and make the appropriate notifications. BilledMammal (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Do leave a link here as well once the proposal is presented. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445&oldid=1236192204"