Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 454

Archive 450

←

Archive 452

Archive 453

Archive 454

Archive 455

Archive 456

Archive 457

Sports Publishing/Skyhorse and Triumph Books

While doing a WP:BEFORE search to establish notability for the Celtics–Pistons rivalry, I encountered p. 52–53 of this book which provides in-depth secondary coverage of the rivalry. On Wikipedia, Sports Publishing redirects to Skyhorse and is listed in the infobox as an imprint of that publisher. Is this a reliable book? Left guide (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking further, the cover says "officially licensed product of the Detroit Pistons", so it may not be an independent source; seems to imply some sort of conflict of interest which would make it a WP:COISOURCE. Left guide (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Also this book published by Triumph Books if I may ask; it has a paragraph covering this rivalry. Sports Publishing and Triumph appear often in this topic area, so it would be helpful to know their reliability. Left guide (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Giving a general answer to a publisher output isn't always possible. Triumph for instance looks reputable, but also publishes instant books that I would be more weary of. Skyhorse publishing, and so Sports Publishing, has received some pretty harsh criticism, but that criticism doesn't necessarily relate to it's sports publishing.

Other ways of judging the reliability of the source is checking the author and if is used by other reliable sources for citation purposes. The book published by Triumph for instance is by Donald Hubbard who has created other works on sports related topics that were published by Triumph and McFarland. I would consider it a reliable source given it's author. I can't find any details of the authors of the book published by Sports Publishing, but it is used as a reference in Sports in America from Colonial Times to the Twenty-First Century: An Encyclopedia published by Routledge and Encyclopedia of Sports Management and Marketing published by Sage. I would consider it marginally reliable because of it's 'use by others'. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I noticed some of Triumph's "instant books" also and it's probably a useful distinction to bear in mind. For example, this book was published a mere two days after the Celtics won the 2024 NBA Finals, so it may not be a secondary source and is essentially news reporting in book format. The material accessible in preview reads like the typical newspaper sports section the day after a championship win. Left guide (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Are these sources acceptable for The Gospel of Afranius?

I removed them, User talk:Strecosaurus restored them.[1] [2] is a blog. [3], used twice, is a preprint. Neither seems to meet our criteria. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There is another preprint by Eskov's approved translator in reference 2. As well as a note by him at the end of the translation itself! These should be counted as supplementary materials/translator's notes. Carrier is a reviewer here. Strecosaurus (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Carrier is a reviewer here. Could you clarify where you mean? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

(Per the FTN conensus mentioned below) Eskov is a non-specialist (in this area, he's a specialist in spiders) who published a novel/logical exercise making no historical claims. Carrier (who, if you want, you can count as just another public figure of similar scholarly (non)relevance as Eskov!) and Eskov's translator publicly discuss and comment upon it (starting in the end of the translation itself), explaining its point. There is simply no reliability issue on the horizon, it seems to me? What am I missing? Strecosaurus (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As user jps said in [4] in a related discussion about "The Gospel of Afranius", "Sorry for stomping on you, but, yeah, generally I think we do too much gatekeeping at Wikipedia generally. Let discussions happen, is my motto." Strecosaurus (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

They should be pinged if you are going to quote them.User:ජපස, Doug Weller talk 13:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You learn something new everyday! I've been on Wikipedia for about a decade but never knew about that (unspoken?) rule. Thanks! Strecosaurus (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on here but i think you may be taking the "gatekeeping" part out of context, and "stomped on" was a joke. fiveby(zero) 14:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It's something someone wrote, it's unpublished so WP:SELFPUBLISHEDSOURCES seems relevant. If the author is a recognised expert in the field who has been previously published by other reliable sources then it would be considered reliable. Without that it's unlikely to be reliable or due for inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on the talk page, but in my opinion the issue is that the content isn't WP:DUE rather than whether it's reliable. Richard Carrier is a controversial figure and stating the detail as fact in the article doesn't seem appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There are some fundamental logical issues. You seem to be switching between a) that it's unreliable info - "Richard Carrier is a controversial figure and stating the detail as fact in the article doesn't seem appropriate." - but in fact, as I've mentioned in a recent edit on the page and you referenced in the subsequent edit (about

WP:VNOT) what is stated there is immediately verifiable and requires no trust, and b) that it's not due, which is a completely different question - but this is in fact a part of the point of the Gospel of Afranius, as remarked by the translator and a notable commentator. Moreover, and more importantly, this is all fundamentally a logical exercise, see the discussion in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#The_Gospel_of_Afranius, thus there is no reliability issue in the first place, and the part that you removed, just like the novel, makes no claim of being a historical account! Nor does Carrier say that he thinks this is what happened! Thus it is perfectly appropriate to include those sources. Which were present when the discussion I just linked happened, and nobody batted an eye (for this reason). Thus, I will go ahead with a bit of edit war and revert that section back, because (just like the novel "narrated by Afranius") it explicitly DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY HISTORICAL CLAIMS IN THE FIRST PLACE for us to discuss then that something is reliable or not! Strecosaurus (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

But it's not really an edit war, because the fundamental discussion and consensus has already happened, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#The_Gospel_of_Afranius Strecosaurus (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's an edit war. FTN was closed with "This is a content dispute about a novel, not empirical claims of historical fact. WP:FTN is the wrong venue.' Doug Weller talk 16:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, and this is my point too, so what's wrong? I'm not following? Strecosaurus (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Strecosaurus You've been warned about edit warring before, so stop until this is settled. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Three years ago about a math article. Okay, so let's be constructive, to start with, what exactly is disputed, that this is not relevant, or that the sources are not reliable? Let's begin by clarifying that. Strecosaurus (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

3 years doesn't matter, it means you have been warned. Your questions are answered above and you don't have consensusl Doug Weller talk 16:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

My point is that - as supported by the consensus there - this does not make HISTORICAL CLAIMS, so the concept of reliable sources to support (nonexistent) historical claims is not applicable. What am I missing?

Wasn't the relevant consensus already obtained there? Or should I open a new page to get it somewhere? Strecosaurus (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:VNOT it is upon you to find consensus for you addition. As to fundamental logical issues you obviously behave not understood my comment or the related policies or guidelines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

My point is that - as supported by the consensus there - this does not make HISTORICAL CLAIMS, so the concept of reliable sources to support (nonexistent) historical claims is not applicable. What am I missing? Strecosaurus (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

See what User:ActivelyDisinterested said and wait for more opinions. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

What consensus where? I've not read the FTN thread and it's apparently closed, and no discussion has happened on the articles talk page.

Also "this does not make HISTORICAL CLAIMS, so the concept of reliable sources to support (nonexistent) historical claims is not applicable" has no basis in policies, all statements that are likely to be challenged or that have been challenged must be supported by references not reliable sources (see WP:BURDEN). No group of editors can decide this doesn't apply.

Reliable sources can be judged in different ways, which is what my first comment was related to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't the relevant consensus already obtained there? Or should I open a new page to get it somewhere? DRN? Strecosaurus (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The articles talk page, article content should be discussed on the articles talk page. I put that in my edit you reverted.

There could not have been a consensus at FTN as you understand it, it would be against policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No. People are reverting you, you clearly do not have consensus for your edits. You haven't been using the article's talk page at all. Noticeboards and DRN are premature. MrOllie (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Eskov is a non-specialist (in this area, he's a specialist in spiders) who published a novel/logical exercise making no historical claims. Carrier (who, if you want, you can count as just another public figure of similar scholarly (non)relevance as Eskov!) and Eskov's translator publicly discuss and comment upon it (starting in the end of the translation itself), explaining its point. There is simply no reliability issue on the horizon, it seems to me? What am I missing? Strecosaurus (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You are apparently missing an understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and how to use an article talk page to arrive at it. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

My point was that the relevant consensus (expressed in what I said above) was already reached in the FTN discussion? Strecosaurus (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No, that clearly did not happen in that discussion. Even if it did, consensus is not something, once reached, will never change. You are getting reverted now thus you do not have consensus now. MrOllie (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm unrelated to whatever argument has come before this, and willing to try and act as a third opinion. Can I suggest everyone is less confrontational, and this discussion move to the article talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

If such a discussion starts please ping me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Since we're already discussing it here, why not keep it here? This discussion is referenced in the edit comments as well. Strecosaurus (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Posted this in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Strecosaurus (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've said my part, I'm against the content being readded to the article in it's current form. I'll leave it to any other editor who's interested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Why have you done that, Strecosaurus? Wikipedia:Third opinion is for requesting an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors. Your current disagreement is clearly not between two editors. The 3rd opinion page also says "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page". Bold in the original. It hasn't been discussed on article talk at all, certainly not by you yourself. Compare my post on your page. Bishonen | tålk 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC).

Closure review of Telegraph on trans issues RFC

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.

---

Because of course there is, interested editors can find the review at WP:AN#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_444#RFC:_The_Telegraph_on_trans_issues -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:00, 19 October 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.

Need for verification of the reliability of the Chosun Ilbo article based on false information.

OP blocked as a sock, WP:DENY. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is necessary to verify whether the following Chosun Ilbo article can be considered a reliable source: https://www.chosun.com/english/national-en/2022/09/06/EOR5JQWL2FWHD34HJII4L27BRE/ 1. The Chosun Ilbo article states that Michael Kim paid a fine to avoid prosecution for tax evasion during the sale of ING Life. "MBK Partners Chairman Byung Ju Kim has been found to have paid W40 billion in taxes and penalties to avoid charges of overseas tax evasion which carries a criminal prosecution in Korea in connection with income not reported in Korea with the sale of ING Life Insurance in 2018." 2. For this statement to be true, it must be a fact that Michael Kim engaged in tax evasion during the sale of ING Life. 3. However, the official document issued by the Korean police, "Notice of Decision Not to Prosecute," clearly states that Michael Kim fulfilled his tax obligations during the sale of 오렌지라이프 (formerly ING Life). https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8lihc0c2j3vk6bl1w3biu/Notice-of-Decision-Not-to-Prosecute.pdf?rlkey=e5is4mxasiwbm01xasd1424jf "However, it was confirmed that the suspect, as a U.S. citizen, had properly reported the transaction and fulfilled their tax obligations during the sale process. (*The relevant Korean original: 피의자는 미국시민권자로 매각과정에서 적법하게 신고하여 납세의무를 이행한 것으로 확인된다.)" "No intent or motive for tax evasion was found, and no relevant materials or evidence supporting the initiation of an investigation or establishing a crime were identified. (*The relevant Korean original: 피의자의 조세포탈의 고의나 동기를 찾을 수 없고, 조세범처벌법의 수사개시를 위해 필요한 최소한의 관련 자료나 범죄 성립 자체에 대한 자료가 전혀 확인되지 않아 수사의 필요성을 인정하기 어렵다.)" 4. Therefore, the claim that Michael Kim paid a fine to avoid prosecution for tax evasion, when he had fully met his tax obligations, is clearly false. In other words, the Chosun Ilbo article, disregarding the authority of the media outlet, has published an article containing false information. There can be no clearer evidence than an official document issued by the Korean police. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that this article and any content based on it should be classified as unreliable sources and should be removed entirely. Strugglemind (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia does not base decisions regarding content on unverifiable documents posted on Dropbox by unknown individuals. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC) AndyTheGrump, thank you very much for your valuable input. I fully understand the guidelines you mentioned. However, I hope you can understand that this document is an official document from the Korean National Police that proves the Chosun Ilbo article is baseless. If you could let me know how I can provide you with the official document from the Korean National Police, I will send it to you. Alternatively, I would greatly appreciate it if you could suggest another way. Strugglemind (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC) Then you should send that document to the media outlet to get them to issue a correction. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked as a sock. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Mountain, Harry (May 1998). The Celtic Encyclopedia. Universal-Publishers.

We use it quite a bit and the publisher seems ok. But I found these comments which worry me. "This is wrong: "BCE 15th-13th century - Warriors of the Tumulus-Urnfield cultures travelled from Turkey across Europe where they settled mainly in Germany, Switzerland and France." Taken from Dates. There was a migration of people from what is today Turkey into Europe and they did eventually reach Western and Northern Europe. They introduced farming and are known as early anatolian farmers amongst other names. They arrived however thousands of years earlier than the 2nd millennium bc dates given. They also had nothing to do with the tumulus or urnfield cultures which derived from a totally different group of people, the Indo-Europeans, generally called the Yamnaya these days who came from the Russian steppe. Not a great start. From the first page on Cultures: "The Amazons were a society of female warriors who seem to have their roots in the very early eastern Bronze Age and it was the search for tin and copper, ingredients of bronze, that help spread their culture around the world." Other than having nothing to do with the Celts this is purely speculative. There is no evidence of an Amazonian culture, let alone one that has motives like metal acquisition, the closest are Scythian cultures who had Women warriors. It may have been contact with such groups that gave rise to the Amazon idea. One has to assume these women had exceptionally large breasts for the removal of one to be necessary as opposed to strapping them. No other culture where females used bows requires such surgery suggesting this is some Greek fantasy. Further down under Armorica: "Pictish tribes began to arrive around BC 15th-13th" There are no such things as Pictish tribes until the Romans make up the term around the 2-3rd century to refer to those 'painted barbarians' to the north. The name Pict comes from a Roman word meaning paint/colour (picture). I suspect the term was devised after the Romans abandoned serious attempts to conquer Britain north of the Antonine Wall. Caracalla was the last to try in 211 but was forced to return to the capital to secure the throne after his father the emperor Severus died. There was a tribe in Gaul called the Pictones, they were even just south of Armorica, but their name is not linked to the Picts. Instead the Pictones is a native Gaulish name possibly coming from a root meaning 'cunning' (suggested by Ernest Negre, Les Noms de lieux en France, 1977)."

I can also not find any indication that the author himself is an expert. Eg[5] just says "Designer of this website & author of The Celtic Encyclopedia, Harry Mountain worked independently - and without remuneration - for 40 years to unearth a fuller and truer picture of the ancient Celts: " Doug Weller talk 13:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• The quotes you cite are indeed really big red flags, they seem to be based on ideas current a long time ago and not repeated with any of the careful qualifiers an academic would use. I don't know how reliable it is for topics in the historical era, but I would not be using it for prehistory. In this topic area, that effectively means anything prior to the Roman conquests of a particular region. John Koch's Celtic Culture: a Historical Encyclopaedia would be a better go-to source.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"Pictish tribes began to arrive around BC 15th-13th" is definitely a red flag. I spent sometime search for use by others, but didn't find anything much certainly nothing by academic sources. This could be due to it being published nearly twenty years ago, so I tried the website as well and found nothing. I would be cautious using it, especially were it conflicts with other sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Paywalled sources for Matthew Goodwin

An editor called Lamariadegarcia is deleting content from Matthew Goodwin because its sources are behind paywalls. Is this allowed? 147.188.239.134 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

NO, being behind a pay wall does not mean it is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCEACCESS, how accessible a source is has nothing to do with how reliable it is. However if this in regard to this edit[6] I would suggest first discussing it on the talk page as the summary could mean that they can't access the source, or that they can but can't verify the claim. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Scratch that the article is available if you know where to look and does verify the claim, so it is a reliable source for the removed content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Spencer Sunshine

I noticed this author cited as a source on the article Boyd Rice, regarding allegations that Rice's satire of fascism comes from actual fascist sympathies. I Googled Sunshine and found Spencer's Twitter, where Spencer's made posts whitewashing communism, has a profile picture containing anti-Semitic imagery and follows anti-Israel accounts. I don't think this person is a neutral source on political extremism and fascism when he actively promotes left-wing extremism and authoritarian left-wing politics. I'd compare this to if you wrote an article on a man accused of being a communist and cited Joseph McCarthy as a source. MistahKrinkle (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@MistahKrinkle You seem confused. Where does he promote left-wing extremism? "Spencer Sunshine holds a PhD in Sociology and has researched the Far Right for twenty years. He has been published by outlets like the Southern Poverty Law Center, Daily Beast, and The Forward, and is widely translated. His latest book is Neo-Nazi Terrorism and Countercultural Fascism: The Origins and Afterlife of James Mason’s Siege (Routledge, 2024)."[7] Doug Weller talk 13:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It should also be noted that even if Sunshine supported left-wing extremism and authoritarian left-wing policy, and followed, horror of horrors, anti-Israel accounts on twitter, and I am not saying he does such terrible despicable things, that would not make him unreliable. Indeed, even if we accepted he was using anti-semitic imagery on his twitter picture (it's a baby octopus or squid of some kind), that would not make him unreliable. Reliability is not determined by political opinion or choice of twitter photo but by the factors outlined in WP:RS.

Also, I don't know anything categorical about Mr Sunshine's ethnicity, but given his surname, your implications of antisemitism strike me as extremely unlikely and, to be perfectly honest, offensive. The above seems a rather feeble attempt at disqualifying an author who says something you don't like.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Palestine Chronicle

Palestine Chronicle is a questionable news outlet. As an example, it hired a freelance journalist Abdallah Aljamal to write articles on the Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis who was later revealed to be holding Israelis as hostages. [8] Aljamal was also a spokesperson for Hamas. This is an obvious conflict of interest; war correspondents do not actively participate in wars nor are they paid by the militaries they are covering. The Jewish Chronicle is currently being discussed for failure to vet freelancers---should the Palestine Chronicle also be held to that standard?

Likewise, both the JC and the ADL have been deemed unreliable because they conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. The claim is that criticism of Zionism being inherently antisemitic is enough to declare an outlet as unreliable. In contrast, the Palestine Chronicle regularly says that support of Zionism is a form of anti-Palestinian racism[9] and contributors say that Jewish organizations should be forced to abandon Zionism or be disbanded. [10]

Finally, the Palestine Chronicle's news division publishes false information. For example, the PC's news division said that Lindsey Graham called for Israel to nuke Gaza. [11] This was considered false/misleading by Newsweek.[12]

Palestine Chronicle is linked 238 times on Wikipedia, so this is a widely used publication that may have to be re-evaluated in light of the standards being set in the topic area. [13] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, should be generally unreliable if not deprecated Andre🚐 01:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the evidence you've provided here is sufficient to call Palestine Chronicle's reliability into serious question. It is no doubt biased, but bias isn't the same as unreliability. The evidence you've provided here doesn't hold up to further scrutiny.

On the Abdallah Aljamal controversy, the claim that Aljamal was holding hostages in his home was reported by the Israel military, which has killed more than 120 journalists during the war. The source you provided says Aljamal was a spokesperson for the Gaza labor ministry. Although Hamas is the government of Gaza, this is not the same as being a spokesperson for Hamas. CNN said that Israel provided no evidence for its claim that Aljamal was keeping hostages in his home. CNN further calls this claim into question, pointing out that Aljamal lived on a different story of the multi-family building where the hostages were found from the floor where the Israeli military said it recovered them. CNN also says that the claim Aljamal was a spokesperson for the labor ministry comes from the Israeli military. It's also worth noting that between 100 and 274 people were killed during this operation, which demonstrates that it took place in a dense and complex environment. This further supports the view that the IDF's claims are insufficiently supported by meaningful evidence. Finally, none of this proves that Aljamal was an unreliable source as a journalist for the Palestine Chronicle. A brief overview of his contributions indicates that they consist largely of on-the-ground interviews with Gazans. Seeing as Aljamal was a photojournalist, his articles are full of photographic evidence that corroborates the stories he tells in them. Biased he may have been, but this was a level of access to the on-the-ground reality in Gaza that few media outlets have. Gazan journalists provide us with an essential part of the whole picture of the reality of this war. It would be foolish to discredit them without strong evidence of their unreliability.

I don't think it makes sense to regard the ADL and Palestine Chronicle as equivalent. The reason I argued for the ADL's unreliability in that RFC (which to my understanding was one of the major reasons it was closed as unreliable) is because the ADL portrays itself as an objective, apolitical research organization while functionally promoting a pro-Israel interpretation of what antisemitism is. The article you linked from the Palestine Chronicle is clearly an opinion piece and does not claim to be anything other than that.

Palestine Chronicle's comments on Lindsey Graham are on its blog. Per WP:NEWSBLOG, the Palestine Chronicle Blog should not necessarily be considered reliable. However, I don't see why this should affect the reliability of Palestine Chronicle's hard news reporting. The Newsweek article you mentioned doesn't mention Palestine Chronicle by name or call its coverage of Graham's remarks misleading. Despite the clickbait-y headline, the article is a bit more nuanced: Comparing Israel’s war on Gaza to the US war with Japan during World War II, US Senator Lindsey Graham said on Sunday that Israel should do whatever it needs to do to win the war. He implied that Israel should drop nuclear bombs over Gaza. I think this is essentially correct. Graham's remarks do imply that Israel's use of nuclear weapons would be justified if it were necessary for Israel's survival or victory in the war. Unbandito (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

CNN spent a month doing their own research and confirmed with their own reporters that Aljamal is linked to Hamas.[14] Your article is old and no longer accurate. That being said, you acknolwedged that CNN is reliable on this subject. So, do you acknowledge that Aljamal was affiliated with Hamas?Aljamal's affiliation is relevant because he was being paid by an organization he was covering. It's interesting you say about Palestinian journalists that It would be foolish to discredit them without strong evidence of their unreliability. Do you apply that standard to Israeli journalists?

You say your problem with the ADL is because it portrays itself as an objective, apolitical research organization while functionally promoting a pro-Israel interpretation of what antisemitism is". Reading PC's about page shows The Palestine Chronicle team consists of professional journalists and respected writers and authors who don’t speak on behalf of any political party or champion any specific political agenda. [15] You've just acknowledged the Palestine Chronicle does promote a pro-Palestinian viewpoint. By the standard you applied to the ADL, the Palestine Chronicle saying it doesn't champion a specific political agenda is enough to discredit it. Please engage with this. Why is the Palestine Chronicle different?

I'd like to zero in on the last two points. Virtually all of what Palestine Chronicle tags as "news" is also tagged as part of their "blog". Likewise, most of the rest of their website is tagged as "commentary" (the opinion pieces). The only thing not tagged under either of those are features. Either way, almost all of our sourcing to PC is to their blogs/commentary. Can we go ahead and remove those sources? If not, why? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, you say Newsweek is wrong, but you acknowledge Lindsay Graham did not actually call for nuking Gaza. He said Israel can use nuclear weapons if sufficiently threatened. What do you think of this feature (not a blog), which says Republican Party Senator, Lindsey Graham, recently sparked a controversy with his call for “nuclear weapons” to be used against the people of Gaza in order to end the ongoing war.[16] Did Lindsey Graham call for nuclear weapons to be used against Gazans to end the war? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the updated CNN article. That article does indeed confirm that Aljamal worked for the ministry of labor as late as 2022. Aljamal made nearly all of his contributions to the Palestine Chronicle in 2023 and 2024, but he did write three articles during the time he could have been working for the Gaza government, according to CNN. They are all about civil society issues: a gas leak, the cancer crisis, and Gaza's beaches. Aljamal's reporting from 2023 onward tends to focus on detailed interviews with Palestinian civilian and civil society sources, which I believe is of some value to expanding and improving Wikipedia. To give one example, I think this article on the killing of Hatem al-Ghamri provides important balance and adds considerable detail to the only other notable account of his death in the TOI. The same goes for this account of the killing of Iyad al-Maghari which adds some detail to France24's reporting of it. Aljamal also wrote detailed reports on the killings of Gazans who did not receive meaningful coverage elsewhere, like Awni Abu Awn and Haneen al-Qashtan. I am not persuaded that Aljamal's past association with Hamas's civilian government should outweigh or invalidate his reporting for Palestine Chronicle or the Chronicle's use in general as a source.

You ask me if I would apply the same standard to Israeli journalists, and my answer is yes. Barak Ravid of Axios served in the IDF reserves until March 2023, and you do not see me calling for Axios to be scraped from the record. Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic served as an Israeli prison guard. I don't think it's productive to remove all coverage by The Atlantic from I-P related Wikipedia pages. If we were to apply your standard to Israeli journalists we would disqualify nearly all of them, due to the conscription practices of the IDF. In general, I think that writing in this topic area benefits from a full exposition of conflicting narratives. I'm unwilling to sign on to attempts to knock out sources on one side or another, especially when they provide us with unique details or a marginalized narrative, unless there is strong evidence that those sources have published inaccurate or misleading information. Even then, I think that content disputes are often best dealt with on a case by case basis rather than by painting sources with a broad brush. In a topic rife with systemic bias and selective coverage of events, including at the legacy media level, we need as many sources as we can get and should focus on verifiability and consensus among sources over designations of broad reliability.

I believe these discussions are supposed to take place in the context of a content dispute, so can you provide an example of where Palestine Chronicle is used on Wikipedia in a way that is misleading or violates our core principles?

I am not going to dedicate much space to your arguments about the ADL, other than to reiterate that the Palestine Chronicle article you cited is clearly an opinion piece - something that news organizations who strive to be objective and non-partisan regularly publish - while the ADL attempts to pass off its politicized equivocation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism as objective research, in contravention of academic consensus. It's not remotely the same thing. Unbandito (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Your first paragraph doesn't address the point of the CNN article, which is that the hostages were found in Aljamal's house in 2024. Secretly holding Israeli hostages in one's house creates a conflict of interest when reporting on the Israeli military. To the best of my knowledge, neither Barak Ravid nor Jeffrey Goldberg have imprisoned Palestinians in their attics while reporting on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Finally, here's an example of a feature from Palestine Chronicle equating a Zionist conference in South Africa to racism. [17] If we can agree that Palestine Chronicle's opinion pieces and news articles are both bad sources, then we only have the features remaining to discuss.

I can't point to any content disputes anymore since you've conceded the usage of its commentary pieces and blogpost are both wrong, and those two are pretty much all of PC's use on Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be improper to use commentary or blog content from any source to put facts in wikivoice, per site-wide policies that apply to all sources. I do not agree with you that the presence of commentary and blog pieces on the site has any impact on Palestine Chronicle's overall reliability, unless you can demonstrate that PC is presenting opinion or commentary as hard news, which you have not yet done.

The article you do cite here about the conference in South Africa does not seem to indicate a reliability issue to me. It features interviews with people who are quite opinionated about the conference, but attributes those opinions. There could be an appropriate use for this source, for example in an article where the interviewees' opinions are relevant. If the source were used incorrectly by a biased editor, which again you haven't provided evidence for, that would not necessarily be an indication that it is unreliable. Rather, it would be an issue of an editor not understanding our policies that apply to all sources.

On the issue of the hostages found in the Aljamal family's house, the CNN article makes one important distinction in describing the situation as Hostages being held by civilians under the direction of Hamas. It also stops short of revealing any evidence that the Aljamal family received any sort of compensation for holding the hostages. Presumably, CNN could not find any. The article says it was likely that the family was trusted by Hamas, but nothing more. This was obviously a complex and fluid situation, and we don't know exactly the levels of coercion and complicity that were at play. As the article points out, Abdallah and his wife Fatima, as well as his father Ahmed (presumably the head of household) where killed by the IDF while his sister Zainab hid with Abdullah's children under a bed. It's unlikely that we'll ever definitively find out who knew what and how they felt about it. However, I would like to take your argument at its strongest -- let's assume that Abdullah had full knowledge of the hostage situation, was involved in the decision to hide the hostages on the third floor above his family's home, and agreed to do so willingly in the absence of any coercion from Hamas. While this is something that many would find morally reprehensible, you have yet to demonstrate how specifically this has impacted the credibility or veracity of his interviews with Gazan civilians and civil servants and reporting on the war, or show where exactly his reports have been used on Wikipedia in a misleading or otherwise detrimental way. More importantly, you haven't shown how this impacts the overall reliability of Palestine Chronicle. You say that this is an issue of failure to properly vet freelancers, but CNN says that the Aljamal family's own neighbors didn't know that hostages were kept in their midst. What did you expect the Washington, USA based Palestine Chronicle to do? Fly someone out to Gaza and check each of their Gaza contributors' homes for hostages?

I implore you to focus on actual uses of Palestine Chronicle as a citation on Wikipedia when building your case. Unbandito (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As you said, we should focus on the actual uses of Palestine Chronicle onwiki. Since we both agree that anything they tag as blogs or commentary isn't usable for WikiVoice, and those are the uses I'm concerned about, I would say further discussion isn't going to help us reach a better consensus. As an FYI, all of their posts tagged "news" are also tagged as coming from their "blog".[18] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I have an issue and a quibble with this:

1) We don't consider the current Newsweek to be generally reliable which applies to this. Graham's comments were deemed to be suggesting nuclear action in reliable sources: The Independent: Senator Lindsey Graham has come under fire for drawing comparisons between Israel’s war on Gaza and the US’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan during World War II – urging Israel to “do whatever you have to do”. (...) “When we were faced with destruction as a nation after Pearl Harbor, fighting the Germans and the Japanese, we decided to end the war by bombing Hiroshima, Nagasaki with nuclear weapons,” Mr Graham told Kristin Welker. “That was the right decision,” he concluded. (...) “Give Israel the bombs they need to end the war they can’t afford to lose and work with them to minimise casualties,” Mr Graham continued; The New Republic: Representative Greg Murphy joined his fellow Republicans in suggesting that Israel could use nuclear weapons in its already brutal war on Gaza. (...) The congressman’s extreme rhetoric follows that of Senator Lindsey Graham, who on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday similarly suggested Israel could drop nuclear bombs on Gaza. “When we were faced with destruction as a nation after Pearl Harbor, fighting the Germans and the Japanese, we decided to end the war by the bombing (of) Hiroshima (and) Nagasaki with nuclear weapons,” Graham said. “That was the right decision.” He added, “Give Israel the bombs they need to end the war. They can’t afford to lose.” Graham and Murphy aren’t the first in Congress to suggest nuking the besieged Palestinian territory, though, as Representative Tim Walberg, another Republican, suggested that “it should be like Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” at a town hall meeting in late March; NBC News: Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Sunday compared Israel’s war against Hamas to the U.S. decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan in World War II during an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” “When we were faced with destruction as a nation after Pearl Harbor, fighting the Germans and the Japanese, we decided to end the war by the bombing (of) Hiroshima (and) Nagasaki with nuclear weapons,” Graham said. “That was the right decision.” He added, “Give Israel the bombs they need to end the war. They can’t afford to lose.” Graham, a staunch supporter of Israel, used the analogy multiple times while condemning President Joe Biden for threatening to withhold certain weapons from Israel if it launches a military operation in Rafah, the southernmost city in Gaza where over a million civilians are sheltering. Asked by moderator Kristen Welker why it was OK for President Ronald Reagan to withhold certain weapons from Israel during its war in Lebanon in the 1980s, but not OK for Biden to threaten to do so now, Graham once again brought up World War II. “Can I say this?” he asked. “Why is it OK for America to drop two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end their existential threat war? Why was it OK for us to do that? I thought it was OK.”

2) This is just a quibble, but I don't see how 238 uses makes it a widely used publication. For the sources you discussed, Times of Israel is used 9,907 times, Newsweek is used 12,175 times, and The Jewish Chronicle is used 2,740 times. For the sources I used, The Independent is used 106 times for the US version and 74,931 times for the UK version, The New Republic is used 2,810 times, and NBC News is used 23,535 times. All are used ten or more times as often.

Those were the things I observed. Your assessments about their failure to vet freelancers and their misleading claims of anti-Palestinian racism seem correct to me and should be used to deem them unreliable for being a source for the Israel/Palestine conflict and for anti-Palestinian claims. If you can clarify how they publish false information, then I could consider support them being generally unreliable instead of just in specific circumstances. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Replying to myself here to note that I missed Unbandito's comment until after I had submitted my own due to how I was using Reply. I have amended my comment in response. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, did you see CNN's follow-up article where they confirmed Abdallah had served as a spokesman for Gaza’s Ministry of Labor as recently as 2022, a position entrusted only to Hamas members?[19] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No as you never linked to it. You listed the Times of Israel, Newsweek, and The Jewish Chronicle. In any case it seems like you and Unbandito are discussing that in more detail, so I will leave that discussion to both of you. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a lot of interpretations. Let's use the same one as Palestine Chronicle: Did Lindsey Graham call for “nuclear weapons” to be used against the people of Gaza in order to end the ongoing war? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

"It should be like Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Get it over quick" are the words he spoke. The obvious interpretation, and a perfectly reasonable one, is that he suggested the nuclear option but, since we are not mind readers, we cannot be sure of his intention. Given the circumstances, it is a dangerous thing to be unclear about. Burrobert (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Those words were from Tim Walberg not Lindsey Graham. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes my mistake. Al Jazeera said it was Lindsey Graham when linking to the video, although the video itself clearly says it is Tim Walberg's voice. According to al Jazeera Graham's comments included that the US was right to "end [WWII]" by dropping two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that Israel must be given "the bombs they need to end the war they can’t afford to lose". "I thought it was okay” when the US dropped the nuclear bombs on Japan. "To Israel, do whatever you have to do to survive as a Jewish state". Elsewhere al Jazeera summarised Graham's comments by saying he "previously suggested that Israel would be justified in using nuclear weapons in Gaza". Burrobert (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Same one as Palestine Chronicle? The second sentence is: He implied that Israel should drop nuclear bombs over Gaza. That falls in line with what I cited above. There is a difference between your words and the words in the article from my viewpoint. Where in the article is your interpretation based on? --Super Goku V (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm basing it on this follow-up piece [20] which said Republican Party Senator, Lindsey Graham, recently sparked a controversy with his call for “nuclear weapons” to be used against the people of Gaza in order to end the ongoing war. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Chess, from my perspective this is the second time you referred to something you didn't link to initially. I believe you would have a better argument if you included this initially.

That aside, as I linked to above: The congressman’s extreme rhetoric follows that of Senator Lindsey Graham, who on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday similarly suggested Israel could drop nuclear bombs on Gaza. If you would rather something different, then here is an article from the Arms Control Association which notes that Nihon Hidankyo criticized Graham's comments and called for Graham's comments to be retracted.

Do you have a better example of them publishing false information? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

do not actively participate in wars nor are they paid by the militaries they are covering, Hamas is not simply a military, it is the government of Gaza. That sort of misleading argument runs through the entirety of the initial post here. nableezy - 15:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Working with someone who was holding hostages at home is bad enough, but what is more important for us is how the outlet reacts to such an event. Far from acknowledging the issue, they immediately demoted Aljamal from "a correspondent for The Palestine Chronicle" (on June 9) to a mere "contributor for c (on June 10) right after the raid in which he was found to have held hostages. This kind of manipulation clearly means that this is not a reliable source. Alaexis_¿question? 21:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say failure to vet correspondents is more egregious than failure to vet freelancers, and changing someone’s designation from correspondent to freelancer when they’re revealed to be involved in the conflict is problematic if the correction is made without noting the change. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's worth considering that the decision by Palestine Chronicle to quietly distance themselves from Aljamal was a decision made in the context of a general atmosphere of repression toward pro-Palestinian speech in the West and in the context of laws and a history of prosecutions and designations which could put them in legal jeopardy for having a financial relationship with a member or associate of Hamas. There's an argument to be made that this decision was more a reflection of the treacherous legal terrain faced by a US-based NGO with a limited ability to independently vet its associates in Gaza, rather than a reflection of its journalistic ethics in the abstract. We don't have any evidence that PC was aware of the hostages being held in the Aljamal family's midst while he was alive, and their decision to quietly distance themselves after his death seems to suggest they were not aware, as it reflects their concern that it could put them in legal jeopardy, which in turn demonstrates that they'd have been smart enough not to associate themselves closely with Aljamal had they been aware it could be legally treacherous to do so.

More importantly, we should consider whether this is a serious enough controversy to risk what seems to otherwise be a source which reliably covers events from a perspective that runs counter to the systemic bias of the bulk of English language sources. Since anyone with a basic level of media literacy understands that even the most reliable sources can get things wrong thanks to groupthink, the bandwagon effect, cultural blind spots and the like, I think it is particularly important to use caution and discretion when considering applying sanctions to sources that might counteract those detrimental tendencies. Unbandito (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• I don't really have an opinion about "The Palestine Chronicle" (I am not familiar with it); just noting that having a COI wrt to the IP area is rife, especially among US journalist. It is so I wonder if anyone gets a job covering the conflict in the The New York Times or Bloomberg News without a COI? Ethan Bronner, Isabel Kershner and David Brooks all have sons serving in the Israeli army, and it is OK to use them as a source/opinion about Israel/IDF? Huldra (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the issue is necessarily conflict of interest exactly, so much as transparency about this. If a Palestine Chronicle correspondent (or even freelancer) was also a spokesperson for a Hamas-led ministry or even involved in the hostage operation, that doesn't make them unreliable. But if this is not revealed, or if the outlet isn't aware when it hires, that is more problematic. How they respond when it's revealed will also be a good indicator of how robust the editorial control is, e.g. are notes added to the articles.

  So far, nobody has really made the case that this is more than an isolated issue in relation to one fairly minor contributor, so I'm not inclined to think that this alone implies a blanket unreliability designation. But it seems legitimate to raise concerns about how it was dealt with and keep an eye on this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• User:Bobfrombrockley: But transparency is the problem, or rather: lack of transparency. Nowhere does the NYT say that their chief correspondent in Jerusalem's son served in the Israeli army (see: Isabel Kershner), ditto for David Brooks; they treat it as if that is totally irrelevant. Should we hold PC to a different standard than NYT? If so, why? Huldra (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  For starters, someone having a son who served in the army is not at all the same thing as literally employing a combatant. Last I checked, family members do not therefore make every other member of their family biased. so it's not even the same thing. Andre🚐 20:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• If a politician in my country has a sibling, parent, or child working in a company, or even owning shares in that company, then that politician is regarded as having a COI w.r.t. that company, and is forbidden to partake in any decisions w.r.t. that company. (Even if it is, say, a brother you haven't been on speaking terms with for decades.) Doing a military service, with potentially life & death making decisions gives many times more COI., IMO, Huldra (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Kershner's son was a conscript a decade ago, so I don't think it's comparable, although I agree it would be better if NYT mentioned it.

  Brooks' volunteered, also a decade ago, which he's publicly spoken about. He's an opinion columnist. He has written three times about Israel/Palestine during the war. The most recent time includes these words: "Readers should know that I have a son who served in the I.D.F. from 2014 to 2016; he’s been back home in the States since then." Seems pretty transparent to me.

  I don't think this is a good enough reason in itself to designate either PC or NYT unreliable, but it's a data to point to bear in mind in making an overall assessment. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Link, please? That is pretty well hidden away; it is not mentioned in the "about" that I linked to, Huldra (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/24/opinion/gaza-israel-war.html

I clicked on your link, saw Brooks writes weekly and scrolled down looking for anything relating to Israel and couldn’t see anything, so used the search function to search his columns for “Israel”, arranged them chronologically to see the most recent was in March, and looked at that and saw this text. Given it was him who first made this public (in an interview with Ha’aretz in 2014) I don’t think there’s any deception going on. Let’s focus on Palestine Chronicle maybe? BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the link. My point in bringing up the NYT (and no: I am not trying to get it banned ;/), is that even clear WP:RS as the NYT have ...issues. Imagine a situation where a financial newspaper lets somebody commentate on the prospect of, say, Apple stock, mentioning in a parentheses (oh, I have the majority of my savings in Apple stock), then proceeding to comment on how very well Apple stock is doing and that it will increase in value. I suspect you wouldn't have very great respect for that financial newspaper. But this is exactly what the NYT is doing wrt the Brook's comment on the Israeli army. It is good that he said that he has a COI, but 90% of my objection remain: the commentary shouldn't have been published at all. And Isabel Kershner nowhere disclose her COI; AFAIK. My point is that we are not dealing with "white", neutral sources vs "black", partisan sources here; we are dealing with various shades of grey, Huldra (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Here's a better example with a use case on-wiki: The Duma arson attack article relies largely on Israeli sources, two of which have Barak Ravid as an author. Ravid served in Unit 8200, Israel's signals intelligence, cyberwarfare and espionage division, and continued to serve as an army reservist until March 2023 (it's not clear when he left Unit 8200), meaning he was in the military and presumably had some level of clearance/conflict of interest at the time he wrote/contributed to the articles in use on the Duma arson attack page. To be clear, I'm not saying we should necessarily get rid of these articles or downgrade their reliability. Rather, this demonstrates how inexorable COI is from the topic area. Virtually every Israeli journalist who grew up in Israel will have served in the IDF and this is never disclosed because it's near-universal. In Ravid's case, the only reason we have written record of his service is because it was lauded in Israel, because he resigned as a reservist over some Netanyahu controversy, and because his detractors have accused him of essentially still spying for Israel in his media roles.

  The PC article on that page is used to provide a quote from the Dawabsheh family that I was not able to find in a higher quality source elsewhere. I think this provides detail and balance to the page. Maybe someone else can find a better source for the quote to replace PC? If not, I think it's another good example of its utility. Unbandito (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  I totally get the point that we need to triangulate (pro-)Israeli sources against (pro-)Palestinian sources. Many of the sources in this piece are neither (e.g. Reuters, Guardian) and less hyperpartisan, but arguably have gaps that a weaker source like PC might fill. (Note we also have Israeli sources like BTselem, which are not supportive in any way of the Israeli government, and may well have writers who have served in the IDF, given compulsory service...) I definitely agree COI is a bad reason to avoid these sources.

  Re the specific use of PC. The first ref, the quote from the family, supports content that absolutely should be in the piece and is good to balance against Israeli sources. However, as I noted above, it's second hand: it comes from Andalou Agency. If AA is an RS, surely far better to cite them not PC. Al-Jazeera also reported the exact same words, again via AA, so it would be massively preferable to cite Al-Jazeera, where we can be confident more editorial checks were made than with PC.

  This is even better illustrated by a later citation (about a later fire) of PC which erroneously links to another weak source, MondoWeiss. MW, PC and MEE all get their reporting second hand from Andalou, and all describe this as an arson attack by settlers, without noting any possibility that might not be the case, although the two Israeli sources we cite note a police investigation that concluded faulty wiring. In that case, where Israeli and pro-Palestinian sources contradict each other, we'd want to attribute or, better still, look for more robust sources (like Reuters or al-Jazeera) and use them instead of hyperpartisan weak sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree with this analysis. I've had my edits reverted for using Andalou Agency before, so I thought it might be considered unreliable but it evidently is not. If we can get the same level of detail from AA or AJ, that's preferable. Part of my concern with deprecating and downgrading sources is that it seems editors sometimes use that status to remove material they don't like entirely rather than replacing it with a better source. The rest of the world doesn't have the sort of media consumption standards expected of Wikipedia editors, and I see it as a problem if people (particularly new editors) are finding true information in popular but sub-optimal sources and having good edits reverted instead of improved. There are also rare but important instances where a typically unreliable source gets something right that the rest of the media ecosystem doesn't see. In any event, I like what we're doing in this thread. I think a lot of these RSN problems would be better solved by going through the external links search and improving articles rather than debating the general reliability of a source, which strikes me as a very difficult thing to do with anything approaching real accuracy rather than broad generalization. Unbandito (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Chess and Alaexis. Clearly this is not a reliable source. Coretheapple (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've been looking through recent articles filed under news. My conclusion is that it is a low quality source and I can't see why we would generally want to use it. First, almost all of the content is sourced from elsewhere (Al-Jazeera, CNN, AP, etc). In these cases, far better to site the original reliable sources, which present the information in a less sensationalist way. Concerningly, though, the articles never link to the original sources, which makes it harder, but still worth doing. The only material I found in recent news where there is no prior reliable source is statements of what they call "the resistance" - Hezbollah and Hamas. Potentially, then, it could be used as a source for the words of those bodies, but given the biased presentation, it would be ideal to do so in a very cautious way. Second, what they add to the content sourced from other RSs is lots of embedded tweets. For instance, in this sensationalist repackaging of a Politico story they embed a tweet by a major anti-vaxx disinformation influencer "Dr" Anastasia Loupis. I think this toxifies the source a little, making it inappropriate for use here, even if the content of their own article is not factually wrong. So, I'd avoid articles in this category. Turning to articles in the articles category, at first glance these seem better: mostly original reporting and analysis by named journalists, such as Nura Tape, a South African journalist previously at al-Jazeera, albeit mixed with some opinion pieces and poems. However, again many of these also include embedded tweets by dodgy sources, and a large percentage of the recent articles are by Robert Inlakesh, whose track record is with deprecated sources such as al-Mayadeen, RT, MintPress and TheCradle, so I would avoid those by a large margin. The blog section seems to duplicate the news section. So all in all, my conclusion is that this is a very weak source that we could almost always do better than. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would agree that in many cases where coverage of an event or topic has been widespread, PC articles can and should be substituted for a better source. If the editors involved in this discussion or any others wish to do that, I think that would be a wise first step to improving the encyclopedia in this topic area regardless of the outcome of this discussion.

  I combed through some of the articles where PC is cited on Wikipedia to see what legitimate uses of the website I could find. I found that for smaller articles on more obscure aspects of Palestinian culture, PC articles seem to play an important role in building out the article. For example, the destruction of the Rashad Shawa Cultural Center received a few words' mention in an NBC article, but details from the PC article allowed an editor to write a fuller picture of its history. PC articles were also used on the General Union of Cultural Centres (Gaza) article.

  PC articles have also been used to bolster coverage of some military aspects of the war in Gaza. For example, the Al-Yassin 105 article, which is sourced based on the sparse information available about it in general on the web, including PC coverage of a Hamas video about the weapon. PC's "Resistance Roundup" articles have also been used on pages like List of military engagements during the Israel–Hamas war, Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip and 2024 Israeli military operation in the West Bank. These articles are amalgamations of statements put out by various militant groups about their combat engagements with Israel. Like IDF press releases, they are not guaranteed to be reliable given the fog of war and the incentives of combatants to spin the facts (and indeed, PC attributes the statements in their articles), which is precisely why it's important that we are able to use statements both from Israel's military and from its foes to give the reader the fullest picture of the information available and allow them to arrive at their closest approximation of the truth. To reiterate an earlier example (which is not currently used on-wiki), PC's article on the killing of Hatem al-Ghamri, which focuses on his role as an engineer and civil servant, provides some important balance to the TOI's coverage of him which echoes IDF claims that he was a militant without providing any evidence.

  Another valuable use of PC as a source was in its critical coverage of the Times of Israel's publishing an incendiary blogpost. The other source I found that covered this controversy was Mediaite, and since that source is only considered marginally reliable, PC helps to corroborate the story and hold TOI accountable when it fails to vet its contributors. As I said earlier, I think it's better to have access to a variety of sources in this topic area and determine reliability through verifiability, describing and attributing disputed claims and through determining consensus among sources, rather than trying to knock out sources for bias or make sweeping generalizations about their reliability based on one controversy or another. Here's another example as to why. While I often use TOI as a source when editing, I want to be informed of the criticisms and controversies about them as a reader, and I want to know when I shouldn't take their claims at face value.

  PC has also published a considerable amount of original photojournalism through its correspondents in Gaza: 1 [21] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 These articles may have some use for verifying contested events or filling out finer details in articles about humanitarian issues in Gaza or Gazan culture before and during the war.

  PC has also provided secondary coverage of paywalled sources, such as the WSJ's analysis of the bombing of Gaza and the Boston Globe's coverage of MIT's divestment from certain Lockheed Martin seed funds. I would argue this is valuable to editors for verifiability purposes. In fact, I am pretty sure that I was the one to use PC as a source for the MIT divestment story when adding it to 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses, precisely because I don't have access to the Boston Globe (which I would have preferred over PC, per my earlier comments). Unbandito (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Largely agree with Bob, though I think Ramzy Baroud is citeable in PC, and if they have other commentators with similar resumes that would be fine too. But like EI the news is largely cribbed from other news sources and I’d be wary of citing PC by itself for anything not written by a noted commentator for something other than that persons views. nableezy - 02:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is a great summary nableezy and also a good exemplar of how we should treat weaker sources (on both sides of the partisan divide) on this contentious topic. Basically, the presumption should always be in favour of better sources (which will be available in most cases), but there is good a case by case justification for use for triangulation, niche issues, verifying less accessible sources, etc. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Electronic Intifada

Deeply biased, spreads fake news, its owner Ali Abunimah spreads fake news frequently and also injects personal opinion on its reportings. Should be deprecated. LuffyDe (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I have removed 'RfC' from the thread title above, since this doesn't remotely comply with the Wikipedia:Requests for comment requirement that the opening statement be neutrally worded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

A discussion about EI in 2018 was closed as "generally unreliable", but it's cited in a lot of articles. Schazjmd (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

There was an RfC closed in February. Consensus was that EI is 'generally unreliable', but there was insufficient support for depreciation. [22] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I missed that in my search, thanks @AndyTheGrump! Schazjmd (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Is already classed as generally unreliable, should be removed and replaced as you come across it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow it is used quite a lot. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It's dependant on editors maintaining reliable sources and replacing unreliable ones. I doubt even after the RFC no-one has done the hard work of trying to clear down it's use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if we could get an AWB user to tag all of them with {{unreliable source?}}. I dislike mass removal, because sometimes the content is fine, and sometimes it's not, and it's useful to know that the content likely came from an unreliable source when deciding whether the source should be replaced vs the claim should be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Mass removal is rarely a good idea, false positives and errors with automation are always an issue when dealing with a very large number changes. In many instances {{better source needed}} would likely be more appropriate, but it would be a case by case issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think tagging most uses as BSN is definitely appropriate, and the we can go case by case on specific uses regarding removal without replacement (if none are available). Is anyone opposed to that? FortunateSons (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. It should have a |reason= parameter pointing either to the RFC or the RSP entry. Anyone who thinks a given use is warranted is welcome to remove the tag. One-time runs avoid accidental edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Is The Honey Pop a reliable source?

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for guidance on whether The Honey Pop (link) should be considered a reliable source for citations on Wikipedia, particularly in articles related to K-pop and pop culture.

The Honey Pop is a fan-driven website that publishes entertainment news, reviews, and articles about music and popular culture, including K-pop. The Honey POP is geared towards 15–25-year-olds and is run by a team of young creatives who are fans themselves. The website's content includes news and opinion pieces that share stories from the fans' own viewpoint. While the site seems to offer well-written articles, I have some concerns about its reliability:

1. Editorial Oversight: It’s unclear whether The Honey Pop has strong editorial oversight or a fact-checking process similar to more reputable outlets. Given that it's fan-driven, its editorial standards may not be as rigorous as more established sources.
2. Potential Bias: The site seems to focus on promoting content that is of interest to pop culture fans, which could introduce a certain level of bias or promotional tone that doesn't align with Wikipedia's neutrality requirements.
3. Not Widely Recognized: While the website might be popular within certain fan communities, it doesn’t seem to be recognized as an authoritative or independent source within the broader media landscape.

Based on these points, my initial assessment is that The Honey Pop might not meet Wikipedia’s reliability criteria (WP:RS), but I’d like to hear other editors' opinions. Should The Honey Pop be considered unreliable and added to the list of sources to avoid, or are there circumstances where it could be used?

Looking forward to your thoughts! RDWolfgang (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The "fan run" part is just marketing blurp, this is a commercial site as seen my its list of staff on its "about us" page[23]. Fan sites generally don't employ a nine member social media marketing team.

I would be more concerned about the promotional aspects of the site. The "advertise with us" page is very clear that they do advertorials[24], and it's unclear if these are disclosed in any way. It doesn't have any use by others, but that's hardly surprising for this type of site.

In general it's probably marginally reliable but editors should be cautious over its promotional nature. Obviously it shouldn't be added to the perennial sources list, as it fails the criteria bfor inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The "fan run" part may be a marketing blurp (I highly doubt that) but having a nine-member marketing team does not prove that a site is reliable, nor does it serve as proof that the site has strong editorial oversight. Even with a marketing team, a site can still be considered a fan site or user-generated content platform if it lacks professional editorial oversight. The fact that it leans heavily into promotional content ("advertise with us") makes it hard to trust as a source for factual, unbiased information, therefore, fails to be marginally reliable, I think we should consider it more of a fan site and include this in unreliable sources WP:GUNREL. I want to ping @Emiya Mulzomdao they previously agreed that it should be considered unreliable. RDWolfgang (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want something included in the project Korea source list you will need to discuss it with the project, that page is maintained separately by them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked up their staff and yes, I still think it is unreliable. I checked that two owners, Brittaney Penney and Iva Morris, were previously a photographer and a Discord community manager. Not a great sign. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The reason I proposed the topic here is I wanted more opinions about the reliabilty of this site. Also, this site should not be used in any article, not just in Korea-related articles.

@Emiya Mulzomdao what should be done to prevent this site from being used as a reliable or sole source in Wikipedia articles? RDWolfgang (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd add it to the unreliable list in WP:KO/RS if this concerns K-pop topic. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Predatory journal check

Hello, would like to know if the "International Journal of Social Sciences" is reliable or predatory see the article in question [25] There seems to be two journals of the same name, one is in NYC which is a known predatory journal while this one is based in Turkey. This article is written by a reputable Ethiopian historian. Magherbin (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The journal advertises fake impact factors, e.g. [26]. This is not a reputable journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The impact factor link on the home page doesn't even mention the "journal". Clearly an unreliable (and, FWIW, editorially/managerially incompetent) source. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for taking a look. Magherbin (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Should subject or time-specific deprecation be an RfC option?

It's now becoming common at RSN to propose a 4-option RfC for the purpose of discussing a source for a given period of time or its coverage in a specific topic area. As an example, the recent RfC[27] on The Daily Telegraph was limited to its coverage on transgender topics and presented a deprecation option. Let's call this "partial deprecation".

Partial deprecation should not be presented as an option in future RfCs. WP:DEPRECATION states that deprecation primarily exists to save time by avoiding the endless discussion of the same issues, and to raise awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question. In other words, deprecation is not an extra level of unreliability on top of WP:GUNREL; it's a list of sources that we auto-revert and have an edit filter warning people about.

However, it isn't possible to implement partial deprecation for most sources. The auto-reversion and edit filter is based on a source's URL. Only some sources include the date of publication in the URL, and very rarely do sources include a machine-readable topic in the URL. A consensus for partial deprecation would be unenforceable, so having it as an RfC option would be misleading.

The only exception I can see would be if a consensus is reached on how partial deprecation would be implemented. For example, checking the URL for a set of topic-related keywords and making the revert or edit filter decision based on that. But there will likely be arguments over what those keywords should be due to the potential for false positives, and the best way to avoid wasting editor time would be listing those keywords at the start of the RfC.

Does anyone else agree with my logic here? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that deprecation was basically a nuke option to get people to stop using the Daily Mail, but people think it means Unreliable . It should probably stop being included in the default RFC options, since including it makes people treat it like extra generally unreliable. Or maybe we should stop doing so many source RFCs when they aren't needed, but to stop incentivizing that we would have to stop adding to the RSP page things that are not perennial, but people want sources to be added to the easy to consult list so its stated purpose is constantly flouted... alas! PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we have the ability to bind the community against forming a future consensus for a partial deprecation, but it would be appropriate that people be reminded of the practical implementation, and for any favouring such proposals to explicitly indicate they have considered such and have a intended implementation, whether that be in the RFC nomination statement, a part of their !vote or somewhere else. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we can recommend not to include it as an option unless it has a possible implementation. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

My personal view has long been that RFCs should offer propositions that are basically of the form "upgrade" or "downgrade," especially if it's even going to be a struggle to get it downgraded, why bother offering deprecation as an option unless that is obviously merited? Andre🚐 08:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I never personally !vote deprecate any more, but I think what people mean when they say something like "option 4 for Rhinos and large tropical ungulates in general" is that we should never ever use the source in that topic area. There is clearly a difference between this and "generally unreliable". A "deprecate" at RSN allows for immediate deletion of content sourced to a bad source in this topic area without discussion, which is an option which might actually be useful. My view is that we should retain deprecate but add a category of something like "Option 5 Not to be used in the topic area of Rhinos and large tropical ungulates, broadly construed."Boynamedsue (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Deprecation doesn't allow for any different editing behaviour than unreliability. WP:DEPRECATED the only effect of deprecation alone is to explicitly codify the source’s pre-existing status, as already determined by Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements and Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable. Editors can remove content referenced to an unreliable source without discussion because editors never need permission to edit (WP:BOLD). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, the discussion is made much easier with the DO NOT USE option I propose. If there is a DO NOT USE FOR X on a source, there will be no discussion over why, on this occasion, the only generally unreliable source should be used. It just becomes a tap the sign moment.--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

What your suggesting isn't deprecation, but something more stringent than deprecation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I raised this issue on the talk page awhile ago, and have been trying to stop the misunderstanding that deprecation is GUNREL . One of the current RFCs contains editors wanting to deprecate for a topic area, not sure how that would work maybe we could create an general AI to determine if an edit contains text relevant to the topic.
As it stands partial deprecation isn't possible, this is a technical limitation and not something easily overcome. I've argued before that deprecation shouldn't be a default option, maybe only including it if the RFCBEFORE shows a need for it. However a smaller solution would be to rename the option from "Deprecate" to "Unreliable with deprecation", it makes it clearer that this is just GUNREL with a technical option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a decent idea. Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That renaming idea sounds good. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 17:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This is probably the best way of making the impact clear. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I like both of these ideas, to only include "deprecate" as an option if the RFCBEFORE shows that at least some chunk of people think the source actually needs deprecation (I've seen, and I'm sure we've all seen, many RFCs where it made no sense that it was being presented as an option, since the only options anyone was actually arguing for were either "reliable" or "considerations apply", but some people responded with stern "don't deprecate!" !votes because the format of the RFC made them think it was an option that was actually being considered), and also to rename "deprecate" when it is an option. -sche (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

"Partial deprecation" has actually been applied before, in the case of Lenta.ru. The outcome wasn't formally chosen as an RfC option, but was implemented post-RfC as a common-sense exception to acknowledge that the reasoning for deprecation only applied after the site had changed ownership. It happens that the technical measures were enforceable in that case (the site was subsequently partially blacklisted successfully, without any problems that I'm aware of), but even if that hadn't been the case the partial deprecation would have remained.

Even if there are technical barriers, at minimum some degree of enforcement can still be done manually. When justifying removal of a source, "enforcing deprecation" is probably less likely to be opposed than removal based on general unreliability. If necessary, the specific circumstances where the deprecation applies would be determined case-by-case, in the same way that many sources are already treated as GREL/MREL/GUNREL based on specific circumstances. And regardless, as already pointed out, we can't really bind the community against forming a specific consensus in the future. Sunrise (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If deprecation is misunderstood, perhaps it needs a new name. Imagine if people had to vote "Prohibited", for example, or "Remove all existing instances and set a Special:AbuseFilter to warn against future additions".

I've also wondered whether we need an option for "It's biased but it doesn't actually make up nonsense". So many voters in RSP discussions seem to think that holding a POV they disagree with makes the source unreliable. If a newspaper were to accurately but extensively report every crime they heard about, that wouldn't be "unreliable" – every fact in each article is true – but the overall effect, day after day, would give a biased impression of a crime wave. That bias is important for local politicians, whose constituents will demand that they 'do something', but it's not relevant for Wikipedia, because our interest is in the individual facts in each separate article, and not at all in whether the newspaper talks about crime too much, not enough, or just the right amount. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing and Alpha3031. Depreciation is often treated as if something is really unreliable or POV related, which is ridiculous. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You've mixed up blacklisting and deprecation, their not the same thing. I wouldn't know if the solution for partial blacklisting would also be applicable to an edit filter, or whether it would be to expensive runtime wise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

No, this particular source is both deprecated and blacklisted. That said, that part of my comment is really a secondary point - I was just trying to clarify exactly what happened in the example I was describing, without having to go into a lot of extraneous detail, but perhaps I didn't do as well as I hoped. The main point I was making was that partial deprecation did in fact occur, and this status would have remained even if the technical components couldn't be fully implemented. Sunrise (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Should Fortune (Magazine) be seen as a reliable source?

Should Fortune (magazine) be listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? MikeBlom (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This question would be better asked at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. CNC (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there an issue about it's on-WP use? [28] As always, context matters. My knee-jerk reaction is "probably generally reliable", but that is not reason to put it on RSP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Why should it be listed? Do we have significant disputes regarding it's reliability? More importantly, do we have a history of questions at this noticeboard that should be summarized there? Springee (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing this relates to this edit[29] to the RSP that was reverted as it didn't meetbthe criteria for inclusion. Discussions that only exists to get sources added the RSP should be excluded from counting as part of it's inclusion criteria. So that a hard no from me for the original question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose listing it on RSP as well, I don't really see a good reason for it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Robb Report

I'm working on sourcing for Hôtel Belles Rives and I am wondering about Robb Report. Generally reliable or should they be binned alongside WP:FORBESCON and WP:HUFFPOCON? This is what concerns me. It reports Belles Rives is where water skiing was invented as a straight fact. https://robbreport.com/travel/hotels/bar-fitzgerald-at-belles-rives-hote-in-cap-d-antibes-reopens-after-an-800k-renovation-1234840475/

That claim is contradicted by https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ralph-samuelson-the-man-who-invented-water-skiing-180980355/

So, it leaves me wondering if they do any fact checking at all.

Graywalls (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

aaroads.com

https://aaroads.com is a huge online global database of roads with a stated aim to become the most comprehensive guide there is. That's fine, but a lot of its content is sucked straight out of wikipedia. If you do a wikipedia insource search for aaroads.com then you'll see that 290 of the 1,038 links returned are actually enclosed within a <ref>...</ref> article reference. That breaks WP:CIRCULAR and WP:UGC and likely WP:SPS. Clearly (to me) this isn't a reliable source and personally I'd like to see it expunged - initially from all references by being listed at WP:RSNP, but ultimately to be blacklisted so it's removed from all article external links as well. In case you're wondering how I came across this it's because they are actively recruiting Wikipedia editors to work on aaroads.com - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Invitation to join the AARoads Wiki which was posted today. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There are different nparts of AARoads, the wiki would be CIRCULAR and the rest is UGC. Listing on the RSP has zero effect on it being used on Wikipedia, it just means it appears on a list. If you want it added to a source highlighting script you could ask the scripts author. Editor can remove unreliable sources on their own judgement, but it only happens if editors do it themselves there's no automated process for removal. I don't see a need for blacklisting, as it could be useful in an External Links section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I get the bit about needing to manually remove and the fact one editor can do it, I just feel that if does get an entry at WP:RSNP then there is some justification for doing it rather than relying on one editor's opinion. Although I don't personally agree I would certainly be interested in what others think about the External Links section. Perhaps that should be disconnected from this discussion to avoid any confusion? 10mmsocket (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR is policy, and WP:UGC is a guideline, both have as much weight as RSP. WP:ELN exists for discussions about external links, they have their own separate guidelines from RS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry just realised you know all that, I appear to have username blindness. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking through how the source is used it's pretty bad, I thought it would just be naive additions of the wiki but there's a whole load of forum posts being used as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any valid use for aaroads.com on wikipedia barring a aaroads coming into existance, it was never a reliable source and nothing seems to have changed significantly in that regard. Now that there are major circularity concerns I would support scrubbing it entirely and blacklisting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

A blacklist would be too extreme. There are valid uses for links to the main AARoads website, which has pictures and descriptions that go beyond what is considered standard in Wikipedia articles but still relevant to readers. I agree with not using them in citations, but there's clearly a place for AARoads proper in the external links of many road (and city) articles. SounderBruce 19:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a filter, similar to the deprecation one, that only warns about adding a link to UGC without blocking it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain what that place would be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about the source so can't come up with examples but from the description it seems reasonable that it could be so useful and I haven't seen anything to suggest it isn't unless it's claimed to be copyvio. While not copying from Wikipedia, WP:IMDB-EL is a prominent example of UGC which is treated this way. There are others from the wiki world e.g. Memory Alpha (many articles e.g. James T. Kirk). That said I agree with others this isn't the place for such a discussion as its not an RS issue and so far no one has disputed it's not an RS. While it's of minor relevance in whether we edit filter etc I don't think that's enough to discuss here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Rather than jumping to the nuclear option of a blacklist (reserved for only the most egregious cases of linkspam), perhaps consider that the World Wide Web benefits greatly from linking to related websites, whether you agree they meet our policies on reliability (and only those policies). An entry in the external links section to an AARoads webpage that has a more thorough description and more images is perfectly fine; we do the same for links to other not-reliable-but-useful websites as Nil Einne also explains. SounderBruce 08:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how a link to aaroads in the external links section would be against policy. It holds a lot of information that the reader could find useful, and is not harmful, copyvio, or deliberately misleading. It is only links outside of that section that are a problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The question is how to dissuade editors from using it for referencing. It could easily seem an obvious source for new editors who don't know the relevant guidelines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That's what I wanting to get to yes. Let's not discuss the External Links question any more and focus on the consensus that we seem to have that it is not RS. I still think listing it on WP:RSNP (or at the very least pointing to this discussion) would give us a mandate for its ongoing removal as a reference. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

...and as you say some sort of mechanism for alerting editors to its undesireability. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The maintainers of the source highlighting scripts will add it if you ask nicely, this discussion can be seen as prove it's not reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Any pointers? Thx. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Headbomb maintains the most commonly used one, while Novem Linguae maintains the one used by NPP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The maintainers of the RSP have their own inclusion criteria, two discussions involvin multiple parties at a minimum, I don't think it meets that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I would have sworn that this wasn't the first time the reliability of aaroads had come up but I can't find anything in the archives, perhaps it came up on another page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was thinking of... But aaroads.com has a lot of copyvivo (they don't seem to use the same standards we do, a lot of stuff there is cut-pasted from primary sources). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

"A lot of copyvio" is quite the claim and is reaching; many of the primary sources quoted are either state statutes (non-copyrightable per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.), pre-1977 AASHTO documents without a copyright notice, or public domain works from the federal government. And since when does an external link need to conform with our stricter policies? This is a ridiculous standard that only road articles are being held to. SounderBruce 18:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that "This is a ridiculous standard that only road articles are being held to."? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio would be covered by WP:ELNEVER and isn't something that can be worked around, never add links to known copyvio. That's independent of any group or project. Whether aaroads has copyright issues I couldn't say, I'd want some prove of that and that they are ignoring the issue.

The argument over whether to use it as an External Links section comes down to WP:ELNO #12, but should generally avoid doesn't mean "must not". I would say that aaroads adds enough information to be useful as an external link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Just for clarity when I mentioned copyvio above I only thinking of attribution failures but it looks to me like they're probably sufficiently complying with what our licence terms require. As for the primary source stuff what primary sources and where? Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be listed on RSNP but it obviously isn't an appropriate source. Blacklisting may be more appropriate to deal with the issue given how widespread it's use is. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable, unless someone can give any indication on how this site isn't just something some guys made. Which is what the About page indicates to me. This is a similar issue to ship related articles using the amateur-run u-boat.net source that should be absolutely purged from this encyclopedia. But that's a separate problem. Silverseren^C 18:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems every area has at least one UGC/SPS site that gets added as a reference repeatedly, there was recently a discussion around one related to astronomical objects. There's so many genealogical sites they have there own section of the RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

On a historical level that makes a lot of sense to me, you have a lot of crossover between early users and those associated with those UGC/SPS sites. In many cases the same people spamming them across articles here are the same people creating the content over there, even if there is often a certain lack of willingness to disclose (for example anyone with a COI vis-a-vis aaroads.com should have disclosed it when participating in this discussion but I can see at least one editor who did not) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're implying that I have a COI, note that AARoads.com is a separate publication from the AARoads Wiki. One should not cast asperations, especially in repetition across multiple discussions. SounderBruce 20:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware of that, I thought that they were related and that you were active on both (when discussing the reliability of UGC the "users" in question have a COI). May I ask what repetition across multiple discussions you are referring to? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Could any discussion of COI or user behaviour been done somewhere else, this isn't a general forum. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)