Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeppiz (talk | contribs) at 09:37, 25 August 2024 (→https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/about). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

    Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.


    Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

    List of archives
    , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
    20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
    30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
    40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
    50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
    60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
    70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
    80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
    90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
    100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
    110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
    120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
    130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
    140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
    150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
    160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
    170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
    180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
    190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
    200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
    210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
    220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
    230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
    240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
    250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
    260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
    270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
    280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
    290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
    300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
    310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
    320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
    330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
    340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
    350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
    360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
    370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
    380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
    390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
    400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
    410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
    420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
    430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
    440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
    450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457

    Additional notes:

    Shortcuts
    • RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
    • While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
    • This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

    RfC: NewsClick

    An investigative piece titled "A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul" was published by The New York Times in August of 2023. The inquiry examined the reported network of groups and persons that American tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham sponsors in order promote Chinese government agendas and interests across the globe. One of organizations apparently getting financing from Singham's network was named in the report specifically as NewsClick. It said NewsClick's coverage presented a positive image of China and at times resembled talking points of the Chinese government.

    The reliability of NewsClick is:

    14:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

    Survey (NewsClick)

    • Bad RfC. ND61F has not indicated what Wikipedia article has disputed cites, and four-way forms with blanket-ban options are always bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am counting 4 uses of this as a reference, using a very silly search. [1] I am not quite sure it is used extensively enough to warrant an RFC as well. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Using insource is a better way, as it can see the URLs hidden inside cites.[2] Using that shows 333 pages with references using the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      OHH. did not know about that. thank you! Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 with a note warning about bias and a lack of independence related to the Chinese government and its talking points. I can understand the concerns about the lack of prior discussion, but I think this is clear-cut enough that we don't have to waste time on it unless someone wants to argue for unreliability or deprecation (which it could still be downgraded to in a later discussion if evidence comes up or if it remains an issue.) There are sufficient reasons to believe it is biased that some sort of warning where people will see it is called for; while it isn't perennial yet, RSP is the only logical place to put such a warning, and a source like this shouldn't be used 300+ time without at least some indicator of the problems where people might see them. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      +1. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (NewsClick)

    • For reference the New York Times articles can be found here or in this archive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was there any WP:RFCBEFORE relevant to this RFC? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's do RFCBEFORE now. The source is used quite extensively, including for topics like Right-wing politics (the right-wing tendency to elect or appoint politicians and government officials based on aristocratic and religious ties is common to almost all the states of India) and Cryptocurrency (Review of "The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism"). If there are credible accusations of this outlet spreading Chinese propaganda, we should at least note its bias and make sure it's not given undue weight. Mostly it's used for India-related topics and I'm not really qualified to judge the quality of the articles used there. Alaexis¿question? 20:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The source is only briefly mentioned in the NYT article, with it showing bias towards China and talking points of the Chinese government. Would a note about these issues be enough? If so is a RFC even necessary. In the first example you give above the source is one of four used to support the statement, the second is used to support an attributed statement by David Golumbia who according to his obituary[3] was "an expert on cyberlibertarianism, bitcoin, blockchain". Is there any concerns with the reliability of these statements?
      To be clear my point about RFCBEFORE was that it could make the whole RFC unnecessary, not that discussion shouldn't happen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would suggest we close the formal RFC (unanswered) … and continue to explore several of the citations that use this source and the context in which they use it. Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. Alaexis¿question? 12:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If so I would suggest a note be added about the validity of the concern of Chinese bias, lest the closure of this RFC become a way to brush those off. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would have thought that, and that it probably shouldn't be used for reporting on the Chinese government or Chinese history. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that at the very least noting its biases is worth doing, and that even in the absence of previous disputes over it it's worth adding something like that to RSP (or somewhere) in situations, like this one, where it wouldn't otherwise be obvious. The problem is that AFAIK we can't actually add something to RSP without a designation, or at least it would be fairly awkward to do so. Would it just default to a yellow "unclear" entry, if we don't discuss it in any context except its bias? At the bare minimum concerns over its biases appear serious enough to be an "other stuff applies" situation even if the rest were reliable (which we haven't really examined.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a point I would love clarity on; I was considering for some weeks now starting a discussion about the related question of: where and how do we discuss that a source is biased? Because WP:RSP records when sources are biased, but the "standard options" for RSN RFCs are only about reliability (not bias, which editors have to decide on their own to mention); if someone doesn't dispute the overall reliability of a source (let's even say, one that's already present on RSP, so how to colour-code its reliability isn't an issue), but wants to discuss adding that it's biased, where do they do that? Here? How, a custom RFC which people will complain doesn't have the "standard options"? And then, yes, as you ask, how do we note the outcome / bias in RSP if all we want to note is "unexpectedly, this source is biased about X" and not "this source is reliable/unreliable"? Should there be a separate page—or section of WP:RSP—WP:RSPOVP, where this is noted? -sche (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, nothing prevents us from adding a new record to the RSP table with blank status and a note about the bias in the summary field. Alaexis¿question? 08:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bias is even more contextual than reliability. I think that it's valuable to note it down precisely because of sources like this one (where the bias is clear-cut but may not be obvious at a casual glance); to me, part of the value of RSP is to give people an at-a-glance sense of a source in order to provide a starting point for local discussions. I don't think we need an entire column for it or more details than that - it's the kind of thing where if there's a dispute or problem related to it you really want to read the entire entry and think about how it applies to using that specific source in that specific context anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for raising this important point regarding the evaluation and documentation of source bias. Your observation highlights a significant gap in our current processes for assessing source reliability and identifying potential biases. The current system, while effective for determining overall source reliability, does not adequately address the nuanced issue of bias. As you correctly point out, the absence of a dedicated platform for discusing source bias creates challenges for editors seeking to address this critical aspect of source evaluation.
    I agree that clarifying the appropriate forum for discussing source bias is essential. A dedicated page or selction within WP:RSP, as you suggest, could provide a structued approach to these discussions. Addtionally, developing standardized criteria for assessing bias and documanting finding would enhance consistency and transparency in process. I propose we initiate a formal discussion to explore potential solutions for this issue. This could involve creating a task force in order to develop recommendation for addresing the evaluation and documantation of source bias. I look forward to collaboratng with you and other interested editors to find a satisfactory resolution.
    Please let me know if you would like to proceed with creating a task force. ND61F (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that RFC is not necessary. The fact that NewsClick is heavly influenced by Chinese gov propaganda is a serious allegation that requires detail investigation and talk. It can't be dismissed with a simple note. 333 unchecked citations of NewsClick are alarming. It is imperative that we review these instances to analyze impact of this potentialy biased source on our articls. I understand your concern about the length of the RFC proces, but in this case, it's essential to ensure accuracy and neutrality of our content. A well structred RFC can expedte the process by focusing the discussion and gatherings. The NYT article provides imp evidence of NewsClick bias, but it' is not enough. We need a comprehensive analysis of the source, including its editoril policies, funding, connection to the Chinese government. RFC will allow to collect evidence, check the source content, and reach a consensus on its reliability . ND61F (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with ND61F, if there are biases present in Newsclick with the help of fundings from the Chinese Communist Party then I don't see how this is any different to WP:GLOBALTIMES or Huanqiu Shibao which is also funded/owned by the CCP. Xoocit (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC Sihang Warehouse - Questionable English Sources?

    Japanese primary sources and contemporary newspapers state X force was engaged in the battle, newer English sources generally with few or no citations assert Y force was engaged in the battle, academic English source notes Y force as not being present in said battle. I am requesting a comment on the reliability of the four English sources in question and additional comments on any of the other sources mentioned would be greatly appreciated too. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been an ongoing dispute for about 2 years now regarding the participating sources during the Defense of Sihang Warehouse and more recently a dispute regarding the subsection covering the same event's subsection on the Battle of Shanghai Article. As the battle seems to have been of little significance in Japanese history, most of the known Japanese sources are un-detailed reports from the Japanese military itself or contemporary news reports. Japanese sources state the participating forces were a reinforced battalion and some artillery companies of the Japanese NAVAL landing forces.[1] Contemporary Japanese newspapers also state the Warehouse was captured by naval landing force units.[2] Likewise, contemporary English news reports support this, noting the participation of the Japanese Naval Landing Forces or "marines."[3][4] When the warehouse was occupied by the Japanese, it was repeated in a major China-based English newspaper that the "Special Naval Landing Party" were the ones who had taken it.[5]

    However several newer English-language sources assert it was the Japanese ARMY's 3rd Division. These assertions not only contradict primary Japanese-language sources and contemporary news reports, but also an academic English-language essay authored by reputable historians which documents the IJA 3rd Division as being outside of the city attempting to cross Suzhou River (while the Defense of Sihang Warehouse took place).[6] A look into the references shows this essay was based largely on primary sources authored by the Japanese military.

    Other editors have understandably taken issue with the use of Japanese primary sources for the Japanese Order of Battle and have disputed them with several English language sources.

    The main English sources being used to assert the IJA 3rd Division's involvement are as follows:

    1. "Three Months of Bloodshed: Strategy and Combat During the Battle of Shanghai" by James Paulose. Page 18 (frame 10) states the involvement of the IJA 3rd Division and cites "O’Connor, Critical Readings on Japan, 273-75." I have not been able to read O’Connor's work and verify if this work actually mentions the IJA 3rd DIvision.
    2. Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes. Exisle Publishing. There are a number of passages stating the IJA 3rd Division's involvement but the majority lack citations for where this information came from. One page cites "Hatttori, Satoshi, with Dera [misspelled], Edward J., 'Japanese Operations from July to December 1937', The Battle for China, 169" which is from the same English-language essay mentioned above which states only pages later the IJA 3rd Division had already left Shanghai by October 26, 1937 (a day before the Defense of Sihang Warehouse in Shanghai occurred).
    3. Niderost, Eric (2007). "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse". Warfare History Network. Web article with no citations.
    4. C. Peter Chen (2012). "Second Battle of Shanghai". World War II Database. Web article with no citations.
    1. ^ "陸戦隊の部". C14120644700. Retrieved 24 March 2023.
    2. ^ "同盟旬報 第1巻 第13号（通号013号）". 同盟旬報. Retrieved 17 July 2024.
    3. ^ "Exciting Scenes When Chinese In Fort Make Final Dash Over Bridge". Shanghai Times. October 31, 1937.
    4. ^ "Creek Bank Street Fight Being Watched". No. 1937.11.03. North China Herald. October 28, 1937.
    5. ^ "Artillery Ousts Brave Battalion - 100 Bodies Found". No. 1937.11.03. North China Herald. November 1, 1937.
    6. ^ Peattie, Mark (2013). The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945. Stanford University Press. p. 174-175. ISBN 0804792070.

    Adachi1939 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I added a summary of mostly secondary and a couple primary Japanese-language sources and their translations on the talk page for the Defense of SIhang Warehouse article.
    These sources conclude the participants on the Japanese side were indeed the Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces (mostly from the Shanghai SNLF) and the IJA 3rd Division albeit nearby, was outside the city preparing for/engaging in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation.
    Given the English sources I presented above are in direct conflict with all of these Japanese language sources, including ostensibly reliable secondary sources compiled by Japan's National Institute for Defense Studies, I feel it is safe to conclude they are not reliable.
    However if it is solely my opinion on this matter presented, editors on the contested articles are likely going to keep reverting my changes. I would really appreciate some comments or any input from others regarding these sources. Adachi1939 (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Bloody Elbow

    What is the reliability of Bloody Elbow pre-2024?

    Survey (Bloody Elbow)

    • Option 3 See previous discussions at RSN:[4] [5] Three of the four editors who weighed in, not counting me, considered it a blog that was generally unreliable. One editor pointed out it had been cited more than 500 times, but did not otherwise weigh in. Please note that I have a conflict of interest as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki.com, hired by ONE Championship which has been covered in Bloody Elbow,

    While Bloody Elbow currently seems to be a reliable source under the new ownership, (See their editorial policy, prior to this, Bloody Elbow was a small blog. When GRV bought Bloody Elbow in 2024, [6] it laid off the existing staff and deleted most of its archival content, indicating a lack of confidence in the site’s past work.

    Most of the citations to Bloody Elbow on Wikipedia no longer work and can’t be rescued. On the Ultimate Fighting Championship page, for example, of the 35 citations to Bloody Elbow, only five links work - three go to the Ghost Archives, one to the Internet Archive, and only one to Bloody Elbow. I tried to find the 29 sources on the Internet Archives and the Ghost Archives and I could not locate them.

    When deciding whether a source is reliable WP:USEBYOTHERS says: “How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.” The media rarely cited to Bloody Elbow over its 16 year history. I found only three reliable sources pre-March 2024 that cite to it, two of which described it as a blog. A story written by a contributor on a site called “Fannation” uses Bloody Elbow as a news source. The two other reliable sources that refer to it as a blog are a small Florida publication and Washington Post sports blog. The Post seems to have used it exclusively to reprint quotes from fighters attributed to the Bloody Elbow blog E.g. [7], [8], [9].

    My suggestion is that Bloody Elbow pre-March 2024 be treated as unreliable for statements of fact, but can be used for statements of opinion, if attributed. Regardless, editors are going to need to replace the hundreds of dead links with new citations. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the purpose of this RFC? The consensus from previous discussions is that it isn't reliable. That is also the case with previous discussions on SBNation blogs in general. Has there been any disagreement with that assessment? If not this seems a waste of editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see there was a discussion of SBNation, in which you participated, but there was no consensus. You argued that these blogs were sometimes reliable, and sometimes not,[10] which would be Option 2 if applied to Bloody Elbow. But there is recent precedent for examining the SBNation blogs individually here at RSN. Here is an extensive discussion from July 2023 of team SBNation team blogs, in which you also participated and argued they should not be used for BLP.[11] Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is still unsettled under WP:RSPCRITERIA. The first discussion had three participants and two agreed that it was unreliable. [12] The most recent one, had three participants, two of whom agreed it was unreliable, but my vote likely shouldn’t count since I am a paid consultant to a company written about by Bloody Elbow. [13]. WP:RSPCRITERIA says that to declare a source unreliable you need significant discussions between at least two qualifying editors about the source's reliability or an uninterrupted RfC. @ActivelyDisinterested: Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't need to be listed, and starting discussion and RFC just to get it listed on RSP is non-productive. This board is for advice for disupted sources, not a place to fulfil thr requirements setout to get listed at RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it was a blog or news source pre-March 2024 is the issue. It was not self-published - it had different owners and employees. Wikipedia editors frequently misuse it as a news source, in my opinion. It has been cited more than 500 times on Wikipedia, such as on the page for Ultimate Fighting Championship more than 35 times, and on ONE Championship. I think most of these uses are incorrect even though they are widespread. A formal decision on an RfC will help prevent further misuse, and also clarify that this does not affect Bloody Elbow post March-2024. This decision will directly impact how I treat the source when making proposals for edits I am planing. That's all I care about, not whether it gets list at RSP. @ActivelyDisinterested:, would you like a few examples of where it is treated like a news source on Wikipedia so you can see what I mean - to establish that there is widespread misuse on Wikipedia, which makes this RfC meaningful. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How it is used on Wikipedia isn't how reliable sources are judged, many unreliable sources are used extensively on Wikipedia. If it wasn't a blog at some point could you provide details? As far as I could see it was always a SBNation source and they are all blogs.
    You should make the edit requests and then see if anyone objects. The first part of WP:CONSENSUS is through editing, if someone objects discuss it with them, if you can't come to agreement with them see WP:Dispute resolution (which may include looking for third party input on a noticeboard like this one). You are circumventing the normal editing process. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was always a blog, which is why I chose Option 3. Also, RSN is commonly used outside of disputes that went though Dispute Resolution, apparently contrary to your claim. On this page alone, RSN is used to determine the reliability of a source outside the context of a specific edit dispute on WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is NPR a reliable source?, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of NewsReports, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#profootballarchives.com. As to bringing up the 500+ edits, I only investigated the angle of how widespread usage has been on Wikipedia because User: Schazjmd brought it up during the previous Bloody Elbow discussion,[14]. When you participated in Profootballarchives.com, you did not object to User:Fourthords starting the discussion stating it has been used in 1500 articles, nor did you object when the same editor stated that they could find no other discussion about the reliability of the source (therefore no previous dispute about the source, which you say is necessary before coming to RSN). Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is NPR a reliable source?

    In 2014 a study was conducted to find the reliability of news organizations. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/10/30/which-news-organization-is-the-most-trusted-the-answer-is-complicated/

    One of the things that stood out was NPR because it showed that not a lot of people have heard of NPR, only 53%, And only 55% of the people trust it.

    0.53 x 0.55 = 0.2915

    So, 29.15% of the total population trusts the news source.

    This tells us that while just over half of the people are aware of the news source, only about 29% of the total population actually trusts it. The overall level of trust in the news source is therefore relatively low in the context of the entire population. LukeTheAwesomePro (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability is not measured in general fame. 53% is in no way "not a lot of people". It is literally most people, and far more than most of the things we rely on as sources.... but again, that's irrelevant. And we don't judge reliability on response of the general public. And the study is not a study of the reliability of sources, it's of the trustedness -- which is different than trustworthy. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant that 53% of people know of it, I meant by 53% of all the people within the survey know it, the other news articles had at least 90% of people know them. Also, trustedness often stems from perceived trustworthiness. If something is deemed trustworthy, they are more likely to achieve a high degree of trustedness in the eyes of others. LukeTheAwesomePro (talk)
    No, that section of the page is just showing select examples from the sources studied. If you look at the full list, you'll find 36 sources listed, with 15 being less famous than NPR. It ranked 12th among the total percentage of the poll respondents who specifically trusted it, beating such sources as the Washington Post and The Economist. And none of that matters, none of that is how we measure reliability. As you can see at our list of sources that have been brought repeatedly to this board, NPR has been repeatedly judged reliable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Nat Gertler pointed out, Wikipedia does not evaluate sources based on how much trust the general public has in it, but on reliability as defined by Wikipedia itself.
    NPR is also part of the perennial sources list since its reliability is often debated and currently reads:"There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution". Yvan Part (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, the ranking that Nat Gertler said it got was also based on the general public too. LukeTheAwesomePro (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking about a ranking but part of Nat Gertler's first reply "And we don't judge reliability on response of the general public". Yvan Part (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was saying your statements were simultaneously inaccurate and irrelevant. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most people know their local NPR affialiate, in the pre-internet age thats who actually delivered the content and even today its who delivers the vast majority of it. This means that as far as the listener in Alabama is concerned they're listening to Alabama Public Radio and as far as the listener in Boston is concerned they're listening to Boston Public Radio but both may actually be consuming a NPR program. This has also already been pointed out but just about every inference you draw from that data is wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Nat says, reliability is not measured by a popularity contest.
    A stupid example, The History Channel used to air somewhat(?) reliable black and white documentaries of various WW2 campaigns and such. Its viewership had been dwindling for years though.
    To increase popularity, it started airing alien documentaries instead and becomes significantly more watched. It is arguably much less reliable now, however, even though it appeals to more folks. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While it's correct that we not care about popularity, the example is IMO not particularly apt. It's easily possible people trust The History Channel less than they used to. Even if you are talking about absolute numbers and considering it likely more people know of an have an opinion on the trustworthiness of The History Channel, it's still easily possible less people trust it. Just because something is popular doesn't mean people trust it. However as I said at the beginning, even if a lot of people trust a source, it doesn't mean it's reliable (and vice versa). Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is generally also made that the most reliable sources (high end scientific and medical journals) are almost entirely unknown outside of a specific circle of experts and practitioners. They have no public recognition and as a result they have no public trust (at least as Luke prefers to do the math) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One could counter that 100% of Republicans (about half the population) trust Fox News. That doesn't make it reliable. Reliability has nothing whatsoever to do with popularity or obscurity. I think the Ad Fontes Media Bias chart is a more reliable indicator, which shows NPR as reliable but biased to the left of center. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Central India Gazetteer series (1907)

    Is the source, the Central India Gazetteer series (1907) a reliable source for discussing kingdoms and states within India in the 1400s? The article/template in question where the source is being used is Template:South Asia in 1400.

    The source does not even seem to be addressing the 15th century. Link: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Central_India_State_Gazetteer_Series/Qv0bAQAAIAAJ?hl=en Ixudi (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Use newer source. Even if it was top source in its field more than 100 years ago, it would have been superseded by more recent sholarly work. Pavlor (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    UkrainiansintheUK.info for George Raffalovich

    I'd like to use this page as a source for George Raffalovich. The about page implies that anyone can submit material, but also implies there is editorial control, without making it really clear what the academic level is of the contributors or editors. Does anyone know more about the web site, or have other evidence bearing on its reliability? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The 'Ukrainians in the United Kingdom - online encyclopaedia' is a generally reliable source. As an encyclopaedia it's a WP:TERTIARY source, secondary sources are preferable if they are available but the UUK appears well respected. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field

    More eyes needed at Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Transcendental Meditation, and Transcendental Meditation technique. One specific issue is the reliability of a primary research paper published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution. It proposes that group practice of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field (the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program) during August and September, 1983, in Jerusalem, would reduce stress in the collective consciousness and behavior of Israel and Lebanon. It concludes that the "yogic flying" by the group had a leading relationship to change on the quality-of-life indicators, supporting a causal interpretation.

    Orme-Johnson, David W.; Alexander, Charles N.; Davies, John L.; Chandler, Howard M.; Larimore, Wallace E. (December 1988). "International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 32 (4). Sage Publishing: 776–812. doi:10.1177/0022002788032004009.

    The following is comment on the article by the journal's editor, from a history of the journal published in 2017.[1]

    Extended content

    The role of editor of a scientific journal is rarely smooth, and sometimes a ride that is both hilarious and dangerous through potholes. I remember best an article entitled “International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field” (Orme-Johnson et al. 1988). I’ll not reproduce it here, but you can get the basic message from their abstract...After the reviews arrived I made, in some fear and trepidation, the decision to publish it with the following comment to precede the article (Russett 1988):

    "The following article presents and tests a hypothesis that will strike most readers (myself included) as, to say the least, unorthodox. The hypothesis, supported by the empirical tests, is that the practice of Transcendental Meditation by a relatively small group of individuals can lower the manifestations of social conflict in a much wider circle of individuals not in any contact with the meditators. This hypothesis has no place within the normal paradigm of conflict and peace research. Yet the hypothesis seems logically derived from the initial premises, and its empirical testing seems competently executed. These are the standards to which manuscripts submitted for publication in this journal are normally subjected."

    "The manuscript, either in its initial version or as revised, was read by four referees (two more than is typical with this journal): three psychologists and a political scientist. One dismissed the first version summarily, as “using social scientific method to legitimate religious/philosophical teachings.” Two others, reading the first version, raised various questions about the methods employed in the study. One of those referees, himself technically adept, began his report with the words, “This paper illustrates that Box-Jenkins techniques can be used to support any hypothesis.” The other, after a detailed methodological critique, nevertheless concluded that the paper “has a great deal of merit in that the author(s) proceeds to examine a hypothesis that is on (or just beyond) the fringe of accepted ‘scientific knowledge’ in a very professional fashion.”"

    "A year later, I received a revised version of the paper, in which the methodological problems with the original seemed to have been properly addressed. I sent this version also out to referees: one of the previous referees and a respected associate of the Journal. Both essentially passed the methodology as competent. The first discussed the research design and execution in detail, replying that “if I apply the criteria I would use to judge any other example of ‘traditional’ research I would have to recommend publication.” He then nevertheless expressed reservations about the implications this had for the conduct of scientific research, and offered to write a commentary, which I am happy to print at the end of the article. The second disdained the paper as “a logically and methodologically coherent effort to test a set of hypotheses that, to be blunt, I regard as absurd.”"

    I decided, also ambivalently but with the opposite conclusion, that JCR should publish the article. While one should have serious reservations about research originating in highly implausible assumptions, the criteria for plausibility are unclear. For example, even non-Marxists would hardly find it acceptable to dismiss a piece of research simply because it originated in Marxist assumptions.

    I am also sympathetic to the second referee’s further stricture: “I do not trust a quasi-religious organization to conduct fair and impartial tests of the predictions of the founder of the organization. I’d be willing to consider seriously the current research for publication if, and only if, it were conducted by an independent, scientific body such as the National Academy of Sciences.” Yet, this is a bit of a catch-22. For a study with premises as heterodox as this one, it is almost impossible to imagine a body like the National Academy of Sciences being willing to fund such a research effort without some prior appearance of evidence for the hypothesis as produced by the normal scientific review procedures. Acceptance of the stricture would in practice mean the virtual impossibility for evidence ever to appear in print.

    Some would doubtless reply, “and so it shouldn’t.” Certainly, one can imagine a system of science becoming deluged with quackery passed off as research. Certainly, there is a great deal of quackery in the world at large (not all of it being practiced by quasi-religious organizations). It is vital to uphold normal scientific standards. But the practice of censorship in science, as in more overtly political realms, can be very unedifying. See, for example, DeGrazia’s (1966) report on the methods used to discourage publication of Immanuel Velikovsky’s rather outrageous work; Galileo was censored because his views offended the precepts of religious authorities.

    Most research—at least the presentation of new findings—is performed by scholars who begin with the belief that their hypotheses are plausible. Who else would spend the effort? Those who doubt that plausibility can try to replicate the original findings, and if they cannot do so they cast new doubt on the plausibility. This adversarial process must be conducted according to scientific norms and standards for evidence. Eventually, the dialectic begins to produce something like a consensus. It is possible to “cook the data,” in ways from wishful thinking and marginal adjustment to massive fraud ... . The procedures for detecting error are cumbersome, and most of the time, we must rely on the scientist’s own honesty. But the costs of being caught cheating are severe—few people lose status faster than a scientist so apprehended. All in all, it is an imperfect process, though less so in instances such as this where the data are basically in the public domain, and what really is the alternative?

    Publication by itself provides no “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.” It does, however, provide the opportunity for anyone who either believes in the plausibility of the hypothesis or who does not to carry on subsequent research. Attempts to continue or replicate such research should explicitly compare results produced by these authors’ hypotheses with those of alternative hypotheses. The research should incorporate the best safeguards against the intrusion of personal bias. All the data must be publicly available for scrutiny. It also would be desirable for major replications to include in the scientific team members whose initial bias is against the hypothesis as well as those in favor of it.

    This whole affair produced numerous jokes and complaints—so many that I sometimes regret publishing the article. But JCR survived it, and so, I hope did my reputation as editor. On the whole, I think it raises issues which are still relevant.

    What are editors views on the article's reliability? Cambial — foliar❧ 13:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As a general principle Wikipedia tends rightfully to be somewhat wary of citing primary-source papers on any subject. More so if the research seems to run counter to current scientific consensus. And given that this paper doesn't so much run counter to scientific consensus but depart off at a tangent into a new reality entirely, there are no circumstances I can imagine where policy would permit it to be cited as factual evidence for anything. Wikipedia reflects current scientific consensus. It is not part of its mandate to demolish it, and to construct a new paradigm where bouncing around on ones arse (which is a key component of 'Maharishi Technology': any good search engine will find plenty of videos depicting 'Yogic Flying') results in outbreaks of world peace. Hokum isn't science, even when misguidedly published in a scientific journal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Moreover, that article contains a lengthy section about "Collective Consciousness and Quantum Fields", which posits Striking parallels between the description of the unified field by the objective approach of modern science [...] and pure consciousness by the subjective approach of the ancient Vedic tradition. It is hokum to a degree that calls into question the journal editor's good sense. First, what is quantum physics doing in a journal of international relations? Second, even supposing we stretch plausibility to the breaking point and imagine that it might belong, did they have the basic competence to ask a physicist to evaluate the claims about physics? No, they got all their referee reports from three psychologists and a political scientist. Editorial malpractice. XOR'easter (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at other recent edits on the articles in question, this block of disputed text on the same theme ("yogic flying" and "national stress") cites a paper in the World Journal of Social Science, which is a journal from a predatory publisher. XOR'easter (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Russett, Bruce (October 2017). "A History of the Journal of Conflict Resolution". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 61 (9): 1844–1852. doi:10.1177/0022002717721387.

    https://www.xda-developers.com/ for tech

    editorial policy: https://www.valnetinc.com/en/editorial-integrity

    staff: https://www.xda-developers.com/page/about/ (12 people listed)

    publisher: https://www.valnetinc.com/en/our-brands

    I want to use it for this claim in Flutter_(software): (this is currently an unsourced statement that someone else added some time ago, not me.) 

    On May 6, 2020, the Dart software development kit (SDK) version 2.8 and Flutter 1.17.0 were released, adding support for the Metal API as well as new Material widgets and network tracking development tools.

    source: https://www.xda-developers.com/google-flutter-117-dart-2-8-stable-sdk-app-development/ J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't see anything wrong with using it for that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If no other sources, this should be fine. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you expand more on the "if no other sources" part? Should I actively check for other sources before using it or do you mean other sources should be used instead once found? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing wrong with it. One doesn't have to be a big publication to be reliable. It's knowledgeable in its area of expertise (Android development). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Out, PinkNews, and Pride.com

    I am using Out and Pride on "Lacy" to source that some critics considered the song to have potentially sapphic lyrics and PinkNews and Out on "Ballad of a Homeschooled Girl" to source that a lyric about the artist liking gay men received a mixed reaction online. I wanted to ask if any (or all?) of these could situationally pass as high quality sources if the articles were to go to FAC. I'm a bit torn since articles should represent diverse viewpoints but these are not the most reputed websites. All four authors are gay if that helps ([15], [16], [17], [18]), so not sure if that would represent a conflict of interest or help their credibility...--NØ 17:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    those are reliable. also that the writers are gay/queer is clearly not a COI. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that PinkNews is green at WP:RSP, though with some caveats. Loki (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out is a poppier sister publication to The Advocate, which is the American LGBTQ community's publication of record. While some caution might be warranted about due weight given its sometimes tabloidy approach, it's presumptively reliable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. We even have a Wikipedia article to give us the info we need to vet it. As a longstanding publication, I'd treat it like People, which I'd also expect to meet the high-quality FA bar when used appropriately. Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    MaranoFan, since your question is specifically related to the requirement at WP:WIAFA, 1c, for high-quality reliable sources, your question is above and beyond the general requirement for WP:RS and the remit/domain of this noticeboard. This board will engage many editors who aren't accustomed to generating content at the FA-level; general reliability is different than the high-quality sourcing requirement at FAC, which is partly intended to avoid unencyclopedic, unenduring, newsy content, and partly intended to assure that a full and comprehensive survey of scholarly and high-quality sources has been conducted.

    I think the general answer in this case is "no", they would not normally be considered high quality for FA purposes, but as always, it depends on the text being cited and how controversial it is, and how well you have attributed opinions. For example, the caveats at WP:PINKNEWS would disqualify it as high-quality or for citing some kinds of content; again, it depends on what you're citing. If the article goes to FAC with those sources, I would expect them to be flagged on the source review, and it would be up to you to defend at the FAC that the sources are high quality as required at the FA level for citing the content they are used to cite. If those are the only sources expressing a given view, I'd expect that they could be considered UNDUE by some FAC reviewers (Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and we don't have to include every opinion). And whether any article meets the FA standards is ultimately up to reviewer consensus; not every reliably-sourced article gets to be an FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Might be ancilliary to point and PinkNews may still be reliable, but this recording seems to be going around the internet[19]... Might not necessarily be greatest for trans coverage anymore? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Their supposed refusal to cover trans topics seems like misinformation, their current lead story is "US Supreme Court blocks Title IX protections for trans students in 26 states" in general don't share reddit posts at RSN, if it happens repeatedly your competence will be questioned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a bit harsh on Blue, as far as I know the recording is genuine, although Im unsure if there is any reporting. (t · c) buidhe 19:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of Al Jazeera

    What is the the reliability of Al Jazeera English in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict and generally? 14:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

    Jump to: Reliability of Al Jazeera - Arab-Israeli conflict Reliability of Al Jazeera - General topics

    The immediate background to this discussion is:

    To keep this discussion concise, editors are encouraged to limit themselves to no more than ten comments.

    Reliability of Al Jazeera - Arab-Israeli conflict

    WP:SNOW closed as option 1 - generally reliable for the Arab-Israeli conflict, though most seem to agree there is a bias. The standard concerns about blogs apply. About 80% of the !votes are for option 1 and the and there is no meaningful chance of any other outcome and no need to have more cycles spent on this. Hobit (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    What is the reliability of Al Jazeera English in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict?

    Note: Only extended-confirmed editors may participate in this discussion, per ARBPIA General Sanctions.

    Survey (Al Jazeera - Arab-Israeli conflict)

    • Option 3. Previously I reviewed approximately half of the 76 articles published by Al Jazeera on the Israeli-Palestine conflict within a two week period. Among these articles I found three - almost 10% - that made significant factual errors in Al Jazeera's own voice, errors that have gone uncorrected for two months despite being reported. By any reasonable definition of the term, a source that makes significant errors almost 10% of the time is "generally unreliable".
      1. US weapons parts used in Israeli attack on Gaza school
        Al Jazeera claimed that Fourteen children were killed, as well as nine women in an Israeli attack. This is false; nine children and three women died. While the figures did match the initial figures reported by al-Aqsa hospital, those figures had been corrected hours prior to the report being published - and even if the figures had been corrected after, Al Jazeera's decision to put them in their own voice would have meant that they still had a responsibility to issue a correction.
      2. Nuseirat, anatomy of Israel’s massacre in Gaza
        Al Jazeera claimed that Israeli special forces began the operation at 11am under heavy air bombardment on the camp.[1] This is false; airstrikes began only after the hostages had been retrieved, as Israel tried to extract them. (AP News, New York Times, ABC News, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, NBC News)
        In the same article, they claim that three other captives were killed.[2] While this hasn't been proven false yet, Al Jazeera's decision to put the unverified claims of Hamas in their own voice raises questions about their reliability.
      3. Israel occupying Palestine echoes France colonising Algeria
        Al Jazeera claimed that the Second Intifada started off largely nonviolent. This is false; it started violently, with gunfights in nearly every major West Bank town and city within the first few days, something that even Al Jazeera previously acknowledged, saying that it began when Ariel Sharon's visit to Temple Mount sparked a violent reaction from Palestinians.
    Other sources that contradict Al Jazeera's Second Intifada claim
    1. Arab Uprising Spreads to Israel, published October 1, 2000

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

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

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

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

    3. The Current Palestinian Uprising: Al-Aqsa Intifadah

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

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

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

    5. Al-Aqsa Intifada timeline

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

    6. Broken lives – a year of intifada

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

    7. Chapter 4 The Second Palestinian Intifada

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

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

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

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

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

    Any one of these errors, uncorrected two months later despite being contacted, is sufficient to consider the source unreliable - and there are three of them.
    In addition, scholarly sources do not consider Al Jazeera to be independent media but to instead be a hybrid model, that operates independently in routine affairs to boost its credibility, and only reverts to state-sponsored-style broadcasting when the state considers its interests to be at threat.[3] Given the identified issues, this lack of independence raises further concerns. This is discussed further here. BilledMammal (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to !vote in this discussion, but if your rationale for GUNREL is that they made errors in reporting immediately after events on the ground, then pretty much every publication reporting on war and conflicts should be GUNREL. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't that they make these mistakes, it is that they don't correct them - The Guardian, for example, also often makes mistakes in the "breaking news" coverage, but they are prompt and open about issuing corrections. BilledMammal (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had previously replied to BilledMammal's objections here. 1. As mentioned back then, AJ did issue a correction here. 2. More details in discussion below, but TLDR is that IDF and Palestinian witnesses gave competing versions of the events, AJ supports the Palestinian side and some other RS do too. 3. "largely nonviolent" is pretty open to interpretation. We should not be using ambiguous statements from any RS.VR (Please ping on reply) 08:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: noting that WP:GREL means generally reliable, not "always reliable". If we imposed the requirement for sources to be "always reliable" in order to be WP:GREL then we would judge the New York Times to be not reliable on behalf of their parroting the demonstrably incorrect claim that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. TarnishedPathtalk 15:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, per my comments based on the assessment of academic sources in 2020, my brief comments at the last time this was discussed at RSN to the same effect, and the lack of any new evidence of similar caliber in this discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 15:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally reliable for the topic area, I would note that despite being used to support BilledMammal's innovative (if unconstructive) argument none of those sources would survive the same level of scrutiny which is being applied to AJ. This sort of blatant cherrypicking is exactly what we are NOT supposed to do at RSN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, generally Fog of war issues are not enough to destroy a news orgs credibility. Also we have discussed similar "factual errors" before here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#Al_Jazeera_-_factual_errors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thoughts in general:
      Al Jazeera is the only media org with correspondents/journalists on the ground. Most western sources have removed their correspondents due to fear of bombardment [20], and use IDF supervised visits to look over Gaza. [21]
      Thoughts on claims:
      • "US weapons parts used in Israeli attack on Gaza school"
      a fog of war claim and seems silly to try to deprecate a source when constant air strikes and on the ground reporting means sometimes a correction of deathtoll remains hard to do.
      I would also argue that compared to many other news outlets that do not regularly report the deathtoll of airstrikes, Al Jazeera provides better coverage.
      • "Nusseirat, anatomy of Israel's massacre"
      The claim about the early airstrike comes from analysis of an expert professor at the Doha institute. [22] The claim about a delayed airstrike comes from citing the IDF's own press communication and statements.
      • "Talks about the Second Intifada starting non-violent."
      This claim is based on decision of what counts as violence and which side started violence, a loaded bit of argument that would be impossible to adjudicate on this thread and would expand the scope of this thread. Al Jazeera is biased, like any news outlet. I'd argue that in comparison to many other english media sources that are biased towards Israeli claims (see [23] [24] [25] [26]) that Al Jazeera provides a useful counterpoint. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Similar issues with other outlets:
      • See the various claims and debunking of some of them in Screams Without Words, the NYTimes article that had been done by an IDF syncophant who was eventually let go
      • [27] [28], both CNN articles, states that Hind was 5. Uh no, she was 6.
      Trying to deal with Fog of War is challenging for all outlets. Expecting pinpoint accuracy on all points or else arguing unreliability seems like too much to ask.
      Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. This has been debated to death and it's pretty clear that Al Jazeera English is a legitimate, reputable news organization in line with what we'd expect of a generally reliable source, including for this topic. The stick needs to be dropped on this one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 per Rosguill and agree with Horse Eyes Back that this is cherry picking articles that some Wikipedian disagrees with, not ones that sources have actually raised a concern with reliability for. It’s claiming that if a source does not agree with the sources they prefer then the source is unreliable, and that is antithetical to the entire NPOV system. nableezy - 17:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And to demonstrate how far reaching this method of determining reliability would be, let’s examine a couple of sources. France24 has, still uncorrected and in their voice, that The war began with the Hamas cross border incursion that brought terror and slaughter to towns, kibbutz and a music festival. 1,400 Israeli civilians were killed, and 229 are still in captivity, kidnapped by Hamas. No, 1400 Israel civilians were not killed, about 1200 in total were killed and several hundred were Israeli military personnel. The NY Times at least said after the Hamas attacks that killed 1,400 Israeli civilians and soldiers on Oct. 7 and while they have civilians and soldiers they have not corrected the count down to 1200. The Washington Post got the number right, but said On Oct. 7, militants surged across the Gaza border and began hunting down Israeli civilians, killing 1,200 and taking about 250 hostage. That was corrected on March 19, three months later, by changing Israeli civilians to people, but silently so, no correction appears on the article. Nobody would consider this cause to claim any of those sources are generally unreliable. nableezy - 00:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 and suggest snow close. For the Intifada thing, people can debate what counts as violence and who started it, and the other two points are pretty clearly "fog of war" issues that happen with immediate reporting. If these three cherry-picked examples are the biggest "errors" that Al Jazeera committed, that makes them a pretty reliable source. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with a snow close here. TarnishedPathtalk 23:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Nothing significant enough in the cherry-picked examples to warrant a change. I agree that the stick should be dropped. C F A 💬 19:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tentatively option 2. I am not worried about breaking news being wrong, but I am tentatively convinced by BilledMammal's arguments that Al Jazeera is not exhibiting the pattern of error correction that we generally expect from reliable sources. I could be persuaded otherwise by evidence that other reliable sources also have uncorrected errors of the kind noted above. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Compassionate727 did you nableezy's comment above? Also AJ did make a correction, see this comment.VR (Please ping on reply) 08:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. A source that always errs on one side in this conflict (see u:BilledMammal's examples) and is under the influence of a country that is the most important financial backer and foreign ally of Hamas cannot be higher than GUNREL. Alaexis¿question? 20:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I'll continue to follow American newspers even though the US is Israel's most important financial backer and foreign ally and I think the newspapers are under american influnce. NadVolum (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Similarly, Reporters without Borders lists Israel as a country with less freedom of the press than Qatar ([29])--Qatar is listed at 84, Israel at 101, Palestine at 156 (although Palestine's low rating seems to primarily correspond to the more than 100 journalists killed by the IDF in Palestine). Quote: Since the start of the [2023-2024] war, Israel (101st) has been trying to suppress the reporting coming out of the besieged enclave while disinformation infiltrates its own media ecosystem. signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The US and Israel have outlets that are sharply critical of their country's policy. There is no such thing in Qatar. Alaexis¿question? 21:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Global Peace Index United States 131, Israel 143, Qatar 21 alongside Australia and Belgium. Can't say I'd want to be there, but which are deserving of sharp criticism? NadVolum (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Peacefulness doesn't imply much about press freedom. Qatar has punishments including life imprisonment for certain "propaganda". — xDanielx T/C\R 20:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Generally reliable. Toeing the pro-Isreal western line is not the bar for reliability. They are no worse than the NYT or any other mainstream western sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: They have a point of view, as do most News organisations, but that does not make them propaganda or unReliable. It does not colour their reporting more than that of many other sources we accept as Reliable. It may be that we notice it more because we are so awash in News coverage predicated on another point of view that we fail to even notice that it is a point of view at all. I don't want to entertain option 2 without a clear indication of what the specific "special considerations" might be. I can not conceive of any argument for options 3 or 4 that would leave us with any News outlets on the Reliable Sources list if applied equally across the board. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. Per the previous discussions. M.Bitton (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. For the first example, the article was written based on information available at the time provided by the hospital and even an AP reporter. Note that AJ also reported on the corrected figure later that day.
    For the second example, AJ is citing Palestinian witnesses. The other news outlets, like most western ones, are citing the IDF. Not sure why one is automatically more reliable than the other. Regarding the three killed captives, the exact quote is Among those Israel killed, according to the al-Qassam Brigades, are three Israeli captives, one of whom had US citizenship. AJ is not claiming anything in their own voice.
    Lastly, for the third example, they're right. During the first day, after Sharon left, Palestinians started protesting, not rioting (calling any protest riot is straight out of the IDF book). Some Israeli officers had minor injuries caused by stones and three Palestinians civilians were shot. The next day, 7 Palestinians were killed and hundreds wounded. After this, when the Palestinians protested again, the Israeli reaction was to fire more than a million bullets against civilians, which were unarmed (unless you adhere to the IDF doctrine that a stone is equivalent to a WMD). The violence started from the Israeli side, which usually responds to anything in a grossly disproportionate way. Trying to frame this as the arabs being violent out of the blue is asinine. Largely non-violent != no violence. I wouldn't call a protest violent per se, but indiscriminately shooting at protesters (who have the legal right to protest btw) certainly is.
    Aside from those examples you provided, and addressing the main issue: the fake concern about bias always comes up for non western sources. I don't see that being applied to for example the BBC. You won't see a source without a bias, and most of the mainstream RS are in fact pro-Israeli (consider the abuse of passive voice in their headlines when the victims are Palestinians, parroting uncritically what the IDF says, prepending "Hamas-run" to the GMH, being purposely vague when the perpetrator of massacres is Israel, refusing to even call them massacres, etc etc etc) or Israeli (the Times of Israel and JPost keep being used with seemingly no major opposition). AJ not only has people on the ground (independent media access to Gaza is banned and IDF censors whatever comes from there), which is why Israel banned them, accused them of being terrorists and recently killed one of their journalists, but also usually reports on things that other outlets do not. Do they have a bias? Yes, like every single source. Per WP:SBEXT, Wikipedia content reflects the biases in the sources it uses. Removing our key non-Western source (we barely have any) will worsen our WP:BIAS. The fact that some things cannot even be included in Wikipedia unless they have coverage in English speaking sources is ridiculous, especially with conflicts like this one. I don't see any issue with AJ that you wouldn't encounter with any other RS. Removing AJ would heavily distort Wikipedia's viewpoint, leading to an overly one-sided narrative on Middle Eastern conflicts. - Ïvana (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 Little reason provided for why the previous consensus ought to change. News outlets all have biases, it is only when a bias becomes so pervasive it directly affects the factuality of the source when a news outlet becomes unreliable. Besides some fairly minor errors and fog-of-war issues that plague all media, I do not see any infactuality in AJE's reporting. Curbon7 (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 preferred, option 2 with [no factual information cited, opinions permitted] acceptable. There is ample evidence that this is not a "point of view" issue, but that they are slow to (or neglect to at all) issue corrections when they get facts wrong, that they will quickly issue corrections/updates that look good for "one side" (ex: higher civilian casualty count in Gaza) than they are for corrections that don't do the same (ex: lower civilian casualty count than originally reported), and that their reporting is, at best, "hasty" to put it nicely. I have seen no argument here that they are actually issuing corrections where they are expected, and no argument that we should not expect corrections to be issued where they were pointed out in the prior discussions (which satisfy BEFORE, by the way). There furthermore is not a published editorial corrections policy beyond a one sentence statement that 7. Acknowledge a mistake when it occurs, promptly correct it and ensure it does not recur.[30] for their English language non-TV news. The only evidence any editors have shown of their actual policies covers their television and other endeavors (such as social media in some cases), but not their English language news format. There is furthermore, as was pointed out in the most recent discussion no easy way to submit corrections to them as is expected of other news sources. It requires a generic contact form and then multiple unclear selections to get to a form that allows a "correction" to be submitted. Reliable sources do not hide/obfuscate the method of reporting errors to them.
      Some have also pointed out that they are one of the few, if not the only, news organizations with "boots on the ground". We do not bend our standards lower just because of a lack of reliable sources that fit some arbitrary "geographic coverage" criteria. We do not permit sources to fail to issue corrections, report blatantly inaccurate information (hours or days after it's corrected in other sources), etc. just because they are one of the few of a "dissenting point of view". We actually have an entire guideline that requires we do not do just that. If Al Jazeera's English language reporting is one of the few of a point of view, then it needs to be evaluated as against the mainstream consensus of reliable sources. Ultimately, however, none of this paragraph matters because their reliability is not based on bias or lack thereof, nor their point of view. Any arguments based on their point of view or similar are completely irrelevant and should be downweighted accordingly.
      Furthermore, I will point out the discrepancy in correction timing. Corrections that "support" their desired point of view tend to be issued within no more than a week (7 days) of the information being available. Corrections that don't support their point of view, however, are issued months later, if at all. Put bluntly, while a week or so is not a questionable time frame to issue corrections, failing to issue them for over 2 months (in at least one case) when the information you're correcting may "damage" your point of view is unacceptable. Per WP:V, The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. And that cannot be said about a source that issues "good" corrections in a timely manner, but sits on (or fails to issue) corrections that may damage its reputation in a timely manner. All of these things considered, Al Jazeera English cannot be seen as a reliable source for facts related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and should only be used in specific situations for opinion/similar reporting where their "boots on the ground" means they're the only ones who can possibly report things. As one example, I would consider them to be reliable for reporting on the opinion of Gazans on a topic if and only if there is no other way that that opinion could be gathered.
      I encourage those providing their opinion here to, if possible, provide evidence of their "reputation for fact checking" that shows they issue corrections in a timely manner and will happily reconsider my view if such evidence is provided. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I absolutely must correct this bolded claim (with no links to evidence) no easy way to submit corrections to them. At the bottom of the Al Jazeera website, click on Contact Us. After ten words, a very visible dropdown menu appears, in which you select "AJ English Feedback". Then, by default, both "I would like to provide content feedback" and "Content Correction" are is visible (EDIT: click that and "Content Correction" becomes visible). This is not hard, unless you don't know how to operate a dropdown menu. I seem to remember I corrected this claim in the previous discussion, and I am very disappointed that it was brought up again despite my correction. starship.paint (RUN) 01:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC), edited 10:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Compare that to "better reliability" sources that provide a direct link to a corrections email or form, without having to "hunt" for it. Not to mention on two of the issues that were identified in the past BEFORE discussion, I myself submitted two corrections that had not yet been made. They were no more than one paragraph (a few sentences) and linked to multiple other reliable sources which had either reported the correct information or made similar corrections. Neither of those contacts ever received a response, nor have they issued either corrections. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Hunt? I would not call changing the dropdown menu from the first option to the fifth option being a hunt. (EDIT: one more click of one of the three options was required to see "Content Corrections") We don't even know what you have submitted. starship.paint (RUN) 01:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC) edited 11:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 News media is the first draft of history and will inevitably report claims that turn out to be false. No evidence has been presented that al Jazeera's reporting is any less accurate than other reputable media. TFD (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 - per Rosguill, Nableezy, and Ïvana, who respectively argue that academic sources rely on AJ, that errors are sometimes made by news organizations, and that in the issues raised above, for issue 1, AJ did also report the amended figure, while in issue 2, the other news outlets are reporting the Israeli military's version of events, even quoting Admiral Daniel Hagari. Indeed, in the fog of war, errors are to be expected. The fog of war has been specifically worsened by Israel's ban on foreign journalists in Gaza [31] [32] [33] [34] and Israel's raid and shutdown of Al Jazeera [35] [36]. The Israel government has even ordered that media must submit for censorship any content on hostages, Israeli operations, Israeli intelligence, rocket attacks, and other issues. One must consider all these context in light of any reporting that does not seem to align with the Israeli government/military. starship.paint (RUN) 02:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Generally reliable..... Was waiting to see some sort of independent analysis outside editor analysis.... But to no avail. As a Canadian you choose this over most any American publication.Moxy🍁 02:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, and support snow close as per Chaotic Enby. To start, 3 out of 76 is not "almost 10%". The three sources linked would not go against WP:GREL by any reasonable interpretation of it. As has already been pointed out by other users, applying this unrealistic standard to GREL would make a lot of currently reliable sources WP:GUNREL. Additionally, the errors pointed out are not errors I would question the integrity of editorial staff over, much less call into question the reliability of an entire publication over. They appear to be issues with early reporting during wartime, and has been pointed out, they are also not entirely wrong in some cases, or released articles that have given correct information later. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 05:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. Give us a break. This "evidence" is simply pathetic and blocking a large news organization on account of a tiny number of errors (even if they are errors) would be a travesty of the first magnitude. I must admit, though, that I am going to have to review my knowledge of arithmetic on learning that 3/76 is almost 10%. Zerotalk 08:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Zero0000: a bit of a misreading there, BilledMammal said they reviewed approximately half of the 76... starship.paint (RUN) 08:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not my fault if BM can't write clearly. Anyway, BM claims to have found 3 errors in 76 articles; nobody can assume that the ones he didn't look at have the same proportion of errors as the one he did look at, nor do we have to assume that his method of selecting which of the 76 to look at was uninfluenced by his a priori suspicion of whether they would suit his case. So his case is 3/76 at best, not 10%. Zerotalk 08:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 The methodology proposed by the RFC opener is deeply flawed and the three examples cited are unconvincing. The methodology took three sentences and divided them by 38 articles to claim that Al Jazeera's factual accuracy is 10%, which is obviously misleading and nonsensical. Looking at the supposed three sentences which are factually inaccurate: #1 is as stated by them "match the initial figures reported by al-Aqsa hospital" so I no issue here; #2 "under heavy air bombardment" does not imply subsequence or consequence so I see no supposed factual inaccuracy here; as for #3 the Second intifada did indeed start non-violently as reported by esteemed Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in his the Biggest Prison book page 206. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 per the Royal Television Society (Current Affairs - International: Rescue Mission Gaza - Witness, [37]), New York Festivals (2024 Broadcaster of the Year [38]) and the Peabody Awards ([39]). Daveosaurus (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 Al Jazeera may have a bias, but bias is orthogonal to reliability. I disagree with the assertion that "Any one of these errors, uncorrected two months later despite being contacted, is sufficient to consider the source unreliable". No, those aren't major errors, those are errors about details rather than significant claims, and seem about par compared to the error rate in other reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. While WP:BIASED sources can sometimes be reliable, Al Jazeera's biases do get in the way of reliability. Consider for example the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, which they referred to as Israel’s attack on Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, the deadly Israeli air attack on al-Ahli Arab Hospital, etc. well after that assumption became dubious. They also don't have a good track record for promptly and transparently correcting false information. E.g. after they reported on rape allegations which turned out to be false, they quietly removed the video; they did nothing to correct the record. They also never corrected their live blog; the false account is still here. — xDanielx T/C\R 20:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Live blogs should not generally be treated as reliable regardless of whether their publisher is otherwise a reliable source or not. Generally live blogs are "corrected" by a new post in the live blog, since their very nature means things move fast and people are unlikely to be seeing that old post anyway once the correction can be issued. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1-ish: Technically speaking, I support the current note saying that they're a partisan source on Israel/Palestine, which would technically speaking be an additional consideration. But they're overall WP:GREL for facts regardless of topic area, and there's basically no source in this topic area that isn't biased one way or the other. (Maybe we should rename "additional considerations apply": because it really means marginally reliable, quite a few additional considerations can apply without threatening a source's status as WP:GREL overall.) Loki (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 per Rosguill et al., Why hasn't this been snow-closed? Nishidani (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • AJ has outstanding coverage of the Israel-Hamas war — bar none. NYT notes "Al Jazeera has a more extensive operation in Gaza than any other publication." The BBC notes that "With foreign journalists banned from entering Gaza, Al Jazeera staff based in the strip have been some of the only reporters able to cover the war on the ground." So, option 1 per others above. VR (Please ping on reply) 04:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Options 2 or 3: Al Jazeera has repeatedly published factual errors, particularly in the Arab-Israeli conflict, without timely corrections. The Qatari state influence on its editorial stance also undermines its credibility. IntrepidContributor (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 Al Jazeera has well demonstrated that it cannot maintain it's usual commitment to truth when it comes to this conflict. For example, Al Jazeera's continual claims (or failure to retract incorrect claims) that the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion was a result of an Israeli rocket, when there is widespread consensus in other reliable sources that it was a failed launch by Palestinian Islamic Jihad show this to be true. More broadly, its unquestioning citing of Gaza Health Ministry's (aka Hamas') numbers which are highly unreliable and don't distinguish between Hamas combatants and civilians is especially disingenuous. Melmann 08:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ... there is widespread consensus in other reliable sources that it was a failed launch by Palestinian Islamic Jihad - actually, there is a dispute of this failed launch theory as noted by the article of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. Multiple sources have noted that the video showing a mid-air explosion was not the cause of the hospital explosion, unlike what the Israelis claimed. Furthermore, our article also notes that Forensic Architecture has provided a new analysis that raises doubts about the theory that the failed launch's propellant caused the damage, due to finding that the Palestinian rockets (pinpointed by the Israelis) had burned all of their fuel away during the flight. starship.paint (RUN) 13:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The article itself notes how widespread consensus is on the fact that it was a failed launch. I will read what you've linked, but ultimately this is not the right venue to get into the weeds, so I won't address your claims directly here. Suffice it to say that, on balance, reliable sources support the failed launch explanation, which is a fact that is not in dispute. Melmann 15:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your claim of a fact that is not in dispute is inaccurate, at the time of your post, our article stated that The cause of the explosion is contested, The cause of the explosion has not been confirmed, and that your claimed consensus only suggests and is is not a conclusive finding starship.paint (RUN) 23:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Generally reliable. Pachu Kannan (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Al Jazeera has offered some of the best and in-depth coverage of the conflict in recent years. Most recently, this coverage has been award winning. The responses of option 2 or 3 appear to confuse GREL with "never makes a mistake/error". If never making a mistake in war coverage were a serious standard, every major Western outlet would be in the docks on this one. There's just nothing of serious substance here. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 Is it biased? Of course, but no more than the WSJ is biased. This can be seen not so much in what their stories say but in the stories they decide to put out and leave out. That does not mean that they are unreliable. The US asks Qatar to ask AJ to "turn down the volume", seriously? (might have been referring to the Arabic channel). The best recommendation for IP area is that the Israeli government (read Netanyahu) has banned it in Israel (and the West Bank, apparently, which is a bit of a cheek, an occupier censor). If it's that annoying, must be hitting the spot. I'm heartily fed up with these endless threads desperately trying to turn AJ into anything that isn't green, based on very little or nothing at all. These efforts should be resisted imo. Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WSJ is biased, but Al Jazeera is a on a whole other level. WSJ publishes plenty of content that's critical of Israel, such as this. You'll never see comparable scrutiny that from Al Jazeera; Hamas and Qatar would never allow it. Their 7 Oct coverage for example cherry-picked facts, like covering the relatively minor fights at military bases while completely ignoring the Re'im music festival massacre, in order to frame it as a legitimate military operation. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure "murdering doctors in prison" => "allegations of abuse" is really the best example of robust criticism; that's more like bare minimum admission / maximum sheepish euphemism. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Using a qualifier when referring to credible but unproven claims seems rather mild compared to ignoring a whole massacre of 364 civilians. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How did that go again.....turn the volume down? Not reporting something is not an indication of unreliability. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Covering Hamas' incursion in depth, but never mentioning the music festival where 364 civilians were killed, is very blatant cherrypicking, much more blatant than anything WSJ or other mainstream sources do.
      True, bias doesn't inherently imply unreliability; that's why I gave examples elsewhere where AJ's bias did get in the way of reliability. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's reported here, so the basic coverage of the facts box is ticked. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      True, it's something, but the way it's buried (with most articles about Oct 7 not mentioning it at all) and downplayed ("dozens", not calling them civilians, etc) is still rather extreme. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Generally reliable per TarnishedPath, Rosguill, and Horse Eye's Back. Also:
    • Option 1. WP:RS is determined by whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not by editors doing their own personal investigation and nit-picking. The (sparse) examples above include points of reasonable disagreement, areas where breaking news was overcome by later events, and so on; what I'm not seeing is secondary coverage indicating that any of this has actually impacted Al Jazeera's otherwise high-quality reputation on this topic, which would be the main point. See eg. this paper, which summarizes Al-Jazeera by quoting Max Rodenbeck: Some, like Al-Jazeera, rival and sometimes surpass Western models for the quality and timeliness of their reporting.[4] Obviously it has a bias, but sources analyzing that bias generally treat it as roughly as biased as eg. CNN[5][6][7] or the BBC[8][9][10] on the topic area; it would be inappropriate (and would be an example of systematic bias) to label it as unusually WP:BIASED just because Western biases are comparatively invisible to us. Academic coverage does not support the idea that Al Jazeera is unusually biased compared to other major sources of coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, Generally reliable, largely by User:Horse Eye's Back; as they correctly remarked that this is blatant cherry-picking, I suspect I could find equal examples in most of the major Israeli newspapers, (How many of them have corrected their Oct 7th reports about "40 beheaded babies" and "cold-blooded murder of pregnant woman and her foetus"? Huldra (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, generally reliable. Al-Jazeera is an award-winning WP:NEWSORG and has repeatedly been determined (both by discussions here, and by other RS which review or rely on them, as Aquillion mentions) to be generally reliable, so I would've expected anyone arguing they'd ceased to be generally reliable—and especially anyone arguing they'd become unreliable, even in a specific topic area—to have evidence of actual issues significant enough to merit such a reversal in how we treat them: instead, I'm startled by how flimsy and inaccurate the case presented here is. First the notion that any one of a handful of claimed errors is sufficient to consider the source unreliable—when on the contrary, "generally reliable" does not mean "never errs"—and then, the more concerning issue that like in the pre-RFC discussion, most of the claimed 'errors' aren't errors, as various editors laid out in the pre-RFC discussion, and as Ïvana, Vice Regent, Selfstudier and others have discussed here:
      A situation where OP has a different opinion than Al-Jazeera of what counts as "largely" hardly seems like a question of fact, let alone an error. A report of what order events happened in, that is supported by the evidence and witnesses and corroborated by other RS (as Vice Regent and Selfstudier discussed), is not an error. Other claimed 'errors' are also cases where Al-Jazeera's reporting reflects the evidence (witnesses, video footage, etc), and fails only to match IDF claims. Frankly, that they report based on the evidence even when that contradicts the authorities exercising military control of the area they're reporting from and even in the face of pressure from those authorities banning them and killing many of their journalists suggests Al-Jazeera is more reliable than we previously realized, and indeed, I see they have continued winning awards for their reporting from press groups like the Radio Television Digital News Association. (It's also remarkable that one of the relatively few other users arguing they're unreliable asserts there's "no easy way to submit corrections", when in fact their contact form is conspicuously linked at the bottom of every page.) -sche (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 I'm not seeing evidence to the contrary here regarding the general reliability of this source as it pertains to this issue. Let'srun (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: The examples cited aren't particularly serious or valid in my opinion; I've seen similar or worse errors in other sources we consider to be RS. Additionally, Al-Jazeera is an essential source for providing NPOV for articles in this topic area, given that many English-language RS are arguably biased in favor of Israel.[44][45] Rainsage (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Al Jazeera - Arab-Israeli conflict)

    • Comment: note that this RFC was started by @BilledMammal. TarnishedPathtalk 15:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RFC: Nothing seems to have changed significantly in either Al Jazeera's leadership, company org, journalistic standards, nor do these errors seem particularly egregious Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, i argue BEFORERFC has not been satisfied. There is no fundamental difference from status quo in the previous questions brought up. this RFC seems forced, and previous discussion has been tortured along the same veins of discussion as all previous discussions of Al Jazeera, with same fightlines, and same broad consensus of reliable if a bit biased on Israel-Palestine.
      Repeating myself, I argue that unless there is some significant change in the status quo, this is bad RFC Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple reliable sources which confirm the influence the Qatari state has on AJ which result in blatant propaganda and manipulative techniques and double standards.[11][12][13] Since the Qatari state is involved in the conflict and has been hosting the Hamas leadership, this kind of influence is quite problematic. Alaexis¿question? 20:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Qatari crisis study states in conclusion that it can't assume that Qatar specifically caused increase in coverage of Yemen war, though it also says that increased coverage does reveal a pro-Qatar bias. That news sources can have bias is not the question here, and there are no specific finding about reliability.
    • Al-Jazeera’s “Double Standards” in the Arab Spring by Zainab Abdul-Nabi specifically talks about the issues with al jazeera arabic, which is far more biased than Al Jazeera English.
    • The article by Kosavara states also the same, there is bias, and that Al Jazeera English is more reliable than Al Jazeera Arabic.
    Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article by Kosarova is about Al Jazeera English (Selection of the articles was preceded by a preliminary research. We decided to examine one case study not directly dealing with a conflict and focus on how the websites of Al Jazeera English and Al Arabiya English. Alaexis¿question? 12:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope that irrelevant arguments are not taken into account. It's true that other outlets mostly don't have journalists in Gaza but that's also the case in the Russian-occupied Ukraine. So should we consider Russian state-owned media reliable as well because there is no alternative? Regarding the for of war, it's true that it's hard to get facts right in such circumstances, but if it makes such errors then it should not be used ~100 times in an article like Israel-Hamas war. Alaexis¿question?
    Just a note that I am unable to locate a relevant policy or guideline based argument from you in the above section so if you want to start throwing stones be aware of that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is precisely my problem with the argument "there are no other journalists in Gaza" that it's not based on any policy. Alaexis¿question? 12:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliability is the issue, it might mean that we should place relatively less reliance on reporting from outlets without that presence, particularly if those outlets are in the habit of regurgitating the IDF's last press release/statement and correspondingly more reliance on AJ, that seems reasonable imo. Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Detailed response from above. Did IDF's bombardment of Nuseirat start at the beginning of the operation, as AJ claims, or only after the vehicle got stuck, as IDF claims? AJ's claims appear to be based on Palestinian witnesses on the ground. AP also quotes these withnesses: "The commandos sprang from the truck and one of them threw a grenade into the house. “Clashes and explosions broke out everywhere,” he said." The article implies this happens before the IDF vehicle got stuck. NBC repeatedly casts doubt on IDF's chronology of the account: "Asked why the footage appeared to be taken 45 minutes before Hagari said the operation began, the Israel Police referred NBC News to the IDF, which declined to comment" and "Hagari said the IDF had come under intense fire after withdrawing from the apartments, but did not provide evidence for his claims." Guardian also seems to support this: "The hours of bombardment were ordered at least in part to shield the hostages and Israeli forces, and the attacks intensified after a rescue vehicle carrying the three male hostages was trapped under heavy fire." This would imply the bombardment had started much before the vehicle got stuck.VR (Please ping on reply) 08:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great find, Vice regent, these are good points that should caution us from blindly accepting the Israeli military's narrative of events. starship.paint (RUN) 08:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, take a report from English El Pais, also written June 11 (same date as AJ report).
    "Forces from an operational unit of the intelligence services and an elite unit of the border police then got out of the vehicles and moved quickly between tents, while aircraft continued bombing the area as support. “I made sure that there would be a rain of fire at a relatively high rate to ensure that no one approached the vehicle,” the commander of the air mission, a captain identified only by the call sign Alef, told the military correspondent of Israeli television Channel 12, Nir Dvori." (my italics).
    The Intercept on the 10th cites a witness "On Saturday, at around 11 a.m., Abu Nasser was standing by a window in the home when missiles began to rain down on the area. One struck just 20 meters away." and
    972Mag on the 13th says "Aerial bombardment, as described by a journalist in the camp who preferred to remain anonymous, was accompanied by the entry of dozens of Israeli military and police special forces personnel who emerged from aid trucks."
    Taken together with the above reporting, I would say it is more likely than not, that AJ is correct in its reporting. Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The IDF is never reliable, never. We have too much filmed evidence for decades that contradicts what its spokesmen's boilerplate narratives claim. The latest is this coldblooded murder of a Palestinian policeman. Nishidani (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're supposed to rely on RS, and Fridays of Rage by Sam Cherribi (Oxford University Press, 2016) has quite a lot to say about AJ in general and about its relationship with Hamas in particular

    pp. 120-122

    p. 260

    So we have both factual mistakes and a clear evidence of bias and propaganda which is not compatible with a generally reliable source. Alaexis¿question? 12:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: And lo and behold, Al Jazeera wins four accolades from the US-based Edward R. Murrow Awards for its coverage of the war on Gaza. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is out-of-context and misrepresents the book's conclusions, which they themselves cast as more negative than Al-Jazeera's overall reputation - their summary of Al-Jazeera's reputation, which the book is framed as a response to, is that A common theme of the literature on Al Jazeera is the success it has achieved through the encouragement of free thought, creativity, and personal initiative among its employees combined with a BBC-like precision and CNN-like speed. (pg 6.) It also says that Critics have described Al Jazeera as a diplomatic arm of the Qatari government. But this is an inaccurate and simplistic view. Al Jazeera has earned much of its success on the strength of debates between political rivals on controversial issues (pg. 56) and In a France Culture interview, Mohamed Krichen, a Tunisian presenter often critical of Al Jazeera, was clear that there are distinct limits on Qatari influence over the editorial content of Al Jazeera. The data collected by the author back up this assertion. (pg. 57) That book is one of the more negative academic takes on Al Jazeera (as they acknowledge throughout, constantly contrasting their position with, and presenting it as a critique of, a more mainstream one that eg. holds Al Jazeera equivalent to CNN), but even they don't really support the level of unreliability you are arguing for here; and they acknowledge that overall Al Jazeera is a respected news outlet, even if they feel it's more respected than they believe it ought to be. --Aquillion (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Reliability of Al Jazeera - General topics

    WP:SNOW closed as option 1 - generally reliable for topics excluding the Arab-Israeli conflict. No argument has been advanced to suggest otherwise, and there appears to be no dispute to be resolved here. For clarity, this discussion and result changes nothing about the existing consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    What is the reliability of Al Jazeera English generally, excluding the Arab-Israeli conflict?

    Note: All editors may participate in this discussion.

    Survey (Al Jazeera - General topics)

    Discussion (Al Jazeera - General topics)

    Outside the Arab-Israeli conflict area I have not found any significant errors, although I have also reviewed a far smaller proportion of the articles published. However, I am concerned by their lack of independence and their use by an autocratic regime to advance their agenda, so I'm reserving comment on their reliability generally for now. BilledMammal (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: note that this RFC was started by @BilledMammal. TarnishedPathtalk 15:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am generally unimpressed by the RFCBEFORE, and what seems to be repeated attempts to undermine a source whose strengths and weaknesses have been extensively assessed by peer-reviewed publications, using only ad-hoc original assessments of sentence-level accuracy, a level of scrutiny not applied to any other source discussed here in recent memory. signed, Rosguill talk 15:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Having an RFC is probably better than another month long hotchpotch like the discussions last November and then again in March and June this year. Having a discussion with a proper close should hopefully put a stop to the repeated discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @BilledMammal: Is this the best you've got? I was expecting examples in the neighborhood of misquoting casualties as deaths, not stuff like background errata (at worst) and reporting from the other side (which, by the way, you didn't address in previous discussions). RAN1 (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The OP forgot another discussion they started here on this two months ago so I've added it to the the end of the list of 'Other prior discussions' they provided above. NadVolum (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I see they actually linked to it in the text above. NadVolum (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    References (Al Jazeera)

    References

    1. ^ Exact quote from the third infographic; claims also in the text of the article
    2. ^ Fifth infographic
    3. ^ Samuel-Azran, Tal (September 2013). "Al-Jazeera, Qatar, and New Tactics in State-Sponsored Media Diplomacy". American Behavioral Scientist. 57 (9): 1293–1311. doi:10.1177/0002764213487736.
    4. ^ Miladi, Noureddine. "Mapping the al-jazeera phenomenon." War and the media: Reporting conflict 24.7 (2003): 149-160.
    5. ^ Shahzad, F., T. A. Qazi, and R. Shehzad. "Framing of Israel and Palestine Conflict in RT news, Al-Jazeera, CNN & BBC News." Global Digital & Print Media Review, VI (2023): 1-14.
    6. ^ Damanhoury, Kareem El, and Faisal Saleh. "Is it the same fight? Comparative analysis of CNN and Al Jazeera America’s online coverage of the 2014 Gaza War." Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research 10.1 (2017): 85-103.
    7. ^ Barkho, Leon. "Unpacking the discursive and social links in BBC, CNN and Al-Jazeera's Middle East reporting." Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research 1.1 (2007): 11-29.
    8. ^ Barkho, Leon. "The discursive and social paradigm of Al-Jazeera English in comparison and parallel with the BBC." Communication Studies 62.1 (2011): 23-40.
    9. ^ Sarwar, Haseeb, Afifa Tanveer Malhi, and Iram Naz. "Representation of Israel and Palestine Issue in International Media: An Analysis of BBC and Al-Jazeera coverage in 2022." Annals of Human and Social Sciences 4.3 (2023): 375-381.
    10. ^ Zghoul, Lamma. Al-Jazeera English and BBC News coverage of the Gaza War 2008-9: A comparative examination. Diss. Cardiff University, 2022.
    11. ^ The Qatari Crisis and Al Jazeera’s Coverage of the War in Yemen by Gamal Gasim: its sudden increased coverage by Al-Jazeera English following the Qatari crisis would probably raise some legitimate concerns regarding such questions as whether Al-Jazeera English has been guilty of selection bias.
    12. ^ Al-Jazeera’s “Double Standards” in the Arab Spring by Zainab Abdul-Nabi: the sudden change in Qatar’s foreign policy from a “cordial state” to an aggressive interventionist during the Arab Spring in 2011 has been followed by a similar shift in Al-Jazeera’s coverage. It demonstrates how this shift has altered the channel from providing effective public diplomacy to broadcasting blatant propaganda that directly serves Qatar and its agenda.
    13. ^ a b "Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya: Understanding Media Bias". Politické vedy. 23 (4). 2020. doi:10.24040/politickevedy.2020.23.4.87-108. Several studies have been dealing with the question of whether state-sponsored Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya are biased. Their findings suggest that the message of both media reflects the interests of their respective state-sponsors... The analysis shows that both media, when covering Muslim Summit, used manipulative techniques to deliver the opposite message about the Summit, which is in line with their state-sponsors' often incompatible regional ambitions and foreign policy
    14. ^ Pourhamzavi, Karim; Pherguson, Philip (2015). "AL JAZEERA AND QATARI FOREIGN POLICY: A CRITICAL APPROACH". Journal of Media Critiques. 1 (2).

    GB News

    Should GB News be considered as a reliable or unreliable source? I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I'm prompted to ask it again now following this discussion during which someone suggested it as a possible reference. The channel is an opinion- rather than news-led entity, with a right-leaning perspective, and would probably be similar in nature to Fox News in the US. Some of the general news stories on their website seem to be fairly ok, although they can be skewed a little, but their programming has faced criticism in the UK media and from the regulator, Ofcom, for a number of issues. Notable among these are using politicians as newsreaders (which is not allowed in the UK except for under exceptional circumstances), allowing active politicians to conduct interviews with members of their own party, and for providing a platform to far-right figures (such as anti-vaxxers) without adequately challenging their rhetoric. These issues, and others, call into question their neutrality. I notice there was once a redirect, WP:GBNEWS, which has recently been deleted and may have led to guidelines about use of the channel as a source, and feel this is something that should be addressed. This is Paul (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See recent discussion: [49] Consensus seems to be that GB News is 'generally unreliable'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely it needs to be included here. This is Paul (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if people keep trying to use it, and ask about it, are they? Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was removed due to only having one discussion included previously,[50], have returned it adding the other one as well as this one, given it clearly qualifies for inclusion based on criteria.[51] The summary could be better improved though. CNC (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok great, I've added a redirect, but feel free to delete it if you don't think it's necessary. This is Paul (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, it is not a perennial issue, this is a list of regularly discussed media, not ones that are deemed unreliable. It is not an RS it can be deleted without discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RSPCRITERIA has nothing to do with whether a source is GREL of GUNREL, not sure where you got that from, it's whether there have been multiple discussion or not and regularly. 3 discussions within 4 years would be considered regular by RSP standards, granted maybe this isn't obvious at first glance. Irregular would be when discussion become stale, with no discussion after 4 calendar years, though many are still included due to regular usage, and there isn't consensus to remove these either. You'd do very well to revert yourself here, but this isn't a discussion for here anyway. I'll take it to RSP. CNC (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IM have had my say, tike for others. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dan Wootton is a columnist, he wrote Fishy Rishi is on course to be thumped at the next general election, says Dan Wootton. This has nothing to do with the reliability of GB News, it's about whether a label in an opinion column needs reproducing in List of nicknames of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. To which the answer can be: Well, if the editors who involve themselves with the article think so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But what if that opinion piece comes from somewhere regarded as unreliable (as is the case here)? Do we make an exception, or do we stick with the general consensus? This is Paul (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Opinions are often undue (which is more an NPOV matter), but opinions are reliable i.e. we know Dan Wootton spewed it. A precedent was the original Daily Mail RfC whose closers stated that the ban wasn't about opinions. WP:NOTCENSORED is policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's only noteworthy if other - actually reliable - sources mention Wootan's coinage. Otherwise it fails due weight because it's not in an RS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If GB News is one of several sources who say the same thing, then we can use one of the others. If GB News is the only source for a disputed claim then a responsible editor wouldn't include that claim in an article. GB News isn't reputable journalism; in fact it's highly non-compliant with journalistic rules, custom and practice in the UK and often in trouble with the regulator.—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CHUD.com

    The site is defunct, but I was wondering if we could still use it as RS for all things entertainment? I dug through some archives of relevant WikiProjects and found that a handful of regulars at WP:HORROR do consider it RS without explaining what makes it so. Do you concur? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it might be too gossipy to be generally reliable, but there is probably some appropriate use that can be ironed out. I would not count coverage from CHUD towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So I can cite movie reviews (contemporary and retrospective) but not entertainment news from this site? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything you know is wrong

    Well, not everything. But hella things.

    I consider Kevin Drum to be pretty reliable -- by which I mean real-world reliable, not Wikireliable. He's left-centrist but not an axe grinder, he vets stories from all across the spectrum.

    Here's a recent Drum post:

    Here, we have got "Are you tired of me nitpicking the [Wall Street] Journal's news stories? I know I am. But I'm beginning to think it's just the Daily Mail for people who wear suits" (emphasis added). This is in the course of tearing apart a [WSJ new story which is titled "Suddenly, Hourly Workers Aren’t So Hard to Find -- Companies are pulling back on hiring for roles—such as retail workers and airport cleaners—that were once in demand".

    But that's not true. They aren't.

    Drum demonstrates this with numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Did the WSJ check these numbers? Of course not. That takes time (and the ability to do it), and time is money, and it doesn't fit their business model. Drum says -- and this is more in the area of unprovable assertion, but still very likely true -- "As usual, this is a Rolodex story based almost entirely on anecdotes... I suppose there's no point in asking why. It attracts eyeballs; it panders to their readers' preconceived notions; and most people don't read all that closely anyway. It beats the hell out of real news."

    Lest you think he's playing a partisan role, in a pretty proximate story he is on liberalish Vox, who has a story starting out "The hidden reason why your power bill is so high -- The price of electricity is continuing to rise across the United States, and there’s no end in sight."

    But that's not true. The price of electricity is not continuing to rise across the United States. Again, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Drum says "If you want to write a piece about the cost of electricity, fine. But like so many other reporters, the author of this piece is desperate for a hook, and the hook has to be that electricity costs are drowning us. I'm tempted to say he didn't even bother to check first, but it's worse that that: He cherry picked one month of moderately high electricity inflation (4.9% in July) to make his case, which means he did look at the cost of electricity. And then he decided to go ahead anyway."

    A while back he showed how the New York Times had a story about how violent crime was rising. But it's not. Violent crime was going down in the span and place being discussed. Murder was up. But assault, rape, armed robbery were down enough to offset that and plenty more. Was the Times just wanting a quick hook, or did they make an honest mistake, or are they just too busy to care. Doesn't matter does it.

    All sources are less reliable than we think. Heck, a while back an Esquire editor wrote that while editing an interview article he made up a quote cos it sounded cool. The source complained so he got caught, but he didn't get fired. (He was upbraided tho). (I've got the ref somewhere). Esquire -- big, famous publication. Makes up quotes, or might be. There's a certain amount of class bias here, let's face it -- Esquire? High tone thus reliable.

    But Qui bono. Business model.

    It's like eyewitness identification in court. Eyewitness identification has long been known or strongly suspected to be really unreliable, and its been proved by studies. But prosecutors have to have something to show the jury. Same for us. We have to use something to ref our material. But let's not pretend that most refs (including most books) are really all that reliable.

    I'm not expecting to change anything here. Just pointing this out. Have a nice day. Herostratus (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:FORUM… i dont understand the exact point of this and the wordy length makes it hard to read Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No source is reliable in an absolute sense, some might be considered 'generally reliable' but editors still need to use their own good judgement and consider the relevant policies and guidelines in using them. If they want advice from other editors they can look for it, otherwise per the header While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to pick up on We have to use something to ref our material. From WP:V verifiability means people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Editors might disagree on whether a particular source is reliable or not, but editors are expected to use reliable sources not just any old thing as long as it backs up the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What matters isn't "did someone with a blog say this source got something wrong?", or even "does this source sometimes get things wrong?" We determine reliability based on a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. No source is expected to be perfect all the time; Wikipedia's goal, as an encyclopedia, is to determine which have the best reputation among similarly high-quality sources, and roughly reflect what they say, not to divine the immaculate truth via supernatural revelation (or, in this case, someone's blog.) We're not trying to be perfect, we're trying to reflect the generally-accepted truth according to the highest-quality sources available. --Aquillion (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kevin Drum is a good example of the old adage that its easier to critiscize than to do... His own work has never been of the quality he seems to expect of others. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Too many editors place excessive weight on news to write articles, disregarding the structural incentive of all news organizations (regardless of political leaning) to favor content cheap to report and gets clicks /subscriptions, often by stoking readers'outrage or fears. (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How suitable is Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections for a FLC?

    Links: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, User:OlifanofmrTennant/sandbox/Oklahoma pres elections, United States presidential elections in Oklahoma.

    I opened up the Oklahoma elections page and found it quite unreadable and also unsourced. I opened a sand box using the table from United States presidential elections in Arizona and began replacing the data with proper sources. I got to the 2000 election and was looking for a suitable source when I found the site. I did some digging and decided to ask about it. I originally posted this in the wrong location by mistake but someone pointed towards WP:USEBYOTHERS though I don't know if this is the best argument for it being FLC material. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's fine as a source in my experience, Nate Silver and the Washington Post have both praised it's reliability. I like the way you organized that table Microplastic Consumer (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but like i said I took the table from the page of Elections in Arizona Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @OlifanofmrTennant: Please note that United States presidential elections in Oklahoma is one of a series of 51 carticles, which should all be consistent with each other. I am not particular about what formatting is used, but it has to be the same across the set. BD2412 T 01:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: The formatting across the set is pretty inconsistent, the version I went with is the one used on the FL in the series. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was consistent when I created the series, many years ago. It has only grown the other way by piecemeal editing. BD2412 T 02:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Inside the Games/insidethegames.biz

    Inside the Games heavily focuses on sport and international sporting events such as the Olympic Games, and has been questioned for its reliability with some discussions being made but not having any substantial comments or enough consensus. [52] [53] Its reliability has been questioned due to its acquisition in 1 November 2023, where its new owners which have been claimed to have been linked with Umar Kremlev and pro-Putin sports officials. [54] [55] User:Minoa's been one of the first users to bring this up and I hope that this'll get some more attention. Almost 7,000 pages use it as a source, as well as some featured content such as the 1924 Summer Olympics medal table and the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table. What is the reliability of Inside the Games.biz pre- and post-acquisition?

    The reliability of Inside the Games is:

    Arconning (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I observed during the last RFC attempt that the ownership change made the website becoming more soft towards Umar Kremlev and more critical of the IOC (according to https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1144966/umar-kremlev-has-won-economic-prices and https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1147926/world-boxing-announces-five-new-members, which has a huge promo for the International Boxing Association). --Minoa (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to find some WP:USEBYOTHERS in peer-reviewed literature, albeit all from before the November 2023 acquisition ([56], [57], which are indications in its favor. However, the publication also maintains "official media partnerships" with various sports organizations and republishes PR--it is unclear whether these relationships would represent independence issues beyond the PR pieces. signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 2 or lower The reliability was always unclear, its a whole spectrum from really solid journalism to full PR and opinion pieces... The problem is that the platform itself does a really bad job of categorizing that spectrum leaving it largely up to the reader to do (and most pieces fall somewhere in between traditional categories). Not sure that ownership is as much of a problem as their unclear business practices, which predate the current ownership. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 1 I have met the people who write for it at the Paralympics, and regard their journalism as high quality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But have you met all the people who write for it? Nobody is questioning that they publish high quality journalism, the questions are over what else they publish alongside it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot support Option 1 for Inside the Games articles and editorials published since 1 November 2023, partly because of an increase in articles that mirror the opinions and stances of the Kremlev and the IBA (including the Imane Khelif controversy that the IBA caused the year previous), and partly because of the murky ownership (according to Radio France Internationale). The owners of both Vox Europe Investment Holding and ITG Media DMCC are unclear, but RFI noted that the former was a "Russian-run fund".
    Overall, I know something is suspicious at Inside the Games since the departure of veteran British sports journalist Duncan Mackay. The current situation does not mean that content published until 31 October 2023 has to be level 2 or below, although Internet Archive snapshots could be useful in case older content gets wiped out for whatever reason. --Minoa (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say content published before that date would generally be Option 1 but after the acquisition might differ based on the article. Arconning (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Independent Political Report

    The Independent Political Report was marked unreliable in 2010 and again in 2012, however most of the issues have since been resolved.


    Most articles are written by Jordan Willow Evans, who is a notable and generally reliable journalist (Despite having run for local and party office several times). As a user of the site, I do feel the need to stress that it's generally one of the only reliable sources covering third parties in the United States, alongside Ballot Access News edited by Richard Winger Microplastic Consumer (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks WP:BLOG-ish to me. That doesn't make it useless, but that and WP:WEIGHT may be issues, depending on context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's often the only Independent Source on a few presidential candidates, they also have a full editorial staff so I don't think WP:BLOG shouldn't apply. The website is ran by an established nonprofit as well. [58] Microplastic Consumer (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Imbd

    Is Imbd a reliable source? Ned1a Wanna talk? 00:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have the abbreviation wrong, Nedia020415? Please read WP:IMDB. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thank you Ned1a Wanna talk? 00:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about Ibid? It seems to get cited in a lot of scholarly work, so it's good, right? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    It’s IMDb not Ibid. and read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Ned1a Wanna talk? 00:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically see WP:IMDb and Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Government Department Websites

    Just wanted to check something. Are government department websites reliable sources vis a vis themselves and their own activities? Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything is in general reliable regarding itself, beyond unduly self-serving or otherwise questionable claims. I would go further though, and say that government department websites should be generally reliable about the responsibility of their department. For example, the UK Department of Health and Social Care should be reliable regarding UK social care statistics, the US Department of the Treasury should be reliable regarding the national debt, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority should be reliable regarding liquidity risk, and so on. Endwise (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok terrific. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have chosen three large Anglophone liberal democracies as examples, which was not specified in the question. Certainly there are lots of countries and lots of contexts where caution is required. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These would be covered by the unduly self-serving or otherwise questionable claims part. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Sources & Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike

    Feedback on what the reliable sources allow us to say about the motivations and goals of Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike is requested at: Talk:Mahatma Gandhi RfC on Mahatma Gandhi's last hunger strike Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    News Published by Web Desk on a Credible News/Media Website

    I have two questions, if someone can answer.

    1. I have seen some instances where one news is published by Web Desk by a credible News/Media outlet such as one company filed a lawsuit on another company explaining the details of the suit. Since the Author byline is "Web Desk" will that be considered as the Credible Source to claim the notability?
    2. If there is an update on the lawsuit, and any other Credible News/Media outlet covers the news related to the same lawsuit but with updated or progress on the case, will that be considered a separate source URL to claim the notability or both will be considered the same as one source?

    IsrarKazmiSyed (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    STV

    I am not familiar with British news sources and I am unsure of the reliability of STV, specifically in regard to Hurricane Ernesto cancelling a balloon race. Thanks, ✶Quxyz✶ 23:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    STV is a major TV channel, the Scottish arm of ITV. It's news programmes and website are reliable as far as I am aware, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Social Media as sources

    Okay from my understanding, the only times social media aren't reliable sources is if they're not written by the subject themselves. I put in a subject's DOB using a post from her actual Twitter account, but it got reverted saying Twitter wasn't a reliable source.[59]

    Here's the post that was linked.[60] And here's another post with her mentioning her birthday in 2012[61]

    This is confusing me now. Especially considering there are many other articles that use the subject's Twitter account as a source for their birthday or age and they've never been reverted. Kcj5062 (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    yeah ur right… falls under WP:SPS, unless if its truly contentious material or its self promoting its fine to use social media as long as its only about the poster Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what I did. Just simply used the account for birthday info. But like I said, it got reverted and it's actually the subject's social media. And I don't wanna revert it back as not only do I not want to get into an edit war, but the person who reverted it is an admin. Kcj5062 (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So looking at the edit, with only the first tweet cited, I can see why there is some confusion since it doesn't explicitly say the date and we are left to infer based on timezones if the date being referenced is the 15th, 16th, or 17th of January. (Not to mention, it is better to have a direct confirmation in text: such as this tweet where Carrie said "The 16th" in reply to a question about her birthday.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Super Goku V
    That makes sense. Thank you. Kcj5062 (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kcj5062 Your tweet does not clearly state a full DOB. She probably meant that was her birthday, but there is no year. I agree with the removal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång
    The year was already sourced via a newspaper article from August 2003 which mentioned her age at the time. Kcj5062 (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the source that gives "born 1975 or 1976". IMO "date + born 1975 or 1976" would be weird writing, but that can be discussed on the talkpage. DOB:s aren't gold to be mined. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does CALC come into play or is it a problem due to two separate sources? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I see from the tweet + [62] that it's possible to argue "she was 27 in 2003 when she had had her birthday." You can argue either CALC or that a full WP:DOB should not be this hard to pinpoint. There is also a note from 2016 on the talkpage [63][64] that she has asked her DOB to be excluded from the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the source requires this much math, assumptions, and interpretation to decipher a birthday; then a better source that clearly states birthday would be better. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, then DOB should apply. I have made an edit. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Banglar Alo and Sylnewsbd.com

    Are Banglar Alo and Sylnewsbd.com reliable sources? I need to know, Because I am writing about a educational instituition, and I found articles from these two, but I am not sure if it is reliable. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh and Quick News BD as well, Are they reliable? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    URL to Quick News BD BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes until someone points out anything wrong, a newspaper is probably reliable. If there is a claim that is contentious or potentially not corroborated well or a bit biased, use WP:ATTRIBUTION.
    I.e. Banglar Alo claims Sheikh Hasina stole 1 billion before leaving, while Sylnewsbd claims Sheikh Hasina had been pushed out by the CIA. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Genius

    Is Genius considered a reliable source?

    This is the source used on an article, and I was wondering if it is reliable or not. HorrorLover555 (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:GENIUS, mostly no unless it's verified commentary from musicians which falls under WP:SELFPUB. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    geeksandgamers.com for potential deprecation

    Looking at the references to this website across Wikipedia article, talk, and other pages, it appears that it's commonly used to push pro-Gamergate, Comicsgate (1, 2) or adjacent positions (1), with a number of the talk pages describing it as an unreliable source (1, 2).

    Searching for Alex Gherzo, a name that appeared in this recent edit, the very first DuckDuckGo result is a Medium blog post describing the person as the website's editor-in-chief and pointing at their alleged far-right interests, which is consistent with the aforementioned positions.

    Could the source be assessed for deprecation or any other action to reduce or eliminate the need for editors to repeatedly undo edits or talk about its unreliability if it is found to be generally unreliable? Daisy Blue (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Having dumb opinions doesn't make a site unreliable, see WP:RSBIAS. However the site doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and mostly appear to publish opinions[65] by unknown or uncredited authors. Neither can I find any other reliable source using it as reference, I couldn't find any independent reliable source discussing the site at all.
    Deprecation likely isn't needed, just noting that it's unreliable should be enough. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I would say just marking it as unreliable is enough. From my time in the video game space, I have never seen anyone ever try to reference G+G, be it newbies or regulars. JOEBRO64 12:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Much like ActivelyDisinterested said, "having dumb opinions doesn't make a site unreliable". I do think that it has been an issue with pages for contentious topics along the lines of Sweet Baby Inc that people are saying sources are unreliable only based on disagreeing with their social views.
    That said, many pages run by people who do hold these positions are unreliable and I'd include this one among them. Use by Others seems mostly limited to unreliable sources like Slash Dot. Daily Dot links it (which is apparently reliable) but this is the only exception that I can find.
    There's no editorial policy. They don't have a staff page. Their staff (those who do use their own names) doesn't seem particularly notable. Some of their content is based on tweets people made rather than more reputable sources or investigations (this Alex Gherzo really likes quoting Grummz it seems). DarkeruTomoe (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes! magazine

    An article by Arun Gupta in Yes! (U.S. magazine) is being used for potentially sensitive claims (that a witness to an alleged rape is being dishonest) in the article Screams Without Words. One editor has question the reliability of the source. Please see the talk page there (section titled Yes! magazine) and provide informed comment. The site appears to be used in 232 WP articles; at a brief glance the don't generally seem controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arun Gupta appears to be a well respected journalist and Yes! appears to be a well regarded magazine. I do note that they say at the top of the specific article[66] that this isn't what they usually publish, attribute if necessary. If or how it should be used are a BLP/NPOV issue best discussed at the articles talk page or the BLPN thread (BLP policy has source requirements beyond straight reliability). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that they are usually somewhat decent, but it doesn’t seem the only instance of questionable I/P content, with recent precedent like this for removal. Therefore, and based on the additional qualification in front of the article as well as BLP policy, I would say that Yes! in general and this in particular is less than reliable for the I/P conflict, going beyond bias into unreliability. FortunateSons (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Femiwiki.com

    This Korean wiki website is cited as a source on 4B movement about where and when the movement started. I removed the citation and the related paragraph (Special:Diff/1241850708) because the website consists of user-generated contents per WP:UGC, among other issues (the least of which is that the citation is also credited to the wrong website, strangely enough). It was reverted by 208.82.97.132 with edit summary saying "Revert vandalism" (Special:Diff/1242037000). Shortly after, another IP user 99.159.19.180 came to my talk page and said my edit is vandalism, claiming that "[my] edit was not made in good faith and is therefore an instance of WP:VANDAL" (Special:Diff/1242049728).

    Reviewing the source, I still think this Femiwiki is unreliable and anyone who can read Korean should see this immediately. 99.159.19.180 listed three points on my talk page about why they think Femiwiki is reliable (Special:Diff/1242049728), but they are all erroneous in my opinion:

    • The editor claims Femiwiki is not an open wiki. Femiwiki uses MediaWiki and its sign up page imposes no particular user verification process; by all definition, this is an open wiki with user-generated contents.
    • The editor claims this is a primary source because Femiwiki was made by the creators of 4B and allowed by WP:PRIMARY. There're multiple issues with this, but the biggest one is that the Femiwiki's '4B' page itself never mentions it's written by the creators of 4B, and it's very unlikely this is a primary source. 99.159.19.180 linked an academic journal on my talk page to prove their point, but even this never mentions Femiwiki as the creator and claims the 4B movement started around 2019, instead of 2017-2018 like the current version of 4B movement article.
    • The editor claims they only copied and pasted directly from the source. Related to above, the current version of the article says "The term 4B emerged from Korean feminist circles on Twitter around 2017-2018." (Special:Diff/1242037000) This is an information that does not exist in the Femiwiki page and is likely a personal addition that should be removed per WP:NOR.

    I consider this an open-and-shut case, but given that my efforts are already considered a vandalism by the other editors, I decided to bring this here to ensure this issue gets better visibility and is inspected properly.

    I also recommend looking up Talk:4B movement where the aformentioned two IP addresses had similiar arguments in the past. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I claim my rewards 124.217.117.98 (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/about

    Is the report https://www.humanrightsnetwork.org/s/Genocide-in-Gaza-Final-version-051524.pdf (pages 24-25) reliable for the following (or any) statements at Gaza genocide? Talk page discussion

    "Neither the Genocide Convention nor ICJ jurisprudence requires a minimum number of victims to establish genocide, but rather that genocide is established when qualified acts are committed against either a "reasonably significant number" or "a significant section of the group, such as its leadership". In the Gambia v Myanmar Rohingya genocide case, France and the United Kingdom (among others) affirmed that the "number of victims killed" is not a "focus" of the assessment, given that "circumstances may be such that the perpetrator cannot, or decides not to, avail itself of the fastest or most direct means" of destruction." Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would say not reliable for anything on Wikipedia. Despite the grandiose name, Human Rights Network, appears to be a largely unknown and recent organisation. I think the text Selfstudier proposes about Gaza is good and hopefully it can be sourced through other sources, so my concern is with Human Rights Network generally. It might grow to become a welllknown and established organisation for human rights, but that is not yet the case. Jeppiz (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1242159869"