Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 462

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 455←Archive 460Archive 461Archive 462

Is lambgoat.com an acceptable source for BLP articles

The rock and metal news site lambgoat.com ([1]) is a website that has come up a couple of times on Wikipedia (2014 discussion, passing mention in a discussion from a few months ago). There appears to be a rough consensus that it is usable as a source to attribute opinions to in the form of its music reviews, but when it comes to statements of facts, consensus was significantly less decisive. I mention this because I found that it is currently being used in a BLP article, Finn McKenty. Of the over 1,000 articles the site is currently being used as a source on, a significant portion of them are not BLPs. Which leads me to ask -- is this website acceptable for use for the purpose of BLPs? Their staff page ([2]) provides no content about their staff's expertise beyond their specific roles at the site, which certainly does not inspire confidence in me, but for all I know I could be worrying too much in this regard. So I will hand this over to everyone else -- can this website be used for information about living people? JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably not. I don't usually revert their use for run of the mill rock/metal news stuff, but I wouldn't use them for anything contentious or sensitive. Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
This is the purpose I use the source for if I am unable to find other suitable material, and that's an unfortunate reality in the heavy metal content area more often than I'd like to admit. I use it as a last resort for routine news items, and always default to better sources if available for the same content. (Edit: I should clarify what I mean by "better"; I mean as in simply being more established, not as much casting doubt over its suitability.) mftp dan oops 16:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up, JeffSpaceman, as I was wondering about this commonly-cited source in my FA review for Eternal Blue.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Seeing the context that it's being used in on that article, I don't think there's too much of a problem there (though others are free to voice disagreements if they do see issues with its use in the article). My problem is with its use for information about living people, which I think it should be avoided for per User:Sergecross73's comment above. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, because it's essentially reporting a press release, I don't think it has the defamatory issues that the BLP concern would be regarding.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

bulgarianmilitary

This website is used as a source on more than 100 pages, mostly dealing with military equipment. However, it relays rumors ([3], [4]), insinuates that billion-dollar deals have been made where nothing of the sort was reported elsewhere ([5]), relays propaganda without further analysis ([6]), and writes false information while using biased Twitter accounts as sources ([7]). Generally, it looks like it lacks any kind of serious oversight. What is your opinion on its reliability? BilletsMauves€500 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally unreliable, they mostly scrape content from other sources which comes with COPYVIVO concerns and what they do write themselves has pretty seruous issues as you've noted. Ownership is also opaque, they link to this as their parent company[8] which is a nearly empty webpage... All it says is "Publico A Media Company" and "Delivering up-to-date news on military and aerospace topics." I haven't seen such a sparse page in years. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't publish the expertise of the writers. It claims it has an editor who it's not clear who it is. Maybe somewhere between self-published and an amateur news operation. EEpic (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Adelsvapen.com

Background: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#Have we got lists of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research?. TL;DR: I'm working on lists of reliable sources (mostly websites) for genealogical research on Russian and European noble families, and I noticed that the genealogy section of Adelsvapen.com, a Swedish website, is currently used in 145 enwiki articles. But it is a WP:USERGENERATED wiki which works very much like Wikipedia, risking WP:CITOGENESIS if they repeat each other's claims uncritically. The about page describes it like this:

I en Wiki får alla vara med och bidra med sina kunskaper och det är både lätt och roligt. Vår förhoppning är att många ska skriva information från sin egen släktforskning så att vi tillsammans kan komplettera traditionella källor. (...) Till varje sida finns det en diskussionssida där man kan skriva om man finner tveksamma uppgifter i en artikel och kanske inte vill ändra i direkt artikeln.
In a Wiki, everyone gets to join in and contribute their knowledge, and it's both easy and fun. Our hope is that many people will write information from their own genealogy so that together we can supplement traditional sources. (...) For each page, there is a discussion page where you can write if you find questionable information in an article and perhaps do not want to change the article directly. There you can also write questions and thoughts about the article.

AFAIK, Adelsvapen hasn't been discussed here before, nor has Adelsvapen.com, nor has WikiProject Royalty and Nobility discussed it. So I decided to take it here, as 145 enwiki articles is quite a lot (many more than the other questionable sources I'm gathering at the project's talk page), and I figured this couldn't wait. My assessment would be that references to the Adelsvapen genealogi Wiki should be considered WP:GUNREL WP:USERGENERATED content, to be replaced by better sources eventually, unless it involves WP:BLPs, in which case the source plus content should be removed immediately. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Although you have to apply to get an account[9] that's only a way they use to stop people from spamming on their site[10]. So it's user generated content and covered by WP:UGC. The do list sources, so it may be possible to replace it's use on Wikipedia with the source used on Adelvapen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, I agree. Just like Wikipedia itself isn't a "source", but the sources used by Wikipedia are generally pretty good to cite if you're a student, journalist or researcher or something. Andejons noted that Adelsvapen is mostly based on sv:Den introducerade svenska adelns ättartavlor, which has been fully digitised as well, and citing that should be fine. We just shouldn't use Adelsvapen itself. NLeeuw (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

New infopage, WP:SPSPREPRINT

I wrote this following an umpteenth debate about whether or not preprints are reliable sources because they're written by experts.

Feedback and tweaks welcome. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a very narrow application and when applied any broader cancels out the entire point of EXPERTSPS existing. At that point, why not just remove it? I agree that there are problems with it but the way this is written feels unclear to me (and tilted towards some scientific disciplines instead of others, to which it probably applies better). Also, the alternative source being the university website - that would also be an SPS. So why doesn't the higher bar apply to it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
A staff listing would not be an SPS. And universities control what they host. If Dr Foobar didn't work at the University of Barfoo, then they wouldn't have a page hosted by University of Barfoo. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
By the WP:USESPS definition of SPS it would be an SPS, as the publisher and creator are the same (as part of the same organization). Outside of that the contents of most websites are considered self published sources, and a university is not much different in that way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The definition used by USESPS is contentious at best, and far broader than the description in policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The problem is, USESPS ultimately is an essay.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but then what definition are we using? I doubt a website posting undergoes substantial peer review. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
"Yes, but then what definition are we using?" WP:SPS is the current consensus. And as to the question, a website posting may or may not undergo substantial editorial review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, the following text was added to BLPSPS: "It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example," so using a university website to confirm that someone works for the university is OK. As for the definition of SPS, to the extent that there is one, it's in footnote 1 on WP:V. Once the RfC closes re: whether advocacy org grey literature is/isn't always an SPS, I plan to open an RfC about the definition of "self-published" itself (though I'm having a terrible time figuring out how to ask what I think would be most helpful without it being too long). FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
This isn't about BLPSPS, this is about EXPERTSPS. That was just adding it to the carve out for when it can be used on BLPS, but doesn't make it not an SPS. In the context of this page this is positioning a university website as a superior source to a preprint. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I understand that this essay is about EXPERTSPS. But you said "I doubt a website posting undergoes substantial peer review," which I interpreted as a reference to your earlier comment that "By the WP:USESPS definition of SPS, [a university website] would be an SPS." And I was pointing out that under the current wording of BLPSPS, using a university website to confirm that a professor works at that university would not count as a BLPSPS violation. Similarly, if the person worked for NIH, the NIH website could be used to confirm that. And yes, I think that an employer's website is a better source of employment info than a preprint -- who knows better than the employer whether that person actually works for them? But you could also use the preprint info under BLPSELFPUB.
I continue to think that this essay is geared towards preprints, when editors also use blogs under EXPERTSPS, and sometimes even self-published books (as was the case with a niche book on glassmaking history that someone asked about here not that long ago). And I don't know that all expert content neatly falls into either routine or novel, or at least there needs to be an example where the decision about which category is less clear. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying it can't be used to confirm BLP material, it is not a BLPSPS violation because of the recent changes, but it is still an SPS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, but it's clear from recent discussions about WP:SPS that editors do not all agree about what does and doesn't fall in the SPS category, and the current definition ("Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content") forces us to makes guesses about whether such editorial review has occurred (some sources identify their editors, but many do not) and seems to conflate SPS with whether the source is a RS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion does make a valid point. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I mean, a university website is self-evidently SPS based on the definition of SPS, regardless of whether their postings undergo "editorial review". JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Are you arguing that editorial review for university website content always involves a conflict of interest? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. In such a scenario, what are the two (or more) interests which are in (potential) conflict? Rotary Engine talk 23:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
You don't think the university has a conflict of interest in its coverage of its employees? JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
In the example mentioned above, a University staff directory (list of faculty, subjects taught, contact details, etc.), the University has a responsibility to various stakeholders (other faculty, students, staff) to provide accurate and up to date information. It also has an interest in providing accurate information, because it demonstrates competence and care, and reflects the University in a positive light. But that is an aligned interest, not a conflicting interest.
In an instance of less trivial coverage, perhaps a web article highlighting a professor receiving an award or some new & innovative research, or athletic achievement, the University has a duty to its employees & students, and a responsibility to readers, to provide fair and accurate coverage. It also has an interest in reflecting the University in a positive light. For the most part, these would be aligned interests, only rarely conflicting. Even in the obvious example of academic misconduct, the duty to the staff is to be fair, not positive; the duty to readers to be accurate.
A University website certainly has a self-interest in reflecting the University positively, as does any other organisation or business.
What I'm not seeing, is another interest which is always in conflict with that interest.
Which is why I asked ... what are the two interests which are in conflict? Rotary Engine talk 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
What would be a conflict of interest to you?
In the context of Wikipedia SPS, COI clearly encompasses any material produced by a group that is about the group and does not undergo independent review. A COI relationship does not need to yield biased or inaccurate or even non-trivial content for it to still be a COI. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group,
[M]aterial contained within company websites is exactly what university website pages that are about the university (as opposed to those covering academic topics) are. This is explained further in the WP:COISOURCE essay linked in SPS policy. JoelleJay (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, whether "the material contained within company websites" should be included as an example for WP:SPS is contested. For example, in a recent long WT:V discussion on the definition of WP:SPS, some cited definitions of "self-published" in Merriam Webster ("to publish (a book) using the author's own resources") and American Heritage ("Published by oneself or with one's own money"), and Alanscottwalker said "No, the employees [of a corporation] are not self publishing, they are being published by the corporation, and its the corporation's resources that are being used"; on the other hand, WhatamIdoing wrote "I would start with the assumption that everything in a university website is self-published," even though you seem to say that content about academic subjects isn't. Although it's been over 30 days, the RfC on whether grey literature from advocacy orgs is always or only sometimes SPS is currently open, and people have expressed different views there too. Once it's closed, I'll likely create an RfC about the WP:SPS definition itself, though I'm struggling with the wording. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
What would be a conflict of interest to you?
The lead section at conflict of interest provides some good descriptions - A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. ... A widely used definition is: "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." (emphasis added). All of the definitions describe two or more distinct interests (duties, responsibilities, goals, desires) which are in conflict. In any COI, it ought to be possible to identify those interests.
Example: A Wikipedia editor editing articles about themselves or their employer has a conflict of interest between a) the self-interest to show the subject in a(n overly-?)positive light, and b) their duty as an editor to produce article content which is NPOV. Identifying the conflicting interests is not difficult.
In the context of Wikipedia SPS, COI clearly encompasses any material produced by a group that is about the group and does not undergo independent review.
This is what I am not understanding. How? Why? I can see that a self-publisher, when writing about themselves, would have some degree of self-interest; less so when writing on other topics. But what other interest does the self-publisher have which always conflicts? Rotary Engine talk 23:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
We are operating under the Wikipedia definition of COI, not whatever strict legal definition is being used elsewhere, though I think it should also be obvious that the university's duty to present itself in a good light is always going to be in direct conflict with any interest in always truthfully presenting all relevant facts about itself. JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Even if we're operating under the WP:COI definition, that guideline answers "What is conflict of interest?" with "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest." The analog for a university would be "While editing [material on the university's website], an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the [university]. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest." What is the external role or relationship that you think creates a conflict of interest for a university editor? The SPS policy doesn't link to WP:COISOURCE, WP:COI, or the mainspace COI article, so it's ambiguous what is meant there. The SPS policy should make clearer what it means for a non-WP editor to be independent/lack a conflict of interest.
Would you say that marketing material is always SPS, even if published by a source like a book publisher that we don't normally think of as SPS, since the "duty to present itself in a good light is always going to be in direct conflict with any interest in always truthfully presenting all relevant facts about itself"? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. This links directly to COISOURCE. Are you arguing that the "conflict of interest" referenced by the footnote at WP:SPS is different from the "conflict of interest" linked in the section directly above it? JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
You're quoting from WP:QS, not from WP:SPS. Whether a source is questionable is distinct from whether it's self-published (a source might be one, the other, both, or neither). I don't assume that the meaning of "conflict of interest" in the SPS footnote is the same as the meaning in the QS section, not least because when the footnote text was introduced in 2011, the QS section didn't say anything about conflicts of interest / didn't link to COISOURCE. I also wouldn't prioritize the interpretation of COI in an essay over the interpretation in a guideline (WP:COI), notwithstanding that a policy (WP:QS) links to the essay. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Why would the meaning of COI used in QS be different from that used by SPS (and why couldn't the QS usage be derived from the SPS usage?), and in particular why would we instead presume that the meaning of COI in SPS—which, like the COI in QS, is explicitly only about COI in sources—is actually supposed to be aligned with a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of COI as it applies to Wikipedia editors?
And even if we were to force a WP:COI definition of COI here, The analog for a university would be "While editing [material on the university's website], an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the [university]. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest." is plainly inapt. The COI would be between the accuracy/completeness of the employee profile and the interests of the employer, not between the interests of the employer and "some other external interest". JoelleJay (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
When the text about a conflict of interest was added to WP:QS in 2012, the conflict of interest text wasn't linked to anything. That link was only added this year (by Left guide), so for most of the existence of WP:SPS, it was left to editors to interpret "conflict of interest." (In fact, until Left guide introduced that link, no instance of "conflict of interest" in all of WP:V was linked to anything, except in the "Wikipedia key policies and guidelines" footer, where it linked to WP:COI.) Left guide is still an active editor, and perhaps they'll tell us whether they meant WP:COISOURCE to apply to "conflict of interest" in the WP:SPS footnote as well the WP:QS text. Personally, I wouldn't assume that someone who adds a wikilink to a phrase in one section assesses whether that interpretation also applies to the same phrase in a footnote for another section. (And FWIW, I only just noticed that [1] in SPS is actually labelled as a Reference rather than a Note, not sure if that has any implications for interpreting that text as policy.)
I also don't agree that "the meaning of COI in SPS ... like the COI in QS, is explicitly only about COI in sources." The relevant SPS text — "the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content" — is about whether a reviewer (not a source) has a conflict of interest. If there's no reviewer, or if the reviewer has a conflict of interest, then the source is SPS, and otherwise it isn't. Both WP:COI and WP:COISOURCE link to the mainspace article on COI, so that text is relevant even though "We are operating under the Wikipedia definition of COI."
That said, having reread what I'd set forth as analogous text for a university, I agree with you that it's inapt. Thank you for having pushed me to reconsider that. It's inapt for two main reasons: (1) WP:COI is talking about an editor who writes text, whereas the SPS text is about someone who reviews text written by another, and (2) the interpretation of COI in the SPS footnote is about whether the reviewer has a conflict of interest when "validating the reliability of the content." WP never really defines "reliable," but there are repeated references to "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," so I agree with you that the key conflict of interest assessment is whether the reviewer faces a conflict between (a) checking the accuracy of what the writer wrote and (b) some other job interest (e.g., an employer may tell both the writer and reviewer to make the employer look good or to draw people to their website with clickbait, even if that comes at the expense of accuracy).
Generalizing a bit from "The COI would be between the accuracy/completeness of the employee profile and the interests of the employer," and "it should also be obvious that the university's duty to present itself in a good light is always going to be in direct conflict with any interest in always truthfully presenting all relevant facts about itself," it sounds like you're saying that if a reviewer works for an employer, the employer's interests always conflict with reviewing content for accuracy, at least when the reviewer is checking content about the employer. I don't believe that's always the case. I think reputable universities want their websites to accurately reflect who is/isn't on their faculty, though a disreputable university might not. As Rotary Engine noted, that is an aligned interest, not a conflicting interest. I'd certainly hope that if a reviewer always has a conflict of interest when checking content about the reviewer's employer, then the relevant policies would make that clear. If I do create an RfC about the WP:SPS definition once the grey lit./advocacy org RfC closes, I'll ask about this. I'd already included something along these lines in a draft RfC, but I think I'm clearer about the issue now. In the meantime, if you're open to responding again: why do you believe that a reviewer always faces a conflict "between the accuracy/completeness of [content about the employer] ... and the interests of the employer"?
Sorry that I've been so long-winded. In part, I'm trying to get clearer in my own head about all of this so I can craft a good RfC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:COI says A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. [...] COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict. The COI article says A conflict of interest exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that a decision may be unduly influenced by other, secondary interests, and not on whether a particular individual is actually influenced by a secondary interest. These statements support the interpretation that a COI exists regardless of whether there is an actual bias introduced by it.
In the context of university websites, I would consider any information about the university to be self-published but reliable. Info on university employee profiles will be self-published by the employee themselves if it doesn't undergo review by the university, and co-self-published by the university if it does; in either case I would consider the content on the person in their own profile to qualify as ABOUTSELF. Content about the university employee published in other locations on the university website would not qualify as ABOUTSELF if it does not undergo review (e.g. content on a university-hosted lab page discussing a person not affiliated with that lab wouldn't count as ABOUTSELF for that person), but would count if under editorial review or published directly by the university (e.g. in an announcement about the employee receiving an award). JoelleJay (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
You and I have different opinions about whether a COI always exists for the reviewer when assessing material about an employer for accuracy, even if the reviewer isn't biased in practice. I think a COI (as defined by WP:COI and the mainspace COI article) might or might not exist, depending on the specific employer and/or the specific content being reviewed. I don't see it as all or nothing.
For example, consider the situation where a reviewer is employed by UC Berkeley and is tasked with checking the accuracy of the info on their Math Dept. faculty webpage (the situation up above at the beginning of this exchange: "using a university website to confirm that a professor works at that university"). In this case, the reviewer is looking at this page . UCB is a very reputable university, and I think it absolutely wants accurate info on that page. I don't think a "tendency to bias" can be assumed for a UCB employee reviewing the info on that page for accuracy; similarly, I don't think "past experience and objective evidence" with UCB faculty pages would result in a reasonable belief that there's a risk the reviewer is unduly influenced by secondary interests. Now, if it were a UCB fundraising page, or if it were a disreputable university's faculty page, past info and evidence might lead me to assume that an accuracy COI does exist for the reviewer. But for me, it really depends on the employer and the specific content, and a COI doesn't always exist when a reviewer is assessing the accuracy of employer info. I certainly accept that you see it differently. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
COI describes the relationship between two+ entities and the potential for apparent bias that arises from that conflict, not the actual products of that relationship. An employee who never writes anything about their employer, one who only reviews the statistical details that will be added to the employer's landing page, and one who is responsible for writing fundraising materials all have the same COI when it comes to anything related to the employer, potential or realized, trivial or nontrivial. WP:COI operates under the same premise. JoelleJay (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
And I'm saying that for a reputable university and for this kind of content, I agree with Rotary Engine: In the example mentioned above, a University staff directory (list of faculty, subjects taught, contact details, etc.), the University has a responsibility to various stakeholders (other faculty, students, staff) to provide accurate and up to date information. It also has an interest in providing accurate information, because it demonstrates competence and care, and reflects the University in a positive light. But that is an aligned interest, not a conflicting interest. Even with WP:COI, WP says that "Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits ..." elaborated in that section), presumably because WP's interests and the generally-conflicted editor's interests are sufficiently aligned for those kinds of edits, so the editor's "roles and responsibilities" don't significantly conflict. We can agree to disagree here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Again, COI does not refer to the existence of actual problems or the extent of potential ones or even to the involved entities themselves, it is strictly a description of a relationship wherein a financial/familial/etc. interest/duty could interfere with the ability to fulfill another interest. A university employee in charge of updating directory info still has a COI because it is possible a circumstance could arise where the interests of the university would influence the employee to perform their tasks in a way an independent party would not. This is precisely what WP:COI means with A business owner has an actual COI if they edit articles and engage in discussions about that business. They might be making harmless edits now, but they are still in a position where they could make biased edits. Likewise, the directory updater is in a position where their role could produce biased content, e.g. preemptively scrubbing a disgraced professor from the site.
The section you quote actually fully supports the above: a business owner making strictly uncontroversial edits about their business still has a COI because they are in a position to exercise conflicted judgment. JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't have anything new to say re: why my interpretation of COI is sometimes different than yours, so I'm going to bow out of this exchange. I recognize that you're a more experienced editor than I am, but Alanscottwalker and WhatamIdoing are much more experienced than either of us, and even they don't agree on what is/isn't self-published. Since a number of editors have made it clear that they don't think the current WP:SPS characterization + examples accurately capture consensus practice (or, sometimes, that it doesn't correspond to their personal definition of self-published), at this point, I think there should be an RfC to check, so that whatever the current consensus is, the text and examples reflect it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Does someone other than the author have editorial control? If yes then it's not self-published. The quality of a source needs to match the content it's supports, and there are many factors to reliability of which being self-published is just one. There is no need to exclude masses of sources by describing them as self-published, when by the common usage in language and the common practice in Wikipedia they are not considered so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
That would make group blogs not SPS - which is clearly not the consensus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Neither is the definition in USESPS the consensus, or anywhere close to it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
"Does someone other than the author have editorial control? If yes then it's not self-published." IF true, this would be a phenomenally concise definition for use, unfortunately, I do not believe it to be true or to have consensus per @PARAKANYAA and his comment about group blogs. A blog is a blog, and is self published, regardless of whether or not it is one blogger, or several. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
It was a simple off the cuff remark, and wouldn't cover all the issues involved. However the definition in USESPS definitely doesn't have any consensus either. As to blogs your definition is also overly simplistic, and wouldn't cover the multitude if different setups that exist in the world. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
ActivelyDisinterested, I've been trying to understand the main features that different people use in assessing whether something is/isn't self-published. For example, the focal feature for one editor is whether an author uses their own funds to publish/distribute the material, where "author" only means one or perhaps a few people (if something is coauthored), not a corporate author; the focal feature for a couple of others is whether the publisher is a traditional publishing house. I've been thinking about creating an RfC re: the current WP:SPS definition/examples, and understanding people's views is helping me think about what options I should include if I really do create an RfC. Would you mind saying a bit more about your view? For example, by "editorial control," do you mean that the editor is in a position to block the publication of the material? And you say that that doesn't cover everything: what else do you consider? Thanks! FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
On your talkpage, as this is already an aside from the topic under discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Have to agree with @PARAKANYAA here. Better to just remove this essay. This does not help. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Would WP:EXCEPTIONAL also apply, or were the claims you were dealing with just preliminary and not particularly surprising? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd rather not get into the specifics, since this is meant to be general advice. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd change the title to something like "When can you invoke expert SPS?" (Yes, that's clear from the body, but I still think the title should match. The essay clearly isn't addressing the other time that one can invoke SPS: for ABOUTSELF.) Same thing where it says "an SPS" in the body. Also, I think it would help if you included an example about an expert blog. I have little experience with the use of expert blogs and couldn't say how most are used, but my sense is that Science-Based Medicine and Quackwatch are mostly used to combat scams, disinformation, and the like. Of "routine" and "novel," which category would you say that falls under, or would you instead conclude that there needs to be a third category? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Moved. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The article states a generalization about SPS for things that may make sense for preprints, which are by their nature things intended for an academic-intensive realm, but little sense for other matters such as sports and entertainment. Taking myself as an example: As a writer on comics history, the things that I write for Hogan's Alley (i.e., not an SPS) are not subject to peer review or much more than a quick editorial eye, so they don't differ significantly in factual verification over the things that I post on The Aaugh Blog or on my Comics Show & Tell with Nat Gertler video series. The sort of sources we cite for non-sciency topics just don't have that degree of differentiation, and expert will often find novel things in those realms and publish them through SPSes. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, but in those cases, your (i'll take you at your word) expert opinion will not put be novel results/claims forward. Like you might be a source for misspellings of Charles Schulz [11], but you didn't put forward the novel claim that reading Peanuts cures iron deficiency. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
No, but I did put forth the novel claim that there was a Black superhero called Sgt. Joe who predates the frequently-cited "first Black superhero". Unlike the spelling of Schulz, this is a claim that has appeared nowhere in the discussion of Black superheroes before I started sharing the information. (As to whether I'm an "expert", while I generally avoid using that term for myself, I am an award-winning writer on comics history topics.) I would not be a WP:MEDRS for that iron deficiency claim, but the field of discussion of comics history is not done primarily through academic, peer-reviewed sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
It's not really a novel claim. The proof's in the pudding. You can clearly see a date of 1944 on the strip. I don't know who's the frequently-cited 'first black superhero', but if it's Black Panther people are dumb, and if it's Lion Man, that's 1947. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
It's a novel claim because no one else has ever made that specific claim before. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
But this is exactly the kind of thing people argue about. The "proof in the pudding" is SYNTH. I think that OR would be acceptable for saying that the date of Sgt. Joe's publication. Would that then be enough to contradict a RS such as NYT saying that Black Panther is the first black superhero? (People do say that, but I think only in the context of the Marvel movies and really mean "First black superhero with his own movie")
I think a good example of how Wikipedians handle SPS is this debacle.
As far as expert blog goes, I think this is a good example: https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2022/12/reindeer.html A named expert contradicts several "Reliable Sources" such as NBC, NPR, McGill University, and The Atlantic. I am not sure if this contains a novel claim. It might. It probably isn't worth writing a peer reviewed article about, so this might be the only form it appears in. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I've actually seen claims from people that Black Panther was the first Black comics superhero.... but even if they were just talking about Marvel characters in movies, I believe Eric Cross Brooks would like to have a word. - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
And there's also Lothar in Mandrake the Magician, from the 1930s, though I don't know about him being a superhero, or the exact date of his first appearance. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
It's a novel claim if no one else has described this character as a "superhero"... and given that no one seems to have mentioned him for 7+ decades following publication, that's much the case. (While Lion Man might've been the first Black superhero in comic books, the most commonly cited first Black superhero was in a 1945 storyline in "Bungleton Green", another strip from the Black weekly newspapers.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
+1, this is my concern. I do not think this idea works well outside of the preprint context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I guess it could be titled: "when to use preprints" Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
That could also be a title. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Is there anything that you'd place in the "Routine" category that either doesn't fall under WP:ABOUTSELF or where existing peer-reviewed research would be a better source (e.g., where the preprint situates its focus in relation to peer-reviewed research)? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
See the second bullet about primordial black holes being a candidate for dark matter. This information is context for the research in the preprint, it's not a novel claim made by the preprint.
Another example could be using bioRxiv 10.1101/355933 (let's assume it didn't clear peer review for sake of the argument) to define/support that the concept of absolute pitch refers to the ability of someone to be able to tell the exact pitch of a sound they hear without comparing to another reference sound (e.g. hearing a 880 Hz note and instantly knowing it's A5). This is general background provided to the paper to situate the research, not a novel claim (yes/no people can or can't acquire this ability in adulthood if they didn't possess it in childhood). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
This information is context for the research in the preprint, it's not a novel claim made by the preprint.
But why would we want or need a preprint to state that when clearly it is already actually published elsewhere? JoelleJay (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The existence of one adequate source does not preclude the existence of other better sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
?
I am asking in what situation would it be acceptable to cite a preprint as the sole reference for a statement. Either the statement is a novel claim, or it is summarizing generally-known information; but then the evidence necessary to show that it belongs to the latter category would itself be a better source than the preprint, obviating the need to cite only the preprint in the first place. I can understand if a preprint providing general info is cited alongside an RS containing the same info if the RS is less accessible, but that's more a SAYWHEREYOUREADIT situation.
The only circumstance where I could maybe see general info only in preprints being usable under EXPERTSPS is if a concept became widely accepted within a large ecosystem of Perelman-types strictly on the arXiv (and I'm curious what @David Eppstein's opinion on this situation would be). JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I think EXPERTSPS applies much more broadly than to superstars like Perelman. Anyone notable or plausibly notable as an expert on a topic should count as an expert for this purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
"Perelman-types" was just a reference to Perelman's boycott of all journals and exclusive publication on the arXiv. JoelleJay (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The conventions of journal publication often exclude intuitions, heuristics, motivations, etc. Sometimes preprints are better sources for this kind of "community wisdom" (that one would otherwise have to acquire by interacting in person) because their constraints are more relaxed. This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics is made of this, for example. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
That assumes that such "community wisdom" is encyclopedic, and that editors would be able to distinguish it from novel ideas. If a concept is actually BALASP for understanding an article topic, why would it only be published in blogs/preprints? JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's always "encyclopedic"; it could be "encyclopedic" sometimes. WP:BALASP says to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Because less formal writing by subject-matter experts is reliable for their areas of expertise, those sources are part of the corpus one evaluates when deciding which aspects to include. Why would a concept be published only in less formal venues? Well, as indicated above, because academic publishing is the enemy of clarity. There's no room for pedagogy in a journal article. The conventions of technical writing are to excise all indications that a living, breathing person did the work. XOR'easter (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB says Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources, which certainly suggests even expert self-published work is by default considered less DUE than reliably-published work.
Congrats on the AMS paper with David, JBL, and Russ, BTW. JoelleJay (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Both of those examples fall in my second category: it can be sourced to peer-reviewed research, which would be a better source. But I didn't word my question well. I'm wondering if you have an example of "routine" info where it neither falls under ABOUTSELF nor can be found in peer-reviewed research. Seems to me that by definition, other than ABOUTSELF, if a claim in the preprint can't be found in peer-reviewed lit, then it's novel. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more that I realize that this has to be specifically preprints, and it's legitimate to separate out preprints, because preprints are inherently different than standard self-published items. A preprint is intended to be a draft, is meant to be corrected before the final work. It is being offered for correction. That's different than a blog post or a self-published book; while those things may ultimately face correction in some form, that's not an intended part of the process, they are intended to be a final statement and are backed by the expertise of the person making that statement. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think I agree. I've refined the title of the page to reflect the discussion here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with this. Sometimes things get posted to the arXiv without an expectation of later formal review. In other words, not all "preprints" are actually pre-print. Some of them are intended to stake out a claim to a partial result that isn't yet complete enough for a journal paper. Others are written too informally or leisurely to fit into a journal format (when a professor already has tenure and gets a cool idea they just want to write up). Still others are posted after they got rejected from the journal the authors really wanted to get into. Maybe they'll shoot for another journal later, and maybe they won't. Some are based on lectures given at workshops and seasonal schools (like Les Houches and the Italian Physical Society's Enrico Fermi meetings). All of these types of eprint are basically offered "as is", backed by the authors' expertise. It's not the most common variety of eprint, since most everybody is trying to rack up the journal publications and impress the committees we have to impress, but it's not so rare a category that one can neglect it either. XOR'easter (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Are you comfortable with the current text of WP:PREPRINT? FWIW, I suggested an edit (here), though it doesn't address your point. What would you rather that section say? 23:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC) FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Can we apply it to preprints that are pre-print and not to non-pre-print preprints? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
A non preprint preprint, whatever it is, isn't a preprint, by definition. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
"Sometimes things get posted to the arXiv without an expectation of later formal review."
@XOR'easter: Yeah, but those aren't preprints, just self published material written by the author, like course notes or pedagogical material/technical reports. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I think we would be better off without this info page, I know that is pretty harsh feedback but its hard to see the benefit... I don't even think that it really clarifies the issue it was meant to clarify. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Author Patrick Agte

I was looking at the article Franz Staudegger today and I noticed that the only source the article currently uses is Michael Wittmann & the Waffen SS Tiger Commanders of the Leibstandarte in WWII (Volume 1) by Patrick Agte, published by Stackpole Books. I searched the archive and one of the comments I found about Stackpole books was [12] this one which stated that Stackpole sometimes published SS Fanboy stuff and that some of their stuff is pretty bad. The book doesn't seem to have been reviewed by any scholars, and the author doesn't seem to be a historian, his bio from the publisher is simply Patrick Agte has written a biography of another renowned tank commander, Jochen Peiper. This source (and the Jochen peiper book) was previously published by J.J. Fedorowicz Pub, another publisher which also doesn't seem to have been viewed favorably at RSN [13][14]. The entire history section of the article seems taken from this book though it isn't attributed properly. Emm90 (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

If the author isn't an expert and the publisher isn't reputable then his works are not reliable. I think it would need one or the other but preferably both and this lacks it. EEpic (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

the hacker news

https://thehackernews.com/p/about-us.html (source)

i found this source from AFC draft submissions (on a failed BLP draft with not enough sources). not sure if it’s reliable or not.

thanks, brachy08 (chat here lol) 04:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Although The Hacker News has a list of authors, the vast majority of the non-sponsored posts on the site since 2021 are written by a single individual, Ravie Lakshmanan, which makes the site generally unreliable as a self-published group blog. I asked about this source in 2019; the site employed more than one active writer back then, but this does not seem to be the case anymore. Additionally, any article with the byline "The Hacker News" is sponsored content that should not be used, as are the "Expert Insights" videos and articles. — Newslinger talk 05:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The draft in question, Draft:Nima Bagheri, cites the article "Stuxnet 3.0 to be possibility released at MalCon?" that was published in 2011 – before the site downsized to one active writer. However, that article is full of grammar mistakes and incorrect capitalization, which gives me the impression that it was not proofread before publication. I do not consider that article reliable. — Newslinger talk 05:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
thanks brachy08 (chat here lol) 10:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Louis Zoul’s Scholarship on Plato’s Republic

Louis Zoul was a Scholar who other than writing a book called “on the origin of reason” also wrote a book called Thugs and communists (1959) which American journalist Henry Hazlitt called a “very impressive document” where he discussed (in the chapter titled “on the strength of communism”) Plato’s Republic and his viewpoint that Plato’s vision of his republic was “the most extreme form of individualism imaginable” and states that poor translations like Benjamin Jowett’s misrepresent Plato as a collectivist and a form of proto-communism which Zoul states is the opposite of what Plato wanted for his ideal form of government. I tried to add this viewpoint to the “Criticism” section of the republic(plato) article but it keeps getting removed and the only reason that seen to be is that someone personally dislikes Zoul’s anti-communist viewpoint and somehow thinks that makes him a unreliable source in spite of his professional scholarship as anyone who reads his book can see. I would like to see this issue cleared up so that this viewpoint can be added to the article

link to the book in question here https://archive.org/details/thugscommunistse0000loui 2A00:23C8:6BD:3B01:7961:C23B:7D94:3CCA (talk) 13:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Who? Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
IP, you should first discuss this on Talk:Republic (Plato). I suggest you find sources that indicate that any academic or scholar takes Zoul's reinterpretation of Plato seriously or has considered his view worthy of notice. (I looked and couldn't find any evidence of that.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Also please note that "he's a scholar" isn't sufficient to indicate reliability. A scholar of what? Cited by who? Considered expert in what? Zoul appears to be something of a nobody. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Also I am not sure but that book might be WP:SPS Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Polesia Map Topography Edits

These two issues revolves around the "Polesia_map_-_topography.jpg" file. The current edit expands the area of Polesia in contradiction to the historical sources mentioned in the articles about the topic. The Author cites [map of Polissia, 1874.jpg|//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Levelling map of Polissia] as the reason for the expansion, yet the source map doesn't encompass as much area as the author suggests. Other maps suggest even less territories.

The edit also adds "Byelorussia" to the name of Belarus, which is neither how the country is called in English nor how it is called in Belarusian. 93.212.108.155 (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

World Ribus

Urlatherrke has been adding elevation/prominence dates on mountains based on this website, e.g on articles I have on my watchlist (Toney Mountain, Crary Mountains, Mount Berlin, Mount Melbourne, Mount Morning, Emi Koussi, Toussidé and Ol Doinyo Lengai). Thing is, while it seems to have an editorial mechanism I don't see any indication that it is run by experts. It also looks like someone's personal website, but again, don't know if by an expert. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Their reply was Hi. The project team includes Jonathan de Ferranti who was a key researcher for the Ultras list and is leading expert on DEMs (Digital Elevation Models). Pretty sure this is the best source for elevation and prominence data at present. so a bit of reliability, but I am not sure if it's sufficient. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The information comes from multiple different people[15], but a lot of different countries entries appear to rely on Daniel Patrick Quinn who doesn't appears to have an academic background in the subject. While the person running the site, Daniel Quinn, appears to have a background in AI and cybersecurity[16]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Generally unreliable, its a non-expert SPS so is of basically no use to us. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
It could be treated as a self published source. EEpic (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Not only self-published. Available via Pedantic Press as a paperback book. If the lists of Ultras and Marilyns are regarded as 'of use', as they appear to be, then so is this list, as it involves several of the same people but with more recent data sources (especially Ribus compared to Ultras). https://www.pedantic.org.uk/books/732 Urlatherrke (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I would check if Pedantic Press is a reliable publisher. I'm not too familiar with those guidelines. With small publishers it might still be similar to self published. EEpic (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Pedantic Press appears to be owned by Alan Dawson and only publish works to which they have contributed, this includes the work in question here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

rhb.org.uk

Rhb.org.uk appears to be self published by the same cast of characters, this source should also be treated as generally unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you there. I do not know of any more reliable sources. The result of RHB/Pedantic's meticulous surveying work is published by the Scottish Mountaineering Club e.g list of Grahams. There are probably no better sources for topographic prominence data than the 'cast of characters' you refer to. Indeed, if you look at the references on the Wikipedia page for topographic prominence you will see familiar names. If you think you can name more accurate topographic prominence data sources than the likes of Pedantic/RHB, Ribus, Peaklist (old Ultras data) and perhaps Peakbagger then go ahead. I would be happy to have a look. Urlatherrke (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm starting to think that you have a conflict of interest, you seem to be engaged in promotion. These are not subject matter experts and this is clearly self publishing. If there are no better sources then the information should not be included on wikipedia, these aren't good enough. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your concerns and wholeheartedly agree with your emphasis on the need to have a high bar for reliability - crucial for Wikipedia. And, yes, I am a very keen hiker that takes topographic prominence seriously including accuracy of data, especially as it grows in popularity. However I maintain that those involved in the Ribus (over 15 years), Ultras (over 20 years), Pedantic (Dawson since 1992's Relative Hills of Britain!) and so on are highly reputable and widely-recognised globally - some have been subject matter experts for decades, though this may be alongside other work/careers as is normal. The researchers' work aligns with accepted standards and methodologies in topographic prominence research. To dismiss their work as that of "non-experts" misrepresents decades of meticulous research and huge contributions to the field.
That said, I fully acknowledge that academic or institutional validation can strengthen the perceived reliability of such work. Obviously it’s vital to use the best information available for Wikipedia entries. The data in question is cross-referenced with multiple sources, including all available topographic maps and those cited on platforms like Peaklist and Peakbagger. The resulting lists are the product of rigorous analysis, including high-resolution DEMs and field surveys where applicable. While some publications originate from smaller presses, this does not diminish their reliability. Small, specialized presses often publish work by subject-matter experts, particularly in niche fields like prominence and elevation.
The work done by this "cast of characters" has been foundational in shaping the global understanding of topographic prominence for decades. It deserves to be treated with the respect it has earned through accuracy, consistency and recognition by relevant communities. Urlatherrke (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
They can not be subject matter experts as wikipedia understands them without academic or institutional validation. That is not a small press, it is a self publishing outlet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
If academic or institutional validation is the sole criterion for being regarded as a subject matter expert on Wikipedia, this would cast doubt on much of the information across the whole platform. This is why I think your interpretation of the 'subject matter expert' rules may need recosindering in this instance. A significant portion of Wikipedia’s content is based on sources that do not come with formal academic or institutional backing but are nonetheless widely regarded as reliable and authoritative in their fields. This is especially true in niche or specialized areas like topographic prominence, where much of the pioneering work is conducted outside traditional academic institutions. Urlatherrke (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
It's self-published. Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The main author for the Ribus book is not the publisher so it is not possible for it to be self-publishing. The Ultras list was made by two researchers as far as I am aware, available on the Peaklist site, which like many sites could be called self-published, due to the inherent nature of most websites, though they are experts and this is already widely-acknowledged throughout the international hiking community, academia, and across Wikipedia. And has been for many years, so you are suggesting a significant change of policy. Additionally their work has been published and referenced by many other sources. It is not just one person publishing his own work independently in a vacuum with no editorial policy or guidelines. It's a community of experts whose research feeds into each others in the way that almost all modern scientific endeavour does. Also interesting to note that if self-published sources are to be categorically excluded, the broader implications for Wikipedia’s content are immense. That's because much of the content used as source material across every field of human knowledge involves, at some level, self-publishing in the form of websites / blogs. The issue is whether or not they are established experts and in this case, in this field, they are the leading experts. Urlatherrke (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
If any of the authors is also the publisher then its self published. Objectively its not a community of experts, its a walled garden of hobbyists. These are amateurs, not scientists or academics. Note that we do not categorically exclude self published sources, we allow them to be used for ABOUTSELF and if written by experts (defined very narrowly) to be used more widely. See WP:SPS for more. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Genealogy Sources

Can someone please tell me if it is not OK to use a reference that is dated say from 1850 - 1950 for a reference in a record to support what is presented in the Wikipedia Article. Is there a rule that does not allow someone to add Marriage and Prodigy section and add their children and who they married, and it is sourced. Pipera (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Genealogy sites aren't usually RS. The problem is that there is a lot left to interpretation of who the individual in question is, and who is editing the site.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that Pipera is mentioning a geneology website. I think they are talking about referencing secondary or primary sources from 1850-1950. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

audaud.com

I found this website [17] being used to support a musical genre on the Nightswimming article. My issue with the site is that there are no authors cited for virtually any of the articles I can find on it. Additionally, their staff page ([18]) includes several people whose apparent expertise is listening to a lot of music -- which typically does not portend experience in the world of music journalism. I will ask this question, however; is this site a reliable source, even for minor claims such as those on the article I noted above (i.e., "Nightswimming" being a baroque rock song)? JeffSpaceman (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

They put the author at the end of the review (for instance, the "Nightswimming" review you gave above credits Robbie Gerson). I checked several other reviews, and they all do this. In terms of the author credentials, yes, some have little or no experience, but others have some really strong credentials (university faculty, relevant degrees, and/or have written for other, established RS publications). If this was the only concern, I would say use the authors selectively, similar to the consensus for About.com critics. My bigger concern is that I can't even find a page or section denoting who runs the site, let alone any description of an editorial process or staff. I also checked for use by others - the first pages of results is mostly news from the artist and record label pages themselves, or from universities associated with the artist. But, I can't rule out use by others that got buried or are offline. My assessment would be, treat the reviews by authors who have significant credentials as self-published experts. In the case of Robbie Gerson, I see no journalistic or academic credentials given in the bio, or on Gerson's LinkedIn page. Thus, I would say that Gerson is, at best, not the best source, and certainly not a significant opinion on the style of the song, even if it's uncontroversial.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Indie Vision Music

Indie Vision Music has been used as a reliable source for Christian music articles since at least 2013 (that's the furthest back I can trace its usage, and it's a revision by me when several editors including myself were overhauling WP:CM/S. We were double-checking each other's work, and discussed many of the sources, but we didn't feel the need to exhaustively discuss every source.)EDIT: see this talk discussion --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC) At the time, Indie Vision Music had a Wikipedia article, which then was later deleted - something I supported, but in that discussion I mentioned that I deemed it reliable, just not notable. For a lot of Christian music, it is an invaluable source as often, especially in the indie and metal genres. There's scant coverage in more generalist publications outside of the CCM/Christian rock/Christian metal niche, so it's often one of 3 or 4 sources in which one can find accessible coverage. Graywalls asked me to bring this here because they are unsure of the reliability of the site. It certainly has a reputation for reliability, as it is referenced/utilized by reliable sources such as Cross Rhythms (this - 2015, this - 2018, and this - 2018 as examples; this from 2016 is about the record label operated by the media outlet, but it explicitly calls the site "well regarded"), The Phantom Tollbooth - 2005, Manteca Bulletin (here, 2010), Arrow Lords of Metal - 2022, referencing a 2013 interview article and HM (here in 2013, here in 2013, here in 2022). I've excluded reprints of press releases for these examples. Cross Rhythms and HM are among the most reputable and well-known sources for Christian music, the latter being the prime journalism outlet regarding Christian hard rock and metal music.

The site founder, Brandon Jones, and another writer, Lloyd Harp, both also write for HM as well (Jones since 2017 and Harp since at least 2009 2007) and thus have credentials outside IVM. There are multiple writers for the site besides those two individuals, which I believe satisfies the having a writing and editorial staff. The concern from Graywalls is, I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) the professionalism of the team and if the site owner practices actual editorial oversight over his writers (to quote them, "If you and I were both auto enthusiasts who track race together and we buddy up with you being the writer and me being the editor, that's not sufficient to make our web zine as a WP:RS with editorial oversight "). Though there are multiple staff writers, especially over the past two decades, Brandon lists himself for contact and doesn't list the writers. So I can understand part of the concern. I will note that there is one writer who is also a member of several bands (they might also be a Wikipedia editor and thus at this juncture I won't name them so they're not outed - it was actually that COI that prompted Graywalls to bring up the issue of if IVM is reliable), and thus of course would be unreliable for coverage of those bands, same as Doug Van Pelt, the founder of HM, is unreliable for coverage of Lust Control (because he's a member of it), except for as statements from the band themselves. Given the above reputation, I don't personally see warrant for this suspicion. IVM functions the same as other online metal sources deemed RS, such as No Clean Singing (which is predominantly a team of three) and MetalSucks. The blog format is how most of these sites function now, including HM. Indeed, Brandon Jones mentions in his site bio that the site wasn't always a blog format and they adopted that structure for the site because that was what became practical in the mid-2000s. The site also operated/s a record label, but that I'm considering separate issue as that doesn't establish reliability. I'd also stress that any artist published via the Indie Vision Label would thus present a COI with IVM news/review coverage of that artist and should not be used other than for statements about the artist themselves.

The TL;DR - Indie Vision Music has been used on Wikipedia for over a decade, has multiple writers under a site owner, has been used by other, more mainstream sources as a source, even called by one of them "well regarded", and both the owner and another writer write for a magazine that is a prime source for the subject niche. However, another writer has a COI with some artists, the website operated/s a music label which could have some COI issues with specific artists, and an editor has questioned, due to the one COI issue and the blog structure of the site, whether actual editorial oversight is practiced.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The real question comes to is the editorial process compared to that of the Time Magazine, or is it more along that of two well known and popular, but generally unusable Forbes Contributors and Huffington Post contributors sources?
Many of the writers in IVM articles are band members, rather than professionally trained journalists.
Things to be addressed here are:
What sort of things can it be relied on for factual accuracy?
Is it of any use at all for establishing notability and if so, for what?
3family6 said it's reliable because it's in the Christian Metal list, but they did acknowledge they are more or less the lone curator of that list, so that list should perhaps be seen similarly as a blog or a personal website. Graywalls (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
to clarify, currently I'm essentially the sole contributor, that was not the case 10 years ago when the list was created. And I last found the discussion, see below
This is what the site's staff page looked like when it was added to WP:CM/S. I'm pinging editors who were either involved in the discussion of adding the sources (which included IVM) or who have otherwise been - or are now active 11 years later - in WikiProject Christian music (and who are still active - sadly, a couple accounts got banned for socking unrelated to this issue): TenPoundHammer, Toa Nidhiki05, Royalbroil, TARDIS, The Cross Bearer. I'm also going to reach out to Brandon Jones about the editorial policy (without mentioning this discussion), and see what he says.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
@3family6:, The RS/N specializes in evaluating sources. I don't know why you've pinged five users you hand picked. It's kind of WP:CANVASSish in a recruiting kind of way especially when you hold one particular position on the matter on hand. Graywalls (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I already explained why I pinged these editors. Most of them were involved with curating the sources list, which included IVM. I don't know what their opinions on this issue are. It's not Canvassing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
@3family6:, Going off a bit on a tangent, but it seems to me sockpuppetry seems rather prevalent among music focused editors. Sometimes, it's necessary to go back and discount inputs from sock form consensus. Graywalls (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
This is in a large part precisely WHY I tagged editors who were involved in that discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Pinging Invisiboy42293, Booyahhayoob, and TrulyShruti as they are also currently active and are part of the Christian music WikiProject. I also will post a notice of this discussion there so other active editors I have missed might still be notified.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Selecting people enthusiastic, probably part of a somewhat cohesive group who share common views may foster more groupthink. Graywalls (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
People in the subject area are informed. Per WP:CANVASS "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." It's ridiculous to say that people who are interested in the topic and edit it should be precluded from important discussions about what constitutes reliable sources regarding that subject. Especially given the import that the outcome has, one way or the other.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I believe it's like notifying hand picked known railfanning people from WikiProject Trains and asking whether certain railfanning websites are reliable and expert sources. You chose an area of your enthusiasm and you handpicked a set of people from (relatively niche) Wikiproject group, as opposed to general music. I'm not surprised the responses so far have been from people you have hand notified, and of predictable input. Graywalls (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I also posted in WikiProject Albums, I'll ping some editors from there in a day or two if they haven't responded. The niche is why I notified editors from that project, as they're familiar with the sources. I'll post a notice to the general music WikiProject as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
and I posted to Projects Journalism, and Magazines. Graywalls (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah, I was trying to think of relevant projects, especially since this hasn't gotten any eyes apart from the users I tagged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I also notified WikiProject Albums.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the caveats 3family6 provided here are broadly acceptable. Obviously a subject isn't reliable when discussing itself or connected topics, but HM and IVM broadly are excellent source - HM in particular, which is without a doubt an absolutely indispensable resource for Christian rock and metal. So I think, with those specific caveats, it's an acceptable resource. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Responding to 3family6's ping: Truthfully I haven't been active on Christian music Wikipedia in quite some time (personal reasons plus my interests drifted elsewhere). That said, I am familiar with Indie Vision Music, both as an editor and just casually, and in my experience they're pretty solidly journalistic when it comes to Christian music. I don't know of any reason not to use them as a source in this field. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Pinging these editors from a related discussion to see what they think: Saqib, Axad12. The COI editing from User:Metalworker14 included this source (IVM), as well as HM. The latter has no association with the issue, whereas one former IVM author, who hasn't written for the site since 2017, since 2018 has a COI with some bands and their work was used by the paid editing for Metalworker14. Does this taint the entire source, or would the source be unreliable even if this specific issue hadn't occurred?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • This looks like any other dime-a-dozen unreliable music site, self-published by amateurs with no apparent training or background in music criticism, no editorial policies, and only known by other niche or local outlets. I see no reason why we'd give their viewpoints any weight, either for reviews or for consideration of notability. I'll also note that I wasn't canvassed here. Woodroar (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Lloyd Harp has a decade of experience or so at HM it seems to have come on to IVM more recently. Regarding the other authors I don't know of previous work. Brandon Jones founded IVM and only more recently has joined HM.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
@3family6:, you've mentioned sharing of writers as an indicator of reliability, but I am not sure if that's true. Writers don't write whatever they want and they are expected to write certain things to the publication's standards.
Although it says to evaluate case-by-case, we're generally discouraged from using contributor articles on Forbes. Such freelance writer sharing isn't uncommon but doesn't turn the source into reliable category. One example article https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrolli/2019/10/17/metallica-scores-biggest-global-rock-event-cinema-release-with-sm/ their profile says I am a music and entertainment reporter who specializes in pop, hip-hop and heavy metal. I cover numerous festivals, interview local and national touring musicians, and examine how artists' personal brands and social media antics affect their art and their earnings. My work has appeared in Billboard, Paste, Consequence of Sound, Noisey and the Daily Dot but just because that person wrote it doesn't mean it can be treated as an equivalent of a Billboard or Daily Dot article.
Another source, such as HubPages and their now defunct sister projects like Delishably and ReelRundown did have editorial oversight and editorial policy but with specific purposes and they're rated based on AI evaluation, moderator reviews and "search traffic" over a long term. Those are MONETIZED articles and the purpose is to drive traffic so that hosting service can maximize ad revenue. The simple presence of editorial oversight doesn't make it reliable. So, what remains to be determined is the editorial process of IVM. Is it more like Forbes contributors, Hub Pages and like or comparable to Billboard, Consequence of Sound or National Geograpics? Graywalls (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Please read the context, Graywalls. I was responding to this statement self-published by amateurs with no apparent training or background in music criticism,. For one of the writers, this is not true, as he has an extensive background with a reputable magazine. You already brought up your point about Forbes contributors, you don't need to do so again.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I was providing an actual piece written by someone with respectable experience so there's a specific example. It's not just a simply rephrased version of the same thing I said which appears to be what you may have been implying. Graywalls (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
That is a fair point, I appreciate that these are much more fleshed out example. But that's not the point of this particular part of the discussion. What was in discussion here is the professionalism of the writing staff, particularly prior experience. And it's a mixed bag. To your point, yes, just because they're a professional writer doesn't mean that they aren't essentially self-published in some cases. Still, the professionalism of the writers is a useful tool for determining reliability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • My feeling is that the recent discussion at COIN (here [19]), which ultimately resulted in Metalworker14 being blocked as a primarily promo account, indicates the problems that can be encountered in small scenes (whether they be music scenes or other relatively small groups of enthusiasts).
    When a user who has a range of potential COIs starts to edit Wikipedia under a pseudonym, evidently the undisclosed nature of what they are doing will create issues. However, whether that necessarily casts a cloud over their work off-wiki is a different question.
    My feeling is that material created within small scenes is primarily for the benefit of fans - who are probably aware of the possibility of some form of COI existing (whether that be direct financial COI or individuals reviewing the work of their friends, etc.). Fans are, I'd suggest, untroubled by such issues and are grateful for the fact that dedicated coverage exists at all, created by individuals who are also enthusiasts. Whether the material is of a nature that an encyclopaedia ought to be depending on, however, I am inclined to doubt.
    Really we are probably in the realms of fanzines, i.e. where editors are likely grateful that material has been submitted at all and significant editorial oversight is potentially lacking. Axad12 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I was asked to comment here rather than at the notice at RS/N, and this extensive discussion has suggested my priors on this issue are still the case: this is a standard mid-level independent source on a specialized musical topic, and 3family6's comments indicate that its writers have the level of musical expertise and training that any other music rag would have. They are not investigative journalists, but rather critics evaluating based on a background in an understanding of musical style and history - which is what you get from most staff who write for e.g. Pitchfork, Allmusic, Popmatters, or Dusted. I don't think the use of the source by one troublesome editor casts doubt on the source generally, and I'm inclined to buy the argument that the writers IVM carries that also write for HM has some weight (since HM is reliable). We'd want to exercise COI caution for any artist directly associated with Indie Vision's label or a musical release from a staff member, but that's not a cause for general concern about the source. Chubbles (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I meant to post this here, not the WP Music, but posted there by mistake. Looking at https://www.indievisionmusic.com/author/brandon-j/ it sure seems like a self published source. My personal take on it is that it can't be used to support notability. These small time bands are not competing against each other but rather supporting each other. The blogosphere of these band blogs is an echo chamber of like minded bands boosting and praising each other publicly to collectively raise themselves. It's like friends and family writing references for each other. If they offer correction notices, it's better than not doing that, but people do that even on Wikipedia pages with strike out. It's not a one man show, but still a blog. Editorial process that only consists of fixing grammar/spelling and suppressing contents of liability concerns prior to publishing isn't really much of editorial oversight. Graywalls (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
First, let me address the part about "like-minded bands": Indie Vision Music isn't a band, it's a website, and for awhile was also a record label. So far, it's been shown that one author was in some bands. Authors are allowed to also be musicians, there's nothing wrong with that. And that writer has not written for the site since 2017. "boosting and praising each other publicly to collectively raise themselves." - that's not correct, as the site will give out negative reviews (this one, for example). "Editorial process that only consists of fixing grammar/spelling and suppressing contents of liability concerns prior to publishing isn't really much of editorial oversight." What are you referring to here? Hypotheticals aren't useful. Please substantiate them. The correction examples I found and listed above are more than that. Does the review process involve more than that? Maybe yes, maybe no. You are speculating here that they don't actually fact-check. This could be a group blog, which, yes, is an example of a self-published source. Or, this could be a site with an editorial process. We know it has a reputation and is used by others. The question is about the editorial process, since that isn't public knowledge.
Now, as to Brandon Jones and self-published sources, Brandon Jones is the publisher but also writes for the site. Other writers for the site, it's not an issue - they're the writers, he's the publisher, so they aren't self-published. But, are articles by Brandon Jones self-published? I think I asked about cases where a publication owner and publisher writes material for that publication years ago, I think in reference to Doug Van Pelt of HM or John DiBiase of Jesus Freak Hideout. I couldn't find that discussion, and so I brought this to the WP:V talk page. As I asked there, Like, for example, if Ian Danzig writes an article for Exclaim! (which he owns and publishes), or HM's founder and publisher Doug Van Pelt or Jesus Freak Hideout's owner and publisher John DiBiase write articles for their respective websites, or A. G. Sulzberger writes a story for The New York Times, are those articles self-published sources only or are they considered reliable, independent published sources? And basically, it depends. There's actually two current, very active discussions on basically this and more broadly related questions about orgs where the publishing process is internal to the organization (as opposed to an external entity, for example, Blabbermouth.net being hosted by Roadrunner Records). And there doesn't seem to be a consensus. I think a lot of it depends on the editorial process. On that point, with Indie Vision Music, I think there's two distinct eras to that site on this issue. From 2006 to 2020, the site had a managing editor, Josh Murphy. That adds a layer of editorial process, both for the site and for Brandon Jones. But, conversely, how much is that editorial control independent when it comes to Brandon's writings, as Brandon will be the one publishing them? That still seems to be a pretty close relation. I don't know if there's an answer here. I think that having a managing editor does indicate an actual editorial process from 2006 to 2020 at least. I still haven't heard back yet what the policy is at present. I don't know if I will get a response (which I don't think proves things one way or the other, it just leaves that question unanswered). I'm wondering if perhaps Brandon's writings from 2017 onward (that year being the year he was hired by HM) are self-published material from a reliable expert in the field, whereas the other writers are not self-published.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
From what I've seen, RSN discussions tend to find that anything written by the site runner would be considered self-published. For example, see the WP:RSP entry for Quackwatch. The editor, Stephen Barrett, is an expert on quackery but because he basically runs the site, we often can't use his pieces per WP:BLPSPS. That's not a problem with other authors at the site, because their work would proceed through the normal editorial process (i.e., Barrett). Woodroar (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Okay, that's what I was thinking. Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Evaluating the presence/absence of editors is easy enough, but evaluating their effectiveness and reliability is the tricky one. They could just be a website with contributors and editors from various bands each given various titles. As another editor mentioned, we have to differentiate professional editors vs a group of volunteer band members with no formal training in journalism running a glorified blog. Graywalls (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
On that metric, then, Indie Vision Music is reliable. Volunteer professional staff is expressly allowed. The site publisher has been operating the site since 2000, and since 2017 is a professional writer for HM. A current writer has written for HM since 2009. The only band member I'm aware of is one, now former writer. And band members are allowed to also write music journalism, there's no wiki-guideline prohobiting this. So, how do we evaluate the effectiveness of the source? This is where WP:USEBYOTHERS comes into play - we can check if it has a good reputation. And, as I demonstrated above, the copy of IVM is referenced or republished by other established reliable sources, and a reliable source calls IVM "well-regarded".--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
@3family6:, As has contents from NYPOST or the DAILYMAIL, both of which are red in [{WP:RSP]]. So, I wouldn't rely much on USEBYOTHERS. Graywalls (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
If you disagree with WP:V, then hold an RfC at Village pump. This isn't the venue.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
You brought up one point, and I addressed that point. Graywalls (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I brought up that point because WP: USEBYOTHERS is one of the two primary means of determining of a source is reliable (the other being an editorial oversight process). If you disagree with USEBYOTHERS, then by all means bring that up at an RfC.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm disagreeing in your interpretation and application. Graywalls (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of a topic as far as we can determine them. How is my usage contrary to that? I haven't relied solely on USEBYOTHERS. I've argued that this in tandem with editorial oversight is how reliability is determined.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Chubbles, what do you think in light of the question that Graywalls raises here and that I've tried to address. Do you think the site is still reliable, in light of this?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Of course I do, but I'm not the one you need to convince - he is. Chubbles (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I was wondering what your reasoning is here and why this is more than just a group blog.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I think that Graywalls is setting an unnecessarily high bar and making unnecessary presumptions about the nature and motives of music criticism and journalism (here specifically, but also generally). Most music publications would fail under his definition of an independent source - which is precisely his point; I believe he is convinced that the vast majority of popular music coverage on the site isn't worthy of the site, and this is one step in that effort. I'm confident that, say, Pitchfork, Popmatters, Stereogum, or Brooklyn Vegan would also fail his criteria; they are also "group blogs" in exactly the same way he means. If the standard of a reliable source for popular music is the journalistic equivalent of The New York Times, we will have precious little music to write about on Wikipedia. Chubbles (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Here but also generally, Chubbles and I rarely see eye-to-eye on things though but most of our disagreements are over the notability of record labels. I firmly believe they're companies and are not expressly exempt under music related SNG, therefore should be held to NCORP, but they believe record labels articles should be permitted to remain with unnecessarily low bar. Yes absolutely, journalistic equivalent of NYT is expected for record labels, like any other articles subject to NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
This is not about record labels. You are correct that NCORP applies, but that's not relevant here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
3family6, you keep bringing up HM and USEBYOTHERS as if it's a slam dunk case, but I don't think it is. When niche sources share authors with and are cited by similar niche sources, that's not evidence that they're reliable—it simply means that they've created a walled garden. You compared HM to No Clean Singing and MetalSucks above, but No Clean Singing has more than 3x the number of Facebook followers, and MetalSucks has 25x as many. Before this discussion, I'd never heard of Indie Vision Music or HM, and I've been listening to metal for more than 3 decades. (Not to personalize this discussion too much, but after checking your User page, longer than you've been alive!) I'd even consider No Clean Singing to be pretty insignificant as far as sources go. It's also a niche source, but not as niche as "metal but ALSO Christian". Woodroar (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Those might be something that might belong to the same web ring in the pre-Facebook days. Graywalls (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
USEBYOTHERS isn't necessarily a slam dunk. My objection to Graywalls was because I had the impression of them blanket dismissing that usage rather than engaging in the examples given. Yes, DailyMail is used by others, but it also has a mixed reputation and demonstrated consistent issues with bias and inaccuracies. Such a poor reputation hasn't been demonstrated in the case of IVM - that an editor doing undisclosed paid editing also used a source that was deemed accepted prior to them joining Wikipedia doesn't disqualify a source.
Now, as to the sources used, HM was just one of several references - there's also the less niche CCM Magazine and Cross Rhythms, as well as the Manteca Bulletin, and a reference in [Arrow] Lords of Metal (might still be niche, but isn't the Christian metal niche). I find it a bit interesting that the heavy metal reviews/coverage is the majority of the examples I could find, as IVM is more of an indie music site than specifically metal.
Regarding HM, it probably was a lot more significant before I was born and when I was a very small child, when Stryper was still big and a mainstream act. The publication does regularly interview mainstream artists such as Alice Cooper and Trans Siberian Orchestra. Still, yes, Christian metal is niche, apart from the big 2000s metalcore wave, and Christian extreme metal is so niche and online-based (apart from in some Nordic countries) that a recent book noted the fact of its obscurity to scholars. That HM is for a more niche market doesn't make it less reliable, and a 2018 discussion at WikiProject albums agreed that it is reliable as well. My point with NCS (which discussion on this noticeboard concluded was unreliable - I have changed my mind and agreed with that assessment, based on the evidence) and MetalSucks or numerous other RS is that they are structured the same way. I haven't really seen an argument that demonstrates how IVM is unreliable other than it being a more niche source than those. I wouldn't be as liberal as Chubbles, perhaps, in assessing sources, but I don't see why unreliability is being presumed outside of the issue with how the source was used in COI ways on some select articles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
This is a hypothetical example of where USEBYOTHERS justification would be inappropriate. The vlog referenced is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eFIaubn24E That video was a tip that to the story in a WP:RS source Bon Appetit https://www.bonappetit.com/story/best-vodka-taste-test. If we go along with 3family6's idea of application, we'd consider Meagan After Dark YouTube an acceptable source, because some of their content was used by Bob Appetit. I'd say citing IVM directly would be along the line of citing that MAD vlog directly. Graywalls (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Context is important. As the heading on this page says. This discussion should be in the context of particular claims / types of claims that it is supporting and whether it is suitable to support those claim/uses. North8000 (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've realized that this would have helped. The uses of this source are primarily for music journalism - news reporting about bands, music reviews, and retrospectives/music history.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
That's a start. But we should take a look at the structure of this conversation. Graywalls is seemingly arguing for blanket exclusion of this source. My thought is that is unlikely, and in any case, per the heading of this page, this would not be the place for it. The heading of this page says to include the specific article and text which it is supporting. Maybe a good start would be to give a specific example. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I'll give some examples. Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

North8000, these are the ways I've either used it myself or have seen it used:

  1. To verify band membership and releases by bands
  2. Interviews
  3. Album/song reviews and criticism, including supporting factual BLP claims (who is/was in the band or on the album, for example)
  4. Music history (I'm currently working on an article in my sandbox that I've used it for this, such as this and this example.
  5. Hypothetically, it could be used as a primary source for music released on its record label. I haven't encountered that usage on Wikipedia yet, but it might be out there.

With usage No. 1, what I think prompted all this, is Graywalls noticed that Metalworker14 (now banned for UPE) had included articles related to and including Symphony of Heaven, and some other articles, that were written by Mason Beard from Symphony of Heaven and some other bands. Beard was/is working for a promotional company as well. Thus in those cases, citing that author, and possibly IVM in general, is definitely COI, even though Beard hasn't written for IVM since 2017 and didn't join Symphony of Heaven until 2018.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

IMO #1 is fine if the veracity in the info isn't doubted. #2 isn't a use, it a type of source/source content. #3 looks good for uncontroversial factual claims. I don't know enough about the site to comment on #3 regarding reviews/criticism. #4 IMO looks good for uncontroversial factual history. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
#2 I should have been more specific. Use as a source of critical opinion and discussing and categorizing musical style of artists, and of making factual claims about artists and band members.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  1. Critical opinion of some non-professionally trained band member author from some random highly non-notable run of the mill vanity band is severely UNDUE for inclusion in any capacity at all. Graywalls (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I could see, and might endorse, not using that specific author.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still getting the impression that it's just one man webmaster, and contributors deal, so along the line of user submitted moderated blog who makes the host/don't host decision. It says at https://www.indievisionmusic.com/contactus/ they got rid of their PO box. Actually it doesn't even look like they even had a proper office. There's no indication it's more than a label name, a webmaster, and contributors and I see no indication of it being a proper publisher. Graywalls (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The group blog/webmaster-contributors argument could be argued with many of the RS on WP:A/S - do you want to open a discussion about those?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Any consensus reached there is a local consensus and wouldn't override the broader consensus that would form here. Graywalls (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Some of those have had consensus from here. Again, do you want to open up a broader discussion about any websites which do not have an entity as the publisher separate from the site itself?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
There is, coincidentally, actually one such discussion open right now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh yes, I discovered that. I commented in a couple spots, regarding that question.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Graywalls, if you're interested, I asked over at the Grey Literature RfC about this issue of websites published by one or two individuals.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Indie Vision Music

Is Indie Vision Music - Contact/staff - Contact/staff from 2006-2020 a generally reliable source for music-related journalism?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


Indie Vision Music has been used as a reliable source for Christian music articles since this 2013 talk discussion, At the time, Indie Vision Music had a Wikipedia article, which then was later deleted - something I supported, but in that discussion I mentioned that I deemed it reliable, just not notable. Graywalls is unsure of the reliability of the site. It is used by other RS, such as Cross Rhythms (this - 2015, this - 2018, and this - 2018 as examples; this from 2016 is about the record label operated by the media outlet, but it explicitly calls the site "well regarded"), The Phantom Tollbooth - 2005, Manteca Bulletin (here, 2010), Arrow Lords of Metal - 2022, referencing a 2013 interview article and HM (here in 2013, here in 2013, here in 2022). [Edit: also this interview excerpt reprinted in Alternative Press.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)] I've excluded reprints of press releases for these examples. Cross Rhythms and HM are among the most reputable and well-known sources for Christian music, the latter being the prime journalism outlet regarding Christian hard rock and metal music. The site founder, Brandon Jones, and another writer, Lloyd Harp, both also write for HM as well (Jones since 2017 and Harp since at least 2007) and thus have credentials outside IVM. There are multiple writers for the site besides those two individuals. It seems to function similar to other sites deemed RS, such as MetalSucks, Chronicles of Chaos, Metal Injection, Stylus Magazine, and other online-only publications.

The concern from other some editors is that the site operates similar to Forbes contributors and is thus unreliable. Though there are multiple staff writers, especially over the past two decades, Brandon lists himself for contact and doesn't list the writers. There also is a case where one former writer contributed some articles about bands that he was personally involved in or was a member of. Also in the above discussions, there's a concern that the website is very niche and so interested in promoting niches zines that secondary coverage independent from the artists is not a concern.

Additional concern I discovered after posting the above: IVM also had a writer, Eric Pettersson, who started with the publication when he was in high school (he continued regularly for the publication until 2011). I also will note that the current site does not have any of the news articles published prior to October 2016, and reviews and interviews prior to August 2006 were brought over to the new site format and no longer bear the original date stamp.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing 5 8 options, which I've listed below:

  • Option 1: Yes, generally reliable for use as a source of critical opinion and discussing and categorizing musical style of artists, and of making factual claims about artists and band members, as well as interviews. Any coverage of the site regarding artists from its own label, or from authors who are members of or otherwise closely affiliated with the artist they are discussing, are only reliable as primary sources as they otherwise have conflict of interest.
  • Option 1b: Generally reliable as articulated above, except for any coverage from author Mason Beard.
  • Option 1c: Generally reliable as articulated above, but with discretion to exclude authors whose professionalism is questionable (such as Eric Pettersson, at least before 2010; and maybe Mason Beard).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Generally unreliable for any secondary coverage, reliable for interviews (as interview subjects can be sources about themselves).
  • Option 3: Reliable for critical opinion, discussion, and categorizing musical style, but not reliable for any statements of fact about living persons.
  • Option 4: Only coverage by Brandon Jones from 2017 onward, or from Lloyd Harp, is reliable.
  • Option 5: Only reliable after 2006, and with discretion for individual writers.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 5b: Same as option 5, but also generally unreliable for secondary coverage after 2020.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


  • Invalid RfC but, while I'm here, Unreliable for everything. Indie Vision Music is an extremely niche self-published fanzine, with USEBYOTHERS limited to other extremely niche fanzines. The complaint that only 3 or 4 sources in a walled garden cover these subjects is evidence that these sources are in the extreme minority and UNDUE. Meanwhile, the "similar" RS sites mentioned above are orders of magnitude larger and are themselves widely cited by actually reputable sources outside their niche subject. Besides that, the given options for this RfC only appear to include the opinions of editors who were repeatedly canvassed to the above discussion, and largely ignore editors who weren't canvassed. Woodroar (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Almost everything you claim here is untrue. "Unreliable for everything" is an option. If your objection is that I excluded interviews, interviews are considered primary sources and thus the site can't be unreliable for that usage, per guidelines on primary sources. I also specifically mentioned yours and other editors concerns above about it being a niche source that that caters to fans and thus can't be regarded as being factually accurate or good for notability. And lastly, Lords of Metal is a Netherlands based general metal music website completely unrelated to the Christian scene as far as I've been able to tell over the years; Manteca Bulletin is a newspaper of record dating back to 1908, so definitely not a nice Christian music scene source; and Cross Rhythms is a long-standing UK-based publication that also was print-based, deals with the whole gamut of Christian music including artists like Natasha Bedingfield and classical musicians, and the site runners and editors are separate from the overarching company that publishes the site (if that was also a concern). If you think IVM is unreliable, that's fine, but you shouldn't need to then make false statements to justify that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
A newspaper of record is many orders of magnitude larger than anything we're discussing here. The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, those are newspapers of record. These are much smaller, regional publications that are as good as fanzines in that they cover everything that is happening locally, typically in a positive, promotional fashion. That Manteca Bulletin article could easily be a template for any "Local Boy Band Makes Good" story. Interviews at these types of outlets are just as bad. They're like a talk show, asking softball questions, letting the subject promote whatever they want or get out their talking points. We're an encyclopedia. We shouldn't be relying on these kinds of sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
The article lead described it as a newspaper of record, which is why I referred to it as such. However, the description section describes it as a community newspaper, which seems more accurate. However, they definitely are an RS, and even if it's a local paper, your "walled garden" claim of only niche sources referencing IVM is still demonstrably false.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
And this is starting to approach WP:BLUDGEON Graywalls (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
My response to Woodroar?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The way in which approach each time there's dissenting opinion, generally speaking in this discussion. Graywalls (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
If you want to go there, the same could be said regarding yourself. We're both the overwhelming majority of the comment here. Regarding Woodroar's statement above, I could have argued far more, but I opted to let it rest, for the reasons elaborated in that guideline. I actually wasn't aware of that linked guideline, but already was trying to approach this discussion in a similar spirit. To be clear, I've been presuming the RfC as a fresh discussion, as the previous one had stalled (if we want the tally, excluding you and I and people I pinged and/or who came from notices on WikiProjects, it was 1 in favor of how the source is generally used (North8000), and 1 against any usage (Woodroar). If we include people who responded to my notices, it was 3 in favor of general reliability, 1 of which has been at least partly rescinded per discussion in this RfC, and 1 against (Axad12) (so a total of 2 for, 1 against, 1 effectively stricken.). After North8000's and your comments and my replies to those, the discussion stalled for 4 days (and discussions are archived here after 5 days). I was hoping that this RfC would be a fresh start, but it doesn't seem to have been that but just the same three re-hashing the same arguments (apart from the discussion with Toa Nidikhi05 regarding the student writer). I personally am not responding to anything more unless it's comments from someone else or is new information.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Echoing Woodroar here. Graywalls (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Graywalls, you've brought up WP:FORBESCON, which I think is one of the most relevant hypotheticals you've posed. Presuming it is such a situation where the editorial oversight is minimal, Options 2, 3, and 4 are all consistent with that, dependent on what level of expertise we're presuming of the contributors. While Woodroar might not have heard of HM and Doug Van Pelt, the 110,000 print and over 2 million online subscribers to Christianity Today have had multiple opportunities over the years to have heard, and that's just one publication of many which have talked about or referenced HM. There's also academic coverage of that publication. I can provide examples if requested, but a quick Google search should confirm what I've stated here. Given that, why would you still lean to complete exclusion (Option 2) rather than Options 3 or 4?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Both this and going back and seeing archived versions of the site as it was in the mid-2000s, I am questioning that at least at that time if it is a reliable source. I think it's important that this is a year after Murphy joined as an editor. So I'm wondering if, if it's not entirely unreliable, there should be a cutoff of it being unreliable before certain date. or at least that contributor not reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking through his resume, he doesn't seem to have done any other music journalism, and his other journalism all student journalism. So nothing afterwards to suggest he became a more professional writer. He does seem to perhaps be a subject expert as a tour guide for Reading, Pennsylvania, but that's a completely different subject area.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05, do you have a recommendation that you would suggest regarding the reliability of this source? 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I've added more options, and updated the statement to reflect what I subsequently found regarding the student staff writer.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the ways that this source is used typically used is for news about artists and album reviews, both of which also are presumed to contribute to an artist's notability. I'm also using it for an article I'm building in my sandbox (about Christian death metal) to discuss the history and stylistic evolutions of some bands as that relates to Christian death metal. Specifically, these articles: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not about a certain questionable author, but rather they seem to casually allow run of the mill people to write for them making them more or less similar to Forbes Contributor articles. Still not having their editorial policy is a red flag. So, my take on this is that it's a freaking blog with no bearing on raising notability score of others. Graywalls (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Concern about them letting run of the mill people write for them is concern about a questionable author, or authors, in this case. I think you need to reread FORBESCON. The issue with Forbes contributors is not the writers, it's the editorial policies. Forbes contributors *can* potentially be reliable as expert self-published sources, provided they are not being used to make BLP statements. So by that standard, Lloyd Harp would be fine to use, and arguably Brandon Jones since 2017. There's a reason I provide that as an option: because I was taking your Forbes contributors comparison seriously. But there's two concerns: The quality of the writers, which I agree varies, and the editorial policies. We don't know that there isn't a lack of editorial policy. But we haven't been able to confirm that there is. I've never received an email back. Either way it's a bit of speculation. You are convinced that they don't have one, but we can't say that for sure, especially since prior to 2020 they had a head editor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Another potential comparable situation to how IVM functions is WP:NEWSBLOG. This was the consensus for About.com music contributors - reliability is contingent on their professional experience, and a table was created for ease of tabulating which writers are professional and which are not. IVM isn't necessarily comparable to this situation, but it might be, and I think that's another relevant consensus.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
And you haven't been able to produce published editorial policy for IVM. Graywalls (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I literally just said this above that I haven't heard back. Which means it could exist, or might not. that they had an editor suggest that there was some type of process. What's at issue here is whether it's robust or not. Could you explain more of what you mean by "published editorial policy"?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Example: https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html Graywalls (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, that's what I thought. I wish there was such a public statement. And that would probably have made both this and the previous discussion unnecessary.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done)

So, my take on this is that it's still a glorified blog/webzine, or a subpar magazine. "Used for over a decade" may not have substantial meaning. RSP red sites like IMDb, Discogs, Find a Grave, FamilySearch have been used for a long time too and even though they shouldn't be used and as you've probably noticed, some highly unreliable junk sources persisted in metal articles too. Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Seems usable, need some CONTEXT. I will go with no change to it being open for usage as RS, as it is available enough and there doesn't seem to be any reason or need to give it a categorical rating. I’d tend to evaluate any cite depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without context can be really valid. In this case I just don't even see a specific source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports that is causing concern. So I don't see a wider concern or need for wider evaluation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Al-Manar

This has been open for six weeks and there's been only one !vote in the last six days.

By straight head-counting, first order preferences are: Generally Reliable (1), Additional Considerations (8), Generally Unreliable (11), Deprecate (5).

Some Option 2 !voters opined that it is generally reliable but should be treated with caution (or not used at all) when reporting about contentious topics or anything related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Some Option 3 !voters stated it would be fine to use for WP:ABOUTSELF (including reporting official statements of Hezbollah), while Bobfrombrockley (who !voted Option 3) said it "might be usable for some uncontroversial facts" such as sports reporting, which at least four of the 11 Option 3 !voters agreed with to such an extent that they merely offered WP:VAGUEWAVEs toward BobFromBrockley's comment without offering any comments of their own. Finally, our generally agreed description of Option 3 includes a carveout for ABOUTSELF, of which I took note.

All of the above, seems to indicate that:

  • There is no consensus that is is generally reliable,
  • There is no consensus that it should be deprecated,
  • There is a consensus it should not be used for contentious topics or anything related to the Arab–Israeli conflict,
  • There is a consensus it can be used for WP:ABOUTSELF, which includes official statements of Hezbollah,
  • There is neither a consensus for nor a consensus against its use for uncontroversial topics, such as sports or lifestyle coverage
If assigning it a numerical value it's probably somewhere between Option 2 and Option 3. Keeping in mind how these decisions are usually applied in practice, I'd therefore say this ended up at Option 3, albeit with a very liberal understanding that takes note of the above areas of continued non-agreement; or, Option 2, but with an extremely strict understanding of the limits of its usability. If this is added to WP:RSP, these should be reflected in the narrative. (Indeed, if added to RSP, there may need to be a further discussion over there about whether this should be represented in the table as 2 or 3.) Chetsford (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

What is the reliability of Al-Manar?

- Amigao (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion, per WP:RFCBEFORE. The Kip (contribs) 03:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

LinkSearch results Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Al-Manar)

  • Option 3, per comments from Amigao, Alaexis, and BobFromBrockley in the prior thread. It seems to be a comparable propaganda/disinfo outlet to Al Mayadeen, which we deprecated several months ago, but with a handful of instances (i.e. the soccer player info brought up by Chess, or WP:ABOUTSELF reasons) where it may be somewhat appropriate to use. The Kip (contribs) 03:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    If and only if this ends up option 2, which would be problematic in itself, the RSP entry should make a clear distinction between justified usage (ex. non-controversial events in Lebanese life and society) and problematic usage (ex. conflicts that Hezbollah is a direct party to (Arab-Israeli, Syrian civil war), etc). That should be the absolute baseline, considering newer precedents set with the Jewish Chronicle and other sources that have some valid uses but are systemically unreliable with regards to the conflict. The Kip (contribs) 19:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Many of the comments from Amigao, Alaexis, and BobFromBrockley in the prior thread have been rebutted as misrepresenting Al-Manar. I encourage users to click through the links and see for themselves.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Having clicked through the links, I continue to endorse my position and disagree with the rebuttals' rationale. The Kip (contribs) 19:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Would also like to emphasize the verbatim re-reporting of articles from RT and TASS, both GUNREL/deprecated sources, that's been pointed out below. The Kip (contribs) 19:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per The Kip. ~ HAL333 05:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2. I'd pick 3 for pretty much anything relating to conflicts in the Middle East or other contentious issues. But things happen in Lebanon other than war. Al-Manar's Arabic section has a decent amount of information on uncontroversial aspects of Lebanese society. I would like to see more evidence about how Al-Manar is used to support false claims onwiki before a full GUNREL !vote. Right now, GUNREL means blanket removal for a lot of people. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Option 4 - it's very blatant propaganda. The English content is also just quite sloppy and amateurish. Just glancing at a few front page articles,
  • [31] the Hitler of our time, Benjamin Netanyahu
  • [32] the Zionist invaders are incapable of facing men of God directly (in their own voice, not marked as opinion or anything)
  • [33] Israeli police will question Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief of staff over blackmailing of an Israeli occupation officer - implies wrongdoing (maybe unintentional from a bad translation?), never mentioning that this was ruled out by a police investigation
  • Regularly accuses "Zionist media" of lies with no details, e.g. this vague accusation of a "fabricated report" by Maariv.
There's just a complete lack of professionalism; RT is better in many ways. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
[75] no comment (I don't want to violate BLP).
[76] nothing wrong with an opinion that is shared by hundreds of millions. Yes, in their own voice (it's not Wikipedia).
[77] the usual news reporting (nothing wrong with that either).
Regularly accuses "Zionist media" of lies So? it's not like the Zionists don't have a very long history of lying. M.Bitton (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Such statements of fact in their own voice demonstrate zero regard for journalistic objectivity.
  • Reliable sources will not imply wrongdoing based on allegations (again it might be a sloppy translation, but either is bad), and will correct false accusations when someone is cleared by an investigation.
  • "the Zionists" is not an entity; Maariv is an entity and a fairly reputable newspaper. But the point is that reliable sources will offer some kind of substantiation when making serious accusations. Here it's not even clear what exactly they're claiming is fabrication.
— xDanielx T/C\R 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
They don't need to be pretend to be objective when describing those who are exterminating their people (with the help of those who pretend to be neutral).
So called reliable sources such as the NYT, literally fabricated a story to help Israel. By you standard, we should deprecate NYT. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
@XDanielx, The Times of Israel frequently calls Hamas members as "terrorists"[34], a subjective term, so I'm not sure why its unprofessional for Al-Manar to refer to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as "Zionist invaders"? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I was more getting at incapable of facing men of God directly. Professional news orgs will have at least some modicum of journalistic objectivity and would never write such things in their own voice. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Chess. Obviously should not be used anywhere near I/P, but may be marginally reliable for things in Lebanon outside of that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3. I believe they are generally unreliable, due to multiple examples of disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories. Comparable sources might be as The Cradle, al-Mayadeen and IRNA, all of which I believe are designated gunrel. Option 2 might be worth considering, if phrased stringently, as the source might be usable for some uncontroversial facts about e.g. Lebanese sport or the statements of Hezbollah and Hezbollah-aligned politicians, but presumably (a) those could be sourced from better places (Lebanon has some decent free press) and (b) might be permissable uses of an unreliable source anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Chess. I don't see anything that would justify option 3 (if the word "generally" has changed meaning recently, then we need discuss the so called "reliable sources" that have been caught misrepresenting the events, or worse, fabricated stories, such as the NYT). M.Bitton (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I want to point out that, with the exception of Al-Jazeera, pretty much every source listed at WP:RSP from the Arab world and Muslim world is listed as GUNREL or MREL. We really need to check our WP:Systematic bias.VR (Please ping on reply) 18:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    I believe there is more to it than systematic bias. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    The nature of RSPN means we're much more likely to discuss crap sources than good ones. And given many if not most governments in the Arab/Muslim world are not fond of freedom of the press, it should be no surprise that most entries here lean on the unreliable side. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Is that right? Mada Masr? Lebanon Daily Star? L'Orient-Le Jour? The New Arab/Al-Araby Al-Jadeed? The National (Abu Dhabi)? Asharq al-Awsat? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    None of those are on RSP, which is what VR said. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    I think this is a point against systematic bias against A/M reliable sources. RSP is a bunch of planes with holes in them, some of which made it out to be considered reliable for another day. If A/M sources were being regularly, unfairly challenged, there would be more green entries. Safrolic (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree in that I think it says something that every time we have brought a non-Israeli middle eastern source to RSP it has been declared MREL or GUNREL, except Al Jazeera, which had an extremely large contingent of editors wanting to declare them GUNREL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    Sorry I misread. My point is several Arab sources which are heavily used on Wikipedia have not been designated unreliable, undermining the argument for systematic bias. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    These all appear to be Western-aligned and/or liberal newspapers, some with serious financial COIs. I do agree that it's a bit imprecise to say Wikipedia's systemic bias is against Arab/Muslim sources as a whole, but the fact that many of the Arab/Muslim sources considered reliable are funded by and/or supportive of Western aligned MENA oil and real estate interests is illustrative of exactly the systemic bias problem that @Vice regent points out. The systematic downgrading of sources critical of Western and Western-aligned perspectives makes Wikipedia more biased and unreliable, and less legitimate to a non-Western audience. Even if the camp of pro-Western sources is broadly more reliable than Russian or Chinese or Iran-aligned sources, excluding the reporting and viewpoint of those sources extensively makes Wikipedia blind when pro-Western sources lie or make an error, which they often do because all media does. Unbandito (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    Media in the Arab and Muslim world has a systemic bias. It really shouldn’t be surprising that media in countries with poor freedom of press often governed by autocrats is disproportionately represented among sources considered unreliable. A deluge of bad sources from a region of the world is not reason to relax our standards when assessing sources from the region. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per above. Despite people throwing links in the section below it hard to find evidence of systematic disinformation in the past 20 years. Reporting that Putin said X (in quotes) doesn't constitute disinformation. Being biased against certain Lebanese politicians (most RS have a certain partisan bias) doesn't make it unreliable. VR (Please ping on reply) 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per BobFromBrockley pretty much word-for-word. That is, some form of option 2 could be viable if very stringent, but the list of topics for which this source is generally unreliable would probably be too long to be manageable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Idk what number it would be, but I would only use it for something internal Lebanese and non-controversial or for attributed views to Hezbollah's media outlet. Either 2 or 3, whichever fits that statement best. nableezy - 23:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 based on the comments from BobFromBrockley and Amigao. There appear to be many instances of sharing disinformation, including from clearly unreliable sources like RT. Plus the fact that it is banned in many countries. Alenoach (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    Al-Jazeera is also banned in many countries. Politicians shouldn't get to decide what is or is not reliable.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Bobfromblockley Andre🚐 00:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4 I don't see how this is better than Al Mayadeen or RT. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2, where the "additional considerations" include not presenting its assertions related to the conflict as factual in wikivoice. Zerotalk 04:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2-3 based on Chess and others. Should not be used around I/P topic area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 (4 for I/P and Jews only) based on the arguments presented, specifically regarding the spread of misinformation/disinformation and hateful conspiracy theories. I think some use as aboutself/for national politics per Chess and co may be a reasonable exception. Use in regards to Israel and Jews (very broadly construed) should be completely avoided. FortunateSons (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3, per above. --NAADAAN (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per BobFromBrockley. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for non-controversial issues such as Lebanese football or basic, uncontested details about the news, as well as attributed statements from organizations that align with its bias such as Hezbollah or the IRGC. Option 2 for more controversial subjects, statements by organizations that tilt against its bias, or anything disputed by other sources. In my reading of the discussion section, editors have given evidence that Al-Manar is biased and at times prone to questionable editorial decisions, but I have not seen evidence of systemic unreliability, much less evidence of a detrimental impact of such unreliability on-wiki. Special considerations bordering on Option 3 should be given to any extraordinary claims, and republished content from other sources should be cited at the original source rather than at Al-Manar unless the original source is paywalled or otherwise inaccessible. Unbandito (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4, deprecate per M.bitton comments. Highly unreliable, beyond unreliable though as it is a deliberate and intentional arm of propaganda. That is the classic case of where deprecation is appropriate. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Per Chess. GrabUp - Talk 19:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 to 4 This is clearly a worse-than-average source with a history of misattributed claims, occluding untrustworthy information sources and generally bad journalistic practice. Is it pervasive enough to deprecate? I don't know. Maybe it's fine for Lebanese football news as mentioned elsewhere. But for any contentious topic we absolutely should not be using this source. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 no evidence of unreliability seems to have been demonstrated. I don't care what it is comparable to, I'd like to see evidence of unreliability. You don't need an RfC to tell that you shouldn't be citing this for Middle East conflicts. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    Traumnovelle, can I clarify if I understand: you think additional conditions should apply (option 2), and the specific additional conditions in this case is not to cite it for topics to do with Middle East conflicts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is really just common sense. If what this source states about a Middle East conflict is truthful and due it almost certainly will be reported elsewhere. I apply the same standard to sources such as the Time of Israel too. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4. This station is literally the progenitor of the "Jews did 9/11" hoax. Per its own website, its goal at the time was to conduct effective psychological warfare against the Zionist enemy—so, yes, this group does intentionally lie in order to try to influence geopolitics. We don't need to close our eyes and pretend that this is somehow different than how the Russian state uses Russia Today. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's more than 23 years ago, also it says that came from their television, not one of their articles. I mean, we don't usually come across a Wikipedia article that sources from any TV archives; it's rare if it happens. I don't see any of Al-Manar's current articles that directly make such a claim, although a hard archive search might find one.
    As for the quote "effective psychological warfare against the Zionist enemy", Al-Manar's website is a little hard to traverse, but I did look all over the website as much as I could, and I didn't see a single page with that quote in it. It might be that an archived page from Al-Manar (from way more than 20 years ago) has something like this, but even archive searches from archive.org don't give true results:
    According to I.B Tauris "Women and media in the Middle East : power through self-expression", Al-Manar was created ... "in order for the Hezbollah to convey a message of ‘love and tolerance ... of values, morals and goals ... to live in peace, support the oppressed", it also says "It conveyed a strongly moral message aimed at eradicating ‘instincts’ pro¬ voked by other Lebanese television channels, where women are objectified and represented as ‘belly-dancers and prostitutes’."
    I highly doubt the notion of "Psychological warfare" is present anywhere in Al-Manar right now, and the Guardian article is probably long-time outdated. Viral weirdo (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    You appear to be correct that it was removed at some point, though other sources do confirm that it was once there. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 3 for anything remotely controversial, especially for the I/P topic area, since it is run by Hezbollah. Option 2 for non-controversial statements and viewpoints of Hezbollah, a la the Chinese government sources. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 4 (if this doesn't have the majority, then fallback to 3). This is obviously propaganda and very unprofessional per xDanielx's examples. We should use better sources in our articles. --Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Majority?" Viral weirdo (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Al-Manar)

  • almanar.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • Comment: Bias and inflamed rhetoric against Israel is NOT a valid reason for !voting options 3/4. Reporting that Israelis evacuated the Twin Towers on 9/11 IS a good reason for !voting options 3/4. I'll post some other examples of misinformation and unreliability here later, in addition to the ones in the discussion further up this page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Here's an example:
    • Schafer, Bret (30 May 2024). "The Russian Propaganda Nesting Doll: How RT is Layered Into the Digital Information Environment". GMFUS. Retrieved 15 November 2024.: we discovered RT content on Al Manar TV, a site owned and operated by Hezbollah. Though not technically a state-backed media outlet, Al Manar is a mouthpiece for a major political and geopolitical player in the Middle East, and thus exists as a politically backed, if not state-backed, channel... We found eight occurrences of RT content reposed to Al Manar, but a manual review of content tagged with “Russia” or “Ukraine” on Al Manar’s website revealed that those articles are sourced primarily, if not exclusively, from RT, Sputnik News, and Tass, all of which are Russian state-controlled outlets. Oddly, many other articles were attributed to “Agencies”, though those too appeared to be sourced from Tass. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
      Are you suggesting we treat a claim from a US based source as a fact? M.Bitton (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
      It depends on what the content they reposted from RT was. Did Al-Manar quote the RT (or Sputnik) for uncontroversial sports news? Or for official statements of Putin? I don't see that as much of a problem.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
      The source says at least some of the content is about Ukraine, so I think that counts as controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    That claim was made by Al-Manar some 20 years ago (shortly after 9/11). Do you have more recent examples of disinformation? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

A UK-based source, also a partisan thinktank so pinch of salt, but a highly respected thinktank:

A partisan source (in the middle of ongoing war) means propaganda (that they are welcome to feed to their kids). M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Can you offer any concrete evidence that the statement above by the Royal United Services Institute was factually inaccurate? - Amigao (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Skimming it, I don't see any concrete evidence in the article itself to support the claim. Do you? It appears the author is relying on the reader's implicit bias that "inventing news is the norm rather than the exception" in Arabic language media and guilt by association with Iran as evidence of the claim. I don't see any examples of debunked or falsified stories. Unbandito (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
RUSI's statement was a fair one. A more recent example would be Al-Manar's story stating that the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine "officially tops efficacy and safety" standards without anything else backing it up. - Amigao (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Al-Manar's story ... That's a factually incorrect claim! It's not their story, it's clearly attributed to Sputnik. M.Bitton (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
So they are re-publishing COVID-19 disinformation from an unreliable and deprecated source like WP:SPUTNIK. That does not exactly help the reliability of Al-Manar, at least for the purposes of an RfC. Also, here is a March 2022 Al-Manar article that spreads a version of the Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory with bat coronavirus thrown into the mix. - Amigao (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
First things first: you misrepresented a source.
Second, they can re-publish anything they want, and so long as they attribute it to the original source, it has zero (as in none whatsoever) effect on their reliability.
Third, you're doing it again: the above source is attributed to the chief spokesman for the The Russian Defense Ministry.
I have no idea why you're doing this, but it certainly doesn't look good (to be honest, it' quite worrying). M.Bitton (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Re-publishing known vaccine disinformation narratives from WP:DEPRECATED sources has quite a lot to do with a source's editorial judgment and overall reliability for the purposes of an RfC. - Amigao (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Misrepresenting the sources, like you keep doing, is what makes a source unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
It's not necessarily unusual or a sign of poor editorial judgment for a source to cite a deprecated source. Just this morning, I read this article from the FT, which says: Separately his deputy, Brigadier General Ali Fadavi, told Al Mayadeen, a Lebanese television channel close to Iran, that a response would be “inevitable”. In more than 40 years, “we have not left any aggression without a response”, he said. Reliable sources often need to cover what biased or unreliable sources are saying in order to tell the full story. The fact that this guilt by association tactic of "citing an unreliable source = unreliable", which has been used on the RSN to knock sources down like dominoes, isn't even accepted as an actual journalistic standard shows that it's just silly politicking. Unbandito (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Citing a quote from deprecated source, as the FT example does, is quite different from directly re-publishing a deprecated source article verbatim, as Al-Manar frequently does. - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV), so do yourself a big favour and give this a break. M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Here is an even more recent 2023 Al-Manar article that directly re-publishes the same WP:SPUTNIK piece. - Amigao (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
... and attributes it to them. I'm starting to question your motives. M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Re-publishing unreliable sources that the community has long WP:DEPRECATED with attribution does not somehow make a source more reliable for the purposes of an RfC. - Amigao (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe that the real world cares about some irrelevant WP RfC or the "community" (a handful of editors)? You seem to have forgotten one very important rule: we don't lead, we follow. M.Bitton (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Republishing from bad sources is not the same as citing, and indeed does indicate poor editorial policies/standpoints. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Today Al-Manar has an article on Ukraine verbatim directly copied (with attribution at the bottom) from Tass, a red flag source for us. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Good you can read Amigao’s mind to understand the motivation for his arguments here. But Amigao is correct that translating and reposting an article (as Jerusalem Post does of Walla, as noted in the discussion above, or as Al-Manar) is completely different than citing an article and attributing a claim to it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness. 22:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
That's a fair point that quoting and republishing a source are two different things. However, I would still question why we should take republishing another source as an indication of one source's reliability. We wouldn't typically use republished content on Wikipedia, except perhaps in the case of a paywall on the original source, so it seems unnecessary to me to judge source reliability based on their republications. And we wouldn't make this judgment in the other direction, for example if Al-Manar republished a story from the AP, we wouldn't take that as an indication that they are reliable. If Al-Manar is merely a content aggregator then I suppose we shouldn't use it, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
What evidence do we have of the reliability or unreliability of Al-Manar's original reporting? Unbandito (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Furthermore, here is a prime example of misrepresentation of sourcing by Al-Manar: Al-Manar claims this article was sourced from Reuters but the article was actually sourced from this one at WP:RT.COM, another deprecated source. - Amigao (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your hard work in continuing to analyze the source and build a stronger critique of it. I can't find the Reuters article that Al-Manar claims to have sourced that content from (not to say it doesn't exist, I just can't find it) so that's concerning. However, the Al-Manar article has more material than the RT article, which means at least some of the material must come from a different source. I can't read Arabic outside of the use of translation tools so it's possible that I am missing some nuance here, but the overlapping aspects of the article such as Lukashenko's statement in an interview with Sky News Arabia are not identically phrased (except for the quote itself) as one might expect if the material were republished from RT. So while the Reuters article in question appears to be missing right now, I find the evidence that the article was in fact republished from RT to be insufficient. Even if it were, it's not clear that the information published by RT and allegedly republished by Al-Manar in this case is unreliable, and the material that might be republished is just a quote from a Sky News Arabia interview, so hardly a reflection on either of the sources' reliability. Unbandito (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Al-Manar's article does not have more text in the body than the WP:RT.COM article. They are the same, but Al-Manar claims that it sourced the content from Reuters, which is clearly not the case. Here is the Al-Manar version and the RT version via Internet Archive links for ease of comparison. (Interestingly, Al-Manar does not appear to source other articles from Reuters.) - Amigao (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
That's my bad, you're right that the articles are the same, except that the syntax of the line about the quote from the Sky News interview appears to be slightly altered. The "read more" box inside the RT article interfered with my efforts to translate and threw me off.
That being said, I don't see how this is evidence of systematic unreliability on the part of Al-Manar. If you could demonstrate a pattern of passing off the original reporting of unreliable sources as if they came from reliable sources like Reuters, I would find that more convincing. Unbandito (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Another common tactic Al-Manar uses to obfuscate its sourcing is to claim to source from unspecified "agencies" when, in fact, it is copying article text verbatim from Russian state media such as WP:TASS. For example:
Amigao (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

French-based Reporters Without Borders criticised its terrorist designation in 2004, but noted its antisemitism.

That doesn't make it unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Once again, more than 20 years ago. Also see weaponization of antisemitism.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Are you accusing RWB of weaponising antisemitism? Why would they want to? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
What are we supposed to “see” here? You have reason to believe that this is a manipulative and dishonest claim of antisemitism? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Mintz, John (22 December 2004). "U.S. Bans Al-Manar, Says TV Network Backs Terror". Washington Post. Retrieved 15 November 2024.: French officials prohibited the network from broadcasting in France, citing what it called al-Manar's anti-Semitic content and appeals to violence. French officials cited al-Manar programs reporting that Jews spread AIDS around the world and that they seek children's blood to bake into Passover matzoh. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    In France, you can bash the Arabs and the Muslims all day long (under the protection of the so-called freedom of speech and bla bla bla), and believe me when I say that they do (they will even honour you for doing so), but the moment your criticize Israel, you get accused of being antisemitic. M.Bitton (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    "Jews spread AIDS around the world and that they seek children's blood to bake into Passover matzoh" is NOT a "criticism of Israel". BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    I'm referring to clear theme (when citing the opinions of their enemies who are known for their double standard). In France, you can say about the Arabs and the Muslims and that's fine given that Arab and Muslim bashing is literally a sport. M.Bitton (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, the French state is deeply racist and Islamophobic. That doesn't make it "reliable" to accuse the Jews of the blood libel. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    the French state is deeply racist and Islamophobic so why are paying attention to what it says? M.Bitton (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    I am paying attention to what the French Jewish community said. There are other sources for this too in the Al-Manar article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    You mean the CRIF? M.Bitton (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Bobfrombrockley can you find Al-Manar articles in the past 20 years that say Jews use blood in Passover? That's clearly antisemitic, but please actually find such articles.VR (Please ping on reply) 18:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    It was a TV series made by a Syrian company, which they screened. So not as straightforward as if they were claiming that in their own content (as they did with Israelis having foreknowledge of 9/11) but it shows you their editorial standards are incompatible with a reliable status. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    They screened a Syrian TV series that some pro-Israel sources don't like. What's that got to do with their reliability as a source? M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    again, it is not “pro-Israel” to say the blood libel and the protocols of the elders of Zion are not the content carried by a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    It's a Syrian TV series that they screened, it's their right to do so. What's that got to do with their reliability as a source? M.Bitton (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    Sigh. Yes it’s their right to screen something based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but nonetheless the Protocols were a forgery so doing so indicates unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    That's a baseless claim that nobody can substantiate. What does a TV series (produced in Syria) have to do with al-Manar's reliability? M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    I’m confused. It’s widely agreed that the Protocols were a forgery. Numerous RSs say two different series screened on Al-Manar in the 2000s (one Syrian, one Egyptian) were based on the Protocols. So maybe this isn’t a dealbreaker in terms of reliability; it seems that they did subsequently apologise after France banned the station. But I think it’s obvious that it is a data point in the unreliability column. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    Who cares about the protocol and whether it is a forgery or a fact? It's a flipping TV series.
    it is a data point in the unreliability column that's another baseless claim that nobody can substantiate.
    I repeat the question that you ignored: what does a TV series (produced in Syria to boot) have to do with al-Manar's reliability? M.Bitton (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    Was this TV Syrian TV series a drama or presented as factual? If a channel has broadcast a syndicated drama which contains blood libel and the allegation around AIDS, I feel all of its output needs to be looked at carefully in terms of reliability. Propaganda of this nature is a strong indicator of extreme antisemitic conspiracist views which may also be present in its factual output, even though no unreliable claim has technically been made. However, if it has broadcast a syndicated program presenting this as factual information then it becomes immediately unreliable for our purposes. If we aren't using the Daily Fail, and we can in good faith argue about the Telegraph's reliability based on them publishing a true story that was somewhat litter-tray adjacent, then there's no way we should be using a source that parrots blood libel.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    Very well put, and good question, which the sources are vague about. It appears to be a docudrama, but Al-Manar initially seemed to think it was factual: Al-Manar’s program director, Nasser Akhdar, stressed that the series was “purely historical” and that it was based on some 250 sources written by Jews. The program covers the history of the Jews and the Zionists between 1812 and 1948, he said, and underlines the Jewish emigration to Palestine, the Balfour Declaration, and the European policies regarding this issue during that period. “It offers a clear image of what the Zionists have committed in the social, political, and ideological fields,” Akhdar said. “It is a voice against all those who wish to hide the truth.” He said US complaints were an attempt to “misguide public opinion,” adding that this was part of the US strategy of hegemony over the media to “cancel other people’s opinions.”[35] It might be a point in Al-Manar's favour that they later removed the show from their archive and said they erred in showing it and that they never saw it before they broadcast it (although I am not sure that's been reported by anyone other than Counterpunch, an unreliable source). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    this was part of the US strategy of hegemony over the media to “cancel other people’s opinions.” it certainly looks that way.
    When the US complained to Lebanon over the series, Lebanese officials refused to interfere and one of them said:

    "The United States has a strange conception of freedom of expression... What would they say if we tried to interfere with the way Fox News portrays Arabs, Muslims or Palestinians?"

    — Lebanese official
    M.Bitton (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    If a channel has broadcast a syndicated drama which contains blood libel and the allegation around AIDS, I feel all of its output needs to be looked at carefully in terms of reliability I see, so channels in the west can distort history and portray the Muslims and Arabs as terrorists in their dramas, while hiding behind the cherished freedom of speech, but the rest of the word has to abide by some fictitious standard that only the west has the key to. Fascinating. M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    We deem Western sources that repeat racist conspiracy theories unreliable too (Boynamedsue mentioned the Daily Mail; we also rate the Lebanese minister's example, Fox News, as an unreliable source). I think there's a difference, though, between perpetrating stereotypes that are deep in a culture (as the majority of Western AND non-Western sources do) and repeating actual conspiracy theories such as Jews deliberately spread AIDS or Jews kill Christian children to harvest their blood for ritual purposes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    No, we certainly don't judge the reliability of western sources based on the TV series and movies that they screen. M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
    If an Arab drama series portrayed a group of Israelis, or even Jews, as nefarious villains sabotaging a society, I agree that would be a pretty perfect analogy to what Western media does to Arabs, and I wouldn't say it had any effect on how we should evaluate news output. However, if a Western channel broadcast a drama that said, say, Arab Muslims worship Baphomet and train children to suicide bomb Jews as they believe (and the following is a deliberately offensive example) their inherent, irrational and motiveless antisemitism is more important than the lives of their children, then we would have a more precise analogy to the question of blood libel.
I am a strong opponent of Israel's aggression against Palestine and Lebanon, and I am disgusted by the despicable attempts by various ghouls to suggest that any mention of the IDF and West Bank Settlers' mass murder of children is equivalent to blood libel. However, blood libel is an incredibly serious thing. It is not hard to find out that Jews absolutely do not mix blood with flour to make special biscuits, or that this belief has had terrible consequences in the past. Anybody not prepared to make that little bit of effort will have, in my view, question marks over their reliability..Boynamedsue (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
if a Western channel broadcast a drama that said... Have you ever noticed that the TV series "Homeland" (based on an Israeli television drama) that was being screened all over the place is actually Islamophobic and Arabophobic? That's just an example; in fact, Islamophobia and Arabophobia have become so common in the western media (especially, in the last two decades) that one doesn't even notice them, i.e., they've become the acceptable norm.
What we have here is a clear case of double standard, where freedom of expression seems to only be acceptable when it comes from the west. Franky, it beggars belief that a country such as the US (the "champion of free speech") would try to censor a TV series in another country. M.Bitton (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I've never seen Homeland, so I don't know whether its level of Islamophobia would be equivalent to blood libel. But it is made by Fox 21, whose sister news network we DON'T USE for politics or science.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who made it, it was screened everywhere and it received many awards. Like I said, that was just an example amongst the many. This all comes down to one thing and one simple choice: one either supports freedom of expression or one doesn't. M.Bitton (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I'll make this crystal clear. I absolutely do not support freedom of expression. I have used physical violence in the past to prevent nazis from freely expressing their views, and would do so again. However, even if I believed in freedom of expression, freedom to express your views is not freedom to be accepted as a reliable source on wikipedia. Have a look at WP:RS for the criteria which apply.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I will make this crystal clear: the reliability of a source doesn't depend on what TV series it screens (WP:RS doesn't say otherwise). M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the current relevance of this sort of content comes through when you look at how they report Israeli "organ harvesting", mixing reliable and unreliable sources and misrepresenting both to shape a narrative echoing the Protocols, or how they describe settlers engaged in "Talmudic rituals" at al-Aqsa to describe something that isn't actually Talmudic but again fits an antisemitic narrative (in contrast, e.g., to Al-Jazeera who use quote marks when reporting this). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • "LEBANON: Did Tunisia's tyrant buy off Hezbollah TV?". Los Angeles Times. 24 May 2011. Retrieved 15 November 2024. Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television was allegedly paid $100,000 to polish up the image of deposed Tunisian dictator Zine el Abidine ben Ali... The newspaper said Al-Manar, which used to receive $150,000 a year to support the Ben Ali regime, asked for an extra $50,000 annually if ACTE wished to raise the profile of the ruler, who now resides in Jeddah with his wife. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    allegedly no need to read further than this. M.Bitton (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Being paid money to polish up someone's image doesn't make it unreliable, as long as they don't say something inherently false. It just proves bias, not unreliability. Also, that's alleged by Sabah newspaper, which, if you see their original report, was accusing several different agencies, such as NBN, Al Jadeed, LBCI, and Future News, all alongside Al-Manar. Almost ALL of Lebanon's news agencies were involved in that, if it's really true. Viral weirdo (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Cochrane, Paul (7 March 2007). "Bombs and broadcasts: Al Manar's battle to stay on air". Arab Media & Society. Retrieved 15 November 2024.: France banned the channel following complaints by the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France to the French Higher Audio Visual Council (CSA) that scenes in a 30 part Syrian-made series, Al-Shatat (The Diaspora), aired during Ramadan 2003, were anti-Semitic. The show, which claimed to depict the history of the Zionist movement, stoked widespread condemnation by portraying the killing of a Christian child by Jews to use the victim's blood to make matzoh bread. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    I already told you: unbelievable as it sounds, in France, you can bash the Arabs and the Muslims all day long and make up any story about them (under the protection of the so-called "freedom of speech"), but the moment you say anything that is related to Israel, then your freedom of speech ceases to exist. M.Bitton (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Are you saying the show, Al-Shatat, did not portray Jews as child-killers, and that the French Jews are making this up? Because otherwise French racism and free speech ideas are not relevant to determining this Lebanese source's reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is? They are free to show whatever they want. Arabs and Muslims are often portrayed as terrorists (when they're not portrayed as something worse) in the western media, and their history often falsified, yet, you don't see them crying and whinging about it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    @M.Bitton your tone throughout this discussion is verging heavily on WP:NOTFORUM/WP:BATTLEGROUND, I heavily encourage you to slow down a bit. The Kip (contribs) 19:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    @The Kip: Your targetted comment is verging on aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Aside: our article on this series, Ash-Shatat, has been nominated for deletion, in case editors are interested in that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • There's always heat in discussions of contentious topics, but even given that this sections is starting to go off topic. Discussions should be about the source in relation to policies and guidelines, how the source is described by other reliable sources, or matters relating to the handling of the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pimlico Journal

Is this reliable? https://www.pimlicojournal.co.uk/p/the-new-age-and-the-continental-far tgeorgescu (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The notice at the bottom indicates that it's hosted by Substack. I can't find any information on who writes it or their editorial policy. So it's like an anonymous blog, basically. Schazjmd (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
No. This is just an SEO blog. Contributor892z (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
It's self-published. EEpic (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
It's new and apparently mostly anonymous, but has received notice, with The New Statesman stating it "has gained a small but not insignificant following, one that includes many young Conservative activists and special advisers, even some MPs." Author anonymity is not automatically bad, as The Economist almost never credits authors, and even "good" journalists are moving to Substack these days. However, Pimlico's newness, coupled with anonymous authorship, suggest it should be used incredibly sparingly, if at all, and as attributed opinion, if appropriate per WP:DUE. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

techinasia.com

There is an article about the company here: Tech in Asia. At some point many articles seem to be written with AI, with the following note by the publisher on those articles:

>🤖 All content is created by our AI Author using various sources and our data for extra context.

>🧔‍♂️ A friendly human checks it before it goes live. More news here

(see eg. [36] [37] see also [38])

I assume such articles cannot be used. I wonder about articles that are written before they started using AI such as [39]. There are also paywalled articles written by staff such as [40] that have the following note:

>It takes our newsroom weeks - if not months - to investigate and produce stories for our premium content. You can’t find them anywhere else.

Currently this site is used as a source in 315 articles (link)

The company seem to have some relationship with The Business Times (Singapore) via their about page. The business Times syndicates tech in asia's articles via this page: [41] and links to them in their footer.

My opinion is that articles written before they started using AI are probably fine, at least from a reliability point of view alone. It may be confusing to allow only premium content however. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Every article should be checked before using it as a source, as even seemingly reliable sources can be wrong, but anything created by AI should be viewed even more critically. You assessment is probably right. Paywalled content is acceptable, see WP:SOURCEACCESS (and another opportunity to mention WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange if people haven't heard of it yet). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I would not bother with the paywall vs non-paywall distinction. Let's just draw a bright-line that they are no longer reliable after they started churning out LLM glurge with reliability assessed contextually as per standard practice from before they decided to throw their credibility entirely away. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

HeyAlma.com

Is HeyAlma reliable for this claim?

It was stated by two editors here and here that this information is "trivia", that how a person self-identifies culturally (eg. Jewish, Iranian, Pastafarian, etc..) is irrelevant to their biography (!). And claiming the source is unreliable.

I understand there is baggage about calling people Jewish on Wikipedia, particularly incorrectly by antisemitic forces, but in this case, the source is Jewish itself, there is no bad faith involved, it appears to be true, and there are questions about how he self-identifies: his father is Jewish and mother not. So we now have a source that directly asked him, quoted his answer unambiguously, finally clarifying how he self-identifies. -- GreenC 17:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That section contains a bunch of other ancestry trivia that's not even mentioned in the source cited. I'm personally opposed to any mention of ancestry in someone's bio unless it is found in RSes and is relevant, but that practice is so pervasive on here that I rarely make an issue of it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
How a person self-identifies, and their ancestry, may or may not be the same thing. And apparently the question was so relevant and often asked, an article was written about it. Is the source reliable? -- GreenC 14:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
This would be easier if the subject had published the comment themself, as this isn't quite WP:ABOUTSELF. It's a third-party saying that the subject said this about themself.
I can't see any immediate reason that HeyAlma would be unreliable, but equally I'm unconvinced they are a "high-quality" source that WP:BLP calls for.
Whether to be include this or not isn't based on reliability, included content must be verifiable but verification doesn't guarantee inclusion. If this is the only mention the subject has made of their Jewish heritage does the subject really think it's an important aspect of their identity? Whether other secondary sources have mentioned his Jewish identity or if the subject has posted anything about it themself might be more relevant to inclusion then the reliability of one source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Here's a Haaretz article noting that Schlossberg "says he keeps some of the Jewish tradition and celebrates Jewish holidays, but the religion clearly doesn't play a central role in his life." One can be a cultural Jew even if one isn't a religious Jew, and it sounds like that is partially the case for Schlossberg. A relevant Hey Alma quote: "I feel I’m at least 100% half Jewish ;)". It's easy to confirm Jewish heritage on his father's side (an example), but that's distinct from the question of whether he's culturally Jewish. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Viva

Viva (airline) flies seasonal flights from Nashville to Cancun, yet neither airport lists them in their articles. The flights are bookable on Viva's website[42]. Is this considered a reliable source to add Viva to Nashville, or will this news article[43] which briefly mentions Viva's presence in Nashville also be needed?

For some context here's what it would look like:

AirlinesDestinationsRefs
Viva Seasonal: Cancún[1] [2]

The ref in the rightmost column is always from the airline itself and indicates that the airline does fly to the airport. The ref after the destination (Cancún) is sometimes included to verify individual routes and is not always required if the route is not disputed by anybody. Sadly, there are not many good sources talking about Viva's BNA-CUN route in detail, so I may have to use the news article from WKRN I showed earlier which only mentions it in passing, even though it also says Spirit Airlines flies to Cancun from Nashville, which they stopped several years ago.

So this is my question: Is Viva's website, a primary source, alone able to prove that they fly from Nashville to Cancun and thus be included in the articles, or is a secondary source, WKRN or not, also needed? King airaglub (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Booking systems aren't reliable, as the details my be different anytime you check. Doesn't the airline publish a list of it's flight destinations? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
It does. https://www.vivaaerobus.com/en-us/our-destinations/airports King airaglub (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
That would be reliable in a WP:PRIMARY way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "New flights are coming to Nashville International Airport in 2025: Here's where they'll take you". WKRN. December 30, 2024. Retrieved January 2, 2025.
  2. ^ "Aeropuertos internacionales". Retrieved January 2, 2025.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_462&oldid=1268210737"