Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

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

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

RFC Jewish Chronicle

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.

---

The reliability of the Jewish Chronicle is:

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

RFCbefore, Previous RFC Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Note (Jewish Chronicle)

Existing RSP entry is green with the following commentary:

"There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting. There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics."

Editors may wish to comment on these issues specifically. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a reminder but it's not technically possible to deprecate a source for a specific are of content and also a deprecated source is not more unreliable than an unreliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are clear wording differences between WP:GUNREL and WP:DEPREC, beyond the availability of technical means for the latter. Andreas JN466 12:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm just summarising Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable. WP:DEPREC itself is a short summary of WP:DEPRECATE, but this is better discuss in the discussion section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Jewish Chronicle)

• Option 2 in general, Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area. The recent scandal gives rise to significant doubts over editorial control and practices which taken together with the lack of transparency over ownership and recent checkered history suggests we should not consider this source reliable without inline attribution at a minimum and unreliable for matters relating to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  You didn't seem concerned about funding in the case of Al Jazeera; you wrote I am not persuaded that any bias produced as a result of Qatari funding. Why the different approach here? In this case there could be donors or lenders we don't know about (which isn't uncommon for news orgs), but what could be worse than being owned by an absolute monarchy? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please take your irrelevancies elsewhere, the discussion section maybe. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's relevant because holding Jewish publications to a different standard would bias the topic area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Al Jazeera is somewhat of a special case, as it has complete editorial independence despite being state-funded (a setup similar to the BBC). CVDX (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Almost all news orgs claim editorial independence, including RT for example. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Repeats comment about irrelevancies. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 for Muslims, the British left and Israel/Palestine since 2016, option 3 for its entire output since 2020. The JC has had a long history of false reporting on Muslims, the British Left and Israel/Palestine (a complex of topics which frequently intersect). In the post 2010 period the JC frequently libelled individuals and published false information on these topics. Individuals were forced to resort to complaints to IPSO in order to get corrections published. Professor of Journalism Brian Cathcart writes the publication of falsehoods has been a characteristic of the paper’s journalism for years. The paper broke IPSO's code 41 times between 2018 and 2023, an astounding number for a small weekly paper, and paid out in at least four libel cases. All were against Muslims or people on the British left.

IPSO lamented the paper's lack of cooperation with complaints in very strong terms The Committee expressed significant concerns about the newspaper’s handling of this complaint. The newspaper had failed, on a number of occasions, to answer questions put to it by IPSO and it was regrettable the newspaper’s responses had been delayed. The Committee considered that the publication’s conduct during IPSO’s investigation was unacceptable. Given the difficulty of obtaining corrections from the paper in cases where individuals are named, it is likely a large amount of false information has also been published where nobody is named, so the possibility of libel actions is eliminated, and the chance of IPSO cases is significantly reduced.

The 2020 change of ownership, meaning nobody actually knows who owns the paper, combined with the false stories on Gaza, suggest we should not use the paper in any capacity until the question of ownership is clarified.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Just in addition to this, I feel, having read others' comments, a date of 2010 for the beginning of the qualification on reliability regarding political topics may also be valid, given that marked the period where Stephen Pollard took over. I would certainly consider extending it back that far in terms of BLP. However, the real collapse in standards occurred from 2015.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 in general, Option 3/4 for WP:A/I/PIA area (Option 4 for WP:A/I/PIA coverage from 2024 going forward, given this year's string of fabrications and widespread concerns about journalistic integrity voiced in both the Israeli and international press). --Andreas JN466 11:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  Explanation of Option 2 "additional considerations", as requested below:

  The current RSP entry says, There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics.

  Per Option 2, in-text attribution should in my view not just be recommended but required for any topics that are related to "the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians" but do not fall under WP:A/I/PIA. This should also apply more generally to assertions and allegations of antisemitism that do not fall under WP:A/I/PIA. Andreas JN466 07:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I also support comments by others that journalistic standards at the Jewish Chronicle appear to have dropped lower and lower over the past 20 years, with step changes in 2008, 2015 and after the change in ownership in 2020. Andreas JN466 11:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4: major scandal for a prominent newspaper which should be immediately deprecated for the following reasons:

1-Unknown owners who are likely right-wing ideologues;

2-Publication of fabricated stories supporting Israeli premier Netanyahu's narratives;

3-Allowance of an unknown freelance journalist who came "out of nowhere" to write these fabricated stories under a pseudonym and with a falsified resume

4-The fired freelance journalist then making death threats to an Israeli reporter due to the revealing of their identity

5-The resignation of the newspaper's most prominent columnists who have also stated that the JC's editorial line had become "sensationalist" and "unbalanced". Makeandtoss (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

These issues all relate to the period from 2020 to now. If it’s technically possible to deprecate for a specific timeframe only, is it right to assume you would argue for deprecating for this period specifically? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I can continue mentioning how the JC was bought by right-wing owners in 2008 and how the newspaper played a prominent role in slandering pro-Palestinian voices as antisemitic including UK Labor Party former leader Jeremy Corbyn, and how it promoted the new antisemitism concept which included anti-Zionism. Also notable that JC had too many IPO violations since 2018. [1] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

There was no change of ownership in 2008. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

My bad, editorship* as mentioned in MEE article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Are there any other sources deprecated because of the suspected political leanings of their owners? If not, are we going to start doing this? I might have some suggestions.

2 & 3. are the points with substance to my mind. However, the JC have retracted the stories and cut ties with the writer, admitted the mistake and said they are reviewing their procedures for dealing with freelance journalists. This is substantially the same procedure as the Guardian announced faced with a very similar situation.

4. It's baffling that you think that this has bearing on the Jewish Chronicle's reliability.

5. Columnists resigning is not a criterion of reliability or unreliability. Nor, for that matter, is being "unbalanced". Samuelshraga (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There really is a world of difference between

• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/26/open-door-column-note-to-readers

and

• https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/conclusion-of-jewish-chronicle-investigation-into-elon-perry-daaqr8b9

Do please read them both and compare. Andreas JN466 08:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree re no.4. Re no.5, though, I think columnists resigning can be an indicator of unreliability if their reasons for resigning relate to criteria of reliability. Whereas some of the resigners (e.g. John Ware) have only mentioned a dislike of the editor's politics, most have mentioned being uncomfortable with the lack of transparency about ownership and many have expressed other reliability concerns, as the links already on this page show. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley I agree with you that some specific complaints of the columnists are relevant - and they are discussed by others, as far as I see the relevant concerns relate to the identity of the owners (see again point 1). The fact that columnists resigned in and of itself is not. And the complaints brought by @Makeandtoss - that resigning columnists (stated that the JC's editorial line had become "sensationalist" and "unbalanced" are not germane to this discussion. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020. This isn't about the current event, rather the current event appears to be the culmination of issues that have been growing for several years. Multiple external sources have commented on this, as have columnists that have recently ended their association with the paper. Oppose 4 in general. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 pre-2015, option 2 post-2015. It would be insane to deprecate a 183 year old publication, so strongly oppose option 4. I have argued in the talk section above that the IPSO breaches in the 2015-20 period should give rise to caution but not lead to option 3. I would urge those who are swayed by these breaches to read the actual rulings; you will find a couple of serious errors but the majority are fairly trivial and have been more than adequately corrected. I would argue against a generally unreliable status for antisemitism for that period because, prior to Jewish News taking off, the JC was the only UK Jewish paper and therefore the only outlet giving deep coverage to UK antisemitism. Designating it unusable means the whole topic can only be covered in a skewed way. I would therefore urge a formulation such as: “use with caution and attribution” for that topic in that period. Since 2020, the case for General unreliability, especially on Israel/Palestine, is strong, but even here we should explicitly note that there will be exceptions for authoritative contributors such as those who have resigned (eg Anshel Pfeiffer, Colin Shindler). BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  the only outlet giving deep coverage to UK antisemitism

  The problem is that they make all sorts of highly dubious accusations of antisemitism, many of which appear to be politically motivated (i.e., in order to attack people who criticize Israel's treatment of the Palestinians). If the "deep coverage" is dishonest, then using it will not improve Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  That may be your opinion but there are no RSs saying that as far as I know. If we had restrictions on

  BLP and/or ARBPIA in the relevant period, that would address that risk anyway. If we make them generally option 3, then we avoid the risk but also lose a lot of potential to cover antisemitism in UK society. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 pre-2015, option 2 post-2015 Bobfrombrockley really saved me a lot of typing. I also want to emphasize that we really need to be treating most sources, even our top sources like WSJ, NYT etc as green to yellow anytime we are treading into areas where bias etc could come into play. While fundamental facts (times, dates, etc) typically are objective, even good sources can have some bias in how much emphasis they put into certain aspects of a topic or even that they chose to cover a topic at all. This also applies when we look at how much scrutiny is applied to various sources. Outside of the false reports issue (which is hardly unique to this source) are they under the microscope because they are much different than other sources or because their politics disagree with other sources? As a rule we need to put less stock in "the color of a source" and more thought into what the source is claiming and what evidence they present for the claim. Springee (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Objectively speaking, they produce far more false reports than other sources. Including sources we deprecate, like the Daily Mail.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020 as per ActivelyDisinterested. The Jewish Chronicle has issues stemming from its recent change in ownership, but those issues are much more clearly problematic, and more evidenced in third-party sources, for Israel/Palestine-related issues then issues outside that topic area. Loki (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3/4 for WP:A/I/PIA area, muslims, and the british left, especially after 2020 seems they used to do good work tho ive seen the ridiculous scandals in the wake of continuing israel palestine conflict. agree for same reasons as loki, springee, hope the org becomes more transparent soon. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 in general, Option 3 for muslims and the British left, Option 3/4 for WP:A/I/PIA area - Based on the provided background and latest developments, and considering JC's longstanding IPSO issues, undisclosed ownership that complicates the evaluation of the publication's impartiality, questionable editorial standards, etc etc. I've been following the gargantuan discussion preluding this RfC. These issues are not recent or limited to their latest scandal. - Ïvana (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 from 2015 onwards. No opinion for 2014 or earlier. In answer to queries about the year: 2015 was the year a general campaign of false allegations of antisemitism was launched against the British left and against Jeremy Corbyn in particular. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  What is your source for the JC having "launched" a "general campaign" in 2015? This was not mentioned in the previous discussion. If the JC actually engaged in a campaign at this time, then a secondary source would say so. I do see that a 2015 JC front-page editorial made claims of antisemitism about Corbyn. But an editorial (even an inaccurate one -- it's an editorial!) is not what means when one says a newspaper has a "general campaign of false allegations", which suggests misconduct. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't the JC in particular it was the British press in general. Restricting the Option 3 to 2015 onwards leaves earlier JC journalism able to be used if people familiar with the history of the paper consider it reliable. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

To clarify then, Davesaurus, you think the British press in general should be option 3 after 2015? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4. The unreliability and political bias of the JC has a long history. Their more recent opaque ownership and financing raises yet further concerns. By 2023 Brian Cathcart calculated that over the previous 5 years the JC had broke the IPSO code an astonishing 41 times* and had lost, or been forced to settle, at least four libel cases. There have been further cases since. This is all the more remarkable, because it has a relatively small circulation. By that metric the JC is substantially worse than other notoriously unreliable publications such as the Daily Mail which Wikipedia deprecated. However, irrespective of the final decision, it needs a strong warning of bias on all politically related, and non-Jewish religious issues. Andromedean (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 for 2020 onwards (dating to the change of ownership). Bias and IPSO complaints from earlier are recoverable issues. Mystery owners are not. The chain of accountability is important. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Bias isn't unreliability. A single scandal, with the freelancers dealt with, isn't an indictment of the whole publication. Andre🚐 19:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Andre, this isn't a single scandal, but multiple breaches of the IPSO code, libel cases, opaque ownership and funding, we are drowning in problems. By all means explain why these aren't relevant but please base your view around the evidence presented in the discussion. It's as if you haven't read anything or decided to insert a straw man fallacy! Andromedean (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Libel cases do not impact the publication's reliability unless they end in a judgment or verdict that is damning to the publication. There was an extensive discussion in the above thread about the IPSO and the ownership and my conclusion is that there's a bit of smoke but no fire (since the fire was extinguished by cutting ties and retracting the problematic material) as far as liability for the publication for the recent scandal, but the IPSO is a red herring since The Times also had a similar number of breaches, and I don't think it matters that it publishes more text, because that's not a metric defined anywhere. The relevant metric is a reputation for upholding accuracy and fact-checking. So long as Al Jazeera, a state-run propaganda outlet owned and operated by Qatar, is generally reliable, I'm not convinced that the ownership standard is one we care about. WP:NEWSORG nor WP:RS define this. The concern is whether the org stands by their fact-checking and corrects errors. Andre🚐 20:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  No. Policy on this is at WP:SOURCE. The publisher matters. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  As it says there, "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It does not mention having to know who owns the publication. Andre🚐 21:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  No. WP:SOURCE says the publisher affects reliability and it even identifies a specific reliable publisher. Also, here we have other sources saying that its unknown publisher is a real problem for the source. Three of its columnists quit because it does not have a reputation for reliability. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  That is a misread of the policy. Jewish Chronicle is the publisher, the question at hand here is whether they are reputable. It doesn't at all mention individuals or groups funding the ownership, that is irrelevant and a reach. The columnists quit due to the recent scandal. The publication has been around for many years, so its reputation is something at hand here for editors to weigh in on. Andre🚐 21:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  No. You misread policy. Jewish Chronicle is the source under discussion. Your contention that it is self-published only makes it unreliable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  It is not self-published, it is a publisher. It is owned by a consortium[2] led by Robbie Gibb. Andre🚐 21:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  You just said again it is a self-publisher. Jewish Chronicle is the publication. If as you claim, Jewish Chronicle is also the publisher, then Jewish Chronicle is self publishing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Your argument makes no sense. Jewish Chronicle is both the publisher and the publication, just like most newspapers. Or technically the publisher is the consortium that owns it, but is also known as Jewish Chronicle. The New York Times is the publication published by The New York Times Co., also a privately owned and operated organization. Self-published is when an individual publishes their own book or article. Jewish Chronicle is the outlet. Andre🚐 21:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  We have mainstream sources across the board, from The Guardian to The Telegraph to The Jerusalem Post to Haaretz, telling us that the identity of the actual owner is unknown. You can't just sweep this concern under the carpet: it is being voiced by media professionals, including former contributors to the Jewish Chronicle, not Wikipedians. Andreas JN466 21:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please show me where in the policy the identity of the owner is mentioned as anything pertaining to its reliability. Andre🚐 21:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  You just admitted that with the Jewish Chronicle, the publication and the publisher here are two different things, although you then pass it off as a 'technicality.' You go on to describe the publisher as the owner. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it's no different than The Nation, published by its namesake owner, The Nation Company, L.P., the Jewish Chronicle is both the publication and an eponymous group that publishes it. Andre🚐 21:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  So, the owner is the publisher. Publisher matters under SOURCE. And the publisher, here has been put in doubt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Continued below. Andreas JN466 22:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Rather than clutter the survey, kindly take this to the discussion section. Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I would just answer this point simply by reiterating the quote by subject matter expert Brian Cathcart: the publication of falsehoods has been a characteristic of the paper’s journalism for years. The problem is not bias, though the source is biased like every newspaper, it is consistent and sustained inaccuracy used to support its biases.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 with the additional considerations of: generally reliable or at least not noticeably objectionable pre-2009, and "use with caution" from 2009 onwards (Pollard era), most notably with respect to BLPs and politics (the source of almost all the libel cases and other complaints), given its significantly worse track record of inaccuracy and sensationalism in this area, and then option 3 for content related to ARBPIA and related politics (including the intersection of race, religion, etc.) from 2020 onwards (the period of uncertain ownership and further step up in the editorial murkiness/malpractice and political beholdenness). Iskandar323 (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 for now. I'm open to changing my !vote if other evidence emerges, but so far I'm only seeing a single story with serious accuracy concerns, which doesn't say much about the broader reliability of the 183 year old newspaper. The other evidence that has been provided against JC's reliability is IPSO complaints. Anyone can file an IPSO complaint, so only the ones IPSO (partially) upheld seem potentially meaningful. As TFD mentioned, there were four of those in the past two years, so I read through those. They all have some kind of merit, but seem fairly minor. One was about the text the Islamic Republic has repeatedly vowed to wipe Israel and Jews off the face of the Earth. Definitely imprecise, but we regularly see worse hyperbole from other biased-but-reliable sources. Another complaint took issue with the text Labour banned him from its list of potential council candidates, saying the candidate was rejected but not (permanently) banned. Also imprecise, but we see far worse errors from WP:GREL sources regularly. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone knows how many complaints the IPSO receives, only changes after a complaint was made. For all publications over the five years 2018 to 2022, IPSO investigated only 3.82% and upheld 0.56% of the remaining complaints. 1.41% were resolved directly by the complainant with the publisher during the process and 0.43% were resolved by IPSO mediation. For examples of complaints about the JC which the IPSO rejected see Thomas Suarez's Youtube video here Andromedean (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 pre-2015, option 2 post-2015 - just gonna second pretty much everything that Bob said. Somewhat lean option 3 for ARBPIA post-2020 but not strongly so, and complete deprecation, especially pre-2015, would be a mistake. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per u:Andrevan. The newspaper handled the latest scandal involving Elon Perry properly by severing the ties with him and removing his articles. Other media outlets have also had similar issues [3]. The IPSO rulings are a nothingburger, other sources like The Times have had multiple IPSO rulings against them as well and others like The Guardian simply choose not to be regulated by IPSO. It would definitely by good to know who owns the newspaper but I'm not sure how it would be relevant. Alaexis_¿question? 20:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per the arguments above. I previously had a somewhat lower opinion based on this scandal, but having read into it, it seems to me that the reliability issue has been sufficiently addressed. The political shift to the right is concerning on a personal level, and so is the departure of experienced and skilled journalists, but neither of those impacts the reliability for facts. The IPSO complaints are mostly the process working as intended, and the offending articles for this current scandal seem to have been removed (and are obviously, as any other thing written by such an author, unusable). The JC still has a reputation for fact-checking and reliability, and until that changes, it would not be reasonable to consider them unreliable, including in the I/P area. In addition, it has an important role of representing British (and other diaspora) Jews, and we should be highly cautious not to run out of centrist/right-leaning diaspora sources, including in the I/P area. I also find the argument about ownership entirely unconvincing: I don’t find it likely that there is any plausible ownership even close to comparably problematic to Al Jazeera, with the state in effect (though at least officially indirectly) both aiding Hamas and funding (with to be fair, no beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence of editorial control) a source we currently consider reliable for I/P. FortunateSons (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Whoa ... this calls for a bit of context:

  • Qatar sent millions to Gaza for years – with Israel’s backing. Here’s what we know about the controversial deal, CNN, 12 December 2023
  • ‘Buying Quiet’: Inside the Israeli Plan That Propped Up Hamas, New York Times, 10 December 2023
    • Just weeks before Hamas launched the deadly Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, the head of Mossad arrived in Doha, Qatar, for a meeting with Qatari officials. For years, the Qatari government had been sending millions of dollars a month into the Gaza Strip — money that helped prop up the Hamas government there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel not only tolerated those payments, he had encouraged them. During his meetings in September with the Qatari officials, according to several people familiar with the secret discussions, the Mossad chief, David Barnea, was asked a question that had not been on the agenda: Did Israel want the payments to continue? Mr. Netanyahu’s government had recently decided to continue the policy, so Mr. Barnea said yes. The Israeli government still welcomed the money from Doha.
  • What Is the Hamas Chief Doing in Qatar?, Der Spiegel, 2 November 2023
    • Qatar is one of NATO's closest allies in the Gulf and has even been designated as a "Major Non-NATO Ally." In 2011, then United States President Barack Obama personally requested that the Emir of Qatar take the leadership of Hamas into his country. At the time, Washington was seeking to establish a communications channel to the Iranian-backed terrorist group. The Americans believed that a Hamas office in Doha would be easier to access than a Hamas bureau in Tehran.
  • Qatar ranks about twenty places above Israel in the Press Freedom Index.

  Andreas JN466 12:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  All we need to do here is look at the editors who !voted anything other than 1 in the snow closed AJ RFCs. Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Selfstudier can you explain this comment about our need to look at editors? BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think its pretty clear, don't you? If some editors want to go on about AJ in this RFC then pointing to their comments at the AJ RFC makes sense, no? Selfstudier (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Israel's low press freedom rating probably has to do with its regular involvement in military conflicts, but in any case, why is it relevant here? No Israeli sources are being discussed. Qatar's rating of 58.48 isn't great, and that reflects a mix of state-owned (e.g. Al Jazeera) and independently-owned (e.g. Doha News) news orgs.

  Returning to the topic of JC, it seems very speculative to say that there might be donors or lenders we don't know about, who might attempt to exert influence, which might impact reliability. With Al Jazeera, it's hard to prove anything but there are many signs of Qatari influence, such as leaked cables where US diplomats discussed the use of Al Jazeera in diplomatic negotiations. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree it would be speculative for us to say that "there might be donors or lenders we don't know about, who might attempt to exert influence, which might impact reliability". But we have a wide spectrum of mainstream sources saying it, from The Telegraph to The Guardian to Haaretz to The Jerusalem Post. We have insiders like Lee Harpin, senior reporter at the JC till 2021, who left after the takeover and now

  • says the new owners wanted more views "well to the right of the Tory party",
  • that "The current predicament of the @JewishChron does not come as a surprise. Leadership chosen on ideological grounds by those who gained control of the publication. Communal orgs should have been raising concerns months and months ago",
  • and that "The rot is deeper and for regular observers and readers of the paper, its direction over the last few years has been tragic to witness".

  You'd have to bring counterarguments published by people with similar standing in equivalent venues, rather than arguing with the people here. Andreas JN466 18:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Fair point, there is an accusation of owner influence rather than mere speculation. That said, every news org has criticism from disgruntled employees, especially in the past ~20 years when many news orgs had to undergo major changes. Harpin's criticism actually seems much less concerning than, for example, Peter Oborne's criticism of The Daily Telegraph, which includes accusations of owner and advertiser influence as well as (frankly more relevant) a focus on clicks over reliability. One can find comparable accusations from disgruntled employees of most major news outlets. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, at least you know who the owner of The Telegraph is. ;) I take your point about disgruntled employees, but the JC does seem to have had rather a lot of them since the takeover, and the concerns have been echoed very, very widely, both in Israel and the UK, by outside observers. Lionel Barber weighed in today: [4] Regards, Andreas JN466 21:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Andreas I'm confused why you would say that Qatar ranks about twenty places above Israel.

  The comparison you're discussing is Qatari state-owned media with a privately held British newspaper. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. Option 3ers believe this isn't about a single event, yet can't point to evidence of unreliability beyond that event. Meanwhile, substantiated IPSO complaints are at the level of other major newspapers like The Times showing there isn't a pattern of disinformation like the Daily Mail. Al Jazeera is relevant because I'm sure we can all agree holding Jewish publications to a different standard than Muslim ones is wrong and will increase bias on wiki. It's bizarre that this standard is applied here to say that Qatari ownership of Al Jazeera can't impact its reliability but ownership of the JC does.

RSN and RSP are a good way to skew article bias by designating sources supporting certain viewpoints as unreliable so as to remove them from articles in contentious areas. Judging publications individually is naïve in such an environment because editors will unconsciously create different standards for their favoured sources. We need to consciously ensure we're holding all sources in the Israel-Palestine conflict area to the same standard. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chess:The times has 12 IPSO rulings against it and 5 for its website, which is shared with the Sunday Times, since 2018, publishing 312 editions a year. The JC has 6 for the jc.com, which have not been counted up to now, and 12 for its paper edition. This is over just 52 yearly editions.

To suggest these numbers are similar is a clear misrepresentation of the facts, given the probability of a the JC publishing an actionable falsehood in a given edition is AT LEAST 6 times higher (we do not know how many of the website stories originated in the Sunday Times). This disparity is further compounded by the fact that the JC is around a third of the length of the times, and so produces many fewer articles. A generous calculation would be that a JC story is ten times more likely to be punished by IPSO than the Times.

It is also clear from the rulings that the Times' corrections are spread over a range of topics, whereas all of the JC's false stories relate to the British left, Muslims and Palestine. This is more a campaign of disinformation by the JC rather than good faith errors. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

For reference, evidence of unreliability comprises points like the following:

• Publishing a string of sensational stories described as "wild fabrications" or "wild inventions" in Israeli and British papers
• Failure to vet (or knowing publication of) the falsified résumé of the freelancer writing these stories, who was instantly rumbled by Israeli journalists
• Failure to conduct a proper investigation after the fabrication scandal
• Failure to publish a transparent report on what happened (see e.g. [5] for comment)
• Your claim that upheld IPSO complaints are running at the same level as for The Times is false.
  • For material published since 2020 The Jewish Chronicle has 5 listed under "v thejc.com", 7 listed under "v The Jewish Chronicle".
  • Equivalent numbers for The Times: 5 listed under "v thetimes.co.uk", 8 listed under "v The Times"
  • Equivalent numbers for The Daily Mail (deprecated): 6 listed under "v Daily Mail" (incl. "v Scottish Daily Mail, excl. "v Hull Daily Mail"), 11 listed under "v Mail Online"
  • The Times and The Daily Mail are daily papers, The Jewish Chronicle is a weekly, with far fewer articles per issue. Its collection of upheld IPSO rulings per article is an order of magnitude greater than for The Times and The Daily Mail.
• Number of lost libel cases seems large relative to the size of the publication. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag.
• The owner of Al Jazeera is known. The owner of The Jewish Chronicle is not. This is a unique situation, and the paper has taken a turn to the far right under the new, anonymous ownership. There are multiple mainstream media reports saying this lowers confidence in the paper's reliability.
• Multiple mainstream media reports (some listed in the Background section below) have deplored the loss of journalistic standards at the publication. Half a dozen of the paper's top columnists have left in despair.

Andreas JN466 09:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If we're deprecating publications for a single freelancer fabricating stories let's get rid of the New York Times because of Jayson Blair and Judith Miller. Additionally, the New York Times also has anonymous owners as it's publicly traded. We only ban reliable sources based on their ownership if the ownership is negatively influencing the publication. Please point me to the cases where a source was banned because its owner was unknown, because asserting this is a unique situation because the paper has taken a turn to the far right means this is because of the views of the Jewish Chronicle.

This is a very high standard for the Jewish Chronicle that we do not hold other reliable sources to. The New York Times has had journalists fabricate content. The result of their investigation was to fire the journalist. This is the same thing the Jewish Chronicle did,[6] so explain why you're not holding the Jewish Chronicle to a different standard when you say they failed to conduct a proper investigation after the fabrication scandal. Or say that the New York Times is unreliable as well.

IPSO complaints are not a way to quantify unreliability. Complaints would only quantify reliability if they all represented the same flaw and were comparable across an entire industry, but IPSO complaints can be made for a variety of reasons and WP:GREL publications like The Guardian opt out of them. Your math shows that the Jewish Chronicle is an order of magnitude worse than the Daily Mail and that The Times is (5+8)/(6+11)=76% as unreliable as the Daily Mail. If you believed the Jewish Chronicle was 10x worse than the Daily Mail you wouldn't have !voted for "Option 2 in general". If the number of IPSO complaints had any statistical validity The Times would be at WP:MREL or below.

RSP is very quickly devolving into a method to enforce groupthink, because declaring a source as unreliable or just WP:MREL means one can effectively prevent its viewpoints from being presented on Wikipedia. Additionally, because the standard for reliable sources is de facto "does it agree with other reliable sources?", we end up with a ratchet effect that makes it harder to prove a source is reliable as the number of reliable sources that source agrees with goes down. This eventually leads to a corpus of sources that uniformly agree on what the truth is.

The only way to prevent selective exclusion of sources is to consciously question whether our standards are objective. You can't handwave this burden away when it's been brought up repeatedly by other editors. The reason why I !voted Option 1 isn't because I am disputing most of your claims, it's because you cannot show why similar evidence would prove unreliability for other publications. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. Andre🚐 15:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

a) Most people are not suggesting deprecation and b) It's not just about rogue freelancers so lose the strawmen. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

!voters aren't suggesting deprecation because the Jewish Chronicle is obviously more reliable than the Daily Mail. But the IPSO argument implies that the JC is 10x worse than the Daily Mail. Both cannot be true at once. I'm refuting the IPSO complaint counters with a reduction to absurdity that demonstrates why the number of IPSO complaints isn't a meaningful metric to evaluate sources on.

Rejecting IPSO means the rogue freelancer story is the only evidence of false information being published by the source. You have provided no other specific cases.

Columnists resigning due to changes in ownership/political slant can only prove bias on the part of the JC. As the editnotice you're supposed to see when editing this page says, bias is not a reason in itself for a source to be unreliable, but may require in-text attribution.

The objective standard we should be following is whether a source can be used for citing false information on Wikipedia. We rank and categorize sources to prevent false information from entering the encyclopedia. You can write as much as you want, but if you can't give specific examples of false information, then you haven't shown the source is unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

All of the upheld IPSO cases found problems with accuracy – typically incendiary, false claims ascribing words to people they had not actually written or said. This sort of thing is apt to cause BLP problems here. I don't understand why you think such inaccuracies are irrelevant for our purposes, or do not qualify as "false information" (and please go a bit more lightly on the bold). Andreas JN466 20:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources also have substantiated IPSO complaints. Our dispute is over whether counting the number is acceptable, because you haven't bothered analyzing their specifics. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

These IPSO rulings seem quite similar to me in nature (in one case, practically identical).

You are proposing that the number of upheld IPSO rulings against a publication (proven inaccuracies, misrepresentations or libels) should be irrelevant to us. That is hardly sensible.

Your previous post was a textbook example of circular reasoning – you said, "the Jewish Chronicle is obviously more reliable than the Daily Mail. But the IPSO argument implies that the JC is 10x worse than the Daily Mail. Both cannot be true at once. You start with the assumption that the JC is better than the Daily Mail, so if it collects ten times more adverse IPSO rulings per article than the Daily Mail, then that proves IPSO rulings don't matter. Absurd indeed – but not in the way you mean.

The fact that these IPSO rulings generally occurred in a single topic area makes it all the more important to take note of the risk we would take by hosting the JC's truth claims unvetted and unfiltered by other, more reliable publications, here in our BLPs and other articles in that topic area. If the claim is important, another more reliable publication will pick it up, and we can cite that. That is responsible sourcing for an encyclopedia, given the substantial concerns about the JC voiced in the press. Andreas JN466 19:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You start with the assumption that the JC is better than the Daily Mail, so if it collects ten times more adverse IPSO rulings per article than the Daily Mail, then that proves IPSO rulings don't matter. Absurd indeed – but not in the way you mean.

I'm pointing out your absurd double standard where you argue that the Jewish Chronicle is statistically worse than the Daily Mail, but then only !vote for Option 2. It makes it obvious that your !vote doesn't follow from your stated reasoning. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The IPSO and fabrication problems are limited to a specific topic area. The "special consideration" in my Option 2 vote is that Option 3/4 should be applied to that topic area where there is strong evidence of poor reliability. I would be happy to cite the JC on lots of other topics – music, the arts, film and theatre reviews, biographies of Jewish scientists, etc. Andreas JN466 08:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chess Well, have a look what the NYT did when it discovered one of their reporters was guilty of fabrications:

• 7,350-word front page story, with transparent and exhaustive reporting of what had happened.

What we got from the JC is this nothingburger:

• 106 words of generalities.

To claim that this is in any way equivalent to what happened at the NYT is risible. You don't have to take my word for it, because we have journalists pointing this shortfall out in the mainstream press.

• "Thinnest form of contrition" (Times of Israel)
• "Though Wallis Simons apologised to readers, he offered no explanation for how the deception occurred. Just an assurance that standards will be tightened. This will not do." (Prospect Magazine).

The concerns about ownership etc. are voiced in the British and Israeli mainstream press, across the political spectrum.

Using the Jewish Chronicle for WP:A/I/PIA coverage after this episode is not my idea of due diligence. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." If they sort their operation out, we can always revisit. Regards, Andreas JN466 16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What would writing a longer statement with a more detailed apology do? Elon Perry lied about his identity and his sources. He was caught within two months. The "transparent and exhaustive reporting" of the New York Times is full of florid prose about Blair's travel habits, counselling, and personal problems as he was a full-time employee of the New York Times.

I don't think the Jewish Chronicle would have any of that information for a freelancer, so most of that article couldn't be written even if the JC wanted to. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

He was caught instantly by Israeli journalists when he made claims that Netanyahu's family then tried to give extra visibility to. (A similar PR effort was simultaneously underway in Germany, with the Bild Zeitung tabloid publishing a related fake news story: [7][8])

Perry was caught by the simple expedient of Israeli journalists asking the IDF whether it really had the materials Perry claimed they had (they replied it was a "wild invention"), and then checking whether Perry really was a professor at Tel Aviv University (he was not). If the JC is unable to perform such simple tasks then it lacks basic qualifications for reliable reporting on such matters.

The editor should have explained to readers how contact with Perry was established, why they did not fact-check his résumé given that he made some tall and easily disproved claims about himself, why they did not try to contact the IDF to corroborate Perry's stories (standard practice in reliable publications is to require two independent sources for news stories), etc. This is all basic bread and butter for mainstream outlets, and the JC is simply and evidently out of its league here if they can't or won't apply such basic due diligence. Andreas JN466 09:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 in General. Option 3 for issues relating to Palestine and the war in Gaza Its bias is very clear and overt. But as other editors have pointed out, this does not necessarily mean it deserves depreciation. However, depreciation and considering a source unreliable on a single topic are two very different things. For the same reason why editors are rightfully sceptical of Pro-Russian sources reporting on the war in Ukraine, it is best to be consistent and also treat with some scepticism the reliability of the Jewish Chronicle when dealing with Gaza and issues related to Palestine. Genabab (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 since 2024, Option 3 2015-2024— the problems with editorial standards at the newspaper have been ongoing for years and are only getting worse. (t · c) buidhe 23:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  The idea that JC covers antisemitism in the UK is not a good reason to keep the paper when it has lost any reputation for reliability in that area. We should be looking for scholarly sources to cover these controversies anyway. (t · c) buidhe 23:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's not possible on a technical level to deprecate a source for a period of time. It has to be all or nothing because the deprecation edit filter can't determine when an article was published. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  WP:DEPREC assessments are independent of the presence and feasibility of an edit filter. Andreas JN466 09:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  In every prior subject-area or time-limited deprecation discussion, the technical issues relating to the edit filter has come up. So yes, the feasibility of a subject-area deprecation needs to be addressed if we're going to adopt it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  There are deprecated sources that are not subject to an edit filter (the National Enquirer is an example) – you can have one without the other. But consensus seems to lean towards "generally unreliable" anyway, rather than deprecation. Andreas JN466 06:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Buidhe makes a very pertinent point. If the JC is frequently libelling people and making false claims around antisemitism, the fact it is the only source reporting on some cases of alleged antisemitism means these claims should generally not be included in our pages. Especially in cases of BLP.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA (including antisemitism) and Muslims, option 2 for other issues, per comments above and below (including mine).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  While it is a legitimate !vote that it be deemed unreliable on antisemitism (I have above argued that this would be a mistake, while Buidhe and Boynamedsue have made the argument for such a ruling), I just want to additionally argue that antisemitism in general should not be covered by AIPIA, only antisemitism directly related to Israel/Palestine, which I believe was the case in all of the relevant IPSO breaches. Personally, I think it is dangerous to not be able to cite the UK's only Jewish newspaper on the topic of antisemitism in the UK, without any evidence that it is unreliable on this topic in general (as opposed to antisemitism directly related to Israel/Palestine). At any rate, I think you'd need to present an evidence/policy-based argument rather than use ARBPIA. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm confused. Don't any of the other 4+ Jewish newspapers in the UK cover antisemitism? What's this "only XYZ" business about? And if the others don't cover the same incidents as the JC, perhaps that's indicative of the types of incident that have gotten it into libel and defamation territory. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Jewish News was basically a local paper until ~2020, at which point it became a better source than JC. Hamodia, Jewish Telegraph and Jewish Tribune are all impossible to use for Wikipedia as not web accessible, as well as very parochial. For 2015-20, JC is only source that fully covered antisemitism in the UK. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  I only had to look as far back as this year to find an IPSO breach without a mention of Israel or Palestine which could be inadvertently interpreted as antisemitism.

  Lunn v The Jewish Chronicle. Just from memory I recall they changed what was said about Marc Wadsworth only after mediation

  I also know that the JC has made similar mistakes as other publications over the IHRA definition, that doesn't excuse the JC Andromedean (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well if it is indeed a pattern of unreliability in relation to non-Israel/Palestine-related antisemitism, then this needs to be a separate topic area to the Israel/Palestine topic area, and consensus would need to be established for this.

  The Media Reform Centre report (a terrible piece of research imho) doesn't say anything indicating that JC is unreliable; its only mention is that it reported on Corbyn's Facebook posts long before other media outlets did. If we designate the media outlets that the MRC report indicts unreliable, we'd need to stop using BBC, ITN, Sky, Guardian, Telegraph and Independent, which personally I'd oppose. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020 per ActivelyDisinterested. As usual in UK media, Private Eye seems to be one of the few places taking any notice of this issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 for topics related to Israel, Palestine, Muslims, British left, accusations of antisemitism and BLP claims irrespective of timeframe, option 4 in general since at least 2020. As for its reliability concerning other subjects in earlier periods, I don't know the publication well enough to make a clear vote. I think the publication's unreliability during the last few years has been established pretty well by other editors, so I see no reason to elaborate on that. However, I would consider it generally unreliable on these issues irrespective of timeframe; besides the fact that the JC has been openly Zionist since the early 20th century (hence qualifying as a biased source although not necessarily unreliable), the article about it mentions a lot of instances of the JC accusing people with views critical of Israel of antisemitism at least 56 years back, when they were sued for accusing an MP of antisemitic views with no evidence and had to issue an apology, and it also mentions numerous occassions - some of which predate the 2015 threshold - where the JC has posted serious false accusations against people and institutions with an opposing view to the JC's. Among other things, in 2009 the JC falsely accused a peace activist of harbouring suicide bombers, and in 2014 it falsely claimed that the Royal Institute of British Architects had voted for a "ban on Jews" from the International Union of Architects, while what in fact was voted on was a suspension on an Israeli architect association involved in the building of illegal Israeli settlements. Posting such false allegations against people and institutions with opposing views clearly cross the line between biased reporting and pure misinformation/fabrication, and as the above examples show, the paper has engaged in this behaviour long prior to 2015. I find it obvious that a publication engaging in deliberately posting misinformation to promote its views and smear opponents should be labeled as generally unreliable, and as the paper has engaged in this behaviour prior to the 2015/2020 threshold, I don't think it is appropriate to limit this judgement to this limited timeframe. As for other topics, I don't think I have enough background information of its reporting throughout its history to make a statement about its reliability on other topics in earlier years, but I do think that its opaque ownership, along with its history of posting fabricated stories and misinformation, raises serious questions about its reliability on other issues as well. --Te og kaker (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  There was a case 56 years back, when JC published an opinion piece by one Labour MP calling another antisemitic; this is not disinformation, but opinion. Then there was a 41 year gap and they published a letter in which what the Guardian called a "peace activist" (and the Press Gazette specificies was an International Solidarity Movement activist) was falsely accused of harbouring two British men who he had simply met, who then carried out a suicide bomb in Israel, in a case that doesn't mention antisemitism. That's not a pattern. There's an plausible argument that the 2015+ pattern starts earlier, with the 2009 case (although this case doesn't relate to antisemitism), but considering how much coverage of antisemitism there was in these decades it would be perverse to stop using it on that topic because of the 1968 opinion piece. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC) (A reminder that neither an opinion piece nor a letter to the editor would be considered usable as a source for facts, especially biographical facts, anyway, so these two examples are really irrelevant. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC))

  However, the MP Christopher Mayhew sued the JC and received a public apology in the High Court. His argument was that, whilst his comments were anti-Zionist, they were not antisemitic. Andromedean (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  OK, but the 41 year gap between that and the next instance doesn't suggest a pattern does it? And would the article by Edelman ever be used on WP as a source for anything apart from this controversy itself? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Similarly the 2014 RIBA case is not a case of inaccuracy; it's a case of articulating a strong opinion. Once again, bias =/= unreliability, and we would not use an editorial as a source for facts anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the architect story is clearly comment, but it is a leader, the official view of the paper, and the nature and way this opinion is presented is pretty indicative of the way the JC's very extreme positions work. The article doesn't mention the fact that the ban was motivated by the participation of members of the Israeli architects' association in the construction of illegal settlements in occupied territory, a warcrime according to the Geneva convention. It also conflates Jews and Israelis, which according to most definitions of antisemitism... is antisemitism. This lack of context and misleading framing is also typical of its news coverage.--Boynamedsue (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree an egregiously biased leader reflects more badly on a source than an egregiously biased op ed, and this is indeed evidence of a drift towards hard right positions under Pollard. But these opinions about what constitutes antisemitism are common opinions that we'd see in plenty of reliable sources (e.g. the Wall Street Journal or Telegraph) and not evidence of unreliability. Also important to note that the leader was one para in an edition that included other articles on the topic, a topic it had extensively covered, including the illegal settlement issue that provoked the boycott. E.g:[9] I'd argue that we'd never use this leader as a source for facts, but it'd be fine to use a news article on this issue (like this one) as a source for facts in a WP article, while of course better to use alongside other sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

That particular article is much better than some it's published, and could have appeared in any reliable source. The problem is the sheer quantity of unreliable content it has put out means we have a hard job to separate the decent articles (which I assume that one was, doesn't seem to have any obvious howlers) and the dodgy ones.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

If we look at its extensive coverage of this RIBA boycott (more extensive than any other source) I think we can clearly see that all the news articles are very solid, while the editorials and op eds are extreme. The editorials might become due when other, secondary sources (in this case architecture media) refer to them, but otherwise we’d ignore them and stick with the news articles. This is a good illustration of why designating its news articles unreliable because its editorials are extreme would be a bad idea. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2, on I/P since 2019/2020, with protest of 2015 date -- please pay attention to sources! The only RS that have been posted for JC's change in reliability have been in the 2019--2021 area (for the IPSO case alerts and owner change) and 2024 reporting scandal. This has been discussed extensively in the thread immediately preceding the RfC. The first !voter here posted a 2015 date but offered no reasoning, and everyone to follow seems to have parroted that date. As I detailed below, giving opportunity to comment for weeks: the 2015 date, when it was brought up exactly once prior, is an artifact of the fact that IPSO started reporting in 2015 (it was founded 2014/11); the only other controversy that year was an editorial about Jeremy Corbyn. I am pleading that the closer reads this and gives the cutoff date consideration, and includes the previous thread. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are going by IPSO rulings and the comments of the RS Cathcart, we should date back to 2018 not 2019. The best cut off is 2008, the editorship of Pollard, who was forced out after bankrupting the paper with libel settlements. But he was already committing libel in 2012, falsely accusing an Islamic charity of involvement in terrorism. They accused an entirely innocent man of being involved in a terrorist bombing in 2008 (just two months after Pollard took over) again paying damages. It is worth noting that corrections were only published here as part of legal settlements for damages, the JC resisted correcting their lies to the very last. The lower quantity evidence of unreliability prior to 2015 is precisely for the reason you state, IPSO, toothless and incompetent as it is, didn't yet exist to document the JC's abuse and provide recourse to its victims.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Why 2018? What specifically happened in 2018?

I can tell you specifically what (many) IPSO violations and internal communications regarding JC happened in 2019 and 2020, and further events in 2021.

(Not to get into the, but "being involved in a terrorist bombing" is a complete misreading of the very short article you link. Also just a reminder to everyone that importantly the UK has looser standards of libel than the US.) SamuelRiv (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, if a paper stares someone has "harboured" or "sheltered" terrorist bombers, I consider that to be an accusation of involvement. It is certainly libellous and false, as shown by the fact the JC were forced to pay 30k for damage to reputation.

I choose 2018 because that is the date that Professor Brian Cathcart refers to as the beginning of their insane run of IPSO judgments. 2018 was when they falsely reported comments by Mike Sivier implying he had denied the holocaust, and falsely claimed that Mark Wadsworth had "abused" Ruth Smeeth (you can find the video online, there is no way to characterise it as abuse).

And as for libel law, yes the UK's libel law is tougher than almost any country, but it meshes very well with our BLP policy. If you can't prove it and it damages reputation, don't publish it.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The Sivier case is a really week case for establishing unreliability. The single inaccuracy IPSO found in that case was as follows. Sivier had said “I’m not going to comment on ‘thousands’ instead of ‘millions’ because I don’t know, but the Nazi holocaust involved many other groups as well as Jews, and it seems likely that the SWP was simply being ‘politically correct’ [in not mentioning Jewish victims]”. JC summarised this as: “remarks he made about Jews and Zionism, including a claim that he could not comment on whether thousands or millions of Jews died in the Holocaust he said ‘I don’t know’”. After he contacted them saying he didn’t deny the Holocaust, they amended the article to include his response. This is not grounds for a designation of unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The IPSO findings on that case say: The article gave the impression that the complainant had said something which he had not, on a subject liable to cause widespread offence; a clarification was required to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii). The publication had offered to issue a clarification stating the complainant’s position that he had been referring to why the leaflet made this claim when he said “I don’t know”, and stating his position on the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust. This clarification made the complainant’s position clear, and was sufficient to meet the terms of Clause 1(ii).

The way you've summarised it is apt to leave the same false impression as the JC did, and was slammed for. Press Gazette summary. Andreas JN466 08:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The former IPSO case was a breach, the latter was not (it was resolved in mediation). Note that JC had one breach in 2017 and one in 2018; in looking up again the 2019 memo, I did find a reference on investigation starting as early as 2018 (citation to letter by Lord Faulks, Twitter post, 3rd image. As I've said previously I was fine with saying anything in the 2019--2021 area as an approximate cut-off year guidance (precision on that is deceptive), so given this 2018--2021 is appropriate too. All I care about is that these dates remain justifiable to sources, and that when people !vote they know what they are voting on. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, the 2017 breach is not particularly concerning. It is outside the topic area where the JC's run of bad stories occurs. Distressing and unfair as it was to the individual concerned, it seems to be a kind of "cost of doing business" error that all papers, even the most reliable, suffer from.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 pre-2015, Option 2 in general afterwards, Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020 A newspapers that refuses to even disclose who owns it (and hence can exert control over coverage) must be treated with caution, and probably not used for sensitive areas. The same applies to media funded by dictatorial regimes, for example Al Jazeera. Jeppiz (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 for WP:A/I/PIA area since 2020 (or 2019 as mentioned by SamuelRiv), Option 2 in general for the same time period - given the pattern of IPSO rulings, reliable secondary source coverage of its problems, and evidence of unreliability given by Andreas JN466 (Jayen466). starship.paint (RUN) 15:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 It is quite difficult to get IPSO to rule against a newspaper. Breaking the IPSO code IPSO's code 41 times between 2018 and 2023 must mean that this is an unreliable source Isoceles-sai (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 I will go with no change to the ratings, as the attached notes seem enough. Although 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. I do feel that with this small a pub, I'm dubious this even needs a rating unless sources of greater WEIGHT simply do not exist, but would include handling this source as the existing rating of "option 1" as RS per WP:BIASED as mentioned on the WP:A/I/PIA aream seems enough. The 2023-24 change in business are noted so may be a consideration in a specific cite, but this highlights again that CONTEXTMATTERS -- it depends on specifics of what the cite being used is dated and what the intended edit is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 for WP:A/I/PIA, Option 3 in general The IPSO ruling is damning, and as I said in my comment just now too: the JC has proven itself to be unreliable, and should be deprecated as a source. This true historically, and the latest scandal and the lack of a proper response (merely getting rid of the writer and pretending it was just a minor slip up and moving on) definitively confirms its lack of editorial standards, and that this is systemic with the publication, and not incidental. This marks a qualitative difference between the JC and another outlet like the NYT or Guardian publishing a plagiarist or fantasist: They don't have a long record of this, and when this does happen, it is never because they wrote things that were sought out and published for being in accordance with the editorial political positions of said outlets. Both are the case with the JC, so I support deprecating it as a source. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Raskolnikov.Rev I’m sorry, but you are simply incorrect in saying Guardian and NYT do not have known incidents of plagiarism, biased reporting, etcetera bad enough to have reporters quitting and/or purged over such and that there is a long history of incidents. If your !vote is premised a mistaken belief that others exist without intentional flaws, you may wish to google history to get some of the examples where these or Globe and Mail or some others did sins egregious enough to get coverage, or where London Times and such publicly announce an editorial political POV. No source is perfect, none is free from its limited POV or inherent biases, none is free from human fallibility of an occasional corrupt act by reporter or editor. RS would include considering editorial policy and retractions on such inevitable items as a sign of quality because they just do happen everywhere, and I think should similarly give credit for open announcement of a POV such as pro-Jewish as just being honest. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If the Guardian or NYT had a proven track record of publishing many false stories on a single topic, I would argue we shouldn't use them on that topic. But they don't. The JC does, however. The JC doesn't have a pro-Jewish POV, btw. It has a pro-Israel POV. It's really quite anti-Jewish when the Jewish people concerned don't like Israel.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 in general, option 4 for topics related to Israel/Palestine. The opaque ownership structure and IPSO issues rule out that TJC is a reliable source. at this point. Cortador (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 in general, Option 3/4 for WP:A/I/PIA area - per Jayen466 who has a seemingly infinite amount of patience and AGF in the face of repeated false claims despite having debunked them each time. When other reliable sources are saying that this source was used as part of a disinformation campaign, when they discuss its fake news crisis, it beggars belief that anybody can claim that the source is "generally reliable". I sympathize with Bobfrombrockley's concern about deprecating a hundred plus year old newspaper, but in general we shouldn't be using news articles for things that are not news anyway, at that point we should be looking at books and journals and so on. But fair enough, for material prior to when this source had become "fake news" and participating in a "disinformation campaign" that was based on "wild fabrications" (and those quotes are all from reliable sources), use it to your hearts content. But for material after that point? Tony Montana said it best, you kidding me or what? nableezy - 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 in general, option 4 for topics related to Israel/Palestine/Islam/West Asia/UK politics. Not sure what else to add that hasn't already been mentioned by others. No one knows who owns the outlet. The outlet has been criticized for being a disseminator of disinformation. The outlet echoes (and sometimes starts) far right rhetoric and is known for spreading Islamophobia. The circulation is around 16,000 per month only half of which are paid which is an even more damning indictment of how the current owners are completely ok with alienating not just their staff (who have quit) but also their readers. My heart goes out to Bobfrombrockley when they feel emotional about deprecating a 100+ year old publication. Our decision needs to be grounded in being neutral and not clouded by sentimentality. Wikipedia is not beholden to the Jewish Chronicle or any other outlet. When media watchdogs and reputable journalists speak, it's our job to listen and act. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's not sentimentality. It's about the simple fact that bad editorial decisions in 2023 don't give us a reason to deem unreliable (let alone deprecate) material published in 2003 or 1973. I find it bizarre that editors are providing arguments for unreliability based on recent missteps but somehow backdating the unreliability to before the current editor was born, which is going to make a difficult job even harder for the closer. Further, given for many of the years in that period, the JC was the only real Jewish newspaper in this country, we'd be wiping out a lot of encyclopedic coverage of the UK Jewish community for very recentist reasons. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  This note is used beside the depreciated Daily Mail: 'Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. So a similar note could be attached to the JC to allow restricted use. Andromedean (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Something like that may work if some version of option 3/4 is adopted without a specific start point.

  Of course, the Mail's offences stretch back a lot further than the JC's: I would argue for more than "historical" reliability but that most post-digital output is usable with increasing caution from the 2010s on select topics. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's a valid point and Andromedean's suggestion seems like a great way to ensure we are mindful of that. Do you agree with option 4 for Palestine/Islam/West Asia/UK politics then, perhaps starting 2010, given those topics are not directly relevant to the UK Jewish community? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure if that's directed at me but if so then: not really.

  • I'd oppose deprecation for Palestine and "West Asia" (the latter something nobody else has argued for so far) because that would lose for example analysis by Colin Schindler and Anshell Pfeiffer who recently resigned; I think option 2 and a bit more than the care that ought to routinely be put into ARBPIA topics is enough there (except possibly in the very recent period, relating to the Elon Perry case).
  • I'm not bothered by deprecation for Islam under current and last editors, who are arguably Islamophobic in their editorial positions, although I don't see an evidence/policy-based reason to go past option 2 for on this topic (it was relevant in just a couple of IPSO breaches, a tiny fraction of their coverage related to Islam).
  • Nobody has made an argument for "UK politics" up to now; the UK left is a better frame for extra considerations in the 2015-20 period from the evidence presented so far in this discussion. (Again, I think option 2 could cover that.)

  BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 in general, Option 4 for WP:A/I/PIA area - per Jayen466, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 since 2008. Option 1 before 2008. The decline in quality and in accurate and complete reporting of the facts has been a long and slow one. It probably cannot get much lower. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Background (Jewish Chronicle)

• Mainstream media reports:
  • Alan Rusbridger: Who really funds the Jewish Chronicle? Why it's troubling that we don’t know…, Prospect Magazine, 26 April 2024
  • 'Great disgrace': High-profile British-Jewish journalists resign JC over scandal, The Jerusalem Post, 16 September 2024
  • The ‘fabrications’ and resignations that plunged The Jewish Chronicle into crisis, The Telegraph, 16 September 2024
  • Opinion | Jewish Chronicle Scandal: When 'pro-Israel' Means Becoming a Megaphone for the Netanyahu Government, Haaretz, 18 September 2024
  • How the Elon Perry fabrication scandal shook the Jewish Chronicle, The Guardian, 20 September 2024
• History of IPSO rulings against The Jewish Chronicle:
  • The Jewish Chronicle
  • thejc.com --Andreas JN466 11:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Jewish Chronicle)

• This articlel, from The Guardian, should be relevant. At lot of it seems to be from Elon Perry, whose articles they've recently retracted en masse. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I am concerned with, as are several of the reports on this, about their vague, inadequate response. The statement they made is more like a cover-up: 'we won't tell you the details, we've 'memory holed' this so it will go away, just trust us.' As I suggested in the prior discussion, we should expect when something like this happens that the outlet 'reports the hell out of it'. We should know from them who and why touched off the investigation, who was involved, what was false, what can't be confirmed, where it leads, what charges that preceded the investigation and arose during it could be validated, denied, or for which there is no evidence, what was their investigation, what didn't they investigate, why, what processes went wrong in their organization, what the fixes are, etc. etc. etc. We should also expect disciplining of the editors involved. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2024

  For reference, this was the statement summarising the investigation, published one day after the announcement that an investigation was underway. --Andreas JN466 11:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have linked those in my comment for others' sake. That's what my comment refers to as inadequate, to say the least. Instead, they are 'sitting on the story', not reporting perhaps among the most important news, in the outlet's history. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment These additional qualfications add nothing, since they already apply to every other news publication.

For all green-lighted news media, they are considered generally reliable for news and additional considerations apply for all other information they publish. See News organizations: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). [However] [e]ditorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

Also, per Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."

No one has pointed out how this source has caused damage or even that there has been any discussion in articles about specific claims linked to it.

TFD (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no doubt we should do a better job of making the policies cabining news clear everywhere (including on the perennial sources page) -- indeed, one of the reasons I think that page may be unclear (despite the extensive introductory hand-wringing), is it likely suggests in its format, news and other types of sources are the same (we should probably breakout news outlets from others, although I don't want us to then suggest all other sources are the same--perhaps sectioning would be better). But "editing notes" is what we should collectively give, and it only makes sense on Wikipedia that there would be collective editing notes, especially concerning its most plainly used but also difficult to use source, news. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Objection: There is no cutoff year offered in the RfC, despite many or most in the prior discussion saying that there was a distinct and recent change in JC's reliability, with several sourced dates offered. So voters have added cutoff dates themselves -- but where on earth did the 2015 cutoff year come from? It's not been mentioned at all in the previous thread in the context of when problematic behavior actually occurred. All I could find is User:Bobfrombrockley's 17 Sept comment comparing the total number of complaints since 2015 for the JC and The Times. They do not say why 2015 is the cutoff -- presumably it is because IPSO began in September 2014, so that's the first year of their reporting. That is not the first year in which problematic behavior was reported by the JC -- as far as I can tell the first year in which secondary sources report problematic behavior, or report that JC internally was concerned about such behavior, was 2019. This is not the same as picking a year arbitrarily and counting the IPSO violations thenceforth -- we are taking a RS article that cites either internal communications about violations, or a particular violation as a bellweather event, for their own judgement that JC has dropped standards after that particular point. No such source has said 2015. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think Option 2 is supposed to cover it case by case after 2015 onwards, especially for non I/P stuff, and Option 3 for PIA after 2020 should be a clear enough point where facts from TJC should not be sourced for I/P issues. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  As per the discussion above, the 2015 date stems from a time where TJC started to receive a number of IPSO complaints. We are not writing an article here; RS are not specifically needed to make an argument that a source is unreliable for one reason or another. Cortador (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please see my direct response to your !vote above (but reply here): what is your source -- because it was never said in this thread -- that there were "a number of IPSO complaints" in 2015? What is your source that the number of IPSO complaints in 2015 was significant compared to others? (Compare to the years we have sources for that IPSO complaints were significant, the years that alerts internal and external were raised.) SamuelRiv (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I have not voted in this poll yet. Cortador (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think 2015 makes sense as a transition from green to yellow status as this is when the run of IPSO complaints began which all relate to the controversy over Antisemitism in the British Labour Party which began that year. This is when Brian Cathcart seems to start with his denunciation (although his main target is IPSO), so if you see the IPSO complaints alone as grounds for option 3 then it makes sense to start then. But there's also a strong case that 2015-20 was marked, not marked by general unreliability, but issues that call for additional considerations, e.g. extreme caution on the topics of the British left and Muslims or perhaps Israel/Palestine (although nobody has really given an argument for that specifically). Apart from Cathcart, all other RSs take 2020/2021 as a starting point: the mystery owners, compounded by the appointment of an amateur and highly ideological editor a year later. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell the only direct relationship JC bears to the antisemitism controversy is their front page editorial against Corbyn. While that's significant, it's an editorial. Does that speak to reliability, in 2015? (Much less unreliability in news coverage of the left, Muslims, or I/P in 2015, the year of the editorial?) SamuelRiv (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I think we have a problem here already, because people who are !voting option 2 are often not saying what they mean by it. I would invite them to clarify, or we are giving the closer a bit of a hospital pass. Option 2 covers a lot of ground, my own !vote is effectively option 2 prior to 2020, but the important part is exactly what considerations users think should apply.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is a very good point. Quite a few editors have !voted for option 2 for the whole period from 1841 to 2015 without indicating what extra considerations should apply, which isn't a usable conclusion. (For me, the additional considerations that should apply after 2015 is attribution and caution on the British left and Muslims, especially for BLP stuff.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  The previous RFC close mentioned pre 2010 and I chose not to date my comments on the grounds that stuff that old can in all likelihood be sourced better elsewhere and if not, one would have to ask why not. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment It concerns me deeply that despite the mountain of evidence against the Jewish Chronicle (JC) editors are still attempting to find periods and categories it might be considered reliable so as to grant exemptions. This privilege wasn't granted to the deprecated Daily Mail which has a long history and covers a wider subject range. If exemptions are granted, we need to ensure exclusion of a broader range such as politics and all other religions, not just Israel, Muslims and Labour. With regard to timing the JCs more extreme lurch to the right can probably traced to Stephen Pollard. Only two years before being appointed editor in 2008, he used far-right rhetoric like “preserve Western civilisation” from the threat of “Islamists.” and “the Left, in any recognisable form, is now the enemy” in his blog. Fast forward to today and the JC are promoting Donald Trump. This is an endemic problem not a temporary one. Andromedean (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Surely the issues with Pollard relate to bias not unreliability? We consider the Telegraph or Wall Street Journal reliable sources, despite plenty of that rhetoric. And despite what he wrote in his blog in 2006, he still published lots of left-wing opinion in the JC. More importantly, it's not a "privilege" if a long-running newspaper that has not been accused of serious improprieties in its close to two centuries is assumed to be generally reliable; it's our default for all legacy media (e.g. regional print newspapers)unless evidence is brought against it. With the Daily Mail, the downgrading decision was based on a massive body of evidence of uncorrected fabrication and plagiarism that went back a long time. It's not comparable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but I notice that on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources noticeboard a comment is often made regarding bias, notability, sensationalism, propaganda as well as reliability. Isn't this the area to discuss this? Andromedean (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would say no. Pollard heralded in the period of reduced reliability and presided over the initial accumulation of IPSO complaints. It is obviously harder to tell how the publication performed prior to this (the 2014 formation of IPSO), but there is no particular reason to consider that it was likely any better. The paper was first successfully sued for damages under Pollard in 2010,[10] and Pollard is synonymous with other woes for the paper. Everything from 2009 onwards deserves a sharper lense. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Your citation for "The paper was first successfully sued for damages under Pollard in 2010" actually refers to a blogpost he wrote for a different publication, The Spectator, in 2008, prior to his arrival at JC. I guess the point might still stand that this reflects poorly on him as a choice of editor (The Spectator is yellow on RSP) but not in the way being sued for damages would be. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Part of that is news especially, "old news", is assumed to have ever-limited shelf life for much of what Wikipedia does and wants to do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  The first draft of history, as they say. The problem is that for many Wikipedia topics that is all there ever is; and even for topics that scholars subsequently do write about, the scholarly sources often don't make it into Wikipedia as the article is full already. Andreas JN466 14:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  The theory is that merging or updating or replacement should occur to render the long view (not sticking to a first draft). So that, the 'British left in the 1980s' is essentially a differently useful topic than the 'British left today'. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  User:Bobfrombrockley Well the looking at periods may reflect that clearly RSP evaluated it as “option1” initially in 2021 and apparently re-confirmed that in 4 other questions of 2024 that just add cautions of a topic, so the question seems has it gone worse and if so then when. Personally, I could see the ownership change of 2023-2024 as an objective point where one might think that it’s basically a new paper, but the general thread seems re 2015 and if RSP has been wrong for 5 years+. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Whilst I take on the earlier advice that this RfC isn't a simple vote count, it would be highly challenging to assess it fairly due to the multitude of categories editors have inserted. To carry out the analysis fairly and avoid double or partial counting would require a model and qualification in set analysis! Do we need technical or independent assistance or agree to stick with simpler categories? Other RfCs must go through the same difficulties. My view is that there's no need for dates, although I could be convinced to give it a pass prior to Pollard, if only for my sanity!Andromedean (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the closer generally looks to see if there is a rough consensus among the vagaries of participants differing expressions of thought, not any mathematical certainty. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've placed notifications at the Journalism[11], Newspapers[12], Politics of the United Kingdom[13], and Israel Palestine Collaboration[14] projects to seek further input. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'll notify the WikiProject Judaism and Jewish history as well. Andre🚐 19:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  No objection to additional notifications, the four I chose seemed to be the most generic matches to the issues involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'll notify the WikiProject Arab world and Islam as well. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion with User:Andrevan from above: As User:Alanscottwalker already mentioned to you, WP:SOURCE explicitly points out that one of the four aspects of a source that can affect reliability is the publisher and its reputation. An anonymous owner creates the impression of having something to hide. This has impacted the reputation of the Jewish Chronicle, as evidenced by the media reports linked above. --Andreas JN466 22:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Anonymous can have no reputation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If such standard were applied to all sources, we'd have to mark as unreliable any source for whom we don't know all the board members. The sources you provided do list a number of people. A silent partner in any venture is not unusual or a sign of unreliability. The Companies House listing for Jewish Chronicle Media Ltd also suggests no change in its status from a private limited company. Instead, the only change that appeared to have been made was to remove Gibb as a person with significant control, replaced by Jonathan Kandel, a former tax lawyer whose LinkedIn page says he now works as a senior consultant for the Starwood Capital Group, an international private investment firm.....The Jewish Chronicle’s ownership structure, in which several key figures remain anonymous.... Since 2020, the only shareholder and director was Robbie Gibb, a former Downing Street comms director. But he was not bankrolling the loss-making paper, which according to its latest accounts required a loan of £3.5 million. In March, the paper announced it would be becoming a charitable trust. Gibb recently resigned as director, replaced by the Labour peer Lord Austin, Jonathan Kandel, a prominent lawyer, and Joseph Dweck, a senior rabbi. The shareholding was split up, too. But the people ultimately responsible for The JC’s debts remain unknown. Andre🚐 22:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

We should be concerned when sources say it is a concern. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This is, again, a misread of what it means by "publisher," it means the outlet, not the ownership of the outlet; ownership isn't mentioned. If you find an article that was published in the Jewish Chronicle, that was published by the Jewish Chronicle, and it will be reputable or not based on what we decide here, but nowhere is that extended to mean the reliability of the shareholders of the company. Andre🚐 22:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No you don't understand publisher. The publication is the Jewish Chronicle, either it has a separate publisher or it does not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

As I just said, it is called "Jewish Chronicle Media Ltd." The fact that we don't know all the shareholders is not relevant. I think we're going around in circles so let's agree to disagree. Andre🚐 22:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The ownership does matter. It has to matter to the publisher. But more specifically, it matters to the sources that have taken issue with it. As Jayen already pointed out, this problem was not identified by Wikipedians, it was identified by sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources also say, Not all of the contributors have resigned. “For me, this incident is not reason enough to give up on a paper that’s been a powerful and essential voice for our Jewish community for 180 years,” says Naomi Greenaway, deputy editor of the Telegraph Magazine and Jewish Chronicle columnist. “But I have a lot of respect for the journalists who have resigned, and I’m glad it’s triggered The Jewish Chronicle to interrogate their editing processes. The shame is that for a paper that does give a platform to those on all sides of the political spectrum, these resignations will ironically mean it loses that balance on the Left. “From my experience, they are a tiny team, juggling a huge amount on a shoestring budget and generally the calibre of content punches way above what would be expected from their resources. But they’ve dropped the ball and they know they have massive lessons to learn from it.”....“The @JewishChron has cut all ties with the freelancer in question and his work has now been removed from our website. Readers can be assured that stronger internal procedures are being implemented. Andre🚐 22:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you are responding to. That does not address publisher. It also continues a vagueness, apparently she, an editor, has no idea what went on and what the fixes are or what lessons are learned. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The question at hand is whether the publisher, Jewish Chronicle Media Ltd, and its associated publication, have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That quote substantiates that in fact, its reputation may still be intact, though that is for editors here to determine. As to whether the company contains, among the named individuals, some anonymous individuals AFAIK is not something discussed anywhere in wiki-policy. Andre🚐 22:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No. It does not. She is not a reliable source for her own employer in such a matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It had a reputation for fact-checking, up until circa 2009, when Pollard took over, it was bankrupted by libel cases, and then taken over. The JC of today is no longer the JC of yester-century, but the shell of a long-cherished brand, and the point of this RFC is to make that very distinction in terms of source quality. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Has any RS reported it was bankrupted by its four libel cases or was this speculation? Lot of newspapers suffered financially in the same period, as lots of the RS commentary on this case notes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

An interesting quote from John Ware, part of the consortium that acquired The Jewish Chronicle in 2020, appeared this weekend in The Times. Ware told The Times:

• "I, and some others, repeatedly asked to be told who the new funders were. We were told that wouldn’t be possible. I was assured that they were politically mainstream and I trusted those assurances because I trusted who gave them. I didn’t want the paper to fold so I allowed my name to be used, having been told it would help. I had zero managerial, financial or editorial influence, control or input, nor ever have had. It was just a name."

Ware stopped writing for The Jewish Chronicle in February 2024, due to concerns over the publication's new editorial line under Wallis Simons, and defected to the Jewish News. --Andreas JN466 13:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That's indeed a damning quote, but note his resignation is not due to reliability issues just editorial political position: “To be frank, I became unhappy with the JC’s political drift. Whilst it was doing new and important stuff on extremism, I felt too often it glossed over the fragmentation of Israeli society, which is accelerating and which really matters to the Jewish community here and should matter everywhere. It’s a very big and developing story.” BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The anonymous consortium member quoted here a few months ago – who said some remarkably similar things to what Ware has now been saying on the record to The Times – also declared the JC's editor was "behaving like a political activist, not a journalist", especially in social media, and that coverage of Israel had become a case of "my country, right or wrong".

This may or may not have been a different member of the consortium – after all, the sources are saying several of its members eventually became uneasy about their involvement – but it is clear that even within the consortium that was ostensibly owning and running the JC, concerns arose whether the JC was about propaganda or journalism.

John Woodcock, Baron Walney, another consortium member, also confirmed to The Times that he has had no involvement whatsoever in any oversight structures for the JC. Andreas JN466 16:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Lee Harpin, a former senior reporter at the JC, left the paper in 2021 and a few days ago published a scathing piece about "Leaving the Jewish Chronicle" on his Substack. Alan Rusbridger quotes Harpin as saying that after the new owners took over, he was told they wanted more views "well to the right of the Tory party". --Andreas JN466 10:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment:A few days ago we seemed to be converging on a general consensus (unreliable on certain subjects after a certain date). However, since then the following editors User:xDanielx, User:The Kip, User:Alaexis, User:Fortunatesons have given the JC a clean bill of health. Their arguments are based on one or more of the following opinions: the JC has a long standing service to a minority (what possible relevance is that to post 2010/15 reliability?), unknown ownership and funding isn't as bad as state funding (yet like the BBC, Al-Jazeera claims to be independent and is only partially funded by it's government), the IPSO rulings don't look that bad did you read the bizarre examples of failed ones? , by focussing on the latest scandal, and ignoring the following lawsuits and rulings.
• falsely accusing a peace activist for harbouring suicide bombers
• disclosing details a family members without good reason
• reporting false links to terrorist activity
• making untrue allegations about their own regulator, the IPSO. Note in another case the IPSO considered the JCs conduct during their investigation “unacceptable”.
• falsely accusing a councillor of a) antisemitic comments, b) launching a vicious protest & c) interfering with a vote
• falsely accusing someone of a conspiracy to intimidate, threaten or harass Jewish activists in a meeting, when he wasn't even present.
• falsely accusing a country of repeatedly vowing to wipe Jews off the face of the earth
• falsely accusing a Rabbi of holocaust denial when they clearly knew in advance this wasn't true.

I would be interested to hear a response, particularly if they think these legal cases aren't that bad? Andromedean (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked into all of these claims, some seem like fair concerns, but a few points -

• Some it just seems like matters of opinion, like Suarez who takes issue with being called a "Israel hate author" (other sources have made similar claims), or claims about antisemitic comments. At best they show JC is WP:BIASED.
• Publishing info about family members doesn't relate to reliability.
• reporting false links to terrorist activity doesn't seem accurate, they stated that Interpal was listed by the US as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, which is factually accurate (albeit unbalanced without mentioning Interpal's denial).

We have to keep in mind that JC voluntarily submits to IPSO regulation, which provides a highly accessible venue for complaints, giving them leverage to extract apologies or small payouts. Other outlets like The Guardian opt out of IPSO regulation, so claims about libel have to go to real court, which is much less accessible and which involves a much stricter legal standard of libel.

JC also receives more scrutiny than most sources due to its controversial positions. If AP or Reuters made a mistake like writing banned rather than rejected, in an otherwise uncontroversial report, we'd never hear about it because noone would care. I'm not convinced that JC makes more factual errors than most news outlets. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

However, since then the following editors...The Kip...have given the JC a clean bill of health.

I voted virtually the exact same way as ActivelyDisinterested, Bobfrombrockley, Bluethricecreamman, LokiTheLiar, and Springee (and not far off from Selfstudier and Jayen466), which was that it was reliable up to a certain point (hence why full-scale deprecation would be a problem) and not so reliable afterwards, especially for ARBPIA. That is very clearly not option 1 akin to the others listed. What in the world do you mean by I've "given it a clean bill of health??" The Kip ^(contribs) 03:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Andromedean, forgot to ping in initial response. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, not option 1 across the board for you, but that brings me back to how difficult it will be for an assessor to make a judgement with all the exceptions to this and that. I also believe that Option 2 could be used with almost any publication on non-political issues. However, it's mainly geopolitics and national politics which dominates references to the JC, and is the motivation behind many of the other controversies. Typically editors are advised to find other sources where they exist in such cases. Andromedean (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Andromedean, I primarily responded to the latest Eylon Perry debacle and the IPSO rulings since these were the main arguments in the Background section. I'll review the links you've shared and respond here (and possibly amend my !vote). Alaexis_¿question? 07:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Andromedean, I've looked at the lawsuits and rulings section of the wikipedia article. First of all, as you probably know England has rather peculiar laws on defamation which put the burden of proof on the defendant and (imho) have been abused by a lot of unsavoury characters. Whatever you think about the merits of this law, this means that the same article would not necessarily be considered libelous if it were published elsewhere where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

Second, most of the section and most of your examples have to do with IPSO rulings which is again, the system working as it should resulting in the newspaper removing content (amongst other remedies). I agree that they published a number of articles that turned out to be incorrect but since they took appropriate measures following the decision of the regulator, I don't think we need to downgrade them. This definitely confirms their bias, but that's hardly news for anyone here.

Regarding some of the specific examples you've mentioned.

• Publishing details of the family members of the defendant without valid justification has no bearing on the reliability.
• falsely accusing a country of repeatedly vowing to wipe Jews off the face of the earth - it was in an opinion column which we would not use for statements of fact per WP:RSEDITORIAL
• reporting false links to terrorist activity - if you're referring to Interpal then it's not obviously false. In spite of the court ruling in the UK this organisation seems to be still designated as a terrorist organisation by the US, Australia and Canada.

Alaexis_¿question? 09:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• This finding by Independent Press Standards Organisation is concerning: "Therefore, at the time of publication, the allegations against the complainant remained unproven. By reporting these allegations as fact, rather than identifying them as unproven claims made by multiple sources, the [Jewish Chronicle] articles failed to distinguish between comment, conjecture, and fact". There are about 12 other complaints of inaccuracy in which IPSO ruled against JC.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Fabrications and Resignations: A Crisis at Britain’s Jewish Chronicle The NYT has joined in the reporting round. Selfstudier (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. From the NYT article: "To Israeli national security journalists, the reports bore the hallmarks of a disinformation campaign by sources in the Israeli government. Such stories, one said, are often placed in friendly publications outside Israel because their reporters and editors are less likely to subject them to intense vetting." (My emphases.)

The NYT report also mentions that the fabrications stayed up even after the Israeli Defense Forces had debunked them. They were only retracted after columnists quit. Andreas JN466 09:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• If we're going to keep pigeonholing publications into a single category, then I think we need to make space for "Biased but doesn't have a history of making things up, so still reliable within the limits of WP:RSBIASED" and possibly "Unfortunate incident". For example, Jayson Blair fabricated a lot of articles at The New York Times, and yet it's still RSP "green". One might wonder why a mass retraction at a general-audience newspaper resulted in no change, but a seemingly similar mass retraction at a Jewish newspaper is treated differently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  Seconded Andre🚐 22:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  The difference lies in the sensational nature of the fabrications and their political context, the fact that a very obviously doctored résumé was accepted, the paper's opaque ownership, the wholly inadequate, non-transparent response of the editor to the affair, the walkouts of major, longstanding contributors, and the unanimous verdict of the mainstream press that journalistic standards at the Jewish Chronicle have severely declined. Andreas JN466 23:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would say that all sources are biased, although some more intensely so. Israel/Palestine sources are particularly susceptible to bias, it seems, meaning there is really no perfect source on the conflict. There has been a problem with discussions on this noticeboard of editors !voting for unreliability for sources perceived as pro-Israel (Jerusalem Post, JC) and as anti-Israel (al-Jazeera) simply because of bias ("they're Zionists" or "they're pro-Hamas"). We really need to keep bias out of the conversation. (The best sources might be those perceived as biased against them by both sides...) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  It is your claim that appears false. They are not the same. (Nor does it make sense to believe each reputation of each publication would be exactly the same, no matter what.) Here, the JC has seemingly failed in multiple ways, and it is both the scandal which brought some of it to light, and it is their failures and continuing failures in how they have handled it which makes them doubted across RS (see also, lie by omission). They have failed to even do the job of deeply reporting the matter, and not disciplining editors. For example, among other things this scandal has highlighted that the new post-almost-closure editor is a novelist (see generally, fiction), and it gets worse from there for the JC's seeming reputation. Also, can anyone even begin to draw a comparison, which does not even consider something like ability/resource to do a job.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure if this case has been mentioned. In 2014 the JC claimed that a PSC Director, had said that demonstrations against the Gaza conflict “had been used by people to ‘peddle hatred and intolerance’ towards Jews”. The Chronicle published the following correction: “Ms Colborne had not said that. In fact, what she had said was: “The Palestine Solidarity Campaign opposes all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and racism directed against Palestinians whether living in the West Bank and Jerusalem, or as citizens of Israel.”” Therefore, there are five publicised pre-2015 cases against the JC, in 1968, 2009, 2012 and two in 2014. Andromedean (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Not the most reliable of opinion pieces, still tho "Does the Jewish Chronicle really matter, though? Nobody reads it anymore – it circulates just under 16,000 print copies, distributing around half of them for free – hence its near-death experience in 2020." Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Rivkah Brown is a commissioning editor and reporter for Novara Media, which for those familiar would indicate her levels of reliaiblity and bias. She gives Pollard period (2008+) for increasingly extreme bias ("fanatical cheerleader"), Wallis Simon period (2021+) for unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

In March 2022, Steven Barnett a Professor of communications at the University of Westminster and a member of the British Journalism Review editorial board, wrote scathingly about the quality of the JCs journalism and the inability or unwillingness of the IPSO to effectively regulate it. Andromedean (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Barnett would support 2018 as turning point. Beware though of JC as collateral damage in opinion pieces attacking IPSO, which is one of Barnett's main causes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any explicit mention of him agreeing to 2018 as being a 'turning point'. However, he did say "Since 2018, it has been found by IPSO’s complaints committee – which is notoriously reluctant to find fault with member publications – to have breached the Editors’ Code 33 times. Even worse, over the same period it has admitted and paid damages for no fewer than four serious libels."

Andromedean (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

look at the context of that quote: “Over the last few years, for whatever reason, the JC appears to have suffered a catastrophic failure of journalistic standards which has short-changed its readers, damaged the victims of its serial inaccuracies, and left its reputation in tatters... The JC’s charge sheet is long and depressing. Since 2018, it has been found…” In other words: It HAD a good reputation; that reputation is in tatters after a series of failures over the last few years; the charge sheet starts in 2018. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I am very sympathetic to a point by Unbandito made down the page, although I'm not sure it's been how this board has worked for some years: I believe these discussions are supposed to take place in the context of a content dispute, so can you provide an example of where Palestine Chronicle is used on Wikipedia in a way that is misleading or violates our core principles? In this discussion of the Jewish Chronicle, not one editor has mentioned an instance of JC being used on Wikipedia in a way that is misleading or violates our core principles (and in fact the evidence being pointed to by option 3 voters focuses on (a) the IPSO issues in a bunch of articles that have all been fully corrected, and (b) the Elon Perry pieces which have all been removed, so it would be pretty impossible for these to be used improperly on WP). BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  There's no requirement for a RfC to come from a content dispute. Challenging the reliability of a source based on change of ownership, change of editorial policy (e.g. using AI, which some previously reliable sources have been doing) etc. is appropriate. Cortador (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with Andromedean and others that the JC has proven itself to be unreliable, and should be deprecated as a source. This true historically, and the latest scandal and the lack of a proper response (merely getting rid of the writer and pretending it was just a minor slip up and moving on) definitively confirms its lack of editorial standards, and that this is systemic with the publication, and not incidental. This marks a qualitative difference between the JC and another outlet like the NYT or Guardian publishing a plagiarist or fantasist: They don't have a long record of this, and when this does happen, it is never because they wrote things that were sought out and published for being in accordance with the editorial political positions of said outlets. Both are the case with the JC, so I support deprecating it as a source. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Are people truly arguing that RSP is consistently wrong? Clearly RSP rated JC as green or “option 1” in 2021, and in 4 prior discussions of 2024. The concern timing this year matches both a change in ownership 2023-2024, and *ahem* a hot war in Palestine which I have seen in WP edit-warring / POV pushing at other articles. So unless one argues that RSP failed all the prior times, I’m inclined to think JC (a) remains green since the specific concerns match the war topic that was already added is enough, or (b) the quality shift in 2024 is the concern and articles since 2023 get an added note to a still-green JC listing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, in 2021, there was 'no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians.' Edit: Based on the links below, after eliminating sock puppets & those not eligible, those in favour of the JC being generally reliable became 11/23, against 11/23 saying it was generally unreliable or outright publishes false material and should never be used. However the way subject areas and timescales are divided up is complex, and the quality of arguments and evidence need to be weighted. It must be enormously difficult for an uninvolved assessor to evaluate RFCs. I note some news sources are given two independent ratings to simplify matters. Perhaps that's an option here? However, it's still worrying that a small paper with such a large catalogue of IPSO cases and legal disputes is given the benefit of the doubt in less controversial areas, or dates before regulation was tightened up (ever so slightly). Editors opinions change as regulators highlight issues which were previously unknown, and presumably Wikipedia changes as it attracts a more diverse international readership. Andromedean (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  The 2021 RFC was disrupted by 6 socks and the close had to be rewritten. The fact there were so many other discussions only indicates a slow boil, with evidence mounting at each stage, arguably an RFC could have been run much earlier than this. Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  • The IPSO apparently is not concerned, it seems the opinion that the complaints are a lot is just what is voiced by bylinetimes. I’m thinking likely some sensationalising there as natural and by the mention of islamophobia they may have their own bias, plus think that likely *any* paper covering either side can easily have dozens of complaints filed so I still think existing green with caution note about topic of palestinian war is appropriate and there has not been evidence of anything else needed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• If I am looking at the discussions correctly, the first two discussion predate RSP's creation in 2018, the third discussion was a review of an RfC which lead to most of the current text at WP:RSPS, and the fourth was initially a question about post-2022. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the link to the fourth discussion, May this year, which I had totally forgotten about and which rehearsed many of the issues we're discussing now. Some useful information there about the IPSO complaints, use by others, and other issues. (Although of course lots of irrelevance to wade through too.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

Discogs is entirely deprecated as a ref. But should the text in photos of record labels and album jackets (only) be made an exception? Herostratus (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Discogs images)

• Yes. Lets think this thru: works are their own refs, and the photos are accurate representations of the actual work to a 99.9% level of confidence. The label text is not user-generated absent an elaborate hoax, so who uploaded it is immaterial. It is as impossible to mislabel these photos as it is for a movie title screen etc (you can't pass off the label of record X as being the label of record Y). The alternative is continue our current practice: assume the article editor has not made a mistake, and to verify the reader has to get a copy on eBay or whatever. This is not better.
• Yes. How would anyone ever know that an editor is using Discogs vs. a copy of the album that they own? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Primary sources are reliable about themselves and users can include courtesy links for the aid of verification. This is true in all case. As to Discog it's not deprecated, it's unreliable as it's user generated. The primary images it hosts don't make it anymore or less unreliable. This is the same as with the primary documents that ancestry/com hosts, they are reliable in a primary way even if the rest of ancestry/com isn't reliable. None of this changes anything, the references aren't to Discog they are to the primary object (the album in this case), any link to an image on Discog is just an aid for verification purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I discussed this below. Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

My points still stand, see my response below. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear I'm not bold voting in this RFC as Discog is not deprecated or prohibited, it's unreliable as it's WP:UGC. Nothing in this RFC will change that, and nothing about it being unreliable prohibits the use of a courtesy link to an image of a primary object. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• The source is the physical record itself, so Discogs only has to accurately convey the contents of the records. This isn't something it's guaranteed to do, since anyone can upload a photo claiming to be of the record. I agree with ActivelyDisinterested that Discogs should only be treated as an aid for verification purposes, not as a guaranteed accurate representation of a work. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I discussed this below. "not as a guaranteed accurate representation of a work" just isn't so, if one thinks it thru. Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can also upload a scan claiming to be of a book, or upload a picture claiming to be of the subject of the article, and yet that is widely done too. Cortador (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That's why in-practice, it's fine to cite it. It's just that a physical copy would take precedence. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. As of now, we rely on some editor just using the information from a copy of the album they presumably have at hand. I support this provided this is limited to actual scans.
• Is that even making an exception? If you find a photo of an album on ebay, amazon, or Jeff's Music Blog, we don't need consensus that those are reliable sources to use it, right? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  This point was repeatedly raised in the discussion prior to this RFC, see WT:RSP#Could we talk some horse sense re Discogs?. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, but as a URL within Template:Cite AV media. A point that nobody here has mentioned is that the physical music release is its own reliable source, just like a book. It has a catalog number, a title, a publisher, a date. If we add a URL pointing to a scan of the same material, it would be a welcome convenience, assisting others with verifiability. The likelihood of someone uploading a false scan is very low; we can address such instances as they arise by comparing to other scans of the same release. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• No. Seems like I'm in the minority, but it's unnecessary and a bad precedent. I use Discogs every day--it's riddled with errors. Misspellings, typos, track listing misorder, bad translations, etc.--thousands of mistakes across the site, I imagine. It's appropriate only as an EL. As mentioned above, the album itself is the source; we don't need an inline citation to "help with verifiability". If an editor really wants an image for an inline citation, they can take the time to find one from a source without Discogs' problems. I'm also not sure that it's necessary to turn something that takes 3 seconds (scrolling to the EL, Googling outright) in to something that takes 1 second. And Discogs as an inline citation is constantly abused, with editors using it for exact release dates, genres, album sequential number, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Misspellings, typos, track listing misorder, bad translations are all relevant to text hosted on the site, not the text legible in images of release packaging. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. Let's not compound the issue by using such a flawed site for an inline citation when there are much better options. Or again, simply cite the liner notes. Caro7200 (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  What "better options" are there, and what makes their scans preferable? Cortador (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Right, if the Discogs photo has the wrong songwriter or whatever, the actual record label is going to have the same error.Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  For what purpose? Again, it's totally unnecessary to use an image to "verify" or "prove" any credits, at all. Cite the liner notes and use Discogs as an EL. Given Discogs' thousands of UG errors and how it's misused as an inline citation, take the second to scroll to the bottom of the article page. No burden whatsoever. Caro7200 (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Editors might easily add an edit summary such as "this discogs photo matches the record in my own collection". If the photo is uploaded to Wiki or Commons, that same explanation would also be useful. The textual contents of sleeve notes / liner notes are already permitted as a valid source for album credits, this just adds secondary validation. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - The images only. The images are just an easily accessed record of the primary source, which is usable as a citation for itself. There should be nothing wrong with this, just be careful to keep it limited ONLY to direct images of the primary source itself, not to any user generated content. User uploaded primary sources should be fine as primary sources. Fieari (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• No If somethings need to be sourced to an image uploaded to an unreliable UGC website then it very likely isn't worthy of inclusion. I don't even understand what exactly is being proposed here, using images of an album to determine who wrote it...? If no reliable sources that Johnny Doe wrote some album then we won't write that Johnny Doe wrote it. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Even RS sources don't always give all the information on a label or don't always accurately report it. I'm not sure why any discogs editor would ever want to falsify what's printed on a label e.g. by photoshopping it. Yes, a label image would be a primary source, but it seems it would still be very reliable. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, the rule that "works of art are their own reference" is actually horrible and way way outside our usual comfort zone. For obscure works especially we are effectively saying "OK editor, we'll take your word for it". That's not a whole lot better than "something I saw on the internet" as also a usable source.

But if we didn't -- if we required published reliable secondary sources for material on works of art as we do for most other articles -- our coverage of works of art would be very very much less that we do have. Very few movie and book articles would have Plot sections or would have short incomplete ones, which would leave the reader blind. In fact, most of our movie and many of our book and record articles would have to be destroyed or stubbed -- they don't have any secondary sources. You can't get a cast list etc for most movies, really you can't get anything, if you're sticking to secondary sources. Very few album articles would have track listings. And so on.

It's a problem and its a big problem. Why pretend otherwise. But what else can we do? Cut our coverage of films and books and novels by 75+%? Not going to happen.

I mean c'mon, a reader saying "wait, I thought that song was written by Smith not Jones" is not going to hunt down a copy of the actual record (which for many would be quite difficult or expensive) to verify that. Get real. For a lot of these records -- 78's and records from 1930 etc -- there is, basically, no way for the reader to verify the text. Unless they to go to Discogs or someplace like that -- which I guess they shouldn't -- they'll have to be like "oh well, I'll never know I guess".

Here's one method we could employ to cut that back some. Why would we not want to do that. Herostratus (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The reader can verify that if they've got a copy of that record in their collection. Classic WP:OR, of course. But I'll try and "get real". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you show me a notable album that cannot have this key information sourced elsewhere? Traumnovelle (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure. Just albums, or singles also? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Either or Traumnovelle (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If this were anything else, the obvious point here would be: if it's not sourceable in an RS, then it is not key information for the purposes of our encyclopedia! Why are we treating this area of information totally differently? Remsense ‥ 论 01:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need to know what is on the label? If you cannot find a reliable source to cover who wrote/performed it then the work is almost certainly not notable unless it is notable for something non-typical. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Why not allow an editor to use this resource to reference this easily sourced information? Yes, the information could be sourced elsewhere if the target is notable, but why disallow something that makes life easier for editors, and ALSO... and this is more important... make things easier for someone who wants to USE the reference. References aren't a game we play here at wikipedia, there's a purpose to citations and referencing everything. They are to provide the references to users who want to use the information themselves. Referencing the album art for information about itself can be USEFUL to users, and this website has them online for easy viewing. Fieari (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Then it can be an external link. I still don't see any album being notable enough for an article but not notable enough to have basic information on unable to be sourced. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It is able to be sourced—in the liner notes of the album. Compare to referring to the copyright page on a scanned book to source information about publication. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle You're failing to consider that non-notable musical works that are covered in other articles. In the Bobby Floyd (musician) article, I included albums in the discography section that were not covered by the AllMusic reference using {{cite AV media notes}}. I did not add the eBay links where I viewed the liner notes, but I should have, since that is more honest to anyone verifying the article than implying I actually own the physical CD package. It seems straightforwardly ridiculous to argue that albums the musician played on (and one he released under his own name) are undue for inclusion in their own discography section. Mach61 22:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

We're not a database. If there is no source beyond the actual material itself it won't merit inclusion. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• No. You don't need an exception (nor should we give one), you just need to treat the pictures as authentic, we have a very low (almost non-existent) standard for treating images as authentic, something along the lines of the 'good faith uploader reasonably believed it was a picture of the thing and so does the good faith editor'. But the citation then is not and never should be to the picture, it is to the label/record/album/cover itself. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• No – I'm pretty baffled. User-generated sources are not reliable by their very nature—for any other area of the wiki, the fundamental idea is that information that cannot be reliably sourced is not considered for inclusion in our encyclopedia! No one has provided a logical justification, only a pragmatic one that I resent strongly. Remsense ‥ 论 01:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC) See replies. Remsense ‥ 论 20:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  The point is that a primary reference would be reliable:
  {{citation |author=Musician |title=Album name |publisher=Record Label}}
  So why would a primary reference with a curtesy link be less reliable:
  {{citation |author=Musician |title=Album name |url=courtesy.url |publisher=Record Label}}
  There's no need for an exception, as this is already allowed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, so it seems the terms of the discussion have shifted somewhat from earlier then. I'm going to strike my !vote in that case, since I'm indifferent to this as the operative question. Remsense ‥ 论 20:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what the exact question of the RFC is, I've already pointed out that Discog isn't deprecated it's unreliable as it's UGC. Reading through the comments editors have bold voted both No and Yes while agreeing that it can be used as a courtesy link, so good luck anyone who closes it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Editors should feel free to link to Discogs or eBay or Amazon or any other source normally considered unreliable in {{Cite AV media notes}}, because the reason those sources are considered unreliable have nothing to do with false/mislabeled scans, the way some publishers may be considered unusable for what would normally be considered WP:ABOUTSELF interview quotes if they have a history of manipulating them. Mach61 21:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's incredibly lazy to cite a purely commercial vendor like eBay or Amazon--one just isn't trying very hard. I always remove those links; any information on those sites can be found through much better sources. I can only conclude that editors want to link to Discogs solely for the pretty pictures; again, citing the AV notes is enough. We don't need to link in the body of an article to a site that is full of thousands of errors and typos, even if it's just the image. If there's disagreement over something like, did Donald "Duck" Dunn play bass on track two or three of Album Example, and the AV notes are cited, then it's a matter of edit warring, and you can involve an admin. Discogs is only appropriate as an external link. All the text in this thread so far has not made the case that it's necessary--or even helpful--to cite in the body. Caro7200 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Can someone explain to me how it's not a WP:USERG issue? I feel like I must be misunderstanding the situation to have so many people say "yes" so far. Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  See my earlier comment, Discog isn't being cited it's being used as a courtesy link. Also my comment even earlier as to why I don't think this RFC is even necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree with your comment then. Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, as long as it is solely album jackets and liner notes being cited directly as primary sources. Discogs itself, as mentioned, is unreliable per WP:USERG (see its entry on RSP at WP:DISCOGS), but as long as it is the images being cited and not the user-generated text that supplements them, I don't see a problem. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Needs a strong caveat, but yes for 'what is written on the record' The images faithfully reproduce the records and their covers. The sources in this case are the records themselves and their covers (the {{Cite AV media notes}} template is relevant). The images on discogs merely provide verifiability. They are often (but not always) primary sources. For what is written on the record and its cover the images are reliable. The reliability of the records/covers for external facts depends on the label/publisher/artist of the record. If we fail to include this caveat in e.g. a RSP entry, we may give the impression that every liner note or song attribution etc. can be used as a reliable source. They absolutely cannot. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Discogs images)

N.B.:earlier discussion was here: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources# Could we talk some horse sense re Discogs? Headcount was 3-2, maybe 4-2.

N.B.:The RfD is not proposing that these photos be required to ref, just that the editor is allowed to use them if she wants to without another editor deleting them as disallowed.

• We kind of do this already a lot, we include a link to Discogs in the "External links" section, in fact we even have {{discogs release}} etc. to facilitate this. Problem is this removes the link down away from the the material being ref'd -- bit less than excellent. And if the editor doesn't include that, the reader is usually going to go to Discogs anyway if she wants to verify; it's just more work. Second, c'mon: hella editors are using Discogs to get their info anyway (I know I do) and that can't be stopped. So the current situation is kind of kabuki, and that also is sub-excellent. Herostratus (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

NB: if an editor provides a proximate link to a Discogs photo -- attached directly to a line of data-- just as a courtesy, whether as a bare URL or using a citation template, it will be indistinguishable from a ref. Other editors will see them as refs, and possibly tag them for {{better reference}}, but far more probably delete them, and perhaps the material also as being now unref'd while they're at it I believe we can count on this. (it still wouldn't be unreffed, but it might seem so to the casual editor not knowing the rule for works). And in fact since using Discogs as a ref is clearly prohibited at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, you might be in for a scolding. So I wouldn't do it.

As I said, an external link at the bottom of the article is extra work for the user and just more mediocre. Why do that. But that is currently the only use allowed by Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

Re "anyone can upload a photo claiming to be of the record" and "[is not necessarily] a guaranteed accurate representation of a work", that just isn't true. A photo of the label for "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" can't actually be a photo of the label for "Love Me Do". It's flat impossible. Of course, as anywhere in the 'pedia, we are indeed subject to be fooled by an elaborate hoax using photoshop skills. But we assume no elaborate hoaxes absent some indication of such, and to do so regularly would be kind of paranoid... And for instance photos (putatively) taken and uploaded without modification by Wikipedia editors are far likelier to to hoaxes or just wrong and for good or ill we accept those. I guess we would accept a photo of a record label taken by an editor to be shown in an article to be sufficiently reliable, why can't she upload to Discogs and use it as a ref.

Re "The primary images it hosts don't make it anymore or less unreliable. This is the same as with the primary documents that ancestry/com hosts". I did not know that birth certificates or whatever that Ancestry hosts are considered unreliable, that is a different issue -- I suppose the birth ertificates for two different Joe Smiths might be indistinguishable etc. This doesn't apply to the matter at hand.

Vetting reliable sources is tricky if you drill down. Most sources are reliable for some things, and not others. But if the Daily Unreliable were to host material that -- by some magic -- we were certain was true to 99.99% confidence, yeah we could use it I'd think. The label photos are 99.99% sure of being accurate, n'est-ce pas?

Sure our rules have to be blunt instruments ("Do not use the Daily Unreliable, period"), we can't get overly nuanced. but if it is possible to make a rule less blunt by logical proof of an reasonably broad exception, and an editor has bothered to do it, it would be mediocre to just be like "enh whatever nah". Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

How will this RFC change this in anyway? Discog will still be an unreliable source in general, so anyone blindly following the colour applied by a script will still see the same colour. I would suggest making sure the title of the reference is something like "Courtesy link to image of the album reverse showing the song listing". If you add a bare url it may get reverted, the same happens to edits without summaries, if other editors don't know why you're doing something they might revert you in mistake. Clearly explaining goes a long way to mitigate that.

Nothing at RSP "prohibits" the use of Discog, the specific wording is The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. That is routine wording, all user generated content is considered generally unreliable.

It's prohibited for refs I believe. I want it usable for refs. Your quote basically makes the argument "We can't use any Discogs material for refs, because we don't use any Discogs material for refs" which is circular. Look me in the eye and tell me that you truly believe that these photos are not accurate to a sufficient level of confidence for a ref. You can't because they are. How can that not matter. Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not prohibited, and if you think my argument bis circular you have misunderstood it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

My point about ancestry/com is that it is unreliable, but that the primary documents it hosts are considered reliable (rather than the other way round). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

As to hoaxes Discog is as likely to be hoaxed as any other place that are user edited, Wikipedia included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hoaxing the Wikipedia can have ideological advantage in many places. Making a hoax record label is pointless and also requires some photoshop skill. There probably are hoaxed images on Discogs (altho their hivemind would catch lots of them eventually you'd think). However, surely it is way less than one in a thousand. A 99.9+% confidence is way more than sufficient for a ref. Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Most of the hoaxes on Wikipedia are not ideological, see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. The main reason people create hoaxes is basic trolling. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Mnmh. Well, Wikipedia is a magnet for all kinds of hoaxes, but its very different, all of those are text hoaxes -- articles or passages. It's different. Plus Wikipedia is very visible, its the go-to place for hoaxing, Discogs is not. Plus realistic photoshopping takes a level of skill that... idk, one person in a thousand has? (Maybe not in your circle, but overall.)

Photoshopping a record label is just not the same is all. Altho... now I think of it, you could photoshop your own name as the writer or something, either for lulz or some personal advantage (impress a girl or whatever)... but even so: are more than 1 of 1000 images in Discogs altered? Remember, there are a lot of images on Discord... 1 in 1000 would mean there are hundreds of hoaxed images on Discord. Many would have been caught, and/or bragged about. I haven't heard a whisper of that. And I mean the internet has a lot info, what my neighbors dog had for breakfast is on the internet.

I mean sure anything's possible... more that 1 in 1000 Discord images being hoaxes is not literally absolutely impossible... but you'd really be going down a rabbit hole to think its realistically possible. Maybe the New York Times doesn't exist and is an elaborate hoax (have you ever been there?). Maybe all the rest of us and the whole universe is illusory and you are just a brain floating in space (in which case there would be no reliable sources I guess.) But how far down the rabbit hole do we want to go.

Nobody in this thread has made the argument that more than 1 in 1,000 Discog label images are significantly altered. It'd be an extraordinary claim, and there's not one single source, even a unreliable random blog or whatever, for that, that I know of. I think it's safe for us to dismiss that possibility. Herostratus (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Summing up, to this point anyway

So, seems to have died down a bit. So let's see.

So, my goal here was to add text to the effect that "Except that images of record labels and jackets are OK" at the Discogs entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. That page is for "sources that have been repeatedly raised for discussion are listed here... it is a summarization of discussions about the listed sources" to avoid having to go over some sources over and over. Discogs is rated as "Generally Unreliable" With the circle-slash "prohibited" icon. This represent the consensus of the various previous discussions, and is mainly used for answering editors who aren't sure, but could also be used to quell pointless local discussions on the matter. And that is fine. (I was told that here rather than there is place to have this discussion).

So, let's see -- by headcount, its 7-4 in favor of "yes" (most people from the other discussion voted here, but one didn't, and was a "yes" so 8-4 Yes). As to strength of argument, well, not for me to say, but... I didn't find the "no" ones very convincing, to say the least. You can't pass off a photo of record X's label as being record Y, no matter how many people don't get that, you still can't. The photos themselves are technically user created, but I mean so is "I have the album right here, take my word for it man" and that's less reliable and the reader sometimes can't check it at all without unreasonable effort. "We can't use Discogs at all because we don't use Discogs at all" is not a strong argument; "We don't use Discogs at all and that works OK so let's keep doing that" is better, but pretty weak IMO... could be used against any change anywhere... "works OK" is arguable and "works better" is a worthwhile goal. But that's just me, and I'm biased, so make your own conclusion about strength of argument.

Anyway, for the purposes of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, a "a summarization of discussions about the listed sources" has to include this thread, and with more weight than something from say 15 years ago. So it's most probably not true that a summarization of discussion can be said to reveal a consensus against Discogs label photos as refs, anymore. More the opposite. (If there are a number of fairly recent, well- populated, and decisive discussions that might be different -- but since label photos as a separate thing were discussed little or not at all (I'll betcha), most probably not even then.)

And the nutshell at that page does say "Consensus can change...". So...

Make sense? I will talk to the Perennial Sources people, OK? They will probably agree to the change.

But here is the thing. So far we are talking about if a fact (is there consensus) was or was not established.

But... for rules its different. At WP:USERGENERATED (part of WP:RS, which is technically just a guideline but has the weight of a strong rule) it says "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are... Discogs...". Well is 8-4 and (if you think so) weight of argument enough to change a rule? Mnmh... well the at WP:RS it's just one example. Removing it doesn't change any rule, at all. And dollars to donuts that the people writing that list of examples gave zero thought to Discogs label photos specifically, and we're not "originalists" bound to exact text.

So yeah I'd say changing that text (most probably just removing it, since its only listing some examples, and less confusing) would probably be appropriate.

But suppose we would have to have a discussion over at RS tho. We'll see. Herostratus (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

As someone involved in the RFC I would suggest leaving it to whoever closes the discussion.

As to UGC as I said above this would change nothing, at best it would add a sentence at RSP that links to images can be used because if other pre-existing policy considerations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC OurCampaigns

Currently, OurCampaigns is listed as an unreliable source. Should it also be deprecated or even blacklisted to prevent its continued use and allow for mass removal? Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There are currently nearly 4,000 instances of it being cited as a source on Wikipedia, not including map files that list it as their source in the description. The site's FAQ says:

OurCampaigns is an internet community formed in 2002 to discuss politics and elections. It is a collaborative website which allows users to post messages and links, earn points by predicting the outcomes of future elections, and enter historical election information. The website is built by the members as they enter site content.

When you create an account, you are able to post messages. With good solid participation in this area, the website owner (Randy) or others with high enough access may increase your access to more functions of site creation. This will enable you to help make the website more comprehensive and useful for other people who are interested in politics. This is the true power of the website.

OurCampaigns (OC) is also a web community. The users become a small e-family, which means that family dynamics come into play in the discussions. Be quick to forgive, slow to take offense, and quick to admit an error. Most of all, enjoy your time at OC!

Previous discussions:

• Jan 2009: Post suggesting it be removed from all articles
• Sep 2010: "looks like an open Wiki"
• July 2014: points to request for blacklist, declined because "site is dead"
• Dec 2017: brief discussion
• May 2020: discussion that leans toward reliable for election results, but some reservations stated
• Feb 2021: RfC that elapsed; consensus seems to indicate generally unreliable, disagreement over blacklisting; archived without closure
• April 2021: RfC that put OurCampaigns on WP:RSPS as "generally unreliable"

To me, it should be blacklisted. I used to be okay with its inclusion in articles, even adding it to articles myself, as there's not many sources for older elections (actually there is and I'll get to that) and they provide data sources for most of their pages. Recently, I was gifted United States Congressional elections, 1788-1997: the official results of the elections of the 1st through 105th Congresses by a fellow wikipedian, which I have started replacing OurCampaigns with since its actually reliable. The first article I've done this with is the 1830–31 United States House of Representatives elections (which cut it down by 13,000+ bytes, yippe). To my disappointment, the book doesn’t include county returns, which was shocking because most OurCampaigns pages cite that book as their only source, yet also include a county map. For example, the page for the IL At-Large election cites only that book as its source but somehow also has a map. Where did they get that information? For all I know, it could've been completely madeup.

In addition to its maps lacking any source, OurCampaigns frequently gets information wrong. In some cases, it’s a minor discrepancy, with numbers being slightly off, but in others, it's egregious. Again, using the IL At-Large page as an example, there are two more candidates listed than are reported in the source: "James Dunkin" and "Write-In Nonpartisan." Where they come from? They're not in the source provided.

Another egregious example is with the 13 trials for MA Essex North. In the first trial, the book lists Caleb Cushing as running as an independent against the National Republican candidate, before becoming the National Republican candidate in the later trials (the page again has the book as its only source and this time doesn't even incldude a page number. It's page 97 for the first trial and then page 100 for the other 12.) And on the MA Bristol page for the first trial, the page gives Russel Freeman 48%, when he is only given 42% in the book.

My final example for its blacklisting is a now-blocked (thankfully) IP editor that was going around replacing reliable sources with OurCampaign and Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (who I will get to in a separate discussion for another time) sources. Specifically, I'd like to mention this edit to the 1864 United States presidential election in Kansas where Cheeseborough is shown as a separate candidate for president from the two candidates, like on the OurCampaigns and Atlas sources, even though he was only a candidate for the electoral college on the National Union ticket.

There's really no reason to use this source. If an editor needs information for an election article, they should seek out reliable sources, maybe even those cited by OurCampaigns. For election data, I recommend A New Nation Votes, a website created by Phil Lampi and run by the American Antiquarian Society, for any election before 1826 (it includes county returns). For any election from 1838-1914, the Tribune almanac and political register (it includes county returns). The varius Congressional Quarterly's Guide to US elections such as the ones on archive.org (whenever they get it working again). For any gubernatorial election, Dubin's US Gubernatorial Elections, 1776-1860 (also on archive.org) (it includes county returns). I have access to Dubin's US Gubernatorial Elections, 1861-1911, United States Presidential Elections, 1788-1860, along with US Congressional Elections, 1788-1997, and I know someone with Party Affiliations in the State Legislatures: A Year by Year Summary, 1796-2006, most of which include county returns and that I can send you pages of through discord. Wowzers122 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blacklisting or deprecation seems overkill. It's already on WP:RSPS as generally-unreliable. It's a user-generated source, just like Wikipedia, IMDB, Discogs, etc. It's easily available online, and lazy amateur Wikipedians are of course more likely to cite freely available user-generated sites than a history book by some forgotten scholar. Replace with better sources when possible. But unless you personally have a grudge with the site, I see no reason for further escalation. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • +1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have a grudge against websites that have consistently provided incorrect information, something OurCampaigns has done multiple times beyond the examples given here, including reporting incorrect numbers, falsifying candidacies, and including unsourced maps. I don't believe we should allow people to continually add potentially incorrect information to articles and reward their laziness. I understand that most editors don't have access to non-online sources, which is why I am willing to share mine and have provided links to online freely available election data from archives like the Internet Archive, as well as dedicated, professionally run sites like A New Nation Votes and Ballotpedia. Wowzers122 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Are people actively adding them to articles still? if so, I suppose adding it to the edit filter might be appropriate. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, It should be blocked. If it is't then people will keep using it, instead of other sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The Joe Rogan Experience

Over at Graham Hancock, @Bill the Cat 7: has argued that an appearance by Hancock on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast is a reliable source [15] for the following statement Hancock has strongly rejected allegations that he is a racist, a white supremicist, as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record, saying he was "personally hurt badly...wounded badly". [16]. For context, the article already states Hancock has rejected allegations that he is racist cited to the New Republic (a reliable source). I think that while obviously statements on podcasts can be used for non-controversial non-self serving information per WP:BLPSPS, that the podcast is not usable to call the accusations by the SAA defamatory, which I also think is a WP:TONE issue. As far as I can tell, the SAA did not actually call him a racist or white supremacist (see the letter they sent [17]), and therefore the addition by Bill the Cat 7 misrepresents what the SAA actually said. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It's such an obvious BLP violation that it's not worth spending more words and time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the "BLP vio" framing is confusing, It makes it seem like the BLP vio is against Hancock when it is not. I definitely disagree with the addition and think it's essentially flat out wrong and effectively soapboxing, but calling the statement by the SAA, an organisation not a living person, "defamatory" is not necessarily an obvious BLP vio, though I understand how it could be reasonably understood as a BLP vio against Daniel H. Sandweiss, the president of the SAA who signed the letter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I was confused, thinking Hancock was referring to some articles published in the SAA record, not the letter. I still think a wikivoice statement that claims made in the letter are defamatory would be a BLP violation. It's written as expressing the organization's concerns, but it's definitely Sandweiss's letter, starting with "I write this open letter ...". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The SAA Archaeological Record did publish an issue responding to Graham Hancock's book America Before in 2019 [18] (it's even cited several times in his article), but as far as I can tell it does not call him a racist or a white supremacist and Hancock is most aggrieved by the 2022 SAA letter about Ancient Apocalypse rather than anything in the SAA Archaeological Record. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

As a further addendum, I'm not sure if this is intentional on Bill the Cat 7's part, but the part of the video he linked was as far as I can tell about the alignment of the constellation of Orion with the Great Pyramids, and Graham Hancock's rejection of white supremacy/racism is not within several minutes either side of the timestamp. If you're going to cite a 4 hour+ podcast, you need to provide accurate timestamp, just as you'd provide a page number when citing a book. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Please link rv in question. While I think editors refer to WP:Mandy often inappropriately, this is a good example where it's unnecessary to say 'I'm not a racist', precisely because the very next sentence is the slightly-more-substantial statement, "expressed support for native rights". The former says nothing (and really often just makes the BLP subject sound ignorant and defensive), while the latter is at least somewhat informative and may get the reader to actually click the source if they have any interest. As you point out, this is not an RS issue. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

On SAA defamation, if the podcast doesn't firmly support it, that's a WP:Verifiability problem. (We don't have a V noticeboard, and we really need one.) Obviously you can't say something disputable or controversial that's not explicit in the source, before even considering RS. (I replied to the initial post too quickly.) SamuelRiv (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure verifiability would really need to be a different noticeboard. A statement is verifiable when it a) can be found in b) a reliable source. B would be in scope here, and A would be in scope on WP:ORN. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

To clarify further, I've jumped ahead of myself: why is it WP:V? Because first you need to make "defamatory" a direct quote, not a wikivoice summary as it is now (you'll notice that in the diff it is not even an indirect quote) -- but that can only be done if Hancock literally says "defamatory" in the interview, and if he doesn't (which I don't suspect he does, but I'm not listening to any podcast without a timestamp), then it's a failed WP:Verification. [I take it on good faith that the editor's intention was some approximate quotation, rather than some kind of inference that might be interpreted as OR. Regardless, unless it was said explicitly, then for equally various reasons mentioned by everyone here it's incorrect.] SamuelRiv (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the Joe Rogan Experience making statements about Hancock, this is Hancock making statements about themself in an interview. So this is less WP:SPS/WP:BLPSPS and more WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB (the two are duplicates policy statements) as Hancock is talking about themself.
It's reliable for Hancock statements about Hancock. Editors on the talk page should decide if it's self-serving or due for inclusion per WP:MANDY, but that's NPOV not reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's entirely WP:ABOUTSELF – allegations that he is a racist, a white supremicist, as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record is a statement about something other than himself. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry you're correct, only this denial would be reliable not the details of what he was denying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Should we not be asking is this podcast an RS in general, I would say not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Most podcasts are WP:NOTRS due to being SPS, there's no real reason to consider JRE an WP:EXPERTSPS so the only interesting (non-trivial) question is whether it might qualify for an exception, like ABOUTSELF. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Well it can be seen as self-serving, so arguably no. Much better would be third-party coverage of any denial. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• At the very least, as written, by my reading, it is calling them defamatory accusations in the article voice, which is utterly inappropriate when using a primary WP:ABOUTSELF citation to his own words. But even if it were attributed I would avoid it. The balance between NPOV, RS, BLP, and DUE allows us to state the simple fact that he denied it (ie. in a completely neutral wording like X denied the accusations, saying nothing else), but sort of dry unexceptional statement of denial is the limit of what we can use WP:ABOUTSELF for; when it starts to get into characterizations and explanations and other detailed framings, that's unduly self-serving and requires a non-ABOUTSELF source. If we're going to imply that they called him a racist or a white supremacist, this absolutely requires an independent reliable source (ie. non-ABOUTSELF); it's not something that can be cited to a podcast. --Aquillion (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

A source that says X (e.g. Hancock saying he is not a racist) is always reliable enough to support the mere claim that that specific source says X. In fact, it is the most reliable possible source to support that particular claim. How could it ever not be?

Reliability of such a source only matters if you want to use it to support more than the bare fact of what the source says. An accused party's denial of an allegation is typically not going to be a reliable source to support claiming, in Wikipedia's own voice, that the allegation is false (even if that source is otherwise considered reliable). Nor is it going to be a reliable source to support a characterisation in Wikipedia's own voice of what the accusations are, since people or organisations who have been criticised often distort the nature of the criticism against them into a less reasonable, more easily rebuttable version when they publicly respond to it.

The text you say this citation was meant to support mixes a statement that Hancock denies the allegations against him with a statement (in Wikipedia's voice) of what those allegations were. It is reliable for the former purpose and not the latter one.

(The denial may not be significant enough to include regardless of the above, but that's a judgment call that isn't purely about source reliability - although whether reliable secondary sources have reported on the denial is at least relevant to it.) ExplodingCabbage (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Surely a podcast appearance, with audio and video of someone saying something, is a reliable source as to the statements made in said podcast appearance. This seems to be a dispute about the appropriateness of including the statement and how to frame it per Wikivoice, due weight, MANDY, and numerous other policies, guidelines, and norms, as well as the marginal value of this statement (and source) in the context of what is already presented in the article. Any determination about how to resolve this particular content dispute should not rely on the general reliability of The Joe Rogan Experience. In the event that a statement, especially a direct quote, warrants inclusion it seems absurd to rule against citing the actual source. Time stamps should be provided and possibly links to multiple sources of the audio or video and transcripts. -- MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫— talk 21:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been very busy lately (I just saw this). Please give me 72 hours and I will respond formally. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Formal reply follows. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

FORMAL RESPONSE - (GH = Graham Hancock, FD = Flint Dibble, SAA = Society for American Archaeology)

1. GH was indirectly, but clearly, accused of various serious things.

a. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/27/atlantis-lost-civilisation-fake-news-netflix-ancient-apocalypse

b. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/23/ancient-apocalypse-is-the-most-dangerous-show-on-netflix

c. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/01/netflix-ancient-apocalypse-canceled

d. https://newrepublic.com/article/169282/right-wing-graham-hancock-netflix-atlantis

e. https://hyperallergic.com/791381/why-archaeologists-are-fuming-over-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-series/

f. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-07/experts-say-ancient-apocalypse-netflix-series-is-racist-untrue/101728298

g. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/27/atlantis-lost-civilisation-fake-news-netflix-ancient-apocalypse

h. https://theconversation.com/with-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock-has-declared-war-on-archaeologists-194881

i. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13965425/ancient-APOCALYPSE-comet-Netflix.html

2. I updated the article providing a RS source saying that GH strongly, and in no uncertain terms, rejected such very serious allegations.

a. Joe Rogan Experience #2136 - 2:02, 2:08, & 2:19.  

b. Hancock has strongly rejected allegations that he is a racist, a white supremacist, etc., as well as other defamatory accusations by the SAA Archaeological Record, saying he was "personally hurt badly...wounded badly". . He has also has expressed support for native rights.

3. I was reverted, and then I reverted...twice, which I freely admit was wrong, although an honest mistake. My sincere apologies.

4. I was given an "edit warring" warning on my home page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill_the_Cat_7

a. I responded, saying, "I provided an RS, which apparently you didn't agree with. We can discuss it on the talk page should you wish, but I honestly believe you are the one who is "edit warring". Let's take this up on the Talk page. Bill the Cat (talk)"

5. That didn't seem to satisfy User:Hemiauchenia. Instead, the user opened a ticket to the Edit Warring WP site (I can't find the link for this; it may have been deleted), as well as this RS site.

a. Note that I said I was willing to discuss it on the Talk Page of GH.

a. This might be WP:WikiBullying, but I'm not sure and I'm not claiming that it is. 

6. The SAA article claimed that "Hancock’s narrative emboldens extreme voices that misrepresent archaeological knowledge in order to spread false historical narratives that are overtly misogynistic, chauvinistic, racist, and anti-Semitic."

a. Most reasonable people would agree that these are strong accusations and defamatory if they are not true.  According to GH, these accusations and defamatory statements are very much completely false.  

7. I'm NOT suggesting that the article from the SAA be in any way removed or censored. I think it's important. In fact, I think it ought to be expanded to explain what exactly is being claimed and why. However, I maintain that an accurate and equally clear rebuttal in GH's own words, must be included in the article.

8. With the policies linked below, I can provide another RS for GH's full response in his own words (not in WP Voice), to most or all claims leveled against him. Although this discussion should have been explored on GH's Talk Page, my hand has been forced, so I'm engaging here. I can update GH's Talk Page with these points after this has been resolved.

a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

b. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources

9. I haven't seriously edited WP in a quite a long time (12+ years). Forgive me if I don't have neither the time nor inclination to engage in such matters on a regular basis. I'm just a WP Gnome at this point. Nevertheless, much of the article is a direct attack on GH's theories (pseudo this and pseudo that, etc.). Fair enough, since they are sourced. A direct/indirect attack on GH's character/motivations/implications must be responded to, in his own words, for the sake of neutrality. Simply saying that he doesn't agree, without being allowed to speak for himself, is unacceptable.

Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is not about your actions, but whether or not the Joe Rogan experience is an RS, for this content. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That's true to a certain extent, but I just wanted to provide context. It's about whether a youtube video is an RS for a specific rebuttal in the subject's own voice (i.e., not WP voice). Can you please explain why GH is not allowed, per wiki policies, to do that? I would also truly like you and others to respond to my above points on the GH talk page. Seriously. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No need, we can respond here (we should be discussions in one place, not spread over multiple talk pagers). And they have been addressed (or rather the question has, as non of the above affects this being an SPS). Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to say this is not a general forum, and anything other than reliability should be discussed elsewhere. Discussions of behaviour or wikibullying are not appropriate here.

As has been said above the podcast would be reliable for a denial per WP:ABOUTSELF, but not necessarily for the nature of the allegations themselves. So using the subjects own words may not be appropriate, as the nature of the allegations are details about someone other than the subject (see the second point of ABOUTSELF It does not involve claims about third parties). Also if there is disagreement about the exact allegations it may be at odds with the first point (The material is neither unduly self-serving...).

There is no requirement to use the subejcts own words only to report that the allegations behave been denied (see the final sentence of WP:BLPPUBLIC). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• A direct/indirect attack on GH's character/motivations/implications must be responded to, in his own words, for the sake of neutrality. Simply saying that he doesn't agree, without being allowed to speak for himself, is unacceptable. No, this is utterly untrue. The only requirement is the bare statement that he has denied it (ie. X denied the allegations.) In fact, we are often unable to say any more than that. The reason is because there are multiple conflicting requirements here, all of which are important. We cannot use an WP:ABOUTSELF source, even with attribution, for something that is unduly self-serving or which touches on third parties; if someone says "I didn't commit the murder, X did!", we absolutely positively cannot put that quote anywhere in Wikipedia unless we have an independent secondary source. All we can use that source for is a paraphrased non-quotation saying that they denied committing the murder. Even that is sometimes controversial because it rests at a point of tension between the unduly-self-serving limitation of WP:ABOUTSELF and the needs of WP:BLP; but limiting it to an unemotive bare minimum paraphrase of the fact that they denied it is generally seen as a way to thread the needle and meet both requirements. BLP absolutely does not give anyone any article subject some sort of special privilege to put their own personally words, opinions, or broader views on the issue in the article via a non-RS simply because they chose to frame themselves as being under attack (which is what your suggestion here would imply); it's a shield, not a cudgel, which means X denied this is all that it can guarantee. If their broader views about the subject are credible and worth covering, some secondary source will have covered them; if none has, they cannot be included via a primary non-independent source, not ever. --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Is this not a textbook example of WP:ABOUTSELF? As an aside, I would strongly suggest Hancock's response should be in there, given the WP:BLP aspect. If we make it look like someone is saying he's a racist and he's said nowt, the reader may be left with the impression he has tacitly accepted the claims.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Just looked at the article, the denial is already sourced. I don't really see the need for more information than that.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah those were my original thoughts. The issue appears to be not Hancock's denial (which is already included), but insisting on using the exact quote of Hancock's denial. ABOUTSELF is reliable for the denial, but not for the details of claims made by a third party. As far as I can tell the SAA doesn't directly claim that Hancock is a racist or white supremacist, but Hancock's denial states that they have. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

More than anything we risk a BLP violation against Hancock himself by reporting Hancock's words about the SAA. The SAA actually claim his work is informed by outdated racist tropes rather than claiming racist animus against the man himself. I don't think even his most vociferous critics accuse him of actively holding or expressing racist viewpoints, rather than subconscious bias informed by the "scientific racism" of the past as well as the biases of past pseudo-theorists.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

References

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

It's now becoming common at RSN to propose a 4-option RfC for the purpose of discussing a source for a given period of time or its coverage in a specific topic area. As an example, the recent RfC[19] on The Daily Telegraph was limited to its coverage on transgender topics and presented a deprecation option. Let's call this "partial deprecation".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of medical literature for claims about relative incidence of dog attacks by breed

In the pit bull article there is a controversy on whether any medical journals can be used to cite claims that pit bulls are the cause of the most severe dog bites, compared to other breeds, because medical doctors are not dog experts. Nevertheless, there are many papers in medical journals that report that pit bulls cause the most, and often worst, dog attack injuries. For example, this review says, Of the cases in which the breed was known, the Pit-bull was responsible for the highest percentage of re-ported bites across all the studies followed by mixed breed and then German Shepherds. Currently, no prior studies exist that examine bite severity by breed. Therefore, the relative risk of biting and average tissue damage of bite, calculated using the 240 cases seen at our in- stitutions, was used to determine an overall "risk to own" (Fig. 2). Mixed breed and Pit-bulls were found to not only have the highest relative risk of biting, but were also found to have the highest average tissue damage per bite. and appears to be representative of the literature.

A second concern is whether this literature review by the American Veterinary Medical Association [20] makes all such claims in medical journals unreliable.

A third concern is whether certain papers in medical journals such as this one [21] that cite advocacy websites like Dogsbite.org and/or Animals24-7.org, previously asserted to be unreliable for Wikipedia purposes [22], [23] should be thrown out because they inherit that unreliability. Geogene (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have some initial thoughts. Looking forward to seeing what others have to say. Reliable medical sources (MEDRS) should be cited for information about human health effects of bites from pit bulls relative to other breeds. The review article appears to qualify but its relevance needs to be considered in light of the body of published literature. In this case, the AVMA's lit review also appears reliable. While a veterinary medicine professional society would not typically be reliable for human health, they have relevant expertise for questioning the conclusions reached by medical sources. It goes too far to say that the AVMA piece makes all such claims in medical journals unreliable but the AVMA seems to me to be a reliable source to counter some of the findings from the (human) medical literature.

The problem with this article (Khan, et al) is that it a primary source. Primary sources should not be used to support a conclusion that is debated among reliable secondary and tertiary sources. I saw on the Talk page that the question of whether you can cite a generally reliable source if it relies on Animals24-7 or another unreliable source also came up in relation to a Time magazine article. Similarly, the issue is that popular press is generally unreliable as a source for controversial topics in science.

The whole dog attack and death risk section has sourcing issues and probably needs to be trimmed down. I appreciate that this has been contentious. -- MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫— talk 23:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It's late here but quickly on the last point, no a sources doesn't become unreliable because it uses sources that editors consider unreliable. The reliability of sources on Wikipedia should be based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, those guidelines are for the purposes of Wikipedia they won't be universally applicable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Essentially what is trying to be done is WP:USEBYOTHERS to cite dogsbite.org and animals24-7.org, which as stated by Geogene, were previously determined to be unreliable sources by this community to cite dog bite prevalence among a breed.

WP:RS has guidelines on determining source reliability. The cited source in the article is Time, an otherwise reliable source. They are citing dogsbite.org / animals24-7.org's information about dog statistics in a topic that Time does not typically cover.

WP:USEBYOTHERS states 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.

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.

So wiki guidelines point to not including it. If the original source of that citation is not reliable to be cited directly, then using WP:USEBYOTHERS is not advisable for including that source, if it's cited by a source that is publishing a topic outside their principal domain.

So now lets flip that to medical journals citing animals24-7 and dogsbite, and using them to reference unreliable data. Do medical journals typically publish about dogs, dog breeds, factors that affect the prevalence of dog bites? The answer is no. Its information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source outside that sources principal domain. Especially when, you have journals that do cover this topic at hand as their principal domain, stating that breed visualization, which all these medical journals relied upon, are unreliable as proven by multiple studies. In fact, the CDC[24] itself, stopped tracking dog bite data partly because visual identification is unreliable and the inability to make reliable conclusions based on the data. The CDC.

Now, as to A second concern is whether this literature review by the American Veterinary Medical Association [47] makes all such claims in medical journals unreliable.

No one said that medical data in medical journals is unreliable because of what AVMA and Veterinary Journals say in theirs. That is a misrepresentation as all data was not the argument. Strictly about information outside their domain. Medical journals are not in the field of criticizing dog information presented in a study. Veterinary Journals are. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.. Medical Journals are not reliable sources for dog information, especially when Veterinary Journals contradict their claims[25][26][27].

Open to other interpretations to WP:RS Guidelines though and appreciate anyone willing to dive into this hot topic. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Essentially what is trying to be done is WP:USEBYOTHERS to cite dogsbite.org and animals24-7.org no it's not. If the source is otherwise reliable it doesn't have to follow Wikipedia's internal policies. Editors should be careful of sources being whitewashed, but experts can use sources we don't like. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to cite the CDC about the history of France? It's a reliable source, so it doesn't need to follow Wikipedias internal policies right?

Or, is it not the most appropriate source for the topic, especially when you have the National Museum of France can be cited counter to the CDCs claims.

I am having a hard time understanding why any wikipedia editor shouldn't evaluate different reliable sources to determine what source is the most reliable on a given topic. Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes it would be appropriate not cite the CDC for the history of disease in France. Editors absolutely should use their own good judgement and the relevant policies and guidelines when considering the reliability of sources. But the issue here is disagreement between sources, and that is sometimes best described in the article rather than simply rejected. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• doi:10.1016/j.joms.2019.11.002 is primary research and generally unreliable for WP:BMI. It shouldn't be used, and especially not to undercut WP:SECONDARY sources. Bon courage (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sources are primary or secondary in context. What about the part of the paper where Khan et al. comment on the status of existing literature? Geogene (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  And also, for example, this social commentary: An area of contentious challenge between dog lobbyists and medical providers is that of breed identity, which seems to be a lightning rod for some dog lobby (principally pit bulls) enthusiasts who contend that identification of "the pit bull terrier type dog" is challenging and imprecise. There is precedent for countering this challenge in legal court briefs: "There exists no better method of identifying a pit bull dog than by its appearance. (American Dog Owners Association vs Dade City, Florida; No 89-771-CIV; 1989) and furthermore "pit bulls are readily identifiable...both by dog owners of ordinary intelligence and by enforcement personnel (State of Ohio vs Anderson, Supreme Court of Ohio brief No. 89-2113; 1991) Breed identification via genetic confirmation is not necessary to gain a firm understanding of this area of dog related trauma. I'm concerned that applying MEDRS to this entire paper but not veterinary papers will hobble the ability to source medical POVs in a multi-POV controversy. Geogene (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The source may be useful for WP:NOTBMI though a primary research item is never going to be the best. Bon courage (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• The trouble with the "secondary" bit of primary sources is that it is almost always selected/framed/spun with the goal of bolstering the primary finding (one wouldn't want to do the opposite, for obvious reasons) and so not indicative of knowledge in the field generally. This is why MEDRS is as it is: use reviews articles, meta-analyses, systematic reviews or better. Primary sources, not. Bon courage (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  In any case, I trust that this primary veterinary poster presentation [28] about animal shelter volunteers that Unbiased6969 posted above isn't usable to make claims about breed identification in attack risks for the same reason? Geogene (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's not usable for WP:BMI, for sure. For other things, dunno - not my area! Bon courage (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, it's not trying to be used for WP:BMI. It's being used to show that claims about dog breeds inside medical journals are widely known by the Veterinary Academic community to be unreliable. It's also a visual representation of a study that was done by the authors, and not just some poster as was stated. Unbiased6969 (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Dog pages are wild. It's a reliable source. Primary research is likely due in this case, and the secondary parts of the paper are certainly due. Most sources on dog breeds are written by aficionados of that particular breed and suffer from extreme neutrality problems.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Going though this I'm a bit lost, am I being naive that medical experts would be more knowledgeable about injuries to humans than vets? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  No one is questioning whether medical experts are knowledgeable in the field of injuries. It's questioning whether they're experts in statements made by dog breeds in their work.

  They're not. Unbiased6969 (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's like saying medical journals can't be used to say cigarettes cause cancer because medics are not tobacco experts. Bon courage (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Respectfully, that's a false equivalency. You visually identify different types of cigarettes reliably and make a reliable decision of their effects.

  As pointed out my veterrinary academia, you cannot identify a dog breed visually in a reliable manner and make a meaningful decision. As concluded by the CDC itself in my first comment. Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  You reflect what the good sources say. If they say smoking causes cancer, reflect that. If they don't go into the weeds about "light" variety cigarettes or menthol ones, don't say that. Bon courage (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Understandable. I'd go one further though. I'd say you primarily present the academic concensus on the topic, then briefly mention the minority/controversial view point. So in this case, present primarily the academic concensus that no breed has been reliably determined to be more responsibe for inuries/deaths. Then mention that some medical studies have made this claim, but relied upon breed identification, which is known to be unreliable. Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There are next to no proper scientific papers on dog breeds, outside of those on health problems and wolf DNA. A medical paper which indicates that injuries reported to be by pitbull type dogs represents x per cent of their case load or whatever is entirely reliable for that claim, and is likely to make it due. The fact that sometimes people misidentify pitbulls can also be reported where that is cited. However, we cannot disqualify a RS reporting "people say pitbulls do this" because another RS says "sometimes people mistake pitbulls for other types of dogs".--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There are no proper scientific papers on dog breeds? Have you dived into the topic to make such a bold claim?

I can show you multiple genetic studies performed on multiple dog breeds trying to isolate aggression to a gene, but repeatedly coming to the same conclusion that aggression in dogs is universal and likely a remnant of their predecessor wolves. Seems like a lot of science from academics to be deemed unreliable.

I disagree with your last point. The context of sources should be evaluated and if an otherwise reliable source is being used to make claims outside their domain, which is in counter to information published by those that study the topic, then using that source outside to cite the information in contradiction to academia is improper without giving more weight to academia. Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Genetics-based studies on dog breeds and aggression do not usually meet the standard for reliable scientific research. It's all "from our sample of 50 dogs" and "reports of aggression by owners". There is not going to be a "gene for aggression", because that isn't how the genetics works.--Boynamedsue (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait why are genetic studies unreliable but the medical ones brought up earlier aren't?

The Khan paper has a sample size of 182 patients and relied on patients to report what type of dog bit them. The Essig paper calculated bite severity based on a sample of 240, again, relying on patients to report breed.

A cursory glance at canine behavioural genetics research is showing sample sizes of 1,975 with behaviour based on owner questionnaires [29], sample size of 6,818 w/ questionnaires [30], sample size 397 w/ questionnaires [31] (notably this one also says "Pit Bull-type dogs showed reduced risk of owner-directed aggression"), sample size 9,270 dogs with questionnaire [32], etc

Why are owners* untrustworthy for reporting aggression, but reliable for reporting dog breed? (*inevitably many of the patients aren't the owner since some are strays, etc.)

Dogs aren't really my field so I don't know what papers on pit bulls specifically are out there, but behavioural genetics is absolutely a real field of scientific research. More complex than there being a "gene for aggression" sure, but genetic predispositions to aggression based on certain mutations is a legitimate topic of study

(also fair warning I might not reply to/notice any responses to this comment... real life is busy rn. feel free to ping me a couple times if you need me to respond) CambrianCrab (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

oh quick clarifying comment tho, no idea if the papers I linked are relevant to the overall topic of this thread or the article in question, just referencing them for methods CambrianCrab (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be asking for speculation, but okay. Is it not possible that pit bull owners might be less likely to report aggressive behaviors than other dog owners because they perceive their dog as unfairly stigmatized? Are dog owners even able to consistently recognize aggression? The Bailey paper [33] (PMID 33136964) that was much praised earlier says that even the aggression tests used by animal shelters are controversial and often wrong.

What percentage of dog attacks are perceived by the owner after the fact as having occurred "without warning"?

Also, dog attacks are extremely rare overall. Is a sample size of 10,000 pet dogs that have (presumably) not attacked before large enough to make actionable predictions about dogs that attack?

Why would a dog owner know their dog was a pit bull? I assume that's because they researched breeds of dogs, then decided they wanted a pit bull, and then bought a shorthaired, muscular and mildly brachycephalic dog that resembled a pit bull through a "pit bulls for sale" ad. If so, then it seems reasonable to assume their dog is a pit bull until evidence is produced otherwise. Geogene (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

oh, not trying to invite speculation, I might have just been unclear, sorry. My point was just that both genetic studies and the dog bite studies rely on owners/laypeople to report something (behavior and breed, respectively) that some sources say is, at least to some degree, unreliable.

From what I could tell, Boynamedsue was saying that because owner reports of aggression aren't always reliable, a scientific paper that we might otherwise consider reliable, but uses owner reports of aggression, doesn't meet the standard for reliable scientific research

In contrast, the dog bite papers that use layperson reports of dog breed, which have also been reported to be unreliable by various sources, remain reliable regardless.

Essentially, I'm just confused as to why we would discard one set of sources (behavioural genetics) because they use a metric that some consider unreliable, but we aren't discarding the other (dog bite studies).

If both types of studies are published in high-quality journals by experts in their field, I'm hesitant to say that we as editors should be making that type of judgement call on either to say "these methods are bad so this source is unreliable".

The sample size bit was mainly in response to the "from our sample of 50 dogs" which I assume was hyperbole but didn't seem to reflect any of the sources I saw.

CambrianCrab (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The 50 dogs one wasn't hyperbole, it referred to a genome study of cocker spaniels. But yes, my main point is that if you wanted to find out about the behaviour of humans, asking their mums and reporting the findings uncritically would not be the best methodology.--Boynamedsue (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Since you ask, my belief is that owner reports of their dog's level of aggression are entirely subjective. It is asking an owner to evaluate and judge what they believe to be a beloved member of the family for a negative trait. Owners frequently reassure people their dog is harmless, despite it clearly not being. Nobody knows a dog worse than its owner.

I consider reports on the type of dog that attacked a patient to be more reliable. Most people know what a pit bull type dog looks like, and given the victim is most often the owner, a member of the family of the owner or a friend of the same, the victim will often have actual knowledge of how the dog was sold.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Aight I have an extra 15, so quick reply: What I was trying to say was we shouldn’t decide that an entire sub-discipline isn’t “proper science” just because one of their methods has been criticized (for behavioral genetics or the medical dog bite stuff). I think Bon courage said it better (or at least more concisely) CambrianCrab (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

In any case, the questionnaire based studies would certainly be reliable for the statements "owners report pit bulls have low level of human-directed aggression", we could then discuss how due that might be.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just for a slight aside, there are cases where you can have instances like this. In the entomology world (I know it's not an insect), spider bites are often misidentified, and it's a real-world issue that's been brought up related to human doctors. So yes, doctors could be misidentifying something, but there would need to be MEDRS sources making that claim rather than someone trying to claim medical professionals don't have sufficient expertise like what you're responding to. That's the key distinction, but I can unfortunately see how easily the argument being made came up too. KoA (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. Medical professions are certainly reliable to say, thats a dog bite. However, not reliable to say thats a dog bite from this specific breed. Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  That is not "exactly" what I said, quite the opposite. KoA (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  This reminds me of some other arguments other the definition of words, with one group using a more general sense and the other using a hyper specific sense.

  Maybe the solution is to describe the issue in the article, noting the research results but then mentioning that the general idea of a pit bull doesn't match the veterinary definition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  You are then giving WP:FRINGETHEORIES the primary narrative in an article, and allowing the academic concensus on a topic take the back seat. Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think fringe is applicable when discussing articles from a high quality source, describe the discrepancy it's one that is common place even outside this specific issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  So, if I am hearing this correctly. Your opinion would be that it's okay to cite vaccine skeptics's claims about autism in x% of people, in the Wiki article about vaccines, so long as those fringe theory claims were sourced from a reliable source thats making those claims outside their principal domain of publication? Because that's the equivalence being applied here. Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  No, because the WP:BESTSOURCES on vaccines say different. Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  When we have strong WP:MEDRS like PMID:33136964 there is no reason to use primary sources, in fact that's exactly what not to do. I can only imagine this topic has a POV-problem if editors are promoting low-quality sources and swerving quality ones. Bon courage (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Medical journals are reliable for medical information. They're not reliable for dog breed related information. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states that one needs to evaluate whether the source is the appropriate for the claims made. In this case it's not, especially when it goes against the vast majority of Veterinary academia. Unbiased6969 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  They're certainly reliable for medical information and almost certainly reliable for dog breed information related to it, peer-reviewed WP:SCHOLARSHIP in high-quality, WP:SECONDARY, peer-reviewed sources is top-notch however you look at it. If there are equivalent veterinary publications purely on the quesion of 'dog breeds' then they would be preferable, but for dog bite effects on people - which is what this query is about - we'd need MEDRS. Luckily, it exists. Bon courage (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  For dog bite effects on people, sure. However that's not what trying to be done on the article page. Instead, the medical journals are trying to be used as sourced to write that pit bulls have a outsized portion of injuries as determined by visual identification, when studies have show that visual identification is unreliable. Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  PMID:33136964, which is a golden source, says:

  German Shepherd and Pit Bull–type breeds account for the largest subset of severe dog bites reported in the medical literature. Our recommendations to physicians and to researchers, activists, and legislators are also included. However, these data must be heeded and acted on to further understand and minimize severe dog bites in the future, especially those inflicted on children.

  and it also says the dog breed recognition is often flawed, which complicates this finding. Wikipedia should reflect this knowledge. It's not hard. Bon courage (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is the source that should be used, with mention of the issues of identification. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Any attempt to relate severity of bites to dog breed obviously involves assessment of 1. the severity / damage inflicted by the bite (a medical matter in which doctors and academics of medicine are experts) and 2. the breed of the dog responsible (not a medical matter, not one in which those same people are experts).

But surely point 2 is a red herring - no medical professionals are going to publish papers in medical journals in which they are relying on their own inspection of dogs to determine the dogs' breeds! Papers are likely either blindly believing patient or witness reports about a dog's breed (probably unreliable - the critics have a point) or have collaborated with relevant experts (police / animal charities / whatever other entity is responsible for breed identification after a dog attack in their jurisdiction) who do have expertise in breed determination, in which case the criticism has no sting at all. To determine which category any given paper falls into, and therefore whether its breed-related conclusions can be trusted, read the paper and see how they say they determined breed. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to determine if a high-quality source can be trusted. The job is rather to reflect what it says. Bon courage (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This is question-begging; if a study's methodology is junk, it's not a "high-quality source" in the first place. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a wiki editors job to evaluated the context of sources to determine whether the source being used is the appropriate one for that information. Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The source's quality (including that of its methodology) is determined by the journal editors and peer-reviewers, not by amateur Wikipedians with an axe to grind. This is fairly basic. Bon courage (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

A medical journal is more than qualified to review about medical information. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS states Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable. Its quite clear that using medical journals to cite information about dog related topics, when veterinary journals contradict their claims, should not be viewed reliable based on WP:RS. editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Its possible to cite contradictory information from Veterinary journals, so unless someone has a bias for medical journals that affects their decision making, I am not sure why this is even a issue. Medical journals are good for reviewing medical information, not dog breed information. Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not contradictory. Bon courage (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You can't decide you don't want medical sources on articles that talk about dog bites. They are clearly relevant.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

2. would be something valid under the medical purview. Causes of injuries or disease are something medical professionals have to assess all the time such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc. and strains of those causing that. If a paper calls for it, you'll likely involve epidemiologists or even more specialized specialists who work on the causative organisms primarily. Frankly, that statement looks like a severe misunderstanding of what epidemiologists do and publish on. KoA (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I will point out that studies have shown that visual identification is unreliable, even among professionals. Not sure if that changes your mind on the latter. [34][35] Unbiased6969 (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Advocates target all pit bull types, and support BSL, which is proven not to work. They also tend to be relentless in their quest to include media hype, misinformation, and/or malinformation from police reports that often contain incomplete information primarily based on visual IDs during a traumatic event. Those reports are also used as the basis for the information used by some science/medical journals, and so it goes. It is expected that some of our best editors can also be misled based on similar circumstances, causing them to latch on to a position that results in major time sinks and debates that never seem to end...and here we are now.

1. Fact - all dogs bite. Many dog owners have been lax in the proper training and socialization of their dogs, particularly strong, muscular dogs, regardless of breed. Chihuahuas can even do serious damage. Bites typically result from improper training, purposeful mistreatment, or leaving small children unattended with dogs, especially children who are unfamiliar with dog behavior.
2. Fact - visually identifying a dog as belonging to a specific breed can be an exercise in futility. Some dogs may look like a particular breed but DNA testing may prove differently. Dogs that are registered with one of the reputable breed associations such as the (AKC, KC, UKC, are better able to positively identify a dog by its pedigree, records of which are kept by the respective breed registry. In many cases, there will be DNA evidence to support the pedigree. For accuracy, DNA testing is required, but rarely done when a child or adult is treated for a dog bite, or when police take eye-witness reports right after a traumatic event. Even some dog owners have been known to misidentify the breed of their dog, referring to them as a "pit bull" when it's a mixed breed. This practice of misidentifying dogs has gone on for decades and has proven harmful to modern purebreds such as Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Bulldogs, and the like, dogs bred specifically to be show dogs. Granted, dogs are being bred illegally as fighting dogs but those dogs originate from specific strains purposely bred for combat, and are not the modern show dogs registered with reputable breed registries.
3. Breed doesn't determine personality - in a most recent study ..."the largest study of its kind, the team compared the genetic and survey data of nearly 2000 dogs—most of which had their entire genomes sequenced—and survey results from an additional 16,000 pooches. The pups included mixes and purebreds, with 128 breeds represented." See Science.org
4. Pit bull advocacies have been referred to as racially motivated issues according to the following study The racialization of pit bulls: What dogs can teach us about racial politics.
5. CDC is against BSL - The CDC strongly recommends against breed-specific laws in its oft-cited study of fatal dog attacks, noting that data collection related to bites by breed is fraught with potential sources of error (Sacks et al., 2000). See this report. Quote: "No breed owns any particular trait." ELAINE OSTRANDER U.S. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE
6. Pit bull or pitbull is NOT a breed of dog - there is only one recognized breed with "pit bull" in its name, and it is the UKC's American Pit Bull Terrier which is not recognized by the other breed registries. "Pit bull terrier" is a ubiquitous term used by people who, quite routinely, are uneducated about dog breeds, and don't know the difference between mongrels and mixed breeds vs a modern, registered dog with a pedigree and DNA test results documented by a dog breed registry. Those dogs are bred to be show dogs, or dogs that compete in obedience trials, tracking, etc. Scores of innocent dogs have been/are still being euthanized as a result of misidentification and misinformation.
7. Pit bulls are the most frequent targets of breed-specific bans, despite the misidentifications; other breeds that are also banned may include Rottweilers, Dobermans, and boxers.
8. Another example of malinformation: see this diff wherein Geogene cites a news article by the BBC which states: After the tip-off to the police, Lola was measured and assessed. An American bulldog crossed with an English Staffordshire bull terrier, she was classified as pit-bull-type. Pit bull terriers are one of the four breeds of dog banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 alongside the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino, and the Fila Brazileiro. I question "assessed" - was it a visual assessment or a DNA assessment? It also states "Pit bull terriers are one of the four breeds of dog banned under ...." yada yada. Pit bull terrier is NOT a breed. I consider this information to be questionable at best.

• Sadly, staunch advocates against pit bull and terrier types refuse to relent. WP doesn't allow advocacy editing, so this needs to be addressed. Our project has had more than its share of advocacies, and one of the worst was a multiple sock editor who first went by Nomopbs. WP:PAG do not allow the inclusion of incorrect, misleading, or malinformation, much of which may be motivated by a misplaced fear of dogs, or inspired by hyped-up media reports with visual misidentifications of dogs, and/or based on incorrect/incomplete police & hospital reports that used the ubiquitous term "pit bull", not to mention small studies of behavior analysis based on the aforementioned. Atsme 💬 📧 21:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Atsme:, are you able to explain what's wrong with my diff [36] you just posted? You seem to be accusing me of wrongdoing there. Geogene (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think her issue may be with the phrase "banned breed"; arguably there is no such thing in the UK. Government documenation at https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/banned-dogs stresses that in the UK we have banned "types" (defined by physical features/appearance), not banned "breeds" (defined by ancestry). However, I note that despite this it is common for media sources and police spokesmen to use the term "banned breed" and that basically everyone refers to the UK law as BSL (breed-specific legislation); arguably usage in mainstream sources vindicates using the term "banned breed" in the UK context even if strictly speaking it is a misnomer. I take no position for now; this argument doesn't belong on this noticeboard anyway. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Geogene, even the title of this discussion is wrong, and for whatever reason, you either purposely refuse or are simply unable to understand that pit bull is not a breed. It's a ubiquitous description that attempts to define a dog by its visual appearance which has been proven repeatedly to be unreliable. Just the use of the term pit bull invokes the horrors of racial slurs from years past that were used to define certain races of people, classifying them as criminal, incompetent, etc. My detailed explanation above covers it. The crux of the problem rests with laypersons not understanding what constitutes a recognized purebred or specific breed of dog vs mongrel, mutt, or mixed breed, and that definitely includes the medical literature. The bite of a Rottweiler mix can be as deadly as a Staffie's bite if not worse. The medical literature needs to stick to human assessments and should seek advice from canine/dog breed professionals.

  The article I linked to said the dog was "assessed" - how was it assessed - by a visual ID, or what the owner of the dog believes the dog to be? Is there DNA proof? Ask yourself what you're defining as a pit bull? If it's not a registered dog, how do they know the parentage? By looks, which is proven to be unreliable? It's a dog - a mutt that bit someone. Using ubiquitous terms has to stop. It's very possible the dog is NOT related whatsoever to any of the bull and terrier breeds or it could be so distant, it doesn't matter. Unless they know the dogs parentage for certain, it's a mongrel or simply a dog...and that's all we really know for certain. And that is what's wrong with your comment in the link, and each time you use the term. The pit bull article needs to be completely rewritten. Atsme 💬 📧 14:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, even as the wokest person I know, this is the first time I've come across "pit bull is a slur". I would kindly ask you to stop comparing attempts to describe dog breeds to racism. It's offensive. Dogs are animals, you know, the things we eat. If you are shocked by people calling dogs "pit bulls", wait until you find out what we do to pigs.

And your point doesn't make sense. The majority of dog bite victims are the owners of the dog in question, or their friends and family members (just as the most likely person to be killed by a gun is the owner or their family members). In which case they know the breed. If you then answer, "ah, but they may be wrong" then no research whatsoever on dog breeds that does not involve standardised genetic testing is valid. This means we have to delete 99% of our sources in all dog articles.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Ironically, this comment itself feels like an activist screed, and is highly one-sided. I'll put a counter to just two of your numbered points, though I take some issue with every one of them:

  1. Even if we accept as true that bites "typically result" from owner negligence (I don't know if that's true), there's absolutely no contradiction between that and the position that some breeds are more dangerous than others. Multiple factors can contribute to the same bad outcome.

  5. The US government is against BSL? Well, symmetrically, the UK government is for it, and we have it here. Neither can be assumed to be right; it is not a knockdown argument either way.

  Wikipedia needs to present both sides of this argument; certainly there are good sources available for both. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Shouldn't the first question be whether this is even worth adding to the article at all? From my point of view, "dog breeds with the nastiest bite to humans" seems like fairly trivial information. Yvan Part (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Is bite risk not a fairly prominent controversy with pit bulls? Geogene (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the (real or perceived, depending on which side of the argument you believe) dangerousness of pitbulls is pretty much the single most notable thing about them; conclusions of studies relating to that are very likely to be significant in the context of that issue and thus worthy of discussion in the article (though not necessarily individually, and not not necessarily mean uncritically). ExplodingCabbage (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  No one is arguing against referencing the controversy around pit bulls in the article. Thats obviously noteworthy and can be source md reliably. Whats being argued is not citing unreliable sources on bite stats because none exist.

  
  

  The controversy around pit bulls is absolutely a topic. However, there are no reliable statisitcs about any dog bite data to cite in the article. The CDC itself, discredited their study for being unreliable. This, along with every academic veterinary organization. Unbiased6969 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  No one is arguing... - yes they are. In the grandparent comment that this subthread is about, @Yvan Part questions whether this information is even noteworthy enough to include, irrespective of reliability. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see that as arguing against mentioning the topic of controversy. I see it as arguing that the specific quote stated in their comment is of little importance. Otherwise, why quote and not just mention the topic in general? The quote was picked for a reason, and I think it was meant to highlight the subjectivity of the source's language not being impactful to meaningful discussion rather than a critique of the general topic. However, Yvan Part can clarify and prove me wrong. Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Settle down, I was just throwing in the idea that, in their haste to discuss whether this is a reliable source or not, editors might have missed the bigger picture that this information might not be worth adding in the first place. I'm not championing that idea and other editors are free to debate its merits without my input.

  The controversy mentioned, I'm guessing around pitbulls in general, seems out of the scope of this RSN section and is probably better discussed on the article talkpage instead.

  @Unbiased6969 I understand that you might be passionate about this topic but trying to convince and replying to everyone is considered WP:BLUDGEONING which can rapidly land you in hot waters. Yvan Part (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the lead on the WP:BLUDGEOMING. Never seen that one before, but I will take a break from here to read up on it. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I think it matters here whether we are asking if the studies are reliable enough for us to repeat their findings in Wikipedia's voice as objective truth, or whether we are asking whether they are reliable enough to merely neutrally mention the existence of the studies and what they concluded, with critical viewpoints also mentioned and given similar weight.

Different commenters seem to be assuming different about which of those levels of reliability we're arguing about. I was taking as an obvious starting point that peer-reviewed research that isn't unambiguously retracted or debunked is at least reliable enough to cite and mention the conclusions of, though not necessarily as objective truth. To my surprise, though, other commenters seem to be arguing that an entire area of published research is all so unreliable that it cannot be cited at all. Such a position seems to me like it requires an extraordinarily robust case against all the published work in that area. I don't yet see such a case given here. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You've read WP:MEDRS? Bon courage (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe you may have been mentioning me on the last point, but if not then apologies and ignore. I think it can simply come down to whether Medical Journals or Veterinary Journals are WP:BESTSOURCES for claims about breed related information. I don't believe that an entire area of published research is all so unreliable that it cannot be cited at all. Medical Journals have great information in them about effects/injuries of dog bite, etc. However, they are not reliable in making determinations about what breed of dog bit, or what rate a breed bites. As another editor mentioned here[37] the errors by medical professionals making claims outside their domain is not exclusive to dogs. If there was not any data out there showing visual identification was unreliable, then I don't see a problem citing medical journals, absent better information. However, there is data showing their methods used to make those claims to be unreliable, and their claims run counter to every veterinary academic organization I have found. As such, BESTSOURCES states When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements. I don't see the argument for basing breed related information from a Medical Journal, when Veterinary Journals provide information in contradiction. I have read WP:MEDRS and its talking about biomedical information. A claim about which dogs bite, is not biomedical information, its veterinary and maybe even sociology. No one is questioning the reliability of medical data inside a medical journal, or if they have, I haven't seen it.

Not to be lost in all this, is the attempt to use WP:USEBYOTHERS to cite information originating from dogsbite.com & animals24-7.org, which were already deemed to be unreliable.[38] Currently the article cites Time, which cites Animals24-7.org that independent organizations have published statistics based on hospital records showing pit bulls are responsible for more than half of dog bite incidents among all breeds despite comprising only 6% of pet dogs. The claims are contrary to the academic view point and represent a minority view and citing it ignores WP:USEBYOTHERS own text, along with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Only seems logical if a source is not reliable to cite their own information, that using another source to cite that unreliable information is ill-advised, unless said source was an authority in the topic presenting information in support of that previously unreliable claim. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It's quite simple. PMID:33136964 says that

1. German Shepherd and Pit Bull–type breeds account for the largest subset of severe dog bites reported in the medical literature
2. But dog breed identification is often unreliable, which complicates this reporting

These are both items of factual knowledge which can be asserted. How is this hard? Bon courage (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

So, we are going to ignore WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE then? Because using these "reliable sources" is being used to give weight to fridge theories that run against academic consensus...

WP:FRINGE states it needs a reliable source, but a reliable source is vague, so wikipedia has a whole article about WP:RS where it mentions WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Whixh states Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. Spoiler, the medical journal study is not an appropriate source for dog breed content. Furthermore, Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Medical journals are otherwise reliable sources providing information in passing that is outside their publication domain.

There seems to be this bias that Medical Journals are universally reliable for information that is outside their scope and it needs to be addressed. Medical researchers are critiqing medical information in studies, they are not dog experts to be capable of reviewing these claims. I think accepting that not every claim made in a medical journal that is outside their topic domain is needed here, especially when it supports a WP:FRINGE inside that academic area. Unbiased6969 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What are you even on about? A medical review article is the best possible source to say what is reported in the medical literature. The secondary observation (that identifying the 'breeds' is likely flawed so the result are problematic) is something that nobody disagrees with (indeed it's what you have been arguing). The invocation of WP:FRINGE is bizarre. WTF is going on here? Bon courage (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The point is, on a dog breed page, there shouldn't be a good arguement for using medical journals to cite information outside their domain, when that information cited is in direct conflict of academia and veterinary research. Just like I wouldn't cite a veterinary journal on a medical page when medical sources conflict with whats being cited. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

As I stated above this argument, Not to be lost in all this, is the attempt to use WP:USEBYOTHERS to cite information originating from dogsbite.com & animals24-7.org, is wrong on several counts. USEBYOTHERS is a way that editors of Wikipedia can judge if a source is reliable, it has nothing to do with your argument or how secondary sources decide to use sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Thats whats being done... WP:CONTEXTMATTERS Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. I'm not sure how else to explain it, but it's pretty clear to me that Time's citation in the article is being judged here. The argument is that it's not the proper source for such a claim as it's publications are outside the topic domain and higher quality sources cite conflicting data. Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying a medical review article is not reliable for saying what is reported in the medical literature? What? Bon courage (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that a medical journal shouldn't be the citation source for information relating to a dog breed when the information is direct conflict with Veterinary Journals and wide spread veterinary academic concensus. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be a bit too easy... You could use that trick to screen out whole groups of experts from most topics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hooray, so it is at least conceded we an appropriate source saying "German Shepherd and Pit Bull–type breeds account for the largest subset of severe dog bites reported in the medical literature". This is undoubredly true and impeccably sourced. Bon courage (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would consider epidemiology, even injury epidemiology, to be "outside the domain" of medicine. If there is an issue with WP:PROPORTION that would seem to be an issue for the other noticeboard, but it seems unlikely anyone would agree to exclude or classify unreliable medical literature entirely. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "inheriting unreliability." A random person on the street or a random youtube video are unreliable sources, but if a reliable media outlet uses such sources the resulting article is generally reliable.

Likewise, a scholarly journal can use data from sources we consider "generally unreliable." Unlike Wikipedia editors they are experts and may be able to distinguish unreliable and reliable information. Alaexis_¿question? 21:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Is there an issue about it's on-WP use? [39] As always, context matters. My knee-jerk reaction is "probably generally reliable", but that is not reason to put it on RSP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

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

I'm guessing this relates to this edit[40] to the RSP that was reverted as it didn't meetbthe criteria for inclusion. Discussions that only exists to get sources added the RSP should be excluded from counting as part of it's inclusion criteria. So that a hard no from me for the original question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Film Music Reporter

This source has been discussed several times before: in May 2011, September 2020, and April 2021. Each time there has been opposition to its use but no consensus recorded anywhere about it being unreliable. The source is currently used on thousands of articles related to composers, films, television, and more, and one such instance is New World Order (The Falcon and the Winter Soldier) which is currently undergoing a GA review where the issue has been raised again. My hope in starting this conversation is that a definitive consensus can be reached and recorded at WP:RS/PS that future discussions can point to.

I think the source should be listed as reliable. I agree with other editors that this is a WP:SPS, and therefore it must be deemed a subject-matter expert if it is to be considered reliable. For years the site has been publishing accurate reports about film and television music including announcements about composer hirings and soundtrack details. Its reports have been referenced in other reliable sources, mainly entertainment journalist sites such as Collider and NME. And it is followed on social media by actual composers and industry insiders. I think there is enough evidence to consider it trusted within the film scoring community, and I think the fact that it is used so widely on Wikipedia already points to the trust that many editors have in it (note that I am not arguing we should consider it reliable because some articles already do).

I have notified relevant WikiProjects about this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that the website does post accurate information and is widely used on film pages (I routinely remove the site as a source in the infobox once the poster/billing block is released. The website has it correct every time). However, do we know who owns/writes for the website? Their About me page doesn't provide clarity. Therefore, I'm not sure how it can be listed as reliable on WP:RSP without the author/owner details. Mike Allen 13:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Just an aside but the consensus was record in the RSN archives you found, the archives exist to show what conclusions past discussions came two. It hasn't been summarised any where else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

As to the sites reliability WP:SPS needs prior publishing by a independent reliable source, who runs the site isn't disclosed so it's not possible not check if they have been previously published. The other way they could be reliable is by WP:USEBYOTHERS and I'm not seeing a stromg case for that.

How often a source is used on Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with how reliable it is, Wikipedia is often used as a reference even though doing so is against policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I clearly stated that "I am not arguing we should consider it reliable because some articles already do", I am just pointing out that the source is widely regarded to be reliable by editors across thousands of pages. That is noteworthy context for this discussion. If nothing else, it means there will be a lot of clean-up to do if consensus here is that it should not be used. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

And I'm saying editors think Wikipedia is a reliable source for Wikipedia content. Sources should be judged by policies and guidelines, USEONWIKIPEDIA is not one of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I just saw that the May 2011 discussion you linked to was from me. Lol. Well my stance hasn't changed much, we still don't know who writes for the website and it's been 13 years later. Hopefully we can learn more this time around. Mike Allen 13:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

So I'm an outsider coming to this website. If the site is used across the board as we say, what is primarily citing? Composers for upcoming films? If its grabbing content that can easily be established by far more trustworthy sources in the future, I'd vouch for failing it as reliable. As MikeAllen has suggested earlier, it looks like the site has not been forthcoming in any way whatsoever within a decade of where their sources come from. If its as simple as that, I wouldn't deem it a reliable source as it appears most of its content can be clarified by other sources who are deemed more reliable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Composers for upcoming films yes, but mostly soundtrack details such as when a soundtrack album is being released and what the tracklist is. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

While I do approve of such details. A track listing is something that can easily sourced to the subject itself later on as it is relatively uncontroversial information and will all be released in time. While release dates can be tricky and trivial to properly scope out, I feel if this is the only key information there is not that much lost that could not be re-traced back to other sources, especially as there is no information on the site on how the information is tracked. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

aaroads.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RIA Novosti

Hi there. I made a post on the BLP Noticeboard about a number of sources I came across on the Karim Massimov which I have some concerns about in terms of reliability. I have already removed one offending source (exclusive) according to the advice I got on my post.

I was wondering if someone here could please advise on whether articles by RIA Novosti such as this article meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria? The outlet is Russian government owned and has links to Sputnik. When I went to remove the Exclusive article above I also found this further RIA article which was mislabelled as Exclusive. Would appreciate a hand from anyone who has a good understanding of Russian media, or just in general as I'm new to all of this. Thanks! Jezzaqueen (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliability is a fuzzy thing which some sources achieve, others do not, and still others sit in a grey zone where some content can be reliable and other less so. My recommendation is to absorb the content of WP:RS and make an individual judgement based on the large number of factors related there. Further, you could take a look at WP:RSP and compare 'similar' sources to that of RIA Novosti and see how they compare. Mistakes will be made; reversions will happen and some will be fair and others not so. It's part of the overall editing process / experience here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Great to know Ceyockey and thanks for guiding me towards the WP:RSP. Jezzaqueen (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see RIA is used to report on the accusations made the by Prosecutor General of Kazakhstan against Massimov (Karim_Massimov#Removal_from_office_and_initiation_of_criminal_proceedings_for_high_treason) and the claims are attributed. I think it's quite unlikely that RIA falsified the prosecutor's words. Are you asking because you found contradictory information elsewhere? In any case it wouldn't hurt to double-check it, ideally in Kazakhstani sources. Alaexis_¿question? 22:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ceyockey above guided me to the WP:RSP and I do find it interesting that it is considered reliable for official government statements, which makes sense even on a Biography of a Living Person. As a non Russian speaker it is a nightmare trying to figure out what claims I can take at face value, so this resource is very helpful. There's even a source in this section with comedy bags full of money, so I've decided I'm going to take the information on this Wikipedia article and topic area with a massive pinch of salt. Jezzaqueen (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Btw what made you think that exclusive.kz is unreliable? Alaexis_¿question? 22:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The exclusive.kz article in question was based on information from LiveJournal and Google Earth, there was a discussion on the Biographies of Living Person's Noticeboard which I have linked above. Jezzaqueen (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

History News Network

The article Hirohito currently states in Wikivoice Deeply engaged in military operations, Hirohito commissioned a war room beneath the Tokyo Imperial Palace to closely monitor Japan's military activities. The extensive resources required for regular updates to the Emperor often drew complaints from military officials. To celebrate significant military victories, he rode his white horse in parades in front of the Imperial Palace which is cited entirely to Five Myths About Emperor Hirohito on History News Network. Is this a reliable source for these statements to be in WikiVoice, or should they be attributed to the author Francis Pike, who is a historian? I'm seeking an opinion here because the History News Network piece seems pretty informal and was written shortly after the author's new book was released and doesn't really cite any sources for the information it is presenting. I wanted to ask before I attempted to attribute the statements to Francis Pike. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

On first reading I thought this was related to the History Channel, which is certainly not reliable, but the History News Network is completely unrelated. In general it's reliable, it's written by a recognise academic in the relevant field and I don't see any concerns with the publisher.

For the specific context it seems reliable for everything bar Deeply engaged in military operations, it says he was interested in military affairs. Engaged seems to strong given the source.

In relation to attribution I'm unsure. There are three statements, the war room, resource expenditure, and riding his white horse on parade. Attribution is good, but can cast unfair doubt if misused.

Certainly the last statement doesn't appear to need attribution, as finding details of Hirohito attending such celebrations on his white horse are relatively simple. The war room one is slightly shakier, lots of ther sources discuss the air raid shelter he had built to receive updates from his generals. Churchill had a similar air raid shelter built, and that is called a war room. The expenditure statement is much harder to gage, I would suggest that attribution is probably appropriate.

As an aside it's nice if secondary sources cite their sources, but they don't have to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh? They don't? There has been large amounts of debate relating to a different subject entirely where editors argued at length that lacking citations hurt the reliability of a text. My apologies, they taught me wrong, as a joke. Joking aside, good to know! I have no experience with the History News Network, and I feel wary by default of things that are formatted as "FIVE FACTS YOU DIDN'T KNOW" (not the exact wording, but still). Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

To be completely honest, if you've got someone that's recently published a book writing an article on the same subject as the book in some newsletter, chances are the claims are also in the book because they (most likely) wrote the article to promote their book. Google Books snippet view would indicate some of the claims might be found around p. 207, for example so if anyone at WP:RX is able to provide, say, pp. 205–210 and maybe the introduction as well, or whatever seems most appropriate. Bloomsbury is fairly reputable generally speaking whereas the primary qualifier for History News Network would probably be EXPERTSPS, they do have editors but present themselves as a "newsletter" so I'm not sure how much additional fact checking they'd bother with. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

True, the claims they're making are very probably in the book. If I get my hands on a copy of it I'll go looking and probably replace the sources with the book. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheung et al in Archives of Disease in Childhood

At Cass Review we are having a dispute about this source:

Cheung CR, Abbruzzese E, Lockhart E, et al Gender medicine and the Cass Review: why medicine and the law make poor bedfellows Archives of Disease in Childhood Published Online First: 14 October 2024. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2024-327994

https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/10/15/archdischild-2024-327994

Some editors have argued that because one of the co-authors, Evgenia Abbruzzese, is also the co-founder of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, the source should be regarded as FRINGE. Is this correct? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Short answer on the specific question of whether one odd ball amongst the authors immediately disqualifies a source, no it doesn't. That's not to say there couldn't be other issue with the paper, which would require comments from edits with better WP:MEDRS knowledge, but just because one odd ball was amongst the authors doesn't immediately mean their odd ball believes are in the paper. The other authors, and the editors, may well have smooth them out or ensured they stayed within more normal academic ranges.

There are scientists and academics who believe all kinds of things, including opinions that would controversial or laughy in their own fields, who yet still publish well regarded work in that field because those specific works don't involve the controversial opinions they hold. So disqualifying a whole work by multiple author because of one of the authors is dubious doesn't work.

Again I'm not saying that the paper is reliable, but that that argument against it is flawed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

An author being blatantly out there on the fringe is a red flag that we can't ignore. What exactly we do with that information is up for debate, but "neglect it" is not a feasible option. XOR'easter (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

XOR'easter I'm not sure how this answers the question.

• Do you believe Abbruzese's participation alone disqualifies this source?
• If "yes" can you address ActivelyDisinterested's remarks above, specifically There are scientists and academics who believe all kinds of things, including opinions that would controversial or laughy in their own fields, who yet still publish well regarded work in that field because those specific works don't involve the controversial opinions they hold and why you think that doesn't hold here.

FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, does anyone know if Abbruzzese has published other works besides this one outside of SEGM circles? Whether other researchers have commented on said body of work, that would be a good indicator of publish well regarded work, but I'm having trouble filtering out the other E. Abbruzzeses like Elvira etc from Evgenia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't regard Abbruzzese a reliable source, but they are one of seven authors for this article. I would suggest looking to the quality of the article, rather than fixating on one author. As XOR'easter points out it should be part of any discussion, but it's not the whole discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I am aware, it just would have been nice to have a body of work to look at whether it is indeed well regarded, but I'm to lazy to actually look any of them up, especially for the authors that actually do have publications. Though, there are only 5 authors, you might be counting the number of affiliations? That got me a bit too. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

1) Addressing the other authors: none have ever published any research on transgender care or have any experience with it

2) Addressing a glaring issue with the source: right off the bat they misrepresent trans healthcare in the US while situating the Yale Review in the same way SEGM does (ie, framing their position as more accepted than it is)

• Ultimately, these cases hinge on judges deciding between two conflicting perspectives. One side, argued by transgender advocacy groups and supported by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)22 and the Endocrine Society,23 asserts that medical transition for minors is backed by sufficient evidence, making restrictions unnecessary and discriminatory. On the other side, some states claim the practice is experimental, harmful to youth and that the constitution allows them to protect citizens from unsafe medical treatments.
• They say "transgender advocacy groups", WPATH, and the Endocrine Society support it and states don't - they don't mention every single medical association in the US has opposed these bans - for example the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Urological Association, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, American College of Physicians, and American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.[41] Not to mention the American Psychological Association[42], American Psychiatric Association and more.[43]
• It doesn't mention all the states doing so have done so at the behest of Christian Right anti-LGBT groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, American College of Pediatricians, and, shocking nobody, SEGM.

3) Relatedly, they extend this critique to arguing the authors of the Yale review are politically motivated as they testify against bans on gender-affirming care - ignoring that this is supported by all major medical orgs in the US.

4) The Yale Review called out multiple false statements the Cass Review made (ie: "most trans kids grow out of it") - this supposed review of their critique fails to address a single one.

5) SEGM is treating this review as a total refutation of the Yale Report, claiming the Cass Review is holy and untouchable while hoping U.S. medical organizations and prestigious universities will resist the powerful special interests who have leveraged these institutions' highly-regarded names and hard-earned reputations to shield the practice of youth gender transition (emphasis added)[44] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I am only asking specifically as to whether Abbruzese's participation as an author is enough to disqualify the source as FRINGE, according to current WP policy. I am not currently asking about any other proposed reasons to exclude the source. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If the question is specifically about FRINGE, FRINGEN would seem to be a noticeboard more suited to the question at hand. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Outside of assessing a news source in general, where we look at the pattern of reliability of that news source.

When we look for reliability of specific articles as references, we don't generally evaluate articles only in isolation (or as you asked, only on the premise of if an authors involvement means we don't also may have other reasons to judge an article for neutrality and reliability), but also in the WP:RS#Reliability in specific contexts/Wikipedia:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context for which it is being planned for inclusion to better assess, which is why @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist posted additional relevant information for this particular article. Raladic (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

As an(other) aside, even if a source were FRINGE it wouldn't necessarily be outright excluded, as long as it is put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field. Whether a source is suitable always depends on how it is used. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

IDF claims Gaza reporters are terrorists; reporters and their employer say no

Posting here for visibility. I have no opinion on whether the allegations are true, but they deserve our attention because if they are, these six reporters have a flagrant conflict of interest with respect to the current war. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Allegations according to the IDF, a known unreliable source that seems to have a bad habit of killing journalists, especially Al Jazeera journalists, that write things the IDF doesn't like, denied by Al Jazeera, a known reliable source? Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It is easy for those who passionately oppose current Israeli policy in the region to dismiss the IDF's claims as lies, just as it is equally easy for those who passionately oppose the activities of Hamas and other Palestinian liberation groups to label their supporters as terrorists. There is no profit to be had in speculating about the claims yet; the prudent path is to wait and see if anything concrete emerges, and I would like help watching, which is why I posted here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It's really irrelevant if one sits on one side or another vis a vis Israel. What is relevant is that the claims come from a party who has a vested interest in pushing a position and that the claims are unverified. TarnishedPath^talk 15:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Ps, we recently had an RFC on the publication that the journalists worked for and there was consensus towards the reliability. TarnishedPath^talk 15:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No they do not until a third party RS goes "I say, good point that man". Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Your reason that they "they deserve our attention" doesn't appear to be based in policy and/or guideline. That would appear to be your own personal opinion presented as something which is representative of the community, don't do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Claims

• IDF
  • Found documents in Gaza
  • Documents prove 6 reporters had connection to militant groups
  • Documents prove integration of Hamas terrorist and Al Jazeera
• Al Jazeera
  • The documents were fabricated
  • Warns IDF fabricated as a justification for targeting its journalists
  • Says blatant attempt to silence journalists
  • Says silencing journalist is to hide realities of war
• Reuters
  • not able to immediately verify the authenticity of the documents

Can't decide between these claims based on any Wikipedia RfC's. Reuters is the most important here. fiveby(zero) 18:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Per the Time link I gave above:

"Earlier this year, RSF examined Israel’s targeted killing of two other Al Jazeera correspondents–Ismail al-Ghoul and Rami al-Rifi, killed by a drone strike on their car shortly after reporting live from a location near the family home of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh, who had been assassinated in Iran earlier that day. Israel asserted that al-Ghoul was a “Hamas military wing operative and Nukhba terrorist,” referring to the group’s elite Nukhba Brigade. The RSF investigation noted “numerous inconsistencies” in Israel’s evidence, including the assertion that al-Ghoul received a military rank in 2007, when he would have been 10 years old."

CPJ is reported on Sky News saying that they have seen the documents and they "don't appear to be credible" (https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1849549035725607378) Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to show that we can neither:

1. relitigate the RfC with new evidence nor
2. assert any claims in content (RfC irrelevant in this situation)

without multiple RS's telling us the validity of the documents. Unless there is another possible result, what's wrong with: notified and noted. done? fiveby(zero) 20:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

unless there is clear proof we should assume journalists are journalists.

idf claims in the past include refusal to acknowledge killing of Shireen Abu Akleh and even the Committee to Protect Journalists has indicated Israel has made similar claims in the past to justify killing journalists [45] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

We know from reliable sources that at least one Gazan reporter was a terrorist (or at least someone holding hostages). Abdullah Aljamal was a reporter for the Palestine Chronicle and wrote one article opinion piece for Al Jazeera.

We should treat these claims with plenty of grains of salt. We should wait for independent reliable sources to report on that. Until they do, the claims by IDF and the counter-claims of Al-Jazeera, a primary source in this case and a biased one, should be treated as claims and attributed accordingly. Alaexis_¿question? 19:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thats an opinion piece, not a news article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Eh, are you referring to the CNN article I linked? It's nowhere marked as an opinion piece. Alaexis_¿question? 12:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Think they mean the reporter only wrote an opinion piece for AJ, not a news article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is what I mean. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I've amended my comment. Alaexis_¿question? 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera has had a number of issues and scandals over the years, including failed fact checks, issues around the Qatari state ownership and lack of independence, issues in reporting that differs between their Arabic and English editions with the former being more problematic, employing individuals or participating in discussions and improperly colluding with actors in the conflict, not to mention issues of bias and neutrality. I think this could support a downgrade to at least "needs caution"/"some considerations apply" and perhaps scoped to specific topics such as controversial international politics and A-I conflict issues. Consider other sources that are GUNREL such as Anadolu Agency, Daily Sabah (Turkey), Al Mayadeen (Lebanon), while AJ has a better reputation than those, it has some similar issues and patterns of coverage. Also consider recent discussion on the Jewish Chronicle, and similar treatment of a number of other sources while AJ so far has gotten a pass. While we have to wait to see what comes of this specific IDF document thing, I do think this is an exigency that will cause a new discussion for AJ and likely a new RFC needed when the dust has settled. Andre🚐 23:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder, the very recent AJ RFCs were snow closed as reliable. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Before this descends into another free-for-all mess like most of the prior discussions on the source, can I suggest limiting the discussion to anything new?

I'm personally unconvinced by of Al Jazeera's independence when it comes to reporting on matter relating to Qatar, but the prior consensus is obviously against me. The consensus of the recent RFC, it's only been a few months, is also very clear on their general reliability.

For this recent issue I think it's a case of wait and see. If other reliable sources start to question Al Jazeera's reliability over the allegations that would change the matter, but I don't see that that's happened yet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

IDF has released more documents allegedly showing Hamas instructing Al Jazeera how to cover the Palestinian liberation movement and related events. As of now, I can't find news media outside Israel discussing these allegations. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

What I don't see irrespective of whether the IDF allegations are true or not is why they are in the least relevant. Are the journalists being accused of carrying arms or directing operations? Have their reports been shown to contain lies rather than journalism? And on that note how many journalists in Israel have not served in the IDF? NadVolum (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the allegations about the specific journalists are true, then any articles by those specific journalists are probably not sufficiently independent to be considered reliable in this area. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Come back when you know the allegations are true, this discussion is completely pointless, it would have more merit if it was asserting that the IDF were unreliable, for which there is actual evidence. Selfstudier (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Well Al Jazeera would sack them for that. The point though is what crime deservng death have they committed? I mean that is basically what the IDF are saying they deserve plus any civilians in their vicinity would be justified collateral. NadVolum (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli government also issues guidance to media organizations on how they're to cover related topics, especially when it comes to military capabilities. This is a bunch of molehills that people are trying to call a mountain range for political expediency. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

As to that latest 'revelation' by the IDF, it just doesn't smell right to me. Some people in Al Jazeer being sympathetic to Hamas I could believe. Hamas instructing or advising Al Jazeer about communication and publicity? Who knows more about that! It just doesn't make much sense, the most I could see Hamas would do if they had such a link is ask that Al Jazeer keep quiet about something they might know. If they're doing what the IDF say then they're incredibly stupid. Even more in printing it. NadVolum (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Robb Report

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

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

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

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

Oneroof.co.nz

https://oneroof.co.nz is a website for promoting the real estate market in New Zealand. It has no WP:USEBYOTHERS and has no reputation for factual accuracy. I consider content from this source to be quite undue given the entire point of the site being to promote real-estate content, as stated in their FAQ: 'OneRoof enhances New Zealand’s latest real estate'.

The material this source is used for includes providing the home of a BLP: [46], promotional material on how money an apartment is making and that is for sale: [47], and how and how being in the right location can add to your property value: [48]

Overall I fail to see how this source is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, the site's purpose is to promote real estate and we shouldn't be helping it. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It certainly looks a questionable source. I can't see how it passes WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Much of the use of oneroof is to their suburb profile pages, which gives dates of construction of housing, e.g. East Tāmaki Heights, second paragraph. I fail to see that this is promoting real estate. I'm not sure why the sale of a house, which implicitly is no longer the residence of the seller, is a BLP violation. The "Grammar Zone" is a well-known phenomenon in Auckland, but I would be happy to see another source used for it.-Gadfium (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It's owned by NZME so it's possibly reliable in the very limited circumstances in which it would be WP:DUE, e.g. bland factual information about suburbs. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I doubt it. Their suburb profiles contain patently false information: [49], well no that isn't true it dates back to 1860. Perhaps they just mean still extant housing? Well that isn't true Clark House exists. And they even wrote an article about it's real estate listing [50].

How about their article on the CBD? [51] 'the earliest residential housing recorded in the area constructed between 1800 - 1809'. That is 40 years before Auckland was founded and 40 years before William Brown (the first European to settle the area) came.

I could point out more obvious factual errors but I think it is pointless as I've clearly demonstrated the lack of any fact checking for this. Given the repetitive descriptions given it is likely this is automatically generated content created based on real estate data or something rather than any actual research carried out by a real person. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

K-Love

There's a disagreement at an AfD about the reliability of an article from the Christian radio network K-Love. (AfD, source) The individual K-Love article itself appears to be a highly promotional single-source interview and thus non-independent and unreliable, but I am curious for this board's view of K-Love as a source overall. I see no evidence that K-Love is operating as a real news organization per WP:NEWSORG. It has no editorial staff listing on its site, and it has no public editorial policy or statements about fact-checking or corrections. Its news feed (https://www.klove.com/news) is mostly reprints of wire stories mixed in with WP:USERGENERATED content. And its mission is explicitly about creating positive and inspiring content (see its "Positive People" feed), which means its content will always be editorially positive and thus introduces questions about independence and reliability. However, another editor in the discussion says "Klove is a national broadcasting network (operating over 400 stations) and should be a recognized secondary source." Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much WP:UBO or explicit commentary in other RS, but my impression is that if it has a reputation for anything at all, it would be one of being a cost-minimising radio equivalent of a content farm driving local stations out of business for their own purposes, rather than anything like fact checking or accuracy. Whether such an operation actually cares to pay for a meaningfully rigorous editorial process... well, I'd find it dubious, but what I think doesn't actually matter because it's up to the editors actually wanting to use it to put up an argument that can be plausibly linked to being RS which "it being pasted everywhere" isn't: Both AP and PR Newswire are (inter)nationally syndicated but one of them clearly has nothing to do with an RS. (It also doesn't matter because it doesn't seem to be used anywhere) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick side note, interviews are always reliable for the words of the person being interviewed (see WP:ABOUTSELF). So the interview is reliable in that limited way, even if it isn't independent for notability purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That carries the assumption that interviews are always properly transcribed or not misleadingly edited. In a world where some media outlets have run "interviews" with people whom they have not actually had contact with, there is some level at which we have to be concerned about the outlet delivering the interview. (Note I am not saying that K-Love reaches this level of concern; I have no insight on or judgment of this particular source.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree, I didn't mention it as its an extreme situation. Any outlet not faithfully publishing details it that way should be deprecated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

RFC Jerusalem Post

The reliability of the Jerusalem Post is:

Option 1: Generally reliable

Option 2: Additional considerations

Option 3: Generally unreliable

Option 4: Deprecate

RFCBEFORE. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Jerusalem Post)

• Option 4: the Jerusalem Post's coverage is extremely biased and is unfortunately extensively used throughout Wikipedia articles, to cite a few examples on these biases:

• JP has been repeatedly propagating a false claim in its articles in recent months, calling the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, "Hezbollah-run," despite it not being affiliated with them and the fact that it is headed by an independent minister. [52] [53] [54].
• On 12 October 2023, JP published an article that it had confirmed seeing evidence for babies that had been burnt and decapitated during the Kfar Aza massacre that is still online with no retraction despite being debunked.
• JP propagated another false claim last year that a dead Palestinian child was a doll, which, although it retracted and apologized for, also puts into question its fact-checking processes. [55]
• In 2020, Reuters revealed that the Jerusalem Post allowed an online deepfake to write bylines smearing a Palestinian couple over their activism. [56] Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• 'Option 1. This article that you link to does not debunk the claim, but rather says that the specific number of 40 babies is unverified, while there are verified instances of babys being killed and beheaded. Gryphonclaw18 (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Have we just not come out of a discussion about this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That's what is being referred to as RFCBEFORE. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

So do we need another so soon? We can't keep discussing this every month or so. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Like nearly every other source......Options 1, 3 & 4 represent faulty over-generalizations. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Option #1Under the current Wikipedia context Option #1 is the best match. My original Option #2 choice is for after we reconfigure to recognize that every source is option #2. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. Bias isn't unreliability. Nothing has been presented that shows any other RS that question the Jerusalem Post. Retractions are good actually. Andre🚐 19:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Andre; also per Slater, wasn't there just an RfC about this? Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 I would need stronger stuff than this to think otherwise. Cambalachero (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4, as they still have clearly false statements on Oct 7 "decapitation babies" still online, after they have been debunked for over a year, Huldra (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  You previously advocated that the Electronic Intifada shouldn't be deprecated because it's similar to the Jerusalem Post,[57] but now that the analogy isn't beneficial you say the Jerusalem Post should be deprecated.

  Specifically, you said that for the Tehran Times or Jerusalem Post: some areas you can presume them to be correct, others not. What changed that made you think the Jerusalem Post should be banned in virtually all circumstances, instead of just an Option 2? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 - it's a cut below Times of Israel and Haaretz, several cuts above Arutz Sheva and i24 for example, and if it is the only source for some claim then asking for more or better sources is totally reasonable imo. But still a mostly reliable source and citeable as such. nableezy - 22:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• I glanced over a couple of JP articles while doing research for #IDF claims Gaza reporters are terrorists; reporters and their employer say no and was not impressed by its quality; it seemed to be parroting the government position without qualification or critical thinking. But I dislike how results from discussions like this are often used to purge sources from articles in a manner similarly lacking critical thinking, so I'll refrain from voting. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Option 1. The fourth Jewish source at RSN in recent memory. I'll repeat that it's bizarre that when the previous RfC on an Israeli or Jewish source closes, a new one quickly begins. Hezbollah runs Lebanon and no other publication was previously tricked by a deepfake student. The decapitated babies story is false but was widely picked up by the Western media at the time. As OP said about an Arab source: All medias have biases, but that doesn't necessarily affect general reliability, unless it has been consistently false or misleading; Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources do not have religions so there is no such thing as a "Jewish source." This is a bizzare framing of events that shifts the focus away from the Jerusalem Post's misinformation.

Yes, as I previously mentioned, biases do not affect reliability; but as demonstrated above, the Jerusalem Post is both biased and unreliable. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Seems like a reliable source and was recently RFC'd/discussed. No source is ever perfect and so all things considered, this is reasonable. Chess makes a good point that after a failed RFC against similar sources another pops up. Seems like agenda driven basis to depreciate such sources at any cost. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 per Nableezy and North8000. All sources on this topic are problematic and should be used with caution and this is somewhere below the strongest sources but nowhere near the worst usable sources, so I would treat it similarly to Palestine Chronicle (maybe a little better given it does more of its own reporting). Re the specific charges, "Hezbollah-run" is not that big a deal; the babies story is problematic but we don't know the full truth; the doll story shows reason for caution but was corrected; the deepfake story is trivial (several publications were similarly taken in and JP removed it). We need to be consistent in our treatment of I/P sources, and exercise skepticism and triangulation with all of them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 generally and 2 for AI/IP topic area there is a fair bit of nationalistic tub thumping/the idea that every single Palestinian is a terrorist for this source so the AI/IP stuff should be treated with some caution but otherwise I would give the benefit of the doubt.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 generally, 2 for AI/IP, same reasoning as SelfStudier honestly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, per Chess. To respond to Makeandtoss, being Jewish is not solely about religion, it’s just one aspect of Jewish identity, and most Jews are secular and see their Jewishness as ethnicity/nationality/culture. I also agree that there has been a recent surge in attempts to discredit Jewish sources without real evidence, which is really troubling. HaOfa (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 I tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except Option 2 to say that you cannot skip the context of what article content is involved. I would lean strongly towards RS from the goodnesses of it being a well-established reputable outfit with local expertise and that they have made retractions and corrections when in error - and basically everyone makes an error sometime so the handling is important - and that WP has generally regarded it as a RS to use in prior RSN. I would tend to view it as RS with POV to use in the context of the current hot war, but then I think that *all* sources should be taken as POV in the context of the current hot war. (London Times, Sydney Morning Herald, The Globe and Mail ... *all* sources.) Sort of what SelfStudier said. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Washington Post & LA Times

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.

---

Are these two newspapers still usable sources after the recent interference by the billionaire owners showed that a fact-based reporting can possibly be surpressed by them when it may bring trouble to the billionaires and their businesses by one of the 2024 candidates for US-President? This question is brought to you by the series 'Questions at the Dawn of Fascism'. --Jensbest (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If information comes out about interference with their factual reporting, we should re-evaluate their reliability. I haven't seen anything to suggest that, yet. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

No, as bias is not a reason to reject them, only lack of factual accuracy. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are clearly high-quality sources still. Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's see how many kowtowing of the owners before the aspiring Führer it takes before the quality of the paper will become questionable. -- When did Noah build the ark? BEFORE the flood -- Jensbest (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the opinion desk for actual journalism, and ignoring that this is very much business as usual for the opinion desk. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not confusing the editorial board with "actual journalism", but this interference shows that the WaPo under Bezos can't be trusted anymore. --Jensbest (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

So have they in fact published any false stories as a result of this? Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The interfering of Bezos is a signal that the behaviour twowards Trump is changed. Between 2025 and 2029, the Bezos is expected to compete for $5.6 billion in space launch contracts for the Pentagon. Trump referrred to WaPo in the past as "Amazon Washington Post and hurled invective against Amazon whenever the Washington Post publishes articles that he believes slight him or his Administration. Steven Cheung, the Trump campaign's chief spokesman, embraced the suggestion that the meeting of Trump with Blue Origin CEO David Limp and the announcement of the non-endorsement were linked. Robert Kagan said:“Trump waited to make sure that Bezos did what he said he was going to do, and then met with the Blue Origin people. Which tells us that there was an actual deal made, meaning that Bezos communicated, or through his people, communicated directly with Trump, and they set up this quid pro quo.” - So it is a clear and proven danger that more interference is about to happen. Which for the moment makes WaPo a non reliable source. --Jensbest (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Every source has some owner who could possibly skew the fact-basedness of their output. We'd kind of have to see that they had done so to judge. (Similarly, every outlet has someone who could decide whether or not they run an endorsement, whether that title is "owner", "publisher", or "editor in chief".) Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

GLAAD & anti-LGBT groups

I would like to get people's input on how we should handle materials from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) - a 40 year old media monitoring organization that tracks anti-LGBT rhetoric in media. In addition to long-form reports[58], they maintain the "GLAAD Accountability Project" (GAP) which "monitors and documents individual public figures and groups using their platforms to spread misinformation and false rhetoric against LGBTQ people, youth, and allies. Some groups have misleading names inferring unwarranted expertise or credibility, when their main focus is advocating against LGBTQ people, and some claiming to be grassroots efforts have ties to national organizations with long histories opposing LGBTQ Americans."[59]

I recently added a detail to the article on anti-trans group SEGM, noting that GLAAD stated "SEGM public members are outspoken critics of regulation against conversion therapy on transgender people".[60] This was reverted with the comment that "This is a self-published, non-independent source specifically about a named individual, completely unsuitable for BLP claims, and selectively extracting the SEGM claims is sidestepping this source's unsuitability."[61] For reference, the "named individual" is a founder of SEGM who GLAAD wrote about.[62]

We use GLAAD ~1,500 times across Wikipedia[63] so I assumed they were GREL and considered akin to the SPLC, and especially usable given the WP:FRINGE/WP:PARITY considerations. I'd like to open this to more commenters as we use GLAAD so heavily site-wide it should be discussed. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd consider GLAAD to be GREL as their reporting does contain factual statements, typically with links to back these up. Even the article that was used for the citation has links to all the relevant facts, which supports WP:V. GLAAD is universally well respected and regularly cited by WP:RS media organizations around the globe, supporting that those organization similarly consider GLAAD to be a reliable source for factual reporting. Raladic (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a misuse of the "self-published" concept; it isn't an individual publishing their own work, but an organization with a hierarchy publishing the organizations work -- much as The New York Times Company publishes the New York Times. As for the idea that it's "non-independent"... of whom? GLAAD is certainly not dependent on Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, the topic if the article. It's a biased source, as the group is in favor of things that SEGM is agin', but all sources are biased. And as Raladic says, this source is frequently cited by mainstream sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

From memory (I participated on that talk page a bit) SPLC and certain dr's were argued to be non-independent because court cases in the US about laws banning gender affirming care often cited SEGM and SPLC and dr's argued against it (I think both were bought in as witnesses). I imagine GLAAD did similar. The argument being they are legally related. I'm not overly familiar with independent being used in this nature but that's the argument being made. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say GLAAD is GREL, and it's certainly independent of SEGM. But there's a separate question of whether it's a SPS and therefore a BLPSPS violation. WP:USESPS says that "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same," and includes situations where "the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work." However, that essay also states that newspapers aren't SPS, even though journalists' job is to produce articles for the paper/publisher. I don't know whether GLAAD is really analogous to NatGertler's NYT example, both because I suspect that there's more independent editorial oversight of NYT articles than there is of GLAAD content, and because there is no author identified on the GLAAD page — the content represents the organization's view. If GLAAD is not a SPS, then there's no BLP violation. But if it is a SPS, then it can't be used for a statement about "SEGM public members." So if the general view here is that GLAAD is GREL, I'd discuss on the Talk page whether it's a SPS and take it to the BLPN if you can't get consensus on the Talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the SPLC is the best analogy here, and by that analogy I'd definitely say that GLAAD is GREL. I would be inclined to say that they're not an SPS but honestly our rules for what's an SPS are pretty ambiguous so I couldn't say that for sure. Loki (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

BLPSPS is about an individual publishing their own work, not a group like GLAAD. Individuals within the group are not publishing blogs with no editorial oversite by the group. GLAAD is generally reliable for attributed statements in the same way SPLC is used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I believe the argument was raised that SPLC was a SPS as well. I don't really see it myself, but it does mean that the comparison isn't as powerful as it could be. We might end up needing to have some sort of RFC or something about it to settle things. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I shouldn't think an RFC would be necessary, this is just a misunderstanding. It comes from people thinking "This article is written by GLAAD and published by GLAAD, so it's self published", but GLAAD isn't the author - an individual at GLAAD is the author. If a newspaper publishers an article with no byline that doesn't mean the author is the newspaper, and that the article is self published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There are clearly a significant number of people who want to dispute whether these organisations are SPS, so ideally we'd want something to point to. Some sort of formal close at least, maybe. I can see SPLC / SPS specifically was discussed previously on this noticeboard before as well, in Archive 230 (Aug 2017) with Kyohyi, NorthBySouthBaranof and a bunch of other people, Archive 245 (Jul 2018), with Kyohyi (for again), Slatersteven, NorthBySouthBaranof (against again) and Drmies participating, in Archive 347 (Jul 2021), with Springee, Nat Gertler (who are already here so I'm not going to ping them), Kyohyi again, Masem (arguing for) BobFromBrockley, MjolnirPants, Peter Gulutzan, Alanscottwalker, Aquillion, Dlthewave, etc.

This seems to be brought up for Science Based Medicine as well (which at least has a NOT SPS bit in its RSP entry), and there's a discussion in Archive 301 (Jul 2020) about BLPSPS more generally, so it seems to me at least it would be a good idea to go through some sort of formal process and then insert guidance, either at RSP or RS or V for these things, becuase while it doesn't seem to be frequent, it does seem to have been discussed a lot. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If editors rely want to discuss it I suggest having it at WT:V. It's how should all sources that are of this type be handled and do they constitute self-publishing, that's a policy discussion not one about the reliability of a source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, if anyone is wondering about the pings for 245, I stopped adding people after I saw there were over a dozen, and I went through archive 245 after. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Really was not expecting to get a ping when the only thing I'm doing anymore is reading articles and editing typos (and occasionally saying hi), but here we are.

So I have two things to say:

1. GLAAD is absolutely a reliable source.

2. Let us follow a bit of logic here.

Axiom 1: The right-wing in this country is currently engaged in efforts to perpetuate what amounts to a genocide against the LGBTQ community, specifically the trans community, from which my best friend, daughter, ex-girlfriend and countless other friends hail.

Axiom 2: I am a militant leftist Iraq veteran with a CIB and a Bronze Star, a large arsenal, a bad attitude and some very strong opinions on who the only good Nazis are.

Axiom 3: Wikipedia's editorship contains multiple outspoken right-wingers and is full of individuals who take offense at the slightest hint of incivility.

Conclusion: It would be a good idea not to ping me in any future political discussion, lest I actually share my detailed thoughts on the subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Noted. Apologies for the ping, I'll try and keep it in mind. Wish you well in your typo fixing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

In the USESPS essay, newspapers are explicitly excluded. But the general guidance there is "If the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same." If what you're saying is correct, then the USESPS essay should be edited to reflect it. Note that there have been extended discussions about this issue on the talk pages of the essay (e.g., here), WP:V, and WP:RSN. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I honestly feel like the issue with our SPS guidance is that it's trying to do too much. We're trying to have a general indicator of whether a source is a well-established traditional source or not, but there's not really a clear way to define that, so we sneak that intuition into WP:SPS and WP:USESPS, which makes it much more difficult to tell whether a source is an SPS.

We're conflating "is the author as an individual the same person as the publisher as an individual" and "is the authoring organization the same as the publishing organization", even though essentially all sources are SPS under the second definition, because some bad sources (like ads) are clearly not SPS under the first definition even though that doesn't really contribute anything to their reliability. I think we need to just bite the bullet and accept that "not an SPS" does not mean "well-established" or "respectable". Loki (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a mess, having a general rule but then saying it doesn't apply to news organisations (because if it did the general rule wouldn't work) is never going to have good results. The problem appears to be trying to solve many different issues by making this idea fit all of them, rather than relying on different rules. SPS isn't the be all and end all, just because a source has editorial oversite (and in my mind shouldn't be classed as a SPS) doesn't mean it has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking.

Self published should be described as an author publishing their own work, whether that's a blog or vanity press doesn't matter. Other issue coming from low quality sources that aren't strictly self published don't need to be solved by this definition. There are many qualifiers and idea about reliable sources, as with other policies and guidelines they can't be taken in isolation - just because it's not an SPS doesn't mean it's reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to say I totally agree with ActivelyDisinterested's arguments here. To say GLAAD is an SPS is a misunderstanding of WP:SPS. If we need tighter formulation of our SPS policy to avoid such misunderstandings, this isn't the place to discuss that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't treat SPLC or GLADD as a GREL source. They are both activist sources. That doesn't mean unreliable but it means we need to assume they have a motive when providing what could be called negative coverage of some other source. To GLADD's credit, I don't think they have some of the troubling issues that have been reported about the SPLC. Still, if GLADD says something negative about an organization with politically opposed views is that because they are providing unbiased, factual reporting or because they are trying to discredit a source that opposes their own activism/positions? As for the SPS argument, I think it's half correct. When we move from news organization to activist organization it's still reasonable to assume anything they publish has some level of internal review, unlike something published by an individual. However, the source and the editorial control are still the same organization. SPS is written in a way that suggests its about material self published by an individual but it doesn't clearly state it only applies to individuals. Consider if we would accept a similar claim from a think tank like The CATO Institute vs GLADD. In both cases the organizations are well known and source frequently publish their views on a subject. If a 3rd party says CATO/GLADD said X on a topic then we could consider it due for inclusion. It's less likely to be DUE for inclusion if we are directly sourcing a GLADD/CATO press release. I would also be more comfortable citing CATO/GLADD on a question of public policy (how will this new law impact people in a given group) vs citing either of them to talk about an organization that would be viewed as their political opponent. In this case it appears that GLADD is being directly cited for a negative opinion of an opposing organization without making their political opposition clear in the article. I would say the removal looks fair based on grounds that are at least similar to SPS (though it may also apply) but also because it's effectively an organization's opinion that wasn't published by an independent RS. Springee (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

However, the source and the editorial control are still the same organization This would be the same for all organisations who employ the author, which would include all news organisations.

Whether something is due for inclusion is a different argument, as it's part of NPOV. Verification doesn't guarantee inclusion, inclusion requires that something can be verified. It can be verified that GLAAD has reported these details, whether that should be included or not is a matter for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, for normal media sources the source (reporter) and editorial control are both under the same roof. The difference is the objective. Obstenessively a news organization is publishing on topics not related to the organization. When dealing with an activist organization that is no longer true. The same might be true if a car company published a report talking about the need to improve the highway system or a pharma company taking about drug policy. It might be correct but it's also likely self interested. Either way, we shouldn't treat GLADD like news media. Rather it should be treated like publications from a company (Honda, Roche) or from a think tank (CATO). Perhaps a good question for the group is does SPS apply to groups and if not, what does? Springee (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, WP:ABOUTSELF applies to groups, but as this isn't an instance of them talking about themselves or anyone reasonably judged as connected to the organization, so it isn't relevante here. At most, all this means is that we would add "according to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation" to the statement (and one of the joys of that group's name is that you don't really have to explain who they are.) Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes they should be treated like other activist group and similar, with attribution of their statements. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

No. SPS does not generally apply to groups (really corporate entities), unless it is shown to be a cover, like a person creating his publisher, or paying his publisher.

The analysis goes the regular route to the CONTEXT, reputation of the publishing enetity, reputation of author, purpose, format, COI, Due, ONUS, other BLP concerns, and continues on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Cato might or might not be reliable for stuff outside of libertarianism (the last discussion was in 2015 and came to no consensus apparently but to be honest, I don't really care much... I don't think people try to use them as a source too often?) but I really don't see why they would be considered self-published. They should fine for attributed opinion, though I probably won't use them for actual economics instead of like, actual economists (i.e. WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say that GLAAD is GREL and I have cited them many times myself, mainly when it comes to their reports on representation in TV or their blogposts about said representation. I have my grumblings that they don't cover enough series, and miss some, but I'd agree that they are GREL. I would say the comment you got in response by Void if removed is clearly mistaken and a clear misuse of Wikipedia rules on self-published sources. Historyday01 (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We really should be sharing how self-published is described in WP: V. From WP: V " Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. 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, self-released music albums, and electoral manifestos:". Further in V "Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view.". My way of paraphrasing this is if the organization is trying to get you to buy something, or believe something, the work is internally generated, and it is in line with what they want you to buy/believe, then internal review is not independent review, and is therefore self-published. This isn't just limited to individuals publishing their own web pages or blogs, it applies to organizations as well. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that makes it clear that these activist sort of organizations (both ones we like and dislike) should be viewed as self published. Springee (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's clear at all. For one, while UC Berkeley library guides might be persuasive in forming our guidelines, they are ultimately not Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Additionally, the literal reading self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives distinguishes the two as different classes, even if we might treat them the same way in some cases. We can, for example, adopt the idea that most random websites are GUNREL and the level of review may vary even with reputable organisations, but that is not the same as considering any biased source self-published.

Going back to the attribution question, I'm not really sure how we'd make their political views any more clear. As Nat Gertler puts it, it's spelt out pretty clearly already in the name. Maybe GLAAD, a media monitoring organisation that advocates for LGBT acceptance? Additional things like that really seem too verbose to make a habit of doing though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The material Kyohyi quoted appears to be part of the WP:V policy (see the note 1). That note references several external sources but the quoted text is part of WP:V. That text specifically says that SPS is more than just one person operations. Springee (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)