Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:13, 9 December 2024

This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

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 Misplaced Pages 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. .
• 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.
• In 2020, Reuters revealed that the Jerusalem Post allowed an online deepfake to write bylines smearing a Palestinian couple over their activism. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 28 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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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)

  but now that the analogy isn't beneficial you say the Jerusalem Post should be deprecated. If EI and JP are indeed comparable, the community consensus that EI is GUNREL should presumably apply to JP. I'm not aware of anything on EI as egregiously misleading and uncorrected as reports of decapitated babies, so I see no hypocrisy in Huldra's stance.

  However, I have used JP in my editing and made what I hope have been valuable contributions using it, so I would be more inclined to argue that both are Option 2 (or, to be consistent, that both are Option 3) and that particular details reported by either source might be more unreliable on a case-by-case basis. To me, stories like the beheaded babies are less a black mark on any particular source and moreso an indication that, particularly in instances where systemic bias is at play, we ought to think of even the most reliable sources differently, along the lines of @North8000's comment. Also a reminder that sources regarded as perennially unreliable like EI and The Grayzone can be a voice of reason in certain contexts where the mainstream media isn't doing its job. Unbandito (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't believe they are comparable. EI has promoted the conspiracy theory that most civilians that died on October 7th were killed by Israel. But the person I'm originally replying to would have a much stronger point if they explained how the standards applied to EI can also apply to the Jerusalem Post. Right now, I see a proposal to deprecate based on a single story. That's not a standard that has been applied to any other publication onwiki.

  With respect to your position, what type of additional considerations would you recommend to editors using the Jerusalem Post?

  I agree with both your and North8000's position that all sources need to be considered in context. But in the current Misplaced Pages climate, Option 2 means "marginally reliable" or "additional considerations". If the only considerations are the same as those that would be applied to a generally reliable source, then Option 1 is the correct choice. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  "EI has promoted the conspiracy theory that most civilians that died on October 7th were killed by Israel." If you read the article, you will find that there is no link to EI for that statement. This, because EI has never said that, Huldra (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Given the context of the beheaded babies story and the example you bring up, I would say that JP and EI should be treated with special caution when making extraordinary claims that cut in the same direction as their bias, as they’ve demonstrated a willingness to drop their journalistic standards in the extraordinary circumstances of the 7 October attacks.

  However, I do see a difference between these two missteps. Following the publication of that WaPo article, use of the Hannibal Directive on 7 October has been confirmed by Al Jazeera and Haaretz reporting, lending some credence to EI’s claims. I would not use EI to justify putting the claim that most of the Israelis killed were killed by friendly fire, but they are correct to say that significant aspects of the attack remain unexplained in the absence of an independent investigation, which Israel has prevented. The position that EI’s claims are a conspiracy theory is itself a partisan claim for which there is a shrinking body of evidence. JP’s claims of beheaded babies on the other hand have been thoroughly debunked and will almost certainly stay that way. If anything, JP’s error is more egregious. EI’s position may yet be proven true or debunked by future evidence. Unbandito (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  OK. While I don't agree with most of your comment, I agree that the Jerusalem Post should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims in the direction of its bias. That's my understanding of WP:GREL and the source can still be added to RSP as generally reliable with such a note about what its biases are. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t necessarily disagree with that, though I wouldn’t rank JP as option 1 given the reasons others have provided here related to their unwillingness to issue corrections and their lying about verifying information they reported. I think JP should be regarded as one of many sources that we triangulate with others to reach the closest approximation of the truth. Consequently, I think any positive ranking of JP would warrant a re-evaluation of other partisan sources of the opposite persuasion (like EI) to ensure they are being assessed consistently. Unbandito (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Huh? EI is GUNREL. EI is not the equal and opposite of JPost. Andre🚐 20:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  That’s a circular argument. The previous designation of EI is not itself evidence that the designation is accurate. I’m suggesting that the evidence brought forth here about JP should cause us to reassess EI. If JP is not considered GUNREL, EI probably shouldn’t be. I’m going to leave it at that to avoid going further off topic. Unbandito (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think your argument conflates bias with reliability. EI should and is not reliable for facts, and is also biased. JPost is generally reliable for facts, and also has a bias. Andre🚐 22:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  You're welcome to do so, if you believe whatever consensus is reached at this discussion is contradictory to the previous one. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  If you push misinformation like "children weren't beheaded" (as various articles do now), there's no end to how deep you'll go. See Haaretz ("the evidence of extreme cruelty perpetrated by Hamas terrorists is unendurable even for people inured to death - including confirmation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s description of beheaded babies"), Sky News and The Media Line; and of course, there's the quite reliable Jerusalem Post itself, and frequently repeated confirmations by the US President. Here's first-hand testimony from Qanta Ahmed ("I Saw the Children Hamas Beheaded With My Own Eyes"). Deprecating sources for publishing accurate, reliable information while keeping sources that have pushed misinformation... Yeesh. --Yair rand (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  It is not accurate & I would request you not repeat misinformation. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Likewise, I would ask that you (and ideally Misplaced Pages articles) not repeat misinformation. The difference is that, as reliable sources have made clear, I am not the one peddling falsities. --Yair rand (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  For those who want some truth on this issue: . TLDR: no public evidence of the "40 beheaded babies" claim, or that Hamas beheaded any babies; coroners report that recovered headless corpses, including some of children, but they couldn't determine how those corpses lost their heads, e.g. because they were cut off with a knife, or because they were blown off in an RPG explosion. Lots of media sources all over the world got this wrong, but most of the most reliable ones just republished the claims without speaking to their veracity. Levivich (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  The Jerusalem Post did not claim there were "40 beheaded babies". Their actual claim about beheaded children (which Huldra is using as evidence that Jerusalem Post is unreliable) was, in fact, accurate. --Yair rand (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, that isnt true at all. JPost still says that there are verified photos of beheaded babies. There never was and there still is not. nableezy - 21:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  FTR, that's this JP article, btw, still up, no corrections issued AFAIK. "The Jerusalem Post can now confirm based on verified photos of the bodies that the reports of babies being burnt and decapitated in Hamas's assault on Kfar Aza are correct." The five fact checkers I linked above -- PolitiFact, FactCheck, IPSO, Le Monde, and WaPo -- all say these claims are unverified or unfounded. Levivich (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  They did. Here, for example, they quote a UK former MP as saying "The forty beheaded babies has been downscaled to one dead baby", and then JPost follows that quote by writing, in JPost's own voice, "Testimonies from the survivors and recordings taken from Hamas have proven the atrocities that occurred during Hamas’s October 7 invasion of Israeli territory." This is saying that the "40 beheaded babies" was "proven." Here, in an op-ed they ran, "But Israeli troops are not ... kidnapping babies or beheading them ...", which implies that Hamas are doing that. Levivich (talk) 21:15, 17 November 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  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)

If editors are only banning sources aligned with one viewpoint, this can skew the POV of entire topic areas. This occurs at RSN because we examine sources in isolation. I'm framing the discussion in this way because only sources with a Jewish or Zionist or pro-Israel viewpoint are being declared unreliable in recent months and I believe that is negatively affecting the Israel and Palestine topic area.

Specifically, you haven't shown the Jerusalem Post is "consistently false". You've shown they were fooled by deepfake technology in 2020 when deepfakes were new. You've shown they reported on a decapitated babies story most Western media outlets also reported on. You've also shown they retract false stories. Finally, your biggest point is that they call the Lebanese Health Ministry "Hezbollah-run" when the government of Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah, and many hospitals in Southern Lebanon are run by Hezbollah social services.

In this topic area, where most media sources blamed Israel for bombing Al-Ahli Arab Hospital and then immediately had to retract, some level of mistakes are tolerable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The government of Lebanon is not controlled by Hezbollah, they are a part of a coalition government and members of that party hold the ministries of public works and labor. The public health ministry is headed by a member of the Future Movement, a Sunni party, not Hezbollah. Your claim about "only sources with a Jewish or Zionist or pro-Israel viewpoint are being declared unreliable in recent months" ignores a number of sources that have been deemed unreliable that are not any of those things, and the conflation of Jewish and Zionist if made by a non-Zionist would draw outrage for antisemitism. But Al Mayadeen was deprecated, Anadolu Agency GUNREL, CounterPunch GUNREL, The Cradle deprecated, The Electronic Intifada GUNREL, The Grayzone deprecated, Mondoweiss other considerations (you opened that arguing for deprecation), Press TV deprecated. The claim that "Jewish sources" are being targeted is absurd. If anything, your history in these discussions show that you consistently oppose sources that are not pro-Zionist, and repeatedly attempt to deflect in discussions about sources that are pro-Zionist by claiming it is an attack on "Jewish sources". It be great if that stopped. nableezy - 15:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You said yourself Hezbollah is part of the government. They also have an effective veto power in Lebanese politics and have more power than you acknowledge, including providing basic services in areas Israel is bombing. The Jerusalem Post is being hyperbolically biased in a way that is impossible to cite on Misplaced Pages. We should apply the same standard we apply to all sources. If Mondoweiss is going to be Option 2, I can live with that so long as the standards are consistently applied.

Specifically, the standard for deprecation we've developed as Misplaced Pages editors that we should focus on how a source is used in articles. In the cases of Mondoweiss, I advocated for deprecation and was proven wrong because there wasn't the track record of demonstrable harm that deprecation would prevent, as well as a focus on opinion pieces. The most I could show was that it promoted October 7th denialism. The Jerusalem Post has not met that standard because "Hezbollah-run health ministry" is arguably true and isn't citable onwiki.

The reason why I mention the Jerusalem Post is both Jewish and Zionist is that it regularly covers Jewish issues outside of Israel in the diaspora section.

None of the double standard criticism applies to you. I largely agree with your reasoning that the Jerusalem Post is worse than the Times of Israel/Haaretz (those are the best Israeli newspapers). I disagree mainly because WP:MREL doesn't mean "mostly reliable source", it means marginally reliable. Without clear delineation of when it is reliable/unreliable, editors will try to mass-remove the Jerusalem Post from articles if they think it's being used in an inappropriate context (like BLPs for Mondoweiss). A WP:GREL outcome would not mean you're obligated to accept it for all statements of fact, but that it's "mostly reliable" as you've said.

What I'm pointing out is since April, we've had RfCs on the ADL+Jewish Chronicle+Jerusalem Post, and there are editors that take different positions on the Jerusalem Post in different discussions.

I would oppose the introduction of "Hezbollah-run health ministry" to articles especially given the precedent set at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier—it's technically true but doesn't have much context. That being said, nobody has seriously proposed to use that qualifier and I don't see how biased language makes the Jerusalem Post unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it is technically not true, it is not arguably true in any way. Hezbollah does not run the health ministry in Lebanon, full stop. I didnt vote to deprecate. I only objected to your repeated claims of targeting "Jewish sources" which is demonstrably untrue. And I think that diversion is both untrue and, to be honest, outrageous in that it implicitly claims a racist motivation in questioning any of these sources reliability. If somebody is attacking a source because it is a "Jewish source" that should be block worthy. But as far as I can tell nobody is, making the accusation itself what is block worthy. nableezy - 17:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It's possible to have unconscious bias and that is not a blockworthy offence. Arguing that there is systemic bias in our treatment of sources is not an accusation of deliberately racist motivations on the part of individual editors. It is effectively impossible to counter systemic bias if I am not allowed to acknowledge its existence.

What I originally said still stands: the pattern of examining sources in isolation at WP:RSN is causing systemic bias issues because we cannot determine if we are treating sources differently depending on their affiliation.

Examining sources by contextualizing them with other sources will more effectively evaluate the reliability of the Jerusalem Post by reducing the impact of bias.

In this case, I contrasted with Al-Jazeera and asked whether the Jerusalem Post has met the consistently false or misleading standard applied there. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing either; Haaretz is an Israeli Jewish-owned RS publication that is highly critical of Israel, even critical of the Jerusalem Post, so this argument does not hold to scrutiny. Being "pro-Israel" is not opposed to being critical of Israel; on the contrary, many pro-Israel sources are highly critical of Israel's policies because they care about Israel. As for the decapitated babies debunked claim, the difference is that unlike the Jerusalem Post, western media did not claim to see evidence for this in their reporting. As for the claim about ministry being Hezbollah-run, this is an extraordinary claim and a personal opinion that is not supported by any reliable source. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

And the Jerusalem Post is highly critical of Haaretz, a publication whose owner said Israel imposes apartheid, that Hamas is full of freedom fighters, and that Israel should be sanctioned to bring about a Palestinian state. Haaretz is not a replacement for the Jerusalem Post, which is the main right-wing newspaper in Israel. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Great, then clearly, conflicting editorial policies and opinions of newspapers have nothing to do with religion nor ethnicity, so we can move on from that argument. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:36, 2 November 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)

  I just want to say about "the doll story" that I think it shows more than just a reason to be cautious, as what they said about faulty sourcing for their reason for retracting does not stand up. The only source in the story was an unverified tweet claiming it was a doll. That to me shows a willingness to promote unverified material as propaganda. This was not the case of an actual source giving the JPost wrong information, this was them having such a low standard that some guy with 1100 twitter followers was treated as an authoritative source to make outlandish claims and present them as fact. Yes they took it down after it was widely mocked for putting out a false story, with proof of the lie having been offered by the photojournalist who had taken the photo. I simply do not trust them to have verified claims that other stronger sources have not, which is what pushes it in to option 2 territory for me. nableezy - 19:14, 31 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)

  Do you have sources to back up the claim that the Jerusalem Post promoted the idea that every single Palestinian is a terrorist? This is unsubstantiated at the moment. And why would publishing an opinion along those lines make the Jerusalem Post less reliable?

  For context, the WP:GREL Al-Jazeera has published opinion pieces directly saying "All Zionist roads lead to genocide". Should Al-Jazeera also be WP:MREL on Israel and Palestine?

  Al-Jazeera's opinion editors have described Zionism, the belief that Israel should exist, as an inherently genocidal ideology. This is similar to describing the Palestinian identity as inherently terroristic.

  From my understanding after I was shot down at the Mondoweiss RfC, extreme opinions aren't what makes a source unreliable. Mondoweiss being unable to separate advocacy from news is what contributed to its WP:MREL status. Likewise, Al-Jazeera is WP:GREL because it can separate advocacy pieces into an opinion section.

  My understanding is that the Jerusalem Post would have to consistently perform advocacy in its actual news for its WP:POV to negatively affect its reliability. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Don't see what AJ or Mondoweiss have to do with the JP. https://www.jpost.com/tags/palestinian-terrorism, horses mouth. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Declaring Israeli sources unreliable on Israel or Palestine based on standards Arab sources aren't held to will bias the topic area.

  Tagging articles as "Palestinian terrorism" is just pointing out that some acts of terrorism are committed by terrorism. I'm also unsure how an article tag would be cited beyond calling specific act of terrorism Palestinian. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Declaring Israeli sources unreliable on Israel or Palestine based on standards Arab sources aren't held to will bias the topic area. Instead of repeating this as if that will somehow make the accusation more credible (it doesn't, its just annoying), make your case in an appropriate place (which isn't in this discussion).

  When Israel was doing its nearly 2 year long so called operation breakwater, and arresting Palestinians in the WB every night, JP would report it next day as "x Palestinian terrorists arrested" whether they were or were not terrorists. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  You haven't provided any links to specific stories falsely claiming that a Palestinian is a terrorist. That was my original ask, and if you can't provide evidence there's no use pressing further.

  Likewise, if you're not going to refute the double standard, I don't see the point of repeating myself. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  You are repeating yourself. Selfstudier (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's worth discouraging reproduction of JP's stylistic bias, particularly the labelling of people as terrorists, as a special consideration on its reliability. Unbandito (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would support this. The term "terrorist" should be substantiated by other sources (as a general rule). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:20, 5 November 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)
• Option 1 per Andrevan and Chess. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - agree that all four are issues, but JPost is one of the oldest and largest Israeli newspapers, and we're lacking an argument for why this is qualitatively or quantitatively worse than incidents at any other major publication. The fake persona seems less severe than fake stories, which many reputable publications have had at some point - see e.g. Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke, Johann Hari. — xDanielx /_C\ 20:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, though I could maybe be convinced toward 2 if a stronger case is presented. The decapitated babies story was a massive whiff, but I haven’t seen a pattern of outright falsified reporting otherwise. JPost certainly has a right-wing/nationalist perspective, which makes me rather uncomfortable, but as established in WP policy, bias is (unfortunately, in my view) not unreliability. The Kip 19:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Wholesale opposed to 3/4, however. In both this topic area and others, I’ve seen sources currently marked GREL/MREL get away with far worse than what the opener notes - unless a stronger case is made, deprecation is beyond extreme here. The Kip 19:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Important to note that unlike other news sources that reported on the decapitated babies claim, the Jerusalem Post was unique in saying that it had verified the evidence itself, so this is a major red flag and a different story. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Again, while awful, one severely problematic piece does not amount to the pattern of lies and/or inaccuracies required for outright GUNREL/deprecation - if it did, most of the sources we use on this site would be in that grouping. The rest of the case you’ve made effectively boils down to bias and/or items they ultimately retracted. The Kip 05:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2/3 for Israel-Palestine, Option 1 in general. - As others have noted the Jerusalem Post is clearly biased, but I don't think that necessarily means it's unreliable. Outside of the Israel-Palestine area it may well be generally reliable. The problem is that it veers away from mere bias into making incredibly inflammatory false claims that are widely shared and never corrected. The case of "Photos of babies being burnt, decapitated confirmed" stands out in particular. They achieved almost 16 million views with this tweet and never retracted it. The article continues to be cited, sometimes by people with far-reaching influence. Detailed investigations by Haaretz, LeMonde and others continue to show that the claims the Jerusalem Post made were false, but as I write this JP has yet to retract or correct the story.
  
  The other case was the claim about a Palestinian baby who was killed being a doll. An incredibly inflammatory claim, widespread reach, continuing to be repeated and adding to the Pallywood myth. The BBC and others showed this to be false. The JP did eventually retract the story, however the author of the piece Danielle Greyman-Kennard continues to work for them to this day as their "Breaking News Writer and Editor". The same is true of the "Photos..." piece, where the author continued to work for the JP for many months afterwards.
  
  This is what makes the Jerusalem Post's coverage of Israel-Palestine stand apart from reliable sources in this topic area. Yes, they may also be biased (i.e. the Times of Israel) but they did not publish outright disinformation as verified reporting to millions of readers, then subsequently refuse to retract or correct it, let alone take action against the responsible author, when proven false by RS. Even when they do issue a retraction, the author in question remains an editor in good standing.
  
  These are two especially high profile cases, but disinformation and outright falsehoods find their way into all of their output in this subject area. They wrote about Sinwar's wife having a 32,000 dollar Birkin bag - contrast this coverage with how Haaretz reported it, noting that many pointed out that the claim about the bag was in fact false (https://archive.ph/G3aAM)). This marks the difference between a reliable source in this topic area, and an unreliable tabloid outlet.
  
  So, again, option 2/3 for Israel-Palestine. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Re the claim about the bag was in fact false, you linked to Haaretz, but they themselves don't really say it was false; they're just quoting speculation from random Twitter users. JPost is similarly quoting speculation in the other direction, reflecting their opposite biases. Ynetnews covers both sides with some non-Twitter sources, though those pointing out Hermes' relationship-driven sales model seem to ignore the second-hand market. Anyway JPost doesn't exactly take a view on the matter themselves, except in the WP:HEADLINE which we wouldn't use. — xDanielx /_C\ 20:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  @XDanielx JPost repeated the claim as fact in the headline and published POV as if it were fact in the article, it also published a piece the following day stating it as fact that she was "carrying a luxury Hermès Birkin handbag worth approximately $32,000". This is institutional for the JP, and it goes beyond mere bias that we see with other outlets. It's a systemic disregard for verifiable facts and accuracy in pursuit of political aims. They do this for everything in this topic area, from a handbag to "Photos of babies being burnt, decapitated confirmed" and "Al Jazeera posts blurred doll, claims it to be a dead Palestinian baby". As many have pointed out, even when shown to be platforming misinformation (with serious consequences!) they take no actions to prevent it and continue to employ and publish the people responsible. If the initial article about the handbag was similarly quoting speculation in the other direction, they almost immediately doubled down, so they appear to be perfectly willing to take speculation as verified fact. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think you need to have third party sources discussing the JPosts issues rather than trying to build a case yourself. The reason I think the babies story is so egregious is the shoddy sourcing policy at play and it was brought up by other sources as amplifying propaganda. For example in an article on false claims in the war the BBC singles out JPost among media organizations for amplifying such a false claim. Everything else it talks about is social media, and when a newspaper is being compared to twitter for spreading false information, that is something to take note of. nableezy - 13:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  The Forward has investigated and published why JPost is unreliable. It's pretty clear that it's a pay-to-publish model and has been since 2004. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  That source points out the Post denied the allegations. And adds that: Its disclosure for paid articles comes in a brief italicized line at the bottom of these posts: “This article was written in a cooperation with” and the advertiser’s name. So unless you see something with "sponsored content," it isn't, so your statement as a broad generalization about JPost is inaccurate per your own given source (which is reliable) Andre🚐 19:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  That source points out the Post denied the allegations. WP:MANDY
  
  

  The brief italicized line is not what I was referring, nor is it is enough for JPost to just do that and call it a day. There are examples in the article of how Haaretz and The Forward do sponsored content which clearly show JPost is relying on a dark pattern to fool the reader.
  
  

  I was referring to Elli Wohlgelernter, who is the night editor, saying he was uncomfortable with the fact that such sponsored content was not always labeled to differentiate it for readers from journalism free of influence by advertisers. He is saying there is sponsored content that is not marked as sponsored at all. Wohlgelernter is a journalist with 50+ years of experience and has worked with Haaretz, the Times of Israel, and numerous US-based outlets and I encourage you to reflect on what it means when someone like that makes such a claim unequivocally of the outlet they have insider knowledge about. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's an assumption not given in the voice of the Forward. They were concerned about sponsored content blending in, but it points out that all sponsored content is labeled as such, just might be hard to distinguish due to, everything else about these articles — the headlines, bylines, font and formatting — appears identical to articles on the website that are not advertisements, and nowhere does this disclaimer about “cooperation” refer to these sponsored posts as advertisements. These articles, many written by a reporter who also writes non-sponsored articles for the Post, are interspersed with normal news articles throughout its website. The former editor, Katz said: “In line with my journalistic values, ethics and principles all sponsored content was labeled as such during my tenure as editor in chief.” Andre🚐 20:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  There's no assumption given I'm quoting exactly what is written. The section you're referring to is called Content ‘in collaboration’ with advertisers that comes 2 sections later. More simply:

  1. The first section cites Wohlgelernter making a concrete claim that sponsored content is not always labelled.
  2. The 3rd section refers to diluted labelling for the subset of cases when sponsored content is labelled.

  Are you denying the first section where Wohlgelernter is making a concrete claim? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was pointing out that the part you quoted was after what "Wohlgelernter said," not in the Forward's factual voice. That isn't clear from your message, but is attributed to him. So yes, he did concretely state that, but the Forward didn't say that, so the assumption is that he is correct specifically versus what the publisher and editor claimed and what the Forward's reporter confirmed. It would be easy to see how the practice was problematic to him and also is the practice described in the section, since Ashkenazi, the publisher, denied the statement made by Wohlgelernter. The assumption is that Wohlgelernter saw something beyond what the Forward confirmed. The Forward describes the practice which I quoted previously, and it's clear how that could also be what Wohlgelernter was describing, and he just exaggerated slightly or was inexact in his phrasing, or the journalist overstated what he said or meant when transcribing the interview or editing the story. This happens commonly with journalists. I remember speaking once to a journalist years ago who transformed my term "basement" into "attic." A minor difference to the meaning of the story and I never corrected it - journalist is no longer with that outlet either - but basement and attic are obviously opposites. Andre🚐 21:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  The Forward, or any reputable news outlet for that matter, will use their own voice where they can directly confirm facts. When they work with sources making a claim that is insider information and cannot be directly verified, they will not use their own voice and will instead clearly attribute the claim to the source (after having vetted their source per their editorial standards of course).
  
  

  In such cases, the reader must evaluate the claim being made by referencing against the biases and motivations of the source. In this case, the source is a journalist with half a century of experience and has a leadership position in JPost.
  
  

  I think the chances of Wohlgelernter exaggerating slightly or Wohlgelernter being inexact in his phrasing is vanishingly tiny. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 - especially about palestinians. I view the Daily Telegraph as having an even worse bias on the war and it is a 1. It really does need a check before accepting what it says as true rather than just passing it off as bias. NadVolum (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. The examples provided by u:Makeandtoss do not prove the lack of reliability. #3 and #4 have been retracted which is a positive sign. The characterisation as "Hezbollah-run" is a matter of judgement and degree, while Hezbollah doesn't have this portfolio it is a dominant force in Lebanese politics and the largest party in the ruling coalition. As to #2, a correction would probably be in order (infants were killed but not beheaded) but I don't think we should re-classify the source based on just this issue. Alaexis_¿question? 23:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. No real concerns. Strong editorial policy, paper of record, good reputation. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Chess, Alaexis, and others. I'm not seeing a sustained pattern of factual errors or falsehoods that would justify a downgrade. Astaire (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 for AI/IP and Option 3 in general. The examples highlighted by Makeandtoss as well as Smallangryplanet are damning evidence of the lack of editorial standards and a decision to unabashedly spread misinformation even when other reputable sources have published rebuttals and debunked false claims.
  
  I reject the assertion that JP should be rated as a 1 because some other source is also rated as a 1. Can the proponents who make this argument point out the policy that says this is acceptable? From WP:REPUTABLE: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. JP has demonstrated that it has parted ways with fact-checking and accuracy.
  
  The Forward has published a detailed investigation into why JP's standards have plummeted. Summarizing:

1. The JP engages in pay-to-publish and has been doing so since 2004. The night editor, Wohlgelernter, has said that sponsored posts are not always marked as such and there's no way to tell what is independent reporting and what is a sponsored post.
2. The editor, Avi Mayer, resigned because the owner, Eli Azur, kept pressuring more sponsored content and practices that go against journalistic ethics.
3. What's even more horrifying is that Avi Mayer's background is of being a spokesperson for the IDF. He's an influencer for Israel and shares pro-Israel posts on social media. ... He retained a similar tone on social media while editor, using rhetoric unusual for the leader of a mainstream newspaper: “Good luck being unemployed,” he said to one university student who had blamed Israel for the Oct. 7 attack, while calling for another student to be fired. The demands of the JP's owners were so extreme that a pro-Israel military hawk with no background in journalism felt icky. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Regarding publishing paid content as news pieces, they say later in the article in their own voice that it's hard to distinguish between news articles, rather than there being no distinction at all. I'm not sure what to make of it - maybe these are two separate issues, or maybe they are more sure in one than the other.

   Btw they've appointed a new editor who is apparently an experienced journalist , hopefully this will improve the situation. Alaexis_¿question? 21:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Btw they've appointed a new editor ... hopefully this will improve the situation - Yes, I hope so too and look forward to a survey for updating their rating from 4 to 1 when we have evidence of that.
   
   

   they say later in the article in their own voice that it's hard to distinguish between news articles, rather than there being no distinction at all - @Andrevan had this misunderstanding as well, so I'm copying my comment from that thread here:

   1. The first section cites Wohlgelernter making a concrete claim that sponsored content is not always labelled.
   2. The 3rd section refers to diluted labelling for the subset of cases when sponsored content is labelled.
      
      

   Wohlgelernter is a journalist with 50+ years of experience and has worked with Haaretz, The Times of Israel, and various other US news organizations. I think we can safely accept that Wohlgelernter knows a thing or two about journalistic integrity and is not just a random commenter. You're right that the 3rd section is where The Forward is using their own voice, but that is simply because that part can be independently corroborated by them. Wohlgelernter's statement must be directly ascribed to him by The Forward since that's how reporting works.
   
   

   Are you suggesting we discount Wohlgelernter's testimony altogether? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   I didn't misunderstand it, I would submit that you are somewhat misframing it. The 3rd section is what the Forward was able to confirm. The Forward doesn't corroborate the statement made by Wohlgelernter, so it is attributed to him, and not a flat fact. It could simply be a turn of phrase or an exaggeration of what he meant. Andre🚐 21:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   The claim that Wohlgelernter is exaggerating is extraordinary and I don't see evidence to support that. He's a highly experienced journalist who's in a leadership position at JPost and is speaking to an external news organization. I think it's safe to assume that he has received media training and knows how to talk to journalists without putting his foot in his mouth. :) It's also a safe bet that he's interested in journalistic integrity and wants to improve the JPost.
   
   

   Wohlgelernter's testimony as well as The Forward's section is evidence that JPost is firmly in the pay-to-publish side of the landscape. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Not at all. As the article explains, there are situations where there are labelled pay-to-publish sections. The Forward doesn't confirm any examples of pay-to-publish that wasn't labelled. Also, these are limited to the tenure of Meyer. Andre🚐 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Also, these are limited to the tenure of Meyer - How do you infer this? The article says clearly:

   Those tensions boiled over Wednesday when Avi Mayer left as editor of the Post. Mayer, whose background was in public relations, had been hired in April, and several of the current and former employees say he struggled to lead the newsroom. But they say mounting commercial pressure from Azur and Ashkenazi put Mayer in an impossible position.

   If anything, the situation is likely to be worse now. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Once again you're making assumptions that are not in evidence. The article only details concerns under Meyer. Katz specifies that he did not have this issue. Andre🚐 22:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Please back up your claim with evidence instead of just rephrasing it. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   I already quoted the quote from Katz above. The article only details concerns under Mayer: Mayer, 39, was a controversial choice to lead the Post...criticized the quality of the Post’s journalism under Mayer... Mayer apologized.... Yaakov Katz, the editor before Mayer, frequently pushed back on management’s efforts to expand the amount of sponsored content in the Post and eliminate or obscure disclosures that they were advertisements. Andre🚐 23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Your second point (and by extension your third point about Mayer "feeling icky") is not supported by the article, which says It is unclear what may have precipitated Mayer’s departure this week. There is no proof that he "resigned because" of anything. Astaire (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

   This is a WP:SPA, by the way. After reaching 500/30 the editor switched entirely to Israel-Palestine. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

   WP:AGF and don't WP:BITE; Not even their last 50 contributions are exclusively I-P. There's nothing inherently unusual about wanting to get involved in one of the most important current events topics of the day once you earn the right to do so. You should focus on the well researched and reasoned arguments they presented here. Unbandito (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

   I'm avoiding tagging with Template:spa because more context is needed, but yes, all 50 of CoolAndUniqueUsername's recent contribs are about Israel and/or Palestine. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

   Evidence free WP:ASPERSIONS, suggest they be struck. Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

   This is certainly false: . --JBL (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

   Code Pink is pretty focused on I/P. Their homepage is currently focused on a I/P driven Netflix boycott, and their list of issues places "justice for Palestine" first. The first page of their blog lists 9 articles, and 7 of them are in the Palestine category. The article is XC-protected because of its relation to the topic area. — xDanielx /_C\ 02:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

   @XDanielx Code Pink is an anti-war organization in general & with how Palestine has been in the public eye lately, they will inherently be writing more on the subject. The article also has several contentious topic warnings other then the Arab–Israeli conflict including post-1992 politics of the US, gender-related disputes, & Uyghurs/ Uyghur genocide.

   So, as @CoolAndUniqueUsername's edits on the page were unrelated to Israel or Palestine, the accusation remains false. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

   That's a stretch... editing Code Pink does seem related. Andre🚐 03:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

   I don't agree that it's a stretch, but for arguments sake let's say their edits to Code Pink were related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

   They haven't edited since the 4th, so you can see their latest 50 edits when the accusation was made. I don't think Criticism of Amazon's environmental impact or Haitian independence debt are at all related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

   I hope we can now shelve this accusation as false & focus on the Jerusalem Post as the topic at hand. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 for Israel-Palestine I don't know about their coverage outside the conflict, but in their coverage of the war, they showed incompetance, publishing disinformation, most famously, those of baby decapitations. FunLater (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Reuters published almost the same information on photos shown to Blinken. This is Reuters from 10/12, and this is the JPost from 10/12. Also ABC and many other outlets. The debunked story of 40 decapitated babies from Kfar Aza is a completely different issue from the photos shown to Blinked with murdered babies. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  That isnt anywhere close to the same. The Jerusalem Post said The Jerusalem Post can now confirm based on verified photos of the bodies that the reports of babies being burnt and decapitated in Hamas's assault on Kfar Aza are correct. No part of that was true, they did not verify any photos of any decapitated babies because there were none. There were a total of 2 babies that were killed on October 7 (TOI, Haaretz for example, with Haaretz saying Ten-month-old Mila Cohen was murdered in the massacre, along with the baby still in the womb of her mother who died after her mother was shot on the way to hospital. The police have no evidence showing that other babies were killed.). The Jerusalem Post claimed (and still claims!) to have verified something that does not exist. Reuters did not. nableezy - 17:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 for the Israel-Palestine conflict, broadly defined. It's clear from the above discussion and from JP's history of credulously publishing false information regarding the genocide in Palestine that it is inappropriate for use on that specific topic - it may be perfectly reliable outside the context of that conflict. However, considering the increasngly global character of the conflict, I'd think twice before using JP for pretty much any matter of international relations. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Why would you vote "broadly defined" if your issues are specific to the genocide? Is the Jerusalem Post wholly unreliable for domestic politics? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  You should note that I was saying that, as the genocide has extended into a broadly international matter, that its coverage of foreign affairs was suspect - not domestic politics. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Your vote is Option 3 for Israel-Palestine, broadly defined, which means a total ban of the source on anything related to Israel or Palestine. If you write "broadly defined" that includes domestic politics. If you want to amend your !vote to refer to the "Israel-Palestine conflict broadly defined" that'd be another issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I will make that change. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 with the exception of localized and mostly minor issues, there is no broad pattern of unreliability, and the JPost represents a significant center-right perspective in Israeli politics. The source is broadly respected and used by others, and despite being arguably worse than some other Israeli sources, I see no indication of anything other than general reliability in all topic areas. FortunateSons (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 for Israel/Palestine, Option 1 elsewhere. While it is mostly reliable, numerous errors made by the outlet in this war are of a more egregious nature (e.g. claiming to have seen footage of something that did not happen) and occur more frequently than other "involved" media outlets, which IMO merits some caution. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 16:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 for Israel-Palestine, otherwise a weak Option 1 - Besides incidents like calling a dead baby a doll & the 40 decapitated babies (of which there still remains an article saying they "can now confirm based on verified photos of the bodies that the reports of babies being burnt and decapitated in Hamas's assault on Kfar Aza are correct."). They are also willing to use the racist slur of "pallywood". Recently, they've also published an article citing a twitter account "OSINTdefender", known to spread false information. I don't think an organization like this should be considered much of a reliable source for contentious topics in general, but especially not for WP:PIA - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  Re OSINTdefender, pretty much all investigative journalists look at footage from social media. Some might summarize the footage in prose, or re-publish it without attribution, but ultimately it's still coming from random social media users. The more reliable orgs will geolocate or otherwise verify that the footage represents what was claimed. Do you have any evidence that such diligence was not done by JPost? — xDanielx /_C\ 02:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  They shared the description & videos directly from a misinformation account with no caveats. The work that would be necessary to independently verify the information would require them to either track down where the unreliable account got their info from or to find a reliable source to corroborate, both options negate the need for quoting an unreliable source.

  So no, there's no reason to believe they did their due-diligence here, otherwise they would've quoted a reliable source to begin with. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is just how modern investigative journalism works. Take NBC's article about the same event for example, which is based on "footage circulating on social media". Everyone covering such conflicts is using social media footage, whether they clearly acknowledge it or not. There are varying levels of due diligence, but there's no evidence that due diligence was lacking in the JPost example. — xDanielx /_C\ 05:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just to note that the article doesn’t cite osintdefender. It embeds a tweet from them, containing a video. This is a quite common practice now with several outlets, where opinionated or vivid tweets are embedded in otherwise reliable articles. We wouldn’t cite the tweet if we were citing the article, so it doesn’t strongly affect reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 2/3, and IMO, not just for I-P but for everything. It seems since 2004, the JPost does not enjoy a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy:

• 2009: Kevin Jon Heller writes of a JPost editorial, "the editorial contains more basic factual errors than any editorial I have ever read" and, later, "No Correction by the Jerusalem Post"
• 2019: "Jerusalem Post article makes premature claim on 'first complete cure for cancer', overstates research significance" according to WP:IFCN fact checker
• 2020 COVID article found "misleading" also by WP:IFCN fact checker
• 2020: "Jerusalem Post took government money to publish anti-BDS special", +972
• 2023: the Forward article about pay-to-play discussed by others above

And that's without getting into the 2023-2024 decapitated babies stuff (also discussed by others above). It reminds me of the New York Post, just not "on the level," and there plenty of much better Israeli journalism to draw upon. Levivich (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

2009 is pretty far back, and it's also about an WP:RSEDITORIAL which we wouldn't use except with attribution anyway.

The cancer thing was JPost quoting a third party. Their "Jerusalem Post article makes premature claim" headline was misleading, JPost themselves made no such claim.

The government funding thing could be a bias concern (not clearly/directly related to reliability), though since it's +972 it's hard to trust them to relay facts plainly without a spin.

The Forward piece misleads by burying the fact that sponsored content is labeled as such by JPost. — xDanielx /_C\ 04:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1, maybe 2, but oppose 3/4: Yes, it is biased but sources can be both reliable and biased. I do not see any pattern in their reporting that indicates they repeatedly publish false information. Some stories mentioned above are certainly concerning, but I do not see any indication this is a common occurrence. ARandomName123 (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. For everyday matters, JP is reliable enough, but JP has several faults that demand caution. One (shared by most Israeli outlets) is that they often publish IDF claims uncritically as fact, contrary to their journalistic duty to attribute and investigate. Another fault is that they sometimes publish op-eds labeled as news when they are clearly opinion. We don't usually label individual journalists as unreliable, but if we were going to do that I'd specify a clear "option 4" for a few of JP's writers. Zero 06:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Not sure whether to laugh or cry? Maybe both. There has been a steady campaign to remove every source that is remotely pro-Israel as a reliable one. If Misplaced Pages's neutrality and independence was at the heart of this, than Al Jazeera would be removed as a RS given the many concerns with it.MaskedSinger (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 for I-P conflict, Option 1 for non-controversial matters. I was appalled at what appears to be Jerusalem Post falsely accusing an author of inciting genocide. For the I-P conflict, I would apply the following test:
  • is it being cited for non-exceptional, non-contentious content? If so, it can be cited without attribution.
  • is it being cited for WP:EXCEPTIONAL or contentious content? If so, it should not be used at all. If we must use it, then we should use it with attribution. An example of this could be: a WP:GREL source makes a serious accusation against an Israeli official, and the official's rebuttal has not been quoted in any RS, then it would be appropriate to say "The Jerusalem Post reported that X was not...".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4. Biased sources can be reliable. Sources that spread disinformation cannot. This is the lowest possible bar of journalistic integrity - don't maliciously fabricate information. Combefere ★ Talk 02:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 for anything related to Israel-Palestine, Option 2 in general. The supposed verification of photos regarding the beheaded babies and the refusal to retract that story is pretty clear-cut for deprecation. I'm also shocked that the editor in charge of the story about a Palestinian baby being a doll is still working for them, and the point raised about the editorial and institutional nature of JP in this already cited article is the final nail in the coffin for me. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 as no strong evidence presented of systematic unreliability. - Amigao (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 per nableezy and smallangryplanet. While in most situations they're a normal WP:NEWSORG, on the I/P conflict they are so biased that it starts to warp their factual reporting. Loki (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 As WP:BIASED as it might be, JP's reporting is no less reliable than other mainstream newspapers. They don't make up stories nor hide basic facts.מתיאל (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)מתיאל
• Option 1. This is a well-established mainstream news organization that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy dating back to 1932, before the establishment of the modern State of Israel. The evidence presented against this in this thread is less-than convincing and appears to be special pleading rather than a view of the organization as a whole, and incorrectly asserts that a "root for the home-team" bias necessarily impugns reliability (in contrast to our guidance at WP:BIASED). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why their age is important, especially as they've had several ownership changes since their inception. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 per User:Red-tailed hawk. Far more reliable than Al Jazeera, I might add. BePrepared1907 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  A recent AJ RFC has been snow closed as reliable, that won't be happening here methinks. Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 as Amigao wrote, "no strong evidence presented of systematic unreliability" Alenoach (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 While politically skewed, not at all obviously unreliable in an actionable way. Roggenwolf (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 generally, Option 3 for Israel-Palestine, per Butterscotch Beluga and Levivich. Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Question for others: is it too specific if I !vote Option 2/3 for just the Israel-Hamas war? Bitspectator ⛩️ 23:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would say no, the I/P area is broad enough that one can make an argument about specific lack of reliability for certain parts of the conflict. In that case, it might be beneficial to make a clear argument about why you have made the distinction though. FortunateSons (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Generally reliable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 The key consideration is whether using this source would lead to increased inaccuracy in articles.In this case, it has not beem shown. No reasonable editor would add that the Lebanese ministry of health is controlled by Hezbollah, based on a passing mention by a reporter. Also, commentary published in even the most reliable sources are not themselves deemed reliable. The final consideration is that when news media publish false stories, as they have in the current conflict, you must show that a publication is an outlier. If all major reliable news media publish the same false story, then we cannot use this to single out a specific publication. TFD (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not all major media published the same false story, and JPost was the only one to claim to have verified something we know never existed. They also never retracted that false claim. nableezy - 17:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Chess and Andrevan. I can see some concerns around IP topics which most sources in that area of the world would have. In those areas we really should treat all sources like an option 2. The idea that this should be deprecated... that seems to be very motivated thinking. Springee (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 for the Israel-Palestine conflict per Simonm223 and others. M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1, and subscribe to what Chess wrote as well. Reading through the RFCBEFORE, I'm surprised this was even taken here. Obvious that bias should be taken into consideration when using the source, especially for contentious claims, but that's no different to say, Al-Jazeera. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 generally, Option 3 Israel-Palestine conflict I find the arguments presented by @Makeandtoss, @CoolAndUniqueUsername and @Levivich to be compelling. Were there only isolated incidents of misreporting and bias, which were promptly and appropriately addressed, I would align with the view that such bias does not necessarily render a source unreliable. However, in this instance, as highlighted in the article from Forward, there exists a pervasive institutional issue that leads to routine publishing by the Jerusalem Post that mirrors the practices of outlets such as the Daily Mail or The Sun. A review of their daily output over time substantiates this observation. From sensationalized headlines to content that cites random tweets as primary sources and derives conclusions from viral social media discourse, the Jerusalem Post exhibits patterns of misreporting that have not been rectified in the manner expected from a reliable news source. Lf8u2 (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Chess.4meter4 (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 for issues around Israel/Palestine. It appears as if they are still attributing Annette de Graaf's footage of of Maccabi soccer fans violently attacking people and rampaging through Amsterdam (see second picture down) as Protesters running after Israeli soccer fans (see 7m 25s) (compare the yellow illuminations), this is from the same footage. Andromedean (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Owen Jones's YouTube channel is not a reliable source. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Chess Honest Reporting is not a reliable source & the Algemeiner article is an opinion piece. However, Owen Jone's video is of an interview with Annette de Graaf, the person who took the footage in question. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  I assumed this claim of Maccabi fans being victims rather than the aggressors in this video had been thoroughly debunked across the MSM. As far as I know all responsible media have (albeit reluctantly) accepted they got it badly wrong, and either changed the interpretation, or at least pulled it, but not the JPost it seems. Perhaps it could be used as a sort of bellwether for reliability on this topic?

  Here the Guardian at 3:10 confirm "This film taken near central station, was widely reported by numerous media organisations including the Guardian as Israeli fans getting attacked, when in fact it was Maccabi fans attacking Amsterdam citizens and starting a riot, as later claimed by the photographer who took the coverage." See also Fact check: Amsterdam video doesn't show attack on Israelis by Deutsche Welle and Viral Video falsely captioned as Muslims hunting Jews by France24. Andromedean (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC).

  So, did the Guardian take down their original reporting? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The Algemeiner article is junk comment, from a very biased source. Having watched the video in question, it actually specifically relates the contents of a video package using footage from the 7th October which the Israeli government edited for screening to opinion-formers. Jones relates that he found the footage shocking and described watching it one of the worst experiences of his life. He then relates what appears and does not appear in the video and compares this to what other commentators have said about the video. The video was released at a time when the mass killing of babies lie was still widely believed and he pointed out that the package did not contain any evidence for this, but that Israel had stated it had not included any footage of the killing of children for moral reasons. As we now know that 37 children died in the attacks, from a total of 1000 victims, the evidence for deliberate mass killing of children still does not exist. I would say that article does more to undermine Algemeiner's reliability than Jones'--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 for Israel-Palestine, otherwise a weak Option 1 There is quite strong evidence here of false reporting amounting to propaganda. I would not want claims about Palestinians, sourced solely to the JP to appear in our pages. However, it will on occasions be useful for providing insights on the thinking and comments of members of the Israeli establishment on Palestinians and the conflict and so I wouldn't suggest a blanket ban.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable, it has been well established going back a considerable perod of time that this sources is generally reliable. Furthermore, there does seem to be a concerted effort still to get some Israeli or Jewish related publications to be deprecated as of late, and that should further be handled and dealt with separately, but caution here on anything other than Option 1: Generally reliable, should be looked at with some suspicion right now. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 with the general qualifier that all news sources, even ones endorsed as “generally reliable”, should be used judiciously. The arguments against seem to be in the main a little short on substance. While the arguments for are not overwhelmingly strong, they do seem to provide sufficient policy-based grounds. In general, JPost seems to practice reputable journalism, not necessarily with the same rarefied rigor as some other RS, but substantially up to standards. Exclusion from the pool of endorsed Israeli outlets would also significantly, and well beyond the current conflict that clearly motivated the opening of this discussion, distort and reduce diversity within the cross-section of perspectives displayed in the Israeli press, essentially moving the refracted Overton window to a significant degree across multiple political dimensions. And, y’know, after all it certainly isn’t a state-funded propaganda outlet like Al Jazeera, which as we all know is currently endorsed as generally reliable (despite, I may add, the likes of the BBC ] and the Guardian ] clearly characterizing them as a soft-power organ of the Qatari state, and their amusingly and tellingly distorted and sparse coverage of Qatar-related bribery scandals on both sides of the pond (search their website lol). Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 for Israel-Palestine and Option 2 for general: Can’t trust sources which spreads fake news. GrabUp - Talk 20:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post's subsidiary Walla's scandal

An important point in the RFC has been missed: Jerusalem Post apparently translates and publishes articles from its subsidiary website Walla, which was essentially exposed as a Netanyahu mouthpiece. The scandal broke out in Israel a few years ago when it was revealed that Walla's then owner had agreed to air positive coverage of the Israeli premier in exchange for regulatory benefits for his other company, which morphed into the corruption trial against Netanyahu who is expected to provide his testimony in the upcoming weeks. This connection was highlighted last year when a JP article faced backlash, and the then editor-in-chief Avi Mayer, an individual whose career involved working for several powerful lobbying groups such as AIPAC, stated that: "The article in question was produced by our Hebrew-language sister publication, Walla News, and was uploaded to our website using an automated translation mechanism." Walla's employees are witnesses to Netanyahu's corruption trial, one of whom told an Israeli court that: "Netanyahu had the greatest control over the Walla website, including what the headline would be, where it would be on the home page."

A quick look on Jerusalem Post's website shows that Walla's articles are still being extensively translated and published by the newspaper, including one just twelve hours ago: . So are we really going to consider a publication known to propagate articles from a mouthpiece for a politician, who is on trial in Israel for corruption and about to be on trial in the ICC for war crimes, a reliable source on Misplaced Pages, especially for the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

There’s a couple of different issues here. Walla were accused of being a mouthpiece for Netanyahu under its previous ownership (Bezeq), 2012-20, not under JP’s ownership since 2020; (b) the scandalous recent article last November had nothing to do with the Netanyahu stuff, although speaks ill of JP if they have continued to publish automated translations from Walla without vetting them; (c) Avi Mayer’s 9 month tenure as editor in 2023 is a different issue again, which I think was discussed already in the survey above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC) (in other words, if Walla was unreliable pre-2020 this has no bearing on JP’s reliability then or now. If Walla is consistently unreliable now, then it does have bearing on JP’s reliability now. If Avi Mayer is biased, that speaks to bias in 2023 (already widely agreed in this discussion) but isn’t relevant to reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Well at least we can agree that Walla and Jerusalem Post are unreliable for 2012-2020. But still change of ownership for Walla in 2020 from Bezeq to JP or change of the editor-in-chief for JP in 2023 is not a fundamental change (JP retains its same gambling tycoon owner Eli Azur since 2004). Newspapers are institutions with deeply rooted attitudes and editorial policies and staff. JP and Walla both were still implicated in another scandal 2022-2024 of running a paid pro-Russian propaganda campaign written as part of their journalistic materials as was reported by this esteemed Israeli investigative publication: Clearly, in recent memory, JP doesn’t have a record of being a reliable publication, but rather a track record in disinformation. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No we don’t “agree that Walla and Jerusalem Post are unreliable for 2012-2020”. Walla was clearly unreliable for Israeli politics in that period, but that has no bearing on JP so irrelevant to the conversation here. As far as I can see, all the evidence presented here for JP unreliability relates to the Gaza/Lebanon war since October 2023. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It has a bearing on JP's reliability because as demonstrated JP extensively uses Walla articles. As for the paid pro-Russian disinformation this dates to 2022-2024. In any case, the evidence presented shows how this institution has been void of journalistic standards for most of the past two decades. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The contention is that JP publishes and translates Walla articles - are they identified in JP as coming from the subsidiary? Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as seen from the nine examples I referenced. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Then it's simple. Walla articles transcluded to JP should not be treated as reliable. It has no bearing, positive or negative, n JP articles that did not originate in Walla. Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that JP publishes Walla article is an indication of overall unreliability in my opinion; coupled with the other numerous evidence presented here of unreliable reporting; but of course, you have the right to your opinion. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

There's a double standard here with this and Al Jazeera and whatever else. If editorial influence is the charge, then all those who fall foul of this should lose their status as a Reliable Source irrespective of one's personal preferences. To apply it selectively is intellectually dishonest. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/oct/27/us-asks-qatar-to-turn-down-the-volume-of-al-jazeera-news-coverage MaskedSinger (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Article you cited does not say AJ complied and relates to Arabic not English AJ, so no there is no analogy here. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@MakeandtossYou're far better than arguing semantics.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-hamas-propaganda-war MaskedSinger (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there something in that link that is supposed to tell us something about the al-Jazeera, much less the Jerusalem Post? Is there a reason people are bringing up another source we have discussed extensively and have a recent consensus on? nableezy - 16:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy yes. very much so. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Which is? nableezy - 18:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger Could you then specify what that is then? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Butterscotch Beluga Yes of course. Thank you for asking. The fact that there is consensus doesn't make it factually correct. Let me give you an example.

Someone says "a lion has 4 legs. So if a zebra has 4 legs, it must be a lion". There is a RFC about this - there are lot of votes supporting the motion confirming that a zebra has four legs. There are sources saying a zebra has 4 legs and then there is consensus that this is actually the case - a zebra is a lion. Is a zebra now a lion because the RFC said so? In the Misplaced Pages universe, the answer is yes. But Misplaced Pages should reflect the world we live in accurately and independently regardless what various discussions decide. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I should specify, do you have a policy based reason for this tangent on Al Jazeera? Currently it seems you are trying to relitigate the Al Jazeera RFC, rather then focusing on the current RFC. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I'm tempted to collapse this digression under WP:NOTFORUM. It is not relevant to the relationship between Jerusalem Post and Walla or how that relationship should be treated as affecting the reliability of Jerusalem Post. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

CCN - ccn.com

I've been seeing CCN (not to be confused with CNN) being used as a source on some articles, such as EDX Markets (), Modern Terminals (, with an entire paragraph devoted to their reporting on the company joining the TradeLens project), and Cryptocurrency and crime (). However, I have concerns about their reliability as a source, specifically with the use of inflammatory language in their articles/headlines, as well as rage-baiting/fear-mongering/misinformation.

Most of these examples are from years ago and may not reflect their current editorial stances, and are from one contributor, but here they are anyway:

• Fall Guys Developers, Stop Making Preposterous Excuses - "Mediatonic is cowardly for not mentioning their agreement with Sony."
• Minecraft Steve Comes to Smash Bros Ultimate & the Internet Is Furious - "People who’re complaining about the choice don’t know what they’re talking about." "People who are mad about the inclusion have forgotten that children actually play Smash and that Nintendo isn’t there to please them personally."
• Nintendo Encourages Scalpers With Super Mario 3D’s Limited Release - "The Big N has bought this on themselves with their money-grubbing attitude."
• ‘Limited’ Super Mario 3D All-Stars is a Disgusting Nintendo Cash-Grab - "Nintendo is still pulling this vile, anti-consumer rubbish. I won’t be surprised if Nintendo releases all three games separately, at full price each, after its ‘limited release.’" "Any company that is continuously pulling moves designed to squeeze their beloved franchises for cash deserve criticism."
• Pokemon Sword and Shield Evolutions Leaked – and Boy, Do They Suck - "We now have definitive proof that these are the three worst starter Pokemon we’ve ever seen." "Now, there’s nothing wrong with furries or anthropomorphic characters in general, but having two humanoid final evolutions feels astonishingly lazy."
• Clownish Pokemon & Star Wars Reviews Expose Gaming Industry’s Dirty Little Secret - "Game reviewers need to stop behaving like clowns and start being more critical with their reviews." "So here’s the thing: game journalists are to blame. So are publications for pushing them down this route. But we also have to point fingers at game publishers that withhold review copies – or ad revenue – from reviewers who don’t lick their boots."
• Pokemon Sword and Shield Critics Need to Put Up or Shut Up
• Whiny Pokemon Fans Aren’t First Gamers Begging Trump to Punish Devs
• This Pokemon Sword and Shield DLC Will Make You Hate Game Freak Even More
• Nintendo Switch’s 2020 Game Lineup Is Unbelievably Sucky - article's original publication date was January 12, 2020, far too early in the year to make any judgment about whether or not Nintendo's 2020 is "sucky".
• Time to Realize Anti-Consumer Nintendo Doesn’t Care About You - "Clearly, Nintendo just don’t care about their customers." "Time and time again, Nintendo manages to prove how little they care. Any company that would legally wage a costly fight to deny customers the right to a refund is a scummy company in my books." "Hug your Mario blanket and turn on your power brick lamp all you want. Nintendo don’t care about you. Nintendo doesn’t care about anyone but themselves. Never forget that."
• Good Guy Nintendo Goes Full Monster after Embracing Microtransactions - possibly the WORST ONE out of all these "articles", because it makes baseless claims that Animal Crossing: New Horizons would include microtransactions because of a notice saying it will contain in-game purchases - this notice is included on ALL games that allow you to purchase NSO memberships from within them, but the author would rather fear-monger and spread misinformation than actually do their research.

All of this makes me believe that CCN is an unreliable, garbage news source. What say you? The Grand Delusion 21:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I see their about us page . It seems to not have too much editorial oversight, which is the basis of a reliable source on wikipedia... Ramos1990 (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I have seen their terms of use. They seem genuine. This was earlier Crypto Currency News and their reporting was OK. It is now part of Find.co, so the rartionale and links for discussing this are no longer relevant. Vedicant (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable sources used in Article: The Little Panda Fighter.

There are some sources in the article The Little Panda Fighter that may not be reliable. Source 4 on the article is an Amazon listing and source 6 and 7 are YouTube videos and YouTube is one example of unreliable sources. For this reason, there was a deletion discussion about a month ago. An administrator had closed the discussion as keep, but the problem was that during the deletion discussion, the article's references have not been replaced with reliable ones. Thankfully, during the deletion discussion, some editors have found reliable sources and made replies that linked them in the deletion discussion. To find the reliable sources, see the deletion discussion (Now archived) at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Little Panda Fighter, and read the comments that link sources that they say are reliable and we can replace the unreliable sources with reliable sources. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The Amazon link is reliable per WP:PRIMARY, as it's a link to the DVD fornthe release date ofnthe DVD. A better source would be preferable.

I've removed the YouTube link, but on WP:BALASP grounds rather than reliability. That some random YouTuber made a video about is undue for inclusion, at least unless a secondary source reports on it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for when it comes to the sources that were found in the deletion discussion, if you want them added to the article WP:DOIT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I said YouTube is an example because Amazon is sometimes reliable if it's for DVD, but I am just telling people that Amazon links should be removed if it's unrelated to an article, that Amazon link should be kept since it's on-topic and added for education, but YouTube should not be referenced at all. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

thecommunemag.com

I've come across links from thecommunemag used as reference in many articles in the areas where I mostly edit. This site's links are listed in Google news but it does not feel like a proper news media to me. Many of its articles give me the impression that it functions more as an attack site, aiming to defame and target those who criticize the ruling party of India. A very similar site like WP:OPINDIA (OpIndia) is blacklisted in Misplaced Pages.

• This site has an article titled "The Difference Between Hindus And Muslims". This article has sentences such as, For a Muslim man, sex is unlimited. ..The fear of blood goes off and they become accustomed to its spilling from childhood., Five-times namaz at the neighbourhood mosques breeds brotherhood and open communication channels of all kinds. In this network, everyone is either an active soldier or a member of a sleeper cell, to be activated at an appropriate time., etc.
• The site has titles of it's articles attacking people who's politics don't seem to align with the ruling party. Examples include article titles addressing people and organisations with words such as "Fake News Peddler", "Rabid islamist", "Leftist rot", "Filtered Bigot", "Rabid Propoganda Machine", "Venom-Spewing Tirade" etc.
• Republishes articles from blacklisted site WP:OPINDIA.
• The site has a side panel in article pages asking for donations which claims that they are not funded by George Soros or his proxies or any political parties.

There hasn't been any discussion about this site in this noticeboard. Are the links from this site considered reliable sources for use in Misplaced Pages, or if not, what should be done with the existing links. - SUN EYE 1 17:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yikes. Deprecate that source if it's being used on Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Fairly obviously should not be used here, and probably for the best to remove references using it. The laundering of OpIndia pieces is bad enough by itself, not even delving into the rest of its drivel. The Kip 05:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The Batch / deeplearning.ai - an AI/ML newsletter founded and written by Andrew Ng

Hello! I'm asking about The Batch , an AI and ML newsletter written by Andrew Ng as part of his series of online learning courses deeplearning.ai, one of the most prominent authorities in modern AI. The newsletter was founded in 2019, and it was deemed unreliable back in 2021 (according to , "A large portion of the sources used are not reliable, notably The Batch, which appears to be the personal blog of Andrew Ng."). Now, in 2024, I believe that The Batch is much more established and reliable than it was three years ago. I see links to the newsletter being used as references across the AI/ML space by prominent leaders in AI, and deeplearning.ai / The Batch is already used in multiple Misplaced Pages articles (for example, Regularization (mathematics)). I'd like people's thoughts on this, especially from those also in the modern AI/ML space who have heard of the newsletter and/or the author before!

As an aside, Deeplearning.ai is also very well-known for its deep learning courses with massive followings on YouTube , Twitter , and LinkedIn . Not that it means anything, of course, but it does show that it's not just some tiny blog written by a tech enthusiast.

Thanks for your help! GregariousMadness (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick note how a source is used on Misplaced Pages, or how many followers it has, has no bearing on it's reliability.

WP:USEBYOTHERS does though, and it is used in several seemingly reliable works. Do you have any links to it being used as a reference by 'leaders in AI'? It would help establish if it's reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Deeplearning.ai itself is highly reputable in the AI/ML community, with multiple industry partnerships with AWS, NVIDIA, Azure, Google Cloud, etc. .

As for direct links, it's difficult for me to search for them on social media (because a search on Twitter searches any mention of "deep learning" or "AI" or "batch" instead), but it's worth mentioning that The Batch is the official newsletter of deeplearning.ai that's posted on the deeplearning.ai Twitter every week (). They have a less formal, editorial blog that's separate from The Batch that is much less notable or reliable (); the newsletter, on the other hand, is written by Andrew Ng himself. GregariousMadness (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Social media and company partnership aren't what I was looking for. What's needed is other reliable sources using The Batch as a reference, for instance in a book for journal article. Andrew Ng might be considered reliable per WP:ExpertSPS, if he has been independently published by other reliable sources as an expert in the field. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Understood, I'll continue to search. And to answer your question, Andrew Ng is – and has been – one of the most influential figures in artificial intelligence, being listed in the top 100 influential people in AI in 2023 (). In the meantime, as per WP:ExpertSPS, would you say that a direct quote from the newsletter is valid? (It was reverted because we were uncertain whether The Batch was reliable before I asked this question in this noticeboard.) This is what I had written:

In his 2020 assessment of 15.ai in artificial intelligence newsletter The Batch, computer scientist Andrew Ng wrote:

"Voice cloning could be enormously productive. In Hollywood, it could revolutionize the use of virtual actors. In cartoons and audiobooks, it could enable voice actors to participate in many more productions. In online education, kids might pay more attention to lessons delivered by the voices of favorite personalities. And how many YouTube how-to video producers would love to have a synthetic Morgan Freeman narrate their scripts?

However, he also wrote:

"...but synthesizing a human actor's voice without consent is arguably unethical and possibly illegal. And this technology will be catnip for deepfakers, who could scrape recordings from social networks to impersonate private individuals."

GregariousMadness (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

ExpertSPS would require that he had been previously published in AI, but all I can find by him is the chapter in Architects of Intelligence by Martin Ford. His other works on AI appear to be self-published.

He would be reliable for his own words, but verification doesn't guarantee inclusion. You would need to discuss on the talk page whether Andrew Ng opinion on a matter was due inclusion, it's a NPOV matter not one of reliability (see WP:DUE and WP:BALASP). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I see, thank you for the insight. Does his inclusion in the top 100 influential people in AI not count as being published in AI? I didn't include the link initially because I didn't see your question, so I wanted to make sure before I made a post on the talk page if WP:ExpertSPS already applies. GregariousMadness (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

What about his Google Scholar page? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

This question does not make sense in the context of the conversation; what are you asking? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I've done a search on Google News and found a number of journal articles that use The Batch as a reference – I've posted them in the thread below! GregariousMadness (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any links to it being used as a reference by 'leaders in AI'? It would help establish if it's reliable.

I've found this post on LinkedIn supporting the reliability of The Batch:

Written by Martin Vechev:

Andrew Ng's The Batch, one of the most read newsletters in AI, highlights our work on COMPL-AI (https://compl-ai.org/), the first automated framework for evaluating LLMs w.r.t EU AI Act compliance. COMPL-AI was developed in collaboration between Bulgaria's INSAIT - Institute for Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence and Technology, our lab at ETH Zürich and LatticeFlow AI, a deep-tech company with presence in Zurich, Sofia, U.S. and elsewhere.

I'm looking for more direct references of the newsletter by top AI leaders, but it looks like the vast majority of discussions around it are from its target audience (those who are looking to learn more about AI). Nevertheless, I don't think this should take away from its notability and reliability as the official newsletter of deeplearning.ai. GregariousMadness (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

We need to be able to demonstrate that it is used by others - and isn't just influential on Twitter - to establish notability. Simonm223 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but does the above post by Dr. Martin Vechev not qualify? He is a major top leader in the AI space (founder of DeepCode and LatticeFlow) and linked it in his post above. GregariousMadness (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Again it's all just social media stuff. And frankly there's very few circumstances under which social media is usable by Misplaced Pages for anything at all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. I think it would be very difficult to find a print book or journal post referencing an online newsletter, but maybe someone else can aid me in my search.

As an aside, what are your thoughts on including the above statement by Andrew Ng as a direct quote? Would something like what I posted above be valid as per WP:ExpertSPS? GregariousMadness (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

After a bit of searching, found many seemingly legitimate sources that use The Batch as a source (I did a search on Google News for the term "deeplearning.ai newsletter "the batch"").

The rise of synthetic data comes as AI pioneer Andrew Ng is calling for a broad shift to a more data-centric approach to machine learning. He’s rallying support for a benchmark or competition on data quality which many claim represents 80 percent of the work in AI.

“Most benchmarks provide a fixed set of data and invite researchers to iterate on the code … perhaps it’s time to hold the code fixed and invite researchers to improve the data,” he wrote in his newsletter, The Batch.

And in the June 7 edition of The Batch, Ng admitted that the AI community is entering an era in which it will be called upon to be more transparent in our collection and use of data. “We shouldn’t take resources like LAION for granted, because we may not always have permission to use them,” he wrote.

In an issue of his DeepLearning.ai newsletter, The Batch, titled “It’s Time to Update Copyright for Generative AI, a lack of access to massive popular datasets such as Common Crawl, The Pile, and LAION would put the brakes on progress or at least radically alter the economics of current research.

And today, in an issue of his newsletter The Batch, Ng wrote that “My greatest fear for the future of AI is if overhyped risks (such as human extinction) lets tech lobbyists get enacted stifling regulations that suppress open-source and crush innovation.”

(Lists The Batch in its references)

For evaluating general-purpose foundation models such as large language models (LLMs) — which are trained to respond to a large variety of prompts — we have standardized tests like MMLU (multiple-choice questions that cover 57 disciplines like math, philosophy, and medicine) and HumanEval (testing code generation). We also have the LMSYS Chatbot Arena, which pits two LLMs’ responses against each other and asks humans to judge which response is superior, and large-scale benchmarking like HELM. These evaluation tools took considerable effort to build, and they are invaluable for giving LLM users a sense of different models’ relative performance. Nonetheless, they have limitations. For example, leakage of benchmarks datasets’ questions and answers into training data is a constant worry, and human preferences for certain answers does not mean those answers are more accurate.

source: https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/issue-251/

I also found some posts about The Batch from non-social media affiliated enthusiasts:

GregariousMadness (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Substack and blogs don't add anything, the Venture Beat articles are stronger - more like that would be good. Just for reference web posts and journal articles are not the same. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it! On the lookout for more. As for the first link, it was a post on NVIDIA's official technical blog written by Gerard Andrews , so I believe that should be reliable. That, plus the three Venture Beat articles in my previous post, plus the following articles that use The Batch as a reference:

Google Brain cofounder and Stanford professor Andrew Ng says he tried but couldn't coax ChatGPT into coming up with ways to exterminate humanity."To test the safety of leading models, I recently tried to get GPT-4 to kill us all, and I'm happy to report that I failed!" Ng wrote in his newsletter last week.

I liked what Andrew Ng had to say in his The Batch newsletter this week about Meta’s Galactica, in the aftermath of controversy around the model’s potential to generate false or misleading scientific articles:

“That we can replace such fundamental building blocks of LLMs is a sign that the field is still new and much innovation lies ahead,” Ng wrote in a blog called The Batch.

Do you think these are enough to establish notability and reliability of The Batch? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Another one I found:

(quoted from The Batch: )

Andrew Ng wrote, “Sometimes GPT-3 writes like a passable essayist, it seems a lot like some public figures who pontificate confidently on topics they know little about.”

Generative AI output became more like itself over time, with less variation. They reported their results in “The Curse of Recursion,” a paper that’s well worth reading. (Andrew Ng’s newsletter has an excellent summary of this result.)

GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind I should just have check Google Scholar, I'm just being a bit slow. He would be reliable as a self published source. You may still want to attribute states from The Batch, for example "Andrew Ng in his newsletter The Batch said....". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem! Yes, I'll attribute that Andrew Ng wrote it in his newsletter. Thanks for the help. Does an admin need to mark this question as resolved? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an admin board (and I'm not an admin), it's just a board to ask advice. No worries though, it will get automatically archived in a few days. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Treat as a SPS, which means that it doesn't count towards notability (which is what matters in the context you linked ) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Notability is no longer in question for the subject, so that won't be necessary. In the unlikely event that any questions for the current sources arise, though, I think the above analysis indicates that The Batch can safely be used as a reliable source to re-establish GNG. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You think wrong, it absolutely does not and I would question the competence of any editor who came to that conclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding onto this post before it gets archived: While working on the article for Deeplearning.ai, I found a testimonials page on The Batch itself, with examples of top leaders in the AI space using it as a reference: https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/about/. I think this, along with the above examples of reputable news sources using The Batch as a source, makes this newsletter reliable on matters pertaining to artificial intelligence. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/about/ would suggest that The Batch is reliable for Misplaced Pages's purposes, what people think about it on social media is not part of any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline.

Andrew Ng is reliable as an expert self-published source, because of his publishing history on the subject. However reliability is not inherited, if other authors posted on The Batch it would have the reliability of Andrew Ng's posts.

The question of reliability and notability are separate subjects. I have no opinion on any question of notability, and discussions about notability should be had elsewhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. ^

   Ng, Andrew (2020-04-01). "Voice Cloning for the Masses". The Batch. Archived from the original on 2020-08-07. Retrieved 2020-04-05.

Views on The Conversation as a source to claim a living person supports white supremacy

I recently encountered this article being used to support the claim on the page about Graham Hancock that Archaeologists and skeptical writers have accused Hancock of reinforcing white supremacist ideas and while I generally support using The Conversation as a source, given that WP:BLP states that we should be very firm about the use of high-quality sources in general and given that claiming someone is supporting white supremacy is probably the most contentious thing we can say, it probably should require sources of the highest quality (and more than one of them, but that is a separate issue), e.g. papers of record, news agencies, groups or academics that track racism and/or extremism. While I agree that it is generally reliable, I am just not sure The Conversation fits the bill.

This is especially the case as WP:THECONVERSATION summarises previous discussions as The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. It is generally reliable for subjects in the authors' areas of expertise. however WP:SPS states Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer from which I conclude that the source (in this case The Conversation)'s reliability should be judged independently of the authors' and it appears previous discussions have not done that.

I also note that in previous discussions The Conversation has been regarded by several editors as only as reliable for uncontroversial topics, where I feel this should be regarded as a controversial topic.

So is The Conversation a reliable source to claim a living person supports white supremacy? ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

yes with attribution. by any stretch of imagination it is not SPS.

i think WP:PUBLICFIGURES applies. its not that the conversation cant be used to assert someone is a white supremacist in appropriate wikivoice, only that there needs to be multiple sources all claiming it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Attributed to those who made the claim (the Archaeologists and skeptical writers) should be fine imo, per WP:INTEXT. If there are any alternative POVs to that, they should also be added for balance. CNC (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

As with the above, yep, attribution, but not as fact. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a self-published source so WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS don't apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that Graham Hancock is a white supremacist, but that some of his ideas are drawn from white supremacist sources (e.g. claims regarding the mound builders). This is a significant enough aspect of the commentary surrounding Hancock's work that it undoubtedly warrants inclusion in the article, though of course could quibble about the wording. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a reader would generally understand from the article that "Archaeologists and skeptical writers" claim he is a white supremacist, but that is somewhat besides the point of whether or not The Conversation is a reliable source for that. Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 21:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Their expertise they are generally reliable for are predominately arts, culture, sociology, etc. I think they are fine for light-weight political topics, though probably not as reliable for in-depth politics. The claim fundamentally comes down to WP:RSOPINION, thus also becomes somewhat irrelevant the claims that are being made when otherwise requires attribution. CNC (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

He's not claiming that Hancock is a white supremacist: the relevant passage is:

Most glaring to scholars investigating the history of Hancock’s pseudo archaeology is that while claiming to “overthrow the paradigm of history,” he doesn’t acknowledge that his overarching theory is not new. Scholars and journalists have pointed out that Hancock’s ideas recycle the long since discredited conclusions drawn by American congressman Ignatius Donnelly in his book Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, published in 1882. Donnelly also believed in an advanced civilisation – Atlantis – that was wiped out by a flood over 10,000 years ago. He claimed that the survivors taught Indigenous people the secrets of farming and monumental architecture. Like many forms of pseudo archaeology, these claims act to reinforce white supremacist ideas, stripping Indigenous people of their rich heritage and instead giving credit to aliens or white people. Hancock even cites Donnelly directly in his 1995 book Fingerprints of the Gods, claiming: “The road system and the sophisticated architecture had been ‘ancient in the time of the Incas,’ but that both ‘were the work of white, auburn-haired men’.” While skin colour is not brought up in Ancient Apocalypse, the repetition of the story of a “bearded” Quetzalcoatl (an ancient Mexican deity) parrots both Donnelly’s and Hancock’s own summary of a white and bearded Quetzalcoatl teaching native people knowledge from this “lost civilisation”. Hancock’s mirroring of Donnelly’s race-focused “science” is seen more explicitly in his essay, Mysterious Strangers: New Findings About the First Americans. Like Donnelly, Hancock finds depictions of “caucasoids” and “negroids” in Indigenous American art and (often mistranslated) mythology, even drawing attention to some of the exact same sculptures as Donnelly. This sort of “race science” is outdated and long since debunked, especially given the strong links between Atlantis and Aryans proposed by several Nazi “archaeologists”.

Where in this passage does Dibble call Hancock a white supremacist? Dibble is trying to make a nuanced point here about how Hancock draws from sources that have attempted to delegitimise the achievements of indigenous people by attributing their creations to white people/Atlanteans, which was often historically associated with white supremacy (e.g. the Mound_Builders#Pseudoarchaeology). Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If Dibble is not claiming that Hancock is a white supremacist, then the article needs to be reworded as that is how it currently reads. If you say someone is 'reinforcing' white supremacy, I think a reasonable reader would understand that to mean they are a white supremacist. It's a bit like if someone said I was pro-marmite and I said, "oh, I'm not pro-marmite, I'm just reinforcing the pro-marmite side." But that is rather besides the point of whether or not The Conversation is reliable in this context. ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I cosign this view here. Apply the logic to any other subject matter, and it holds. If a reader would read "Johnny reinforces Christian Nationalists views", well I struggle to imagine who would read that and come away thinking "Well, that doesn't mean Johnny IS a Christian Nationalist". It is asking too much of the reader, and not enough of the source or of the WP editors citing it. TheRazgriz (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The Conversation is a good example of why "blog" is not t he same as "SPS", a relevant question in relation to the Science-Based Medicine thread above. While many SPSs use a blog format and many blogs are self-published, there are many examples of blogs with expert authors and rigorous editorial controls, and The Conversation falls into that category. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I remember reading a 2018 piece from The Conversation which completely uncritically stated the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry as essentially fact when most reputable sources reject it, so obvious caution is needed the writer of the piece is pushing minority views. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This exact piece about the "Khazar theory" is what came to mind when reading through this. FWIW I personally never source any information, on WP or in the rest of my life, from The Conversation. My take is basically "If it's on The Conversation, either I can find a much better source for the information, or it won't be a well supported piece anyway, so either way: any other source is better than this." I'm not asserting it is unreliable...I'm just saying it doesn't have the highest standards compared to other options. TheRazgriz (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

While Elhaik’s genetic theories are considered fringe by most scholars, his work was published in peer reviewed genetics journals before it got to The Conversation. On such a contentious topic, it would be better to use the most robust sources and also identify what constitutes due weight from looking at a range of good sources, but this doesn’t make The Conversation any more unreliable than the scholarly journals its authors also publish in. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:WSAW applies. Obviously that Khazar theory article by conversation is a horrifically wrong piece, but most pieces on whole seem well-corroborated.

In general, I think main issue is you need multiple sources to claim a person is a white supremacist/racist/etc on a wiki article in appropriate wikivoice, not just the conversation article. Otherwise, the opinion of a single writer on the conversation is almost certainly undue and likely to violate WP:PUBLICFIGURES. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

As I have elaborated above, Dibble did not claim that Hancock is a white supremacist, nor does Graham Hancock's article state as such. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It's an OK source IMO, but the wiki text really needs to be changed from Archaeologists and skeptical writers... with attribution to clarify that there are a single archaeologist (Flint Dibble) and a single writer (Jason Colavito) making these links to white supremacist ideas. Dibble says that "scholars and journalists" have noted Hancock's recycling of ideas from Donnelly, but Dibble is the only one arguing that "these claims act to reinforce white supremacist ideas" - he is not asserting that these other people have made the same connection. This is a controversial BLP issue, although with multiple sources I think it's DUE, but it needs to be handled accurately. Astaire (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that the Society for American Archeology has made that connection, too, in this letter. However, this might be considered self-published, depending on how the current RfC on the papers from organizations goes.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, 1961-1973

On Phoenix Program we read "Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented." There was a talk page discussion over this and I feel one editor is WP:STONEWALLING and not being elaborate on why he seeks to keep this source. The citation is in wikivoice and attributed to Mark Woodruff in his book Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, 1961-1973. However, on page 64 of his book, he writes that "This American contribution to the Phung Hoang Program was officially born on December 20, 1967, under the operation name, "Phoenix," so that wikivoice citation in the article of him is obviously inaccurate. Also, the title ("Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army") alone of the indicates the source is biased as it tries to claim that the U.S. actually won the Vietnam War were it not for political opposition to the war (see: Vietnam stab-in-the-back myth).

According to Woodruff's publisher, he "enlisted in the Marine Corps in July 1967, serving in Vietnam with Foxtrot Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment from December 1967 to December 1968. After leaving the Marine Corps, he received his B.A. and M.A. in psychology from Pepperdine University in California. He is now a lieutenant commander in the Royal Australian Navy and a psychologist with the Vietnam Veterans Counseling Service in Perth, Australia." So he's a Vietnam veteran who later worked as a psychologist. It seems like his only notability on the topic is that he's a WP:PRIMARY source, being a Vietnam vet, and it doesn't appear that he has any credentials in writing about history.

Corroborating that Woodruff is an unreliable source, actual historians have been critical of Woodruff. For example, James H. Willbanks wrote that Woodruff's book "Seeks to provide a revisionist military history of the war and to demonstrate in his opinion that the war was won militarily before the United States unilaterally withdrew from the conflict. The author does not sufficiently address why the United States became involved in Southeast Asia in the first place." While, historian Christopher Levesque wrote in his doctoral dissertation that Woodruff made erroneous claims (p. 25) and "ignores the individual experiences of the majority of the soldiers who voluntarily spoke to reporters, participated in ad hoc war crimes hearings, or contacted their congressmen" (p. 26). In sum, I think it's quite obvious that Woodruff is clearly an unreliable source and should not be cited on Misplaced Pages, especially not in wikivoice but I would like to formalize this by establishing a consensus. Skornezy (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It's clear this source shouldn't be cited. Remsense ‥ 论 06:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Putting aside the bad faith accusations of me WP:STONEWALLING and the general non-neutral wording of this request. I'll address the salient issues. Woodruff is the author of 2 books about the Vietnam War, the fact that he doesn't have a degree in military history or claim to be a military historian is no more relevant than for any other author of a military book. Rather we need to look at the quality of the source itself and what reviews it has received. Willbanks says it "Seeks to provide a revisionist military history of the war and to demonstrate in his opinion that the war was won militarily before the United States unilaterally withdrew from the conflict." that is absolutely true and reflects a commonly heard view that the US won the war militarily but lost politically. The critique that "The author does not sufficiently address why the United States became involved in Southeast Asia in the first place" is fair but irrelevant, the focus Woodruff chose for the book is the military defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, not why the US became involved in Indochina, a huge topic addressed in numerous other books. Christopher J. Levesque has a Doctorate in History, but does not appear to be a published author and works as a university librarian, so is he a "historian"? Levesque's criticism of Woodruff's book centers around war crimes (the topic of Levesque's dissertation: NOT JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS: AVOIDING AND REPORTING ATROCITIES DURING THE VIETNAM WAR). Woodruff argues that US atrocities were not widespread in Vietnam, Levesque argues otherwise quoting sources like Nick Turse. This is a topic where a wide range of views exist. There were only a few proven massacres committed by the US, but plenty of accusations of other US massacres and war crimes. So Levesque's criticism of the book simply reflects that debate and is not sufficient to undermine the reliability of the entire book. FWIW the book has 4.5 stars from 52 reviews on Amazon. Perhaps historian @Ed Moise has a view? Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, why is the fact that a book exists a testament of its reliability? Remsense ‥ 论 08:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"Again"? When have I ever made that assertion? Mztourist (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense is right, both here and his inputs on the Phoenix Program talk page. Mztourist has not adequately explained why Woodruff should be considered a reliable source, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Just because Woodruff authored two books doesn't make him notable, Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, especially for people without zero relevant credentials like Woodruff. That actual historians consider his book "revisionist military history" (WP:FRINGE) that makes erroneous claims and ignores testimony that conflicts with his arguments confirms that he's not a reliable source. Levesque is a PhD and an adjunct instructor of history at Pensacola State College and the University of Charleston, yes, he's a historian, has been published in reliable sources on topics related to the U.S. military, and is infinitely more qualified to write on this topic than Woodruff. The fact that you have to resort to Amazon reviews of all things to try to assert that Woodruff is reliable, when he clearly isn't, just proves that you're grasping for straws (for the record, there are books that promote the Flat Earth conspiracy theory with 4.8 stars on Amazon). This shouldn't even have to be explained to you, you've been editing this website for nearly 15 years. You should have the WP:COMPETENCE to know when sources are reliable and unreliable. Skornezy (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that someone is a reliable source for historical claims by virtue of having written a history book, so I cannot come to any other conclusion. Remsense ‥ 论 09:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Your interpretation of my argument is incorrect. Meanwhile you haven't provided any cogent argument to support your assertion that "It's clear this source shouldn't be cited." Mztourist (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You can buy 5 star Amazon reviews. You can also buy 1 star Amazon reviews to send to the competition. Polygnotus (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Amazon reviews are not reliable sources and should never be used to assess sources. Skornezy (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I said "FWIW". You should have the WP:COMPETENCE to understand that. Mztourist (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Skornezy addressing your comments above about Woodruff, I have never claimed that he is notable. You say that he has "zero relevant credentials". Have you ever heard of Mark Bowden? He doesn't have a degree in history, nor claim to be a historian. So does that make Black Hawk Down (book) and his book about the Battle of Huế not reliable? That is your (and Remsense's) argument. Levesque hasn't written any books, he has 9 publications to his credit (4 book reviews and 5 articles) of which 3 book reviews and 2 articles relate to military issues, so hardly a heavyweight military historian. Meanwhile Willbanks describing his book as "revisionist military history" is not the same as it being WP:FRINGE as you assert. Mztourist (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"I have never claimed that he is notable."

All the reason to not cite him.

"Have you ever heard of Mark Bowden?"

Bowden is a journalist, Woodruff is a random soldier that engages in erroneous claims and revisionism.

"Levesque hasn't written any books, he has 9 publications to his credit (4 book reviews and 5 articles) of which 3 book reviews and 2 articles relate to military issues, so hardly a heavyweight military historian."

So? He is still infinitely more qualified for his views on Vietnam than Woodruff.

"Meanwhile Willbanks describing his book as "revisionist military history" is not the same as it being WP:FRINGE as you assert."

Being revisionist means being in opposition to the consensus historiography. Coupled with the fact that Woodruff has zero qualifications, has been criticized by people with actual credentials, yes, he's WP:FRINGE and unreliable. Skornezy (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure how the "FWIW" qualifier makes any difference since Amazon reviews are completely unreliable. Skornezy (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus Can I get your input on whether you think Woodruff is a reliable source? Skornezy (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Meh, I am not very bright. Polygnotus (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I put one sentence in about Amazon reviews and look at how much of your "rebuttal" focussed on that. An author doesn't need to be personally notable for their book to be reliable! Yes you just keep making the same assertions that Woodruff is an unqualified nobody. Revisionist is not the same as Fringe, you need to learn the difference. Meanwhile the foreword was written by General James L. Jones. Dale Dye wrote "Mark Woodruff's book is an inspired - and long overdue - re-examination..." Joseph L. Galloway wrote "Mark Woodruff's Unheralded Victory is a refreshing look at America's experience in Vietnam." Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Three other figures with no relevant credentials as historians! Galloway comes the closest as a professional journalist, but it's pretty clear to me that Woodruff's work is not taken seriously by professional historians. Remsense ‥ 论 10:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Woodruff is not a notable author on Vietnam as he has zero qualifications; we don't just include the writings of random non-experts because WP:DUE. You're ignoring that and WP:STONEWALLING as you always do.

"Revisionist is not the same as Fringe, you need to learn the difference."

It has been explained to you many times why he is: the theories he promotes; his selective use of testimony; and the erroneous claims he makes.

"Meanwhile the foreword was written by General James L. Jones. Dale Dye wrote "Mark Woodruff's book is an inspired - and long overdue - re-examination..." Joseph L. Galloway wrote "Mark Woodruff's Unheralded Victory is a refreshing look at America's experience in Vietnam."

As Remsense has pointed out, none of those people have relevant credentials as historians. Jones is a U.S. military general who most recently served as President Obama's National Security Advisor; Dye is a military officer who advises Hollywood; and Galloway was a war correspondent during the Vietnam War. Skornezy (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

What it's worth is nothing at all. Remsense ‥ 论 10:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

So a 4 star Marine general, a Vietnam veteran and widely known expert on military matters (Dye) and the author of We Were Soldiers Once… and Young are each worthless compared to the views of the author of 3 book reviews and 2 articles related to military issues? Right. Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, yes. I'm glad we're starting to understand each other. Remsense ‥ 论 10:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously no. Meanwhile Skornezy I suggest you actually read WP:INDISCRIMINATE, because it doesn't say what you clearly think it says. Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

My bad. The actual policy is WP:DUE. I corrected my mistake. Skornezy (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

But you were so certain of it...Mztourist (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

And I can say you're being certain about of a lot of incorrect things. Your quibbling is silly. Skornezy (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Also its not appropriate to correct your comment after someone has responded to it, you should have struck out WP:INDISCRIMINATE and replaced it with WP:DUE. But it obviously wasn't a simple mistake, you clearly thought that it said something different. Adopting DUE it is appropriate to keep Woodruff.Mztourist (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"But it obviously wasn't a simple mistake, you clearly thought that it said something different."

You're not a mind reader.

You said it repeatedly, may I remind you of WP:COMPETENCE which you love throwing at me. Mztourist (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I incorrectly cited it one time when I meant to cite WP:DUE. My other citation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE is completely correct; we shouldn't include Woodruff just because he has written 2 books on the topic.

Why are you quibbling? Skornezy (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"Adopting DUE it is appropriate to keep Woodruff."

No, it isn't. Not for the historical assertions he makes. Skornezy (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is it just has to say "according to Mark Woodruff" Mztourist (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No, because we say "according to" even for established academics when it comes to certain analyses, which Mark Woodruff is certainly not. Woodruff is unreliable for facts on Vietnam, attributed or not. We can use him for his attributed opinions, not for the facts he states. Skornezy (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No, because he's not a reliable source for claims of historical fact. An attributed statement of fact is not magically laundered into mere opinion. The standard for subject experts we would attribute specific claims to is greater, not less, because we have to be really sure we care about what they think to be the case. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

As detailed below, it can be used for attributed opinion, so a statement that "according to Mark Woodruff" or "Mark Woodruff opines that..." Mztourist (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Woodruff's book is reliable for Woodruff's opinions, not Woodruff's historical assertions. The citation of Woodruff on Phoenix Program to state "Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented" is not reliable, even if we add attribution because this is Woodruff making a historical assertion, not merely stating his opinion. Skornezy (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No, you've ploughed ahead with the same fallacy I just outlined. Here are three examples.

1. Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented. This is a statement of fact. It is either true, or it is not.
2. Mark Woodruff opines that Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented. This, however, is nonsense. That's not his opinion, or any higher analysis on Woodruff's part.
3. According to Mark Woodruff, Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented. This is once more unambiguously a statement of fact, we're just attributing it to a particular source. They would need to be a particularly reliable source for this to make sense to do in context.

How is it reasonable to conclude someone isn't a reliable source for historical claims, but think citing their "opinion" that does nothing but draw factual conclusions about history is solving the problem? Remsense ‥ 论 15:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Skornezy originally posted at 06:35 and you said at 06:39 that "It's clear this source shouldn't be cited". What research did you undertake in those 4 minutes that informed that view? Mztourist (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I consulted the Delphi oracle. Quit flailing, it's unbecoming. Remsense ‥ 论 12:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Flailing? You clearly just read the original post and agreed with it, nothing else. Mztourist (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Was I supposed to agree with you instead? They wrote it rather clearly so it was easy to parse, verify, and sign off on, imagine that. Remsense ‥ 论 13:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Imagine doing some independent research. How can you claim to have verified it inside 4 minutes? Mztourist (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to drop my previous snark and try to state plainly that there was no need to, as the the facts presented were sufficient for me to make up my mind. As you haven't disputed their veracity and have only made counterarguments I find categorically uncompelling, it seems my judgment was alright. Remsense ‥ 论 15:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You made up your mind in 4 minutes with no research; you were never going to be open to counterarguments. Other users here haven't adopted the same absolutist position that as Woodruff isn't a historian the book has no merit. Mztourist (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Everyone else that has stated an opinion has concurred that you clearly can't use this book to cite statements of fact. Remsense ‥ 论 15:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't cite this book for facts. Mottezen (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

maybe chill out a bit and wait for outsiders (not me) to form an opinion. Polygnotus (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. This back and forth is going nowhere. Skornezy (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Some thoughts in no particular order, as unpicking the thread is a chore.
  The views of historians in matters of history are more useful than those of military veterans. This is in part because the views of military veterans will be primary sources and historians are trained in interpreting such sources (secondary sources are preferred).
  A work having been criticised by experts does count against it's reliability. Amazon reviews do not add to a sources reliability in anyway. That Woodruff has been previously published in the area does add to the work reliability, but it's one factor among many.
  That something is a commonly held view is only important if it's a commonly held view by experts in the specific area (historians in this case). That an opposing view is held by others might be worth discussion in the appropriate article (Vietnam War#War crimes for instance), if it is attested in other reliable sources, but it might not be due inclusion in every article. Minority views should be included, but only if they do not give undue weight (but that's NPOV not reliability).
  The work is reliable for the attributed opinion of Woodruff but I don't believe it should be used to state contentious facts in wikivoice, especially if those facts are in opposition to other scholarly works. Inclusion of Woodruff's opinion are a matter of NPOV and should be discussed on the articles talk page. Just because something can be verified doesn't mean it should be included, rather verifiability is required of included content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  OK thanks. So from my understanding, Woodruff's book is unreliable for contentious historical assertions, but it is reliable to document what his opinions are. Is that correct? That makes sense to me and it's sort of what I've been trying to articulate on the talk page, but the talk page hasn't gone anywhere which is why I've taken it here. I can't edit that page for now, but it seems to me that the wikivoice citation of Woodruff should 100% be removed. Skornezy (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Pinging @ActivelyDisinterested Skornezy (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input ActivelyDisinterested. I have now consulted my copy of the book, it has 291 pages of body text, 29 pages of endnotes and an 8 page bibliography. Mztourist (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  And what has that got to do with anything? It could have a zillion pages, 400 pages of endnotes, 40 bibliography pages, and it wouldn't change anything. Numbers in no way effect the reliability of a source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  Skornezy That would be my take on it, whether his opinion should be included is a NPOV matter, see WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:BALASP, etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

A key question on the suitability of a revisionist work is whether its arguments are accepted by subsequent works. My initial impression is that the scholarly community hasn't taken much notice of it. The Journal of Military History didn't review it; it did list it (with dozens of other works) in its "Books received" section in its April 2000 issue. The editor included this note: "Attempts to debunk myths created by propaganda about American involvement in Vietnam by analyzing American military successes." The book is 25 years old now. If the scholarly consensus hasn't moved toward it since then, it's probably not usable for anything other than attributed opinion. Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you please advise exactly how "Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented." should be rewritten as an attributed opinion of Woodruff's as Skornezy and Remsense are unlikely to agree anything that I write. Mztourist (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You can't, because that's not an opinion and cannot be laundered into one. It is still an unambiguous statement of fact. It is not my opinion that the Louvre is a museum in Paris. Remsense ‥ 论 15:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense That wikivoice citation of Woodruff isn't even accurate because on page 64 of his book Woodruff writes that "American contribution to the Phung Hoang Program was officially born on December 20, 1967, under the operation name, "Phoenix," which is completely in line with Osborn's Vietnam military service. According to historian Alfred W. McCoy, in page 98 of his book Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation: To discredit such damaging testimony, the U.S. Army Intelligence Command conducted a thorough investigation of Osborn’s charges. The results were released in a declassified summary by William Colby during his 1973 confirmation hearings for the post of CIA director. Although the Army’s classified report nitpicked many of his secondary details, it did not challenge Osborn’s overall sense of Phoenix’s systematic brutality—an assessment confirmed by both eye-witness accounts and official studies.

Similarly, historian Jeremy Kuzmarov wrote on page 257 in a book called Decolonization and Conflict: Colonial Comparisons and Legacies edited by fellow academics Gareth Curless and Martin Thomas: during testimony to the U.S. Congress, "CIA director William Colby conceded that much of what Osborn said was likely to be true," despite "attempts by conservatives to discredit Osborn’s character." McCoy also quotes Colby (who headed Phoenix) as saying "various of the things that Mr. Osborn alleges might have happened". (p. 99)

Both of these PhD historians directly conflict with Woodruff; if Woodruff really said that "Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented," then how was this missed by these PhD historians, by CIA director Colby, and by the U.S. Army investigation that was seeking to discredit Osborn? This is just further confirmation that Woodruff is an unreliable source for historical assertions! Skornezy (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Turner, Blair P. (2000). "Books Received". The Journal of Military History. 64 (2): 615–622. JSTOR 120327.

Remsense and Skornezy you have already made your views on Woodruff abundantly clear. The question was for Mackensen, not you. Mztourist (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think this is a statement of opinion? Woodruff doesn't say it's his opinion, he states it as fact! You would be putting words in his mouth, you realize. I don't think you should jump to any other topic requiring the time of others to reply before you answer this question directly and explain what you think the distinction could actually be.Remsense ‥ 论 07:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really want to touch on the reliability of the book, but reading the paragraph as it stands currently, I have to question why a statement about that would belong on an article that, as far as I can tell, is not about Osborn. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Because Osborn makes some shocking and graphic claims about war crimes that are included on Phoenix Program, but his credibility has been questioned. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, well I don't think very loudly implying that someone's credibility is questionable is something we should be engaging in on what is nominally supposed to be an encyclopedia article instead of, I don't know, maybe the talk page or something. If it's explicitly stated in a reliable source, then maybe there's a case to include it in the article, but implying it seems like an attempt to get around the policy on original research, whether or not that's actually the case. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Woodruff basically says that Osborn lied about abuses he says he witnessed as part of the Phoenix Program when he testified to Congress, pretty much accusing him of perjury. I think the section is undue because there were others who testified to these abuses as well, not just Osborn. Skornezy (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It really sounds like we should just be citing secondary sources that do the picking of the primary sources for us then. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

That's really what this RSN is about. Is Woodruff a reliable source for when Osborn served in Vietnam and so what Osborn claimed to have seen. We have other RS that question Osborn's credibility. Mztourist (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The RSN is on whether Woodruff, a non-expert, arguably WP:PRIMARY source who has been criticized for revisionism, making erroneous claims, and ignoring conflicting testimony is a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards or not. Skornezy (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Whether we have a reliable source for time of service is not something I would consider relevant unless a source also explicitly uses that to make some secondary claim related to, specifically, the Phoenix Program, and said other source is reliable for that secondary claim. What would be even better, and what I would probably encourage if acceptable to people who actually want to edit the article, is to refocus on secondary sources that provide a synthesis of multiple primary sources rather than focusing on quotes from one or two specific people. Which are the best sources out of those secondary sources?

If that question cannot be determined, I feel that would be a better use of this board's time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the topic area, so let me ask a brief ground-clearing question. As I read the article, K. Barton Osborne claims to have witnessed torture under the auspices of the Phoenix Program. Is the purpose of the citation to Woodruff to undercut Osborne by placing his service in South Vietnam prior to the implementation of the Phoenix Program? Mackensen (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much; he's basically accusing Osborn of lying. But elsewhere Woodruff says "American contribution to the Phung Hoang Program was officially born on December 20, 1967, under the operation name, 'Phoenix'" which is perfectly in line with Osborn's military service so I'm not even sure if Woodruff is even being cited correctly in the section. Skornezy (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Mackensen that is correct and Woodruff is not the only source that questions Orborne's credibility. Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a better source than Woodruff that does so? The citations above that mention William Colby's testimony would seem to render Woodruff's criticism a moot point. Mackensen (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I am unable to locate the transcript of William Colby's response to Osborn's claims. The only source for that is itself POV. Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

DBpia.co.kr

Is the website DBpia.co.kr It is an website which is made and controled by Nurimedia. It is a website that publishes academic papers. Some papers are available for free and others are available for a fee. All the papers are credible papers that have passed the screening process. You can see papers against the background of various languages such as English, Chinese, and Korean. Most of academic papers are written by University Professor. Jo HyeonSeong (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

This is going to depend on the papers. Looking through a few examples many appear to have been published in academic journals, and would likely be considered reliable. If the haven't been published in a journal reliability could come down to who the author is, see WP:EXPERTSPS.

Given how wide ranging the papers are I don't think a simple answer is possible. A real answer would depend on the full context, what exact content is to be verified to which specific paper. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The site isn't inherently reliable or unreliable, it's just a host for academic papers. seefooddiet (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yonhapnews (연합뉴스)

Yonhap News is a South Korean news agency. It is the largest news agency in South Korea and has been designated as a "national news agency" by legal requirements. Other domestic media companies also have reprint contracts, so it is a reliable media company. Do you agree this statement?

Kang Taeho (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

No source is always reliable, the best rating is just generally reliable. As major news organisation it would be covered by the general guidelines (see WP:NEWSORG), as well as the caution about using opinion pieces (per WP:NEWSOPED). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

As an aside the legal statutes of a country have no part in assessing whether a source is reliable or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't source what I'm about to say but I'll just note that Yonhap has a reputation for being a source of laundered sensationalism and rumors about the DPRK and, purely in my personal view, is unreliable about that specific topic. Again, though, for our purposes on WP, the preceding is irrelevant as I can't provide a fuller explanation at this moment in time. I offer it only as public elucidation. Chetsford (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources/Archive 2#Yonhap News - reliability questioned?, WikiProject Korea had a discussion on Yonhap's reliability. We concluded that the source is still mostly reliable, but unreliable betwen 2019 and 2021 due to an undisclosed sponsored article scandal. Overall, we rate it as reliable on WP:KO/RS, although we have that caveat to the reliability.

As for reporting rumors on the DPRK, that's more of a systemic issue in global press. I wouldn't say YNA is better or worse at it in my view; most sources globally are bad with it. seefooddiet (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Dong-A Ilbo (동아일보)

The Dong-A Ilbo is an old newspaper company in Korea. Created during the Japanese colonial era era, it now operates the broadcasting station Channel A. In fact, it was said to be the overwhelming No. 1 in the newspaper industry, with no second place. As it is old, I think it will be a reliable source. Do you agree this statement?

This page was used as a reference by a Dong-A Ilbo article.Jeong Ahram (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

as per top of page:

Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The Dong-A Ilbo boasts a long history, but I believe its credibility has declined in recent years due to its tendency to address issues from a biased perspective. Additionally, its use of sensational headlines to attract readers resembles traits of yellow journalism. Kang eunyeong (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:KO/RS WikiProject Korea classifies it as a reliable source. I also wrote the Misplaced Pages article for The Dong-A Ilbo.

The paper is pretty conservative and nationalist. In the 1970s, The Dong-A Ilbo blank advertisement incident  led to a lot of its more left leaning employees being forced out of the newspaper, and the paper's remained fairly right-wing since.

I think the paper's reliability demands more solid research before we can classify it. It's possible the paper has had scandals that affect its reliability. I've used the newspaper as a source probably over 200 times, and have never had issues with its reliability though. I've used it mostly for more mundane topics however. seefooddiet (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Vanity publisher?

I am not sure why this source is being removed from a certain part of Second Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1375–1378) but not as a whole, as far as I can see it looks fine. Please clarify if I'm missing something. For other editions see: Garudam 20:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

If you reply to the editor who removed it and then started a talk page discussion at Talk:Second_Bahmani–Vijayanagar_War_(1375–1378)#Not WP:RS, that editor will probably explain their reasoning. Schazjmd (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Certainly, but the issue of reliability remains. Can you verify if the source pass WP:RS & WP:HISTRS? Garudam 21:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The book appears to have been published by Popular Prakashan, which as far as I know isn't a vanity press. However I can't find in pages 33–34 that back up your edit, is it from a different page number? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No, there shouldn't be any different page number as it wraps the conflict in these two pages. Garudam 10:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

There it supports the claim for "retreat of Bahmani force":

Mujahid raised the siege and after extricating himself with great difficulty retired to his army besieging Adoni.

Garudam 11:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

So a retreat from a siege, but the content states the result of the campaign was a retreat. These don't seem to match up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Mhm. The author is not WP:SCHOLARSHIP to be frank and fails in following WP:RS and WP:HISTRS, which is why I've excluded it from the page. Noorullah (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The reason for excluding this source from the section of the page was initially attributed to it being a vanity publication, which it is not. Now, it is being claimed that the source fails to meet the WP:SCHOLARSHIP criteria. The author, however, is a renowned professor, which should support the credibility of the work. Garudam 17:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"Now it is being claimed?" I've had that up as a reason since the start. .

More over, how are they a renowned professor? They've published no more books , they aren't on google scholars for this book. Noorullah (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

External links showing who the author is would help? If it can be shown they are a history professor it would certainly add to the sources reliability.

I would also restate that the source and the content don't appear to align, but that could be solved by rewording. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, the publisher's credibility should be sufficient to establish the reliability of the work. This is similar to cases like Tony Jacques and John C. Kohn, where the publishers are well-known and reputable, even though the authors themselves may not be established in the scholarly field. For the book in question, I could only find from its cover that the author/editor is a professor at several universities. Garudam 13:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Just found that his books are available on the library shelves of the Osmania University . Hope that helps. Garudam 13:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Going by what the preface says in the 1978 edition , it seems clear that the editor's expertise isn't that relevant to the published work by his own admission. Going by the list of books, he does seem to have been involved in research on history in economics (something they also noted). But that's still a very different field probably why he said what he said. So I don't think it matters what universities he was at etc. The preface also suggests that the author wasn't a recognised expert at the time nor did he have much academic experience in the field. (I don't know what the literary prize was but since the work had disappeared I don't think it would make him a recognised expert.) And however justified this may have been, the author published virtual nothing of his work meaning he expertise received minimal prior judgment. So I don't think either the author or editor give any automatic credence to the work. Perhaps the publisher does but IMO it's unlikely this is sufficient. Considering the age of the work, I think if this was a good, well recognised source there should be some sign of that by now. Are there any reviews of the book? Is there much WP:USEBYOTHERS? If there's little of that IMO there's insufficient evidence of it being a decent reliable source and it should be used sparingly or not at all. Note that I'm only referring to works with M.H. Rama Sharma as the author and M. H. Gopal as the editor. It's unclear to me what the connection between those earlier works and that by P. Sree Rama Sarma Perhaps it's explained inside but there's no full text preview so I haven't seen that. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd also note that the editor's notes on how they approached the editing and why, as explained at the end of the preface also suggests it was intentionally limited. And while it was still quite an effort, a lot of that seems to have been spent on improving and fixing the sourcing which isn't something that matters much to its use as a direct source. And the authors approach while not terrible, isn't the best for a great RS. Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

BTW, am I the only one a bit confused why the preface doesn't seem to mention the earlier 1956 publication? Or indeed reading you'd think it didn't happen. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Also to add - the source does not directly support the content. You dont need to get into arguments over if the source is reliable or not. With military campaigns they usually have a defined end-point on which most scholars agree - for this to source that the campaign ended in a retreat, you would need to show that the campaign ended at/shortly after. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Naval News

Naval News is a fairly frequently cited website (n=930) across Misplaced Pages's naval and military related article set. A surface-level look at the front page might give the appearance of reliability; however underneath the hood there appear to be several issues with it that would merit being assessed as a marginally reliable source at best. While their core editorial staff listed here are generally fine (notably H I Sutton is a generally accepted expert on submarines, as is Chris Cavas on surface warfare, they have a number of former Janes Defense journalists on staff. etc.), a large plurality if not a majority of their articles are written by non-expert freelancers with few qualifications and apparently minimal fact checking. I had thought at first it was maybe a one-off or an internship or something like that, but it seems to be a regular practice.

• For instance this NN article came up a few times during the creation of what is now our AIM-174B article. The NN author, Carter Johnstone, is currently a college freshman (a high school student at the time of writing) with no experience whatsoever relating to the subject matter and has written several articles for the site. In particular, the Naval News piece included speculation by Johnstone as to whether the weapon was developed under a special access program, which had made its way into an early draft of our article.

• This article from a "freelance writer" in Kerala, lists no qualifications whatsoever other than being really interested in the subject. Again, speculation from one of their articles -- in this case, that "It is likely that the development of this missile is closely associated with the submarine launched K4 and the land launched Agni-1 Prime ballistic missiles" had made its way into the Long Range – Anti Ship Missile (India). The source does not elaborate on their basis for this claim.

• There's several other examples, e.g. this one also from a "young military writer" who is a grad student in law, again with no apparently established subject matter expertise or history on this beat other than "he's familiar with it" and is categorized as a regular contributor.

Additionally much of the outlet's content is now openly just republications of press releases, published under a "staff" byline.

I do not think the site quite merits a generally unreliable status, given the strength of their expert contributors, but am seeking confirmation that it is of marginal reliability and suggest that attribution to the author be a requirement. ⇒SWATJester 01:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

After giving this a surface level look, but without sinking too much time into getting too strong of an opinion (see what I did there, little naval humor), my take is that it should be depreciated. At minimum it should be yellowed, but considering all things I would say the whole thing should be red with maybe a special notation that pieces from editorial staff are generally reliable.

Seems most of the content could be considered SPS at this point. The phrase "It insists upon itself" comes to my mind somehow.

My $0.02(USD) = If sources like New York Post are depreciated even with an editorial staff that is generally agreed to meet RS standards, then I cant see how an org that publishes with Editors seemingly only responsible for verifying their own works while "staff" have little or no oversight verifying their work should continue to be considered much of an RS, especially on a somewhat niche topic that is less likely to have other orgs and sources expose errors or issues in their veracity. TheRazgriz (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm basically right there with you -- agree with your logic, but my concern about fully deprecating it is that it would make it much more difficult to use the works from the portion of the site that are experts. And as a niche-case argument, there may be times where the existence of the press releases themselves are citeable (though not as to the truth of their assertions). It feels to me like the options of "A) Marginally reliable (yellowed) and requiring attribution," vs. "B) Generally unreliable (red) but reliable for certain authors with attribution," more or less get you the same result, but all things being equal given the moderate popularity of the source I'd prefer to start with a more minimal shift and if it continues to be a problem we can always come back and adjust further. ⇒SWATJester 00:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we both agree that WP:RS is often, perhaps ignorantly or accidently, misused as it is. We both know the way it typically get applied is green get the "Citation is valid as RS per WP:RS" treatment, and anything else automatically gets the "Removed, invalid citation. Source not reliable per WP:RS" treatment. I think few of us are left that actually try to split the hairs anymore and use it as intended.

My final opinion is:

1) There should be immediate action taken to depreciate the source to yellow status via proper mechanisms, and;

2) Further discussion (probably within the talk pages in the articles the source is most often used) about if it should be further depreciated to red status with either notation for editorials being reliable, or if Editorial Staff should be split into a separate, green listing.

Considering the sheer volume of citations made across the site form this source, it seems due. TheRazgriz (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm on board for all of that, and appreciate you taking the time to comment. Would love additional opinions if there are any other interested parties, but I understand how niche subject areas can be a challenge in that regard so I won't hold my breath. ⇒SWATJester 04:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The proper mechanism would be multiple discussions with multiple editors involved, for the most part this noticeboard is for general advice and third opinion not the categorisation of sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be some WP:USEBYOTHERS in published works, it's limited but from reliable publishers. It seems likely the output is of varying quality, so the WP:RSCONTEXT of when it's used will be important. Contentious or exceptional claims should probably be avoided. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Daily Trojan Reliable Source

Is the "Daily Trojan" a reliable source? If so, what for? If not, why not? Here is a link to a page of theirs. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The more relevant question is are opinion pieces and/or letters to the editor, in the Daily Trojan, reliable for anything other than their author's opinions? WP:RSOPINION is pretty clear on this.

For context see Talk:International Churches of Christ#USC "apology". TarnishedPath 09:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSSM has a little guidance. WP-article at Daily Trojan. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

My take is that a student journalist writing "Another group on campus, the Los Angeles Church of Christ, has been accused of cult activity" and a letter from campus officials criticising that article, with no secondary coverage, doesn't really merit inclusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that's covered by WP:WEIGHT. TarnishedPath 11:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

In WP:RSCONTEXT the source is not reliable. The Dean is not offering an apology as stated in the content, they are criticising the output of the student paper. Also USC did not 'note' anything, they simply published a letter to the paper without any comment on it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

National Rifle Association

Is the NRA (National Rifle Association) considered a reliable source for firearm and other related topics? They issue a magazine that I get and was wondering if they could be used. If you have any questions or need more information just let me know. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sheriff U3 What's the magazine? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I get the American Rifleman, but they have a lot more too. You can see all of the here. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be fine for facts about guns. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It might be reliable for their attributed opinion and basic facts, but I doubt it's good for stating anything contentious as fact (given how heated gun issues are in the US). By basic facts I mean the description or dimensions of a firearm, date of events, how many of a certain weapon was sold in a particular year, etc. Opinions may not be due for inclusion, for instance Firearm is a global article and the NRA is a strictly US organisation (see WP:DUE and WP:BALASP). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I would agree with this. I think for most facts about guns they'd probably be fine - but associated controversies or BLPs I would be very very cautious. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Concur. If they're talking about the design, history or specifications of guns they're reliable. If they're talking about the social context of guns it might be attributable to the NRA if their opinion is due but should not be used to state things without attribution. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say that they are generally reliable for firearm and other related topics, though I would cite them with attribution so at least the reader knows the source of the stated information is coming from the NRA. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with everyone's comments so far. Context matters. It is a US organization, but can be useful for firearm data and information. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Bit of a wide spread here (NRA approved joke)... For basic information about firearms, their history, their use, their accessories, their manufacturers, etc they have historically been and remain reliable. What they aren't reliable for is politics (now less than ever, but never great). There are of course some topics (like firearms law) which falls into both categories, this I would be very cautious with... Attribution is I believe necessary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you your feedback @ActivelyDisinterested @Horse Eye's Back @Iljhgtn @PARAKANYAA and @Ramos1990.

Based off all your feedback it sounds like the NRA is ok for facts about firearms their operation, features, accessories, makers, and general history. But it sounds like that they should not be used for gun laws, which I may add makes sense as questions about gun laws should be answered my a lawyer or attorney. Also it sounds like they should not be used for politics.

If I have come to the wrong conclusion then please let me know. Thank you for everyone for their comments. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Not that they should "not be used for gun laws" or "politics", but that they should be used with attribution. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you for clarifying that. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 19:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that is a good summary of it. For non-contentious firearms/shooting/hunting/etc type information, material that isn't political in nature, I would treat them as an outright RS. For things related to law and politics I would treat them as biased but a reliable perspective. That is, if the NRA says a given gun law will have the following negative impacts , then attributed inclusion may be fine. Clearly they have a biased perspective but it's also one that is unlikely to be presented in most US news sources. Springee (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

They have a lot larger scope of information than most realize, with "firearms" and "politics" being only 2 of the many areas. Of course statements of opinion need to be attributed but that's about it. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@North8000: can you name a topic area other than firearms in which you would consider them a generally reliable source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what topic @North8000 may be referring to. But the NRA does have some stuff on hunting & reloading so he may mean that. But I think that the current discussion has covered everything that I need to know.

Thank you to all for your timely answers and opinions. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

(reply to above question) I don't consider ANY source to be generally or categorically reliable or unreliable...I reject such over generalizations. Actual reliability is knowledge and objectivity on the item which cited it. And of course one could say everything about NRA is firearms related. And my comment was more more info on areas other than the guns themselves and politics. With all of that said as a preface.....Some of the other areas are straightforward factual information on firearm history, straightforward factual info on itself (present and history) current and previous laws, a wide range of training fields, indoor and outdoor range design, firearm safety, the specifics of the NRA organization, history of NRA, firearms, reloading techniques,chemistry and physics, ballistics, current defensive uses of firearms, dozens of hunting-related topics etc., info about firearm, ammunition and accessory manufacturers and history of such, history of (small arms) firearms in warfare, dozens of competitions topics including sports and events. Also info on all of the dozens of firearm-related shooting sports. Also info on all of the people and publications involved in all of the above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This is a good summary about my perspective here too. Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyone know anything about Al-Kindi?

Journal publisher based in England according to their website. I'm having a look at a source that I assumed would be fine but then went down a bit of a rabbit hole and am wondering if the publisher is on the up and up. Website is opaque on ownership, has no information about who reviewers are, has a lot of up-sells like editing services at $0.06 a word and lists every academic indexing service, basically in the world, as "partners". Are these guys shady? Simonm223 (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

They charge $150 to publish process an article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but that's kind of normal, unfortunately, for open access at least. Even Springer does that. Simonm223 (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I've still not been able to find anything definitive about the general reliability of this publisher. They tend to name their journals very closely to other, more established, journals which has thrown up a lot of chaff but their journals also don't appear in the predatory journals lists I was able to access. Simonm223 (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the same issue I ran into to. Unfortunately unless they are obviously junk it's difficult to tell a journals reliability without specialist knowledge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I could find some of their journals in domains where I do have specialized knowledge and have a deep read... but I'm not sure I'm that concerned over the presence of one Alaric Naude citation regarding the linguistic history of the tetragrammaton to bother. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah! I won't comment further as BLP applies to all pages, but personally I wouldn't consider him a reliable source for anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)