Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 476#RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

Should inaturalist.org be added to the RSN list of sources? It is used on more than 6,000 articles (though some of the uses may be external links, not references), but is essentially a specialized wiki. Having some easily accessible guidance on it may be useful. Fram (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:The criteria for adding a source to the RSP can be found here WP:RSPCRITERIA. iNaturalist appears to be WP:UGC, user generated sites aren't usually listed as they are questionable sources by default. It could be possible that certain posts could be reliable under WP:EXPERTSPS if the poster could be shown to have prior publishing in the field. Although that doesn't appear to be the case with the first one I check in while doing a search[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3A%22inaturalist.org%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1].
There was some talk using a filter for UGC (and similar) sources in WT:RSP#New World Encyclopedia, but I'm hesitant as it would probably be controversial. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::@ActivelyDisinterested 65.181.9.21 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Comment With heavy caveats maybe but mostly no (the more I look at use of iNat in WP, the worse it's getting!). The problem with stating "inaturalist.org" in general is that it's almost entirely User-Generated Content that includes journal entries (basically blog posts) which are not S unless it's from a WP:EXPERTPS. There are also their taxa pages, which are lifted direct from WP, although clearly marked as such so hopefully no one would try and cite them! (eeeh) So the question is really what bit of iNat the OP is referring to?

:In relation to claims that an organism exists in an area, then we could probably consider Research Grade observations as Reliable (which seems to be what people are mostly using as references in the couple of articles I've looked through), but obviously casual observations can't be used. And having said above that I hope nobody would reference a taxa page I've just found that the first "reference" in Socca pustulosa is... a [https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1430099-Socca-pustulosa taxa page] which opens with the header "Source: Wikipedia" /facepalm. Same with Xylotrechus colonus. iNat is fantastic platform to which I personally contribute, but substantial chunks of it are unsuitable as encyclopaedic reference material.

:The only place it might be useful for is helping describe ranges/introductions - e.g. "in , observations were made in ", perhaps describing introduced or invasive species - and then only for uncontested "Research Grade" observations. Hemmers (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, it's not clear exactly what actual facts we would be sourcing to iNaturalist. I assume people are probably using iNat as a source for "X is a species" and "is commonly known as Y" because it's very convenient; these will probably mostly be accurate, but we should really be tagging those instances with "better source needed". As far as citing observations for "X is found in Y", I would treat even an uncontested RG observation with great caution. It's like citing herbarium vouchers for plant distribution: I won't say I would absolutely never do it, but rarely and with circumspection and hedging (i.e., "a specimen identified as X [by the determiner] was collected there", rather than "X was collected there"). Choess (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Comment That's probably a bug that needs to be fixed on their end. iNat pulls Wikipedia articles as the default description for a taxon, and if there's no existing article, it offers a stub template with one citation to iNaturalist so that users can start an article. My general impression, at least for plants, from browsing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/New article listing is that I'm not seeing a big influx of stubs sourced solely to iNat, but maybe some of that's being deflected by NPP and I'm not seeing that there? (I am a curator and fairly active there; more thoughts later.) Choess (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::I have seen quite a few new pages during NPP where inaturalist was the only or one of the main sources, that's how they came on my radar. But it's e.g. also used in the GA Jellyfish where [https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/780667-Desmonema-glaciale/browse_photos this] is a "source" for the claim "Desmonema glaciale, which lives in the Antarctic region, can reach a very large size (several meters)." In Taraxacum, the claim "Botanists specialising in the genus Taraxacum are sometimes called taraxacologists" is even sourced to the Inaturalist forum(!)[https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/overlooked-dandelion-diversity-in-bc-and-everywhere-in-north-america/3808/59]. The Featured Article (!!) Sea otter uses Inaturalist observations[https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6737&subview=map&taxon_id=41860] for the claim "Sightings have been documented in the waters of Cape Nosappu, Erimo, Hamanaka and Nemuro, among other locations in the region."

::Inclusion in RSNP doesn't mean a stamp of approval, in this case it should be a deterrent, marking it as generally unreliable or some such. As for the RSNP criteria, requiring previous discussions here:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387#INaturalist_photos][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_364#is_iNaturalist_a_reliable_source?][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_430#Inaturalist.org]. Fram (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I looked for prior discussions before making my comment and didn't find any, but now the discussions are in the search, either it was a blip or I messed up my search somehow. I would say the prior discussions show it meets RSPCRITERIA, anyone could add it based on summarising those. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:There is nothing on iNaturalist taxon pages that makes it worth citing as a source in a Wikipedia article. It is a valuable place to find suitably licensed photos of organisms that can be uploaded to Commons. And it has even more photos that aren't suitably licensed. For those photos, it may merit including iNat as an external link if no other photos are available (but that's an external link, not a cited source). The observation data behind the maps is already being fed from iNat to GBIF. GBIF also includes museum specimens and observations from non-iNat sources, resulting in maps with more observations. If dot maps are worth citing for the distribution of organisms, the GBIF maps are better than iNat. Aside from the photos and maps, everything on iNat is supposed to be sourced from somewhere else (including the About tab which is sourced from Wikipedia itself). Wikipedia could cite any of iNat's sources directly rather than via iNaturalist. Wikipedia is already generally following and citing the same taxonomic databases that the iNaturalist taxonomy uses.

:For Wikipedia articles that are created via the template on iNat, I guess citing iNat is better than citing nothing at all, but the iNat citation could always be replaced with something better (it took me a couple years of trying to get iNat to simply remove a taxobox parameter in their template that they were misusing, so I'm not holding my breath that their template will ever include any better citations).

:I have a couple observations on iNat data quality. It is intended to host observations of organisms. It is not intended to be a comprehensive taxonomic database. As such, its lists of lower taxa in a higher taxon (species in a genus, genera in a family) are not reliable. iNat curators are not encouraged to bother adding pages for organisms that are unlikely to be observed. It has only 145 virus species and 670 bacteria species (pretty much all of them things that infect another organism and cause a visible change in the appearance of the host). It doesn't list very many taxa known only from fossils. And if there isn't a globally comprehensive taxonomic database that covers a particular genus, a list of species in the genus may just be those in a regional source, with additional species added haphazardly as new observations/identification create a need to include them. iNat is supposed to only include vernacular (common) names that can be sourced somewhere else. But there have been names that have been made-up out of thin air on iNat. I'm pretty sure I came across one of them yesterday. We had an article on a New Zealand plant created at the title Karamingi. If you're using iNat's NZ site, karamingi is prominently displayed as the common name (if you use a non-NZ localization of iNat, you can find it listed as a Maori name if you scroll down the taxonomy section). I can't find karamingi attested anywhere on the internet aside from iNat (and some iNat observations rehosted on another site). But it is a hybrid of plants with the Maori names "karamū" and "mingimingi". Plantdrew (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have no real opinion on whether iNaturalist warrants inclusion on WP:RSPS currently, although if so maybe it should combined with other similar citizen science sites like eBird, but as I've said in previous discussions on RSN, iNaturalist should almost never be used as a reliable source. Individual observations, even "Research Grade" ones, are primary sources, and extremely easy to misuse, especially for new or controversial claims (new species and new range extensions are sometimes initially noted by iNaturalist users, but it often takes researchers following up to obtain specimens or otherwise verify records "on the ground" and publish them in reliable sources). Inferring the range or distributions of a species using iNaturalist postings is akin to going into a museum, examining various collection labels on individual specimens, and publishing a range map, e.g. original research; the fact that many museum collections are now searchable online doesn't mean those historic records are any less primary. The taxonomy the iNaturalist uses for any particular taxon may not necessarily be the one that Wikipedia uses (for good reason: taxonomy Wikipedia should be somewhat conservative, not flipping every time a new classification is published), and the common names that iNaturalist users suggest may have little usage in real life: especially for obscure invertebrates and fungi, most of which have no colloquially used "common name". I've seen people invent and add "common names" based on trivia like descriptive terms used on a single amateur blog post ("big green and black beetle") or an online breeder trying to market their exotic critters with sexy names. In short, nearly every bit of data on iNaturalist is already covered by better sources, and any data that hasn't been vetted or covered elsewhere is WP:UNDUE at best, WP:OR at worst. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to add it ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources%2F4&diff=1288453231&oldid=1287399144]) based on what looks like consensus here and from the previous discussions. Please correct or revert if I was technically or factually wrong! Fram (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

swarajyamag is blacklisted. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2023/08#swarajyamag.com/culture/how-catholic-repackaging-of-an-indian-fable-destroyed-its-purposerequested to whitelist one article], swarajyamag.com/culture/how-catholic-repackaging-of-an-indian-fable-destroyed-its-purpose , was advised to post here to evalluate its individual reliability, but happily forgot about it. Requesting now. For me, it looks like a solid scholarly article, an analysis of one Tamili joke cycle. Whatever content is overlapping with other sources, there are no contradiction, but it also contains some additional observations. Unfortunately I cannot read hindi or tamili or whatever, so I cannot find other sources to replace this one. The author is descibed [https://en.dharmapedia.net/wiki/Aravindan_Neelakandan here] (Yes, I am aware it is Wiki, but again, I cannot read அரவிந்தன் நீலகண்டன் , so I cannot write an en-wiki article about him, but frankly, I dont care) and appears to have publisehd [https://www.amazon.com/Books-Aravindan-Neelakandan/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AAravindan%2BNeelakandan quite a few books]. --Altenmann >talk 06:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe you could give what you want to support with the source? This looks like a case where WP:RSCONTEXT is rather relevant. The author is well published but appears to be quite controversial. So the more controversial the content it's meant to support the more likely a better source will be needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::I see. The only part that may be considered controversial is:

:::Neelakandan notices that while the Hindu treatise used this story to elaborate on wisdom, commenters wrote that Beschi's goal was to satirize Hindu monks. The reason is that Buddhist monasteries were seen as an obstacle for Christian proselytizing. In particular, the "counting" story portrays monks as fools and an ordinary Hindu as a con man. Combined with the teachings that Catholic missionaries are enlightening the Tamils, Beschi's book essentially imposed the feeling of civilizational inferiority onto the colonized people.

::But it is stated as an opinion, rather than a matter of fact, so I do not see a problem here. As you wrote yourself, the author is well published, not only books but in magazines as well, so he may be controversial; being Hindu-nationalistic, but definitely not a crackpot. Ha was even [https://www.bbc.com/tamil/multimedia/2013/01/130112_aravindaniv interviewed by BBC]. And this opinion is rather in line with opinions about all Cristian proselytizers of the past. For example I've seen similar statements about treatment of Old Prussians by invading "crucifers". --Altenmann >talk 20:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry I don't have enough knowledge to give a good answer to this, hopefully another editor will chime in. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

: {{small|Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 08:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}}

This was brought up in Greenfield tornado's FAC, but Ethan Moriarty's source on the June First YouTube channel is used once in the article already. He also uploaded a new video very recently discussing more in depth about storm chasers and the tornado (alongside the Macksburg EF3). Since there was quite a bit of pushback, I want to get a bit more consensus before adding or removing anything.

• Moriarty has a master's in engineering. He doesn't have any inherent quality on severe weather, to my knowledge.
• His YouTube channel, June First, contains generally well-produced videos.
• These videos, however, do not cite their sources outside of the video.
• June First's website is [https://www.junefirstweather.com/ junefirstweather.com].
• On various subpages of this website, June First (Ethan and several others) present themselves professionally, connecting themselves to Quinnipiac University and several other PhD researchers in a professional setting - see the Engineering Projects subheader.
• {{Green|Copywrite}} is spelt wrong on all subpages. That stood out to me, but other than that, no obvious flaws.
• The two June First sources I'm interested are both YouTube videos.
• The first is already in the article, in section {{green|#Damage analysis}} - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPUOFn8IYP8 Was Greenfield an EF5 Tornado? - DAMAGE ANALYSIS: Greenfield, IA EF4 on YouTube].
• The second is a newer video I want to add to {{green|#Tornado summary}} - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRQRF7TgC7M Greenfield: Iowa's Controversial Tornado on YouTube].

Is June First as a collective reliable for this article? The reliability of them as a source is questionable, but with attribution, would be great for adding comprehensiveness to the article. Departure– (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Unreliable - YouTube as a whole is unreliable, and sources aren’t cited, the biggest red flag to me — EF5 ^(questions?) 14:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::I will point out, the video in question is layed out more like a physical mathmatics proof, resembling that of a academic-paper-style of proof, and all the "steps"/"work" is shown on the video. Doing calculations and showing those calculations would probably fall maybe under WP:CALC / WP:BLUE. Does he need to cite why 2+2=4, for instance? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The type of surveying work he's doing is a lot more in-depth than "2+2=4". They're, yes, what you'd expect in an academic paper, but the question is whether or not Moriarty has the qualifications to have his word taken at face value. Departure– (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Sure, but YouTube is unreliable. So, no, Moriarty isn’t reliable. — EF5 ^(questions?) 14:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::YouTube is a self-published source and can't be put as wholly unreliable at a website basis - see WP:RSPYOUTUBE. Reliability should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in my view, which is why I'm bringing this here. Departure– (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Fine. In that case, “He doesn't have any inherent quality on severe weather” is enough for me to say unreliable. We have no idea his expertise on severe weather, which is the overarching point of his channel. — EF5 ^(questions?) 14:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::But his analysis is from an engineering perspective. In the video, he shows the physical mathematical proof (basically working through it like a long physic-math problem). Does a meteorologist need to work through the same mathematical proof to be considered reliable on a parking stop being moved by the winds of a tornado? I'm not saying you are wrong, but in terms of this exact question, based on the statements cited, this is not meteorological, but engineering topics. For example, "{{tq|He calculated that winds of at least 247 miles per hour (398 km/h) were needed to rip the concrete stop blocks out of the ground if they were cracked prior to being pulled up, or 283 miles per hour (455 km/h) if they were uncracked prior to being ripped out of the ground.}}" Who would be qualified to say that sentence? That is the general question. Does he qualify as being reliable specifically from an engineering perspective; i.e. is he reliable to do mathematical & physics-based calculations on damage from a tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{tq|But his analysis is from an engineering perspective}} is true only for his engineering videos. He doesn’t just do engineering, which is the issue. For example, his “why there haven’t been EF5s” video doesn’t factor in his engineering expertise — EF5 ^(questions?) 15:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Additional Comments – Not giving a full WP:!VOTE yet, just some more context to all the info above. The video referenced in the Greenfield tornado article is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPUOFn8IYP8 this video]. No outside sources are listed, but for 46 minutes, Moriarty explains the damage from an engineering perspective (mathmatical & physics-based proof shown). Additionally, Moriarty is used in several sections with several references on the Disagreements on the intensity of tornadoes article and the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado article. I will give a full !VOTE later. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• The block of text sourced to YouTube analysis is this:

:::

In addition to radar data, an analysis by mechanical engineer Ethan Moriarty noted that across the street from the Adair County Memorial Hospital, the tornado ripped new concrete parking lot stop blocks from the ground, which were installed sometime after August 2023. He calculated that winds of at least 247 miles per hour (398 km/h) were needed to rip the concrete stop blocks out of the ground if they were cracked prior to being pulled up, or 283 miles per hour (455 km/h) if they were uncracked prior to being ripped out of the ground. The tornado, once nearly a mile wide at one point, had shrunk in size significantly before impacting Greenfield, with the conservation of angular momentum, a concept where rotational acceleration increases as a rotating body contracts, being a potential explanation for the tornado's intensity near the end of its life. In the conclusion of his analysis, Moriarty stated that he believed the tornado was "without question a tornado capable of EF5 damage", while stating that, had the tornado been rated on a scale other than the Enhanced Fujita scale, it may have received a higher rating.

:YouTube enthusiasts are Not Reliable for tornado ratings or physics. I also have concerns that a current shibboleth in online tornado fandom, a belief that National Weather Service experts are systematically under-rating intense tornados, might be a POV that's creeping into Wikipedia through use of low-quality, excessively "online" sourcing, as may be the case with this text. Geogene (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Well, it’s a belief with reliable sources to back it up (see EF5 drought!) — EF5 ^(questions?) 16:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::But yes, there usually is an influx of “EF scale bad” users during tornado season. The Wx community tends to be on the younger side (also backed up in a reliable source) so it’s no surprise people hold strong opinions that lead to NOTFORUM situations. — EF5 ^(questions?) 16:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Exactly. Look at all the low quality sourcing in EF5 drought. Blogs, YouTube, a primary journal or two, and the rest of it journalism. Is there a wider source quality problem in Wikipedia's tornado articles? Geogene (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I’m going to have to strongly disagree with the notion that every source in that article is unreliable, but this is about Moriarty and not every tornado article. If you want to reach a wider community base, bring it up at WT:WEATHER. — EF5 ^(questions?) 17:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I didn't say {{tq|every source in that article is unreliable}}. I noted it's an entire article, ostensibly about climatology, cobbled together from newspapers and Weather Channel-like infotainment. This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where sourcing is discussed, and which takes precedence over whatever local consensus might exist at Project Weather. Geogene (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|cobbled together from newspapers and Weather Channel-like infotainment}} is how weather articles are written, how else would you want to see them sourced? A reliable source is a reliable source, no matter how "low-quality" you think it is. We don't have hyperscientific, NWS-based studies for everything; this isn't WP:ASTRONOMY. — EF5 ^(questions?) 18:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{ping|EF5|Geogene}} Speaking from experience you will find that as weather articles develop, expand and grow, sources such as the Weather Channel get dropped and replaced with more reliable and better quality sources such as damage reports from the NCDC, local NDMO or even the WMO which help tell the story better. You will find that using high quality reliable sources sourcing, is a part of the FAC criteria and that the Weather Project has had to justify the use of certain sources.Jason Rees (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Jason Rees, you're very much right in that, but we shouldn't be expecting FA-level sourcing for every weather article. Geogene and I will just have to agree-to-disagree, then. — EF5 ^(questions?) 22:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ping|EF5}} While I agree with you that we cant expect every single weather article to have high quality reliable sources all of the time, what we can do is ensure that the scope of the article is appropriate. For example I personally wonder if the EF5 Drought article wouldn't be better off being summarized in the List of F5, EF5, and IF5 tornadoes with the list being cleaned up to look something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_South_Pacific_severe_tropical_cyclones this]. As for your disagreement with {{ping|Geogene}}, I would state that their beliefs are interesting and worthy of some thought on how to better present the information.Jason Rees (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there.

In the retrospective reviews section of "Romeo + Juliet" I wanted to highlight how some retrospectives have come to a very smiilar conclusion about this film, years later. One of the sources to do this is https://www.maketheswitch.com . au/article/feature-romeo-and-juliet-20-years-on - and I was hoping I could cite just this page and the quote "There's so much in this film that enhances not only an understanding of classical works, but of modern language". I understand this site may be reliable in other ways, but this review mirrors others, so I personally would consider this one page a reliable source and am not sure if an exception could be made.

(This is my first time engaging with this process, so I hope that's enough context. I was actually only trying to add this source to my "Changes" comment to start with, hoping discussion might be sparked there) I'll paste my original comment below:

/* Retrospective reviews */ Added retrospective reviews. There's one that backs up another quote. I thought this would highlight agreement. However the second source is deemed unreliable. If it mirrors a reliable source can it _then_ be included as a second source? https://web.archive.org/web/20240616160138/https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/feature-romeo-and-juliet-20-years-on "There's so much in this film that enhances not only an understanding of classical works, but of modern language"

UPDATE: Err, this page bans banned linked but seems to be the page for asking about banned links. How does one get around this catch-22? I've added some spaces, hoping that will work! Retnee (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:The site was blacklisted because they were spamming links into articles, sources aren't blacklisted on reliability. You can ask for specific links to be whitelisted on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.
There doesn't appear to have been any discussion on the sites reliability. From looking at their 'about us' page[https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about] their contributors range from people with decades of experience in media to someone who worked at a cinema. I would say the reliability of their reviews would depend on who wrote it. Unfortunately the review for 'Romeo + Juliet' was written by someone who doesn't appear have any background in media other than a amateur passion for film. It's not easy to find any details about them, but they appear in this archived 'about us' page[https://web.archive.org/web/20170326105429/https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about]. If you can I would suggest finding a different source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Closed|reason=OP has been topic banned and can't reply to this discussion. Any editor in good standing can open a new section if required, but leaving this one open invites a topic ban violation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)}}

On the "Vinland" and "Norse Colonization of North America" articles there has been a debate ongoing about "reliable sources." I have been mantaining that these two authors and their 1965 book "The Vinland Sagas" fall squarely in the "reliable source" category. But there is major resistance.

Magnus Magnusson - Wikipedia

Hermann Pálsson - Wikipedia

"The Vinland Sagas" by Magnusson and Palsson is still highly regarded today. When it first appeared in 1965 it was reviewed by Prof. Erik Walgren who said, "A very significant contribution to scholarly thinking about the Vinland sagas is the translation, together with brilliant commentary, by Magnusson and Pálsson... That such a book as this is in paperback and costs less than a dollar is almost too good to be true. We hope that it will circulate by the thousands as a major contribution to public understanding of Icelandic literature and American history." [Scandinavian Studies", Nov. 1965] The book is still being cited today and has been assigned as a college level textbook. Is this book a "reliable source" for Wikipedia? Rockawaypoint (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think it's black and white. Can you give a couple of examples of content supported by this source that are contested? Is it contradicted by more recent scholarly sources? Alaexis_¿question? 19:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Alaexis}}, as Rockawaypoint has just received a topic-ban from Vikings, broadly construed, I would not expect a follow-up response. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Moved discussion from|Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Washington Free Beacon| Aaron Liu (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)}}

I find it somewhat perplexing that the Washington Free Beacon is listed as "generally unreliable". It looks like it was last discussed in 2020. Meanwhile, the Washington Examiner and Washington Times are listed as "no consensus." In the conservative mediasphere, I would argue that in the present day, we have that pretty much backwards. See [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/25/aaron-sibarium-conservative-media-00117899 Politico] and [https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/01/04/free-beacon-harvard-claudine-gay/ The Washington Post]. The Post described the Free Beacon as "The rare media outlet on the right devoted to original reporting was ahead of the pack on the story about plagiarism allegations against university president Claudine Gay..." They are doing original reporting that is being picked up by mainstream outlets (WP:USEBYOTHERS). They seem to meet WP:NEWSORG while being WP:BIASED. Can someone help me understand why this outlet seems to have been effectively blacklisted? And is this the appropriate venue for re-upping past discussion, or should we do that at WP:RSN? Marquardtika (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:FYI, this has been on my mind because of Tara McGowan. She was married and is now divorced and dating U.S. Senator Chris Murphy. However, the only sources mentioning her divorce are the [https://freebeacon.com/democrats/lust-for-power-dem-senator-chris-murphy-ditches-wife-for-soros-funded-soap-opera-villainess-tara-mcgowan/ Washington Free Beacon] and the [https://nypost.com/2025/03/10/us-news/dem-sen-chris-murphy-caught-cuddling-on-date-with-progressive-media-publisher/ New York Post]. So without [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tara_McGowan&diff=1283185462&oldid=1281479373 being able to use these sources], her article makes it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tara_McGowan&diff=1283203939&oldid=1283185462 appear that she's still married] while dating another man. Which seems like a WP:BLP issue, no? Is using the Free Beacon worse than erroneously stating that someone is still married yet dating someone else? Because AFAICT, that seems to be the party line on Wikipedia, which leaves me scratching my head...Marquardtika (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::The divorce is also noted by [https://washingtondigest.com/sen-chris-murphy-spotted-out-with-media-figure-amid-marital-separation/ Washington Digest]. I'm not familiar with that site but their About Us says the right stuff and their home page doesn't look tabloid-ish or click-baity. (I know the thread is about WFB, just hoped to help with the McGowan issue.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for weighing in. Washington Digest looks sketchy to me. It lists its address as being in Austin, Texas, which seems strange since it's a site about Washington, D.C., so I did some digging. It is published by [https://americandigestmedia.com/ American Digest Media] which is funded by a fellow named [https://connellmedia.com/ Shaun Connell]. The article reads kind of like it was created by AI. Marquardtika (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That's also clearly made with WordPress. (I doubt it ever proclaims to be about local DC news, though.) Aaron Liu (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::A single source should not be used in that context anyways... Your desired use case leaves me scratching my head... Even if its reliable you can't use it for that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:You can see the reasons in the discussions linked. RSN is the right venue. I can move this there if you want me to. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, if you would move it that would be great, thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:the original "RFC" is here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_291#Using_The_Washington_Free_Beacon_in_politically_related_BLPs_-_is_it_an_RS?

:* i see 5 votes to deprecate, 1 vote to say unreliable but don't deprecate, and 1 vote saying reliable. that's hardly an RFC

:* some of those claims in the RFC are interesting, might be worth asking if WFB is worth it in BLP claims, especially for highly salacious details

:* they seem to have trappings of an editorial control [https://freebeacon.com/masthead/], and their editor in chief has somewhat impressive credentials suggesting some control and review [https://www.politico.com/staff/eliana-johnson]

:Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::That wasn't an RfC, and it looks like there was no RfC requirement for deprecation back then. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:"Generally" unreliable doesn't mean unreliable in all cases, so for a claim that's pretty much the opposite of WP:EXCEPTIONAL (for example, that someone who is dating has divorced their ex) I expect editors ought to be able to use there judgement as to what source is best. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tqb|Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable.|source=WP:GUnRel}}This is not any of the latter and a very tabloid affair, and I wouldn't have IAR'd without making sure of the Examiner's reliability. Aaron Liu (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, tabloids are not reliable, and I don't think there would be a different answer here, but WP:GUNREL doesn't override WP:RSCONTEXT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The only contexts in which such GUnRel sources should be used are probably as a primary source, which is indeed also mentioned in GUnRel; perhaps you know of some other context in which they should be used? Saying things about a living person's romantic life is squarely within BLP territory in which GUnRel sourcing definitely qualifies as "poorly sourced" and removed-on-sight per WP:BLPRS. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::We should always used the best available source, but that clause of the policy indicates, also as part of the bolded text, that it applies to {{em|contentious}} material. I find it hard to believe that a claim that someone who is dating other people has divorced their ex could be reasonably argued to be contentious, but either way, such an argument would not be in the scope of {{em|this}} noticeboard. If one wishes to raise the argument that relationship trivia is gossipy junk, then I would take the position that it shouldn't be included regardless of whether or not there's a passing mention in a slightly better source. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Off topic, but why should we note who she is currently dating? Wikipedia is not a gossip rag. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, you could have a point there. It was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tara_McGowan&diff=1279759748&oldid=1277690734 added] here by an IP address with a link to Semafor. I didn't add it, but guessing it was of interest since she's a major player in the media and he's an elected official. But could definitely be worth a separate discussion. Marquardtika (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It got the GU based on two discussions which are at at least that level. If you want to elevate its status, I'd set up another RFC. This risks lowering its status too, of course - David Gerard (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, we should definitely have an RFC about this. I don't think it would be "another" RFC though, since I am not seeing a past RFC...just a couple of discussions from years ago with a handful of editors. Marquardtika (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• I agree with the observations made by the OP. Which were him agreeing with my observations earlier :-) But yeah, we have it pretty much backwards. Free Beacon is a little better than some of the others in my experience and I think RS will bear that out. Andre🚐 18:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

An RFC is a good idea. There should be a clear distinction between the pre- and post-2018/2019 eras of WFB. In the first, it presented a journalistic veneer over what was essentially a political advocacy project, leading to many of the concerns raised in the 2020 discussion. Since then, however, it has functioned as a serious WP:NEWSORG when reporting facts. Much of the previous discussion occurred before the transition in newsroom leadership from Matthew Continetti, a political commentator, to Eliana Johnson, a professional journalist. Longhornsg (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed that there is a relevant divide at play here from Continetti to Johnson and a new RfC would be useful. - Amigao (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hey all, it sounds like there is consensus for an RFC. I started a draft at User:Marquardtika/sandbox. I have never done this before and welcome any feedback (also feel free to edit my sandbox directly, I don't mind). Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

In Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia&diff=prev&oldid=1288000857 introduced] BLP content sourced to The Megyn Kelly Show, a podcast that can be heard on several platforms (e.g., SiriusXM, Apple, Spotify) and that also plays on Megyn Kelly's YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/@MegynKelly channel]. Although she is a former TV show host, my sense is that this show is self-published. In [https://x.com/megynkelly/status/1888967995424202919 this tweet], she said that the show is 100% owned by her. If it's self-published, it cannot be used as a source for BLP content about others, per WP:BLPSPS. I tried discussing the publication status with the other editor on the article's talk page, but the two of us didn't resolve it, and we've also had conflicting views on some other things, so I figured I'd ask here in the hopes of getting an outside opinion. Pinging @Mkstokes in case you want to participate in this discussion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I no longer care, @FactOrOpinion. You have challenged every single edit that I've made or suggested. Think about that. Every single one, literally. And never on grounds that the information that I'm providing is wrong. Rather, you just either want it deleted or stated in a way that either softens the impact or completely diminishes it. I'm fine with the article being misleading just like every other political article on Wikipedia, espectially if it has anything to do with Donald Trump. You win. Mkstokes (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Mkstokes}} It doesn't matter whether the information is right or not. It matters whether it is able to be verified. That is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. It is non-negotiable. If the only sources you can find for things are not reliable, secondary sources, then that information is not able to be included in Wikipedia. Ask yourself this - if something really is true, why can you only find low-quality sources for it? Just because you believe something does not mean it is true. Just because you can find some sources to agree with you doesn't mean it's true. I can find "sources" that say vaccines cause autism - even though that has been thoroughly debunked and is blatantly false. That is why we require high quality sources that have been reviewed by others who are trustworthy and have a reputation for fact-checking for their accuracy.{{pb}}{{ping|FactOrOpinion}} The Megyn Kelly Show is an interview show/podcast. It's been picked up by SiriusXM, but it is ultimately an interview/talk show. So I think it'd be important to look at who is being interviewed - in this case, Will Chamberlain purportedly (I haven't reviewed the actual podcast to confirm). It may be appropriate in some cases to use an interview from the Megyn Kelly Show as the citation of the person who is the guest. But that is still a primary source, and it's definitely not appropriate to use for controversial information about living people. On the other hand, if she hosts Neil deGrasse Tyson and he talks about astrophysics, it may be appropriate to include him in line with WP:SPS, even though he didn't "publish" it - just like it may be appropriate if he wrote a guest opinion essay in the NYT it may be appropriate to source it for his views. Unless there's evidence that the Megyn Kelly Show is maliciously editing what guests say... that would change things. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::-bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez, thanks, I'm only asking whether it's self-published, since it's not the case that all interview shows/podcasts are self-published. I understand the rest. There is no noticeboard that specifically focuses on questions of self-publication, and I brought it here because I know that SPS questions are sometimes discussed here, and this is the noticeboard that Wikipedia:Verifiability/Noticeboard redirects to. The edit is a statement by Will Chamberlain about Kilmar Abrego Garcia's lawyer, not a statement by Chamberlain about himself. If others agree with me that the show is self-published, then I will delete the quote as a BLPSPS violation.

:::Mkstokes, you've previously called WP a "game," so perhaps that's why you think in terms of someone "winning." I am not trying to "win." I am trying to abide by relevant policies, and am seeking outside opinions since you wouldn't resolve this particular issue with me, and in the hopes that if it turned out that other editors agreed with me, you wouldn't dismiss their opinions the way you dismiss mine. Your claim "You have challenged every single edit that I've made or suggested" is false. I've challenged several of your edits because I believe they are inconsistent with policy; I didn't challenge others. Here are examples of some that I didn't challenge: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia&diff=prev&oldid=1288308100 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia&diff=prev&oldid=1286316927 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia&diff=prev&oldid=1286143825 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia&diff=prev&oldid=1286082996 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia&diff=prev&oldid=1286081708 5] (and there were a number of smaller ones too). I wish you would stop making false claims about me. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, as it is now, it pushes up against BLPSPS - but the information that's being presented (that MS-13 has cliques in the DC area and that the government has at least once before claimed that the Western clique operates in the DC area in a court filing) by this quote isn't really BLP information. I wonder if everything but the first sentence he is quoted saying were removed, would that satisfy your concerns over it being BLP information? Because then it would only be making a claim about the DOJ's historical filings and/or the gang itself - neither of which are BLP information. Part of the "introductory paragraph" (the paragraph proceeding the quote) would need removed as well. But the information about the DOJ filings is already present in the article (under the section "2019 detention and bond hearings") cited to the Washington Examiner - and in that Examiner article they themselves cite Chamberlain's Twitter thread.{{pb}}In other words, is it maybe not as urgent to remove the entire statement by Chamberlain, but perhaps just change it so it is not information related to the living person and then tie it in with the Examiner article that's cited at the other point of the article? I don't have a strong opinion either way - I'm just trying to help find a middle ground because I can see how it's confusing to someone that we cite an Examiner article to include information which the source gets from Chamberlain, but we can't cite Chamberlain himself explaining that same information in an interview. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It was the statement about Abrego Garcia's lawyer that I was the most concerned about. I'm guessing that Chamberlain would meet the EXPERTSPS qualification, though I haven't investigated. Is he an RS for that sentence ("the Western clique does actually operate in Maryland and DOJ has routinely claimed that in any number of filings, plea agreements, indictments"), and does it add anything to what we already have? I don't know. The example he gave on Twitter was from a RICO case filed in 2010 with over 700 entries in the case docket, ~20 defendants, several superseding indictments, ..., so for all I know, he's just talking about filings, plea agreements, and indictments from that one case. If I only heard his statement and didn't know anything more, I'd have assumed that he meant multiple cases, and that the info is current. Does he have evidence beyond that one case? I don't know. In [https://x.com/willchamberlain/status/1912955637903786314 another] tweet, he suggests that a 2015 article "echoes" what he found in the one indictment he cited. But it turns out that that article is based on a different part of the very same indictment. (Did he know this and pretend that it was different? Did he not know this because he didn't check? I don't know.) In other tweets he says things like "likely lying" and "likely" a gang member, as if he had some way to judge the likelihood.

:::::I don't mind citing the Washington Examiner piece because the DOJ statement is clear (and I see the DOJ indictment as the underlying source, not Chamberlain; he's just noting that he found it and not doing any particular secondary analysis). It's probably OK with me to limit it to the first sentence and add it to the "2019 detention and bond hearings" section, but I'm still a little iffy about whether he's an RS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Berchanhimez GroundNews uses external independent organizations to determine if news organization left, right, center, etc. So does AllSides. What does Wikipedia use? It's own editors. So it's definition of "reliable sources" is ny nature biased. So let's stop the preaching, okay. Furthermore, reputable researchers value secondary sources over primary sources, period. So let's stop with the bullshit. No Ph.D defends their dissertation by exclusively citing secondary resources. So Wikipedia has it completely backwards. For instance, the vast majority of SCOTUS cases aren't covered in the national media by Wikipedia defined reliable sources. Only "low quality" sources noted the COVID-19 protocols were unscientific and the source of the virus itself was a lab leak. So what the he'll are you talking about? So-called "high quality" sources got it wrong! So spare me the bullshit, okay? All you've said is that the media machine has a monopoly on the truth. Welcome to Orwell's 1984, then. 🫡🇺🇸 Mkstokes (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I believe strongly in representing all sides: not just sources with a reputation for expertise, accuracy, and fact-checking, but also sources known for their ignorance, for patterns of dishonesty, for their indifference to the truth, or for their lack of professional standards. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::All sources are biased and that specifically includes any source that claims it's not, such as groundnews or allsides. Their opinions on reliability and political stance have zero relation to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it's those policies and guidelines that determine reliability not editors opinions.
Wikipedia is built on secondary sources and by restating what high quality sources report rather than what editors personally believe is right or wrong, this is by design. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::AllSides does not evaluate source accuracy or credibility, so it is irrelevant for determining whether a source is reliable. The WP:BLPSPS policy applies to all claims from all sources regardless of political orientation. — Newslinger talk 13:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Mkstokes}} your *belief* that COVID was from a lab leak or that the protocols were ineffective is your right. Both of those are blatantly and demonstrably proven wrong though. You are claiming that because you can find sources that agree with your narrative, they must be high quality. That’s simply not true. If you want to trust sources that have a proven track record of outright lying, misleading, not making corrections when they’re proven wrong.. that’s your right. But it doesn’t mean that others will do the same, nor that other people will ever listen to you. It has nothing related to 1984 at all. In fact, you trying to say that because you believe something it must be included - that’s closer to 1984 than people prohibiting conspiracy theories from being parroted on Wikipedia.{{pb}}To summarize, you have every right to believe demonstrably false things, and even conspiracy theories. But you don’t have the right to force others to listen to you parrot those falsehoods or conspiracy theories. Also, stop using those emoji at the end of your statements. It’s patronizing and rude. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 15:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Sorry for commenting again, but Mkstokes, you are the only person here that's pushing the idea that only certain media sources are appropriate. In fact, Wikipedia uses a wide range of sources - if you go to any article, unless it is about a current event (for which "media" is the only sources that are going to be available), I think you'll find that well under half of the sources are "media". And you talk about "reputable researchers" valuing secondary sources - Wikipedia does too! If you value secondary sources so much, why are you pushing so hard to use primary sources (interviews with this one person, or his tweets) to include something in this article? Lastly, you claim that the "vast majority" of SCOTUS cases aren't covered in the media - this is demonstrably untrue itself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I wonder whether Mkstokes knows what confirmation bias is. George Ho (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::-bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez, based on everything that Mkstokes has said on Talk:Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, I'm guessing that when he wrote "reputable researchers value secondary sources over primary sources, period," he actually meant "reputable researchers value primary sources over secondary sources, period." For example, on that talk page, he's said things like: {{tq2|Wikipedia is the only place on the planet that refuses to use primary source materials for articles about a living person. Rather, it will only use secondary source material about a living person. So, even if the Supreme Court says X, if a "reliable" secondary source doesn't write about it, X is deemed to not exist on Wikipedia for living persons. Meanwhile, in this same article, we are looking askew at "hearsay" evidence. Secondary sourcing almost by definition is hearsay, which is why every academic institution on the planet prioritizes primary source information over secondary source information.}}

:::::This is why he says "Wikipedia has it completely backwards" and why he's "pushing so hard." He especially wants to be able to cite court documents in the article, and has repeatedly argued against the BLPPRIMARY proscription against using court documents as sources for WP content about living persons. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I mean, ultimately, I understand why BLPPRIMARY specifically calls out "trial transcripts", but I do slightly disagree with it. For example, if I have a Wikipedia article (which I don't), and I'm found guilty of a crime by a court, then I don't see why - other than an abundance of caution - it would be problematic to cite the court's final ruling of guilt for that crime. While I disagree with Mkstokes that "the vast majority of SCOTUS cases aren't covered in the national media by Wikipedia defined reliable sources" - but I would agree that the vast majority of state/local court cases aren't covered in secondary sources, often even if the person is otherwise notable. There is obviously a question over whether it is due to include such convictions in the first place - but technically it would violate BLPPRIMARY to include the court's final ruling as the source for the simple statement of "X was found guilty of (crime) by (court)".{{pb}}I've gotten off topic I think now, so I'll leave it with this - even if my view that the above would be okay (using a court record of a conviction as a primary source for that simple statement of fact that anyone who looks at the court record would be able to clearly see stated in it) is accepted (which it isn't); that still would not allow Mkstokes to cite the claims made by one party during the court case as a primary source for information about a living person. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:If Megyn Kelly owns her own show "100%", then yes, I would consider that self-published. Woodroar (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree. Per WP:RS, it doesn't matter if the content is accurate or not. It matters that MK is the person responsible for approving what she reports. That makes it effectively self published. It would be a bit like the editorial board of a news paper publishing their views on a topic. In such a case we would treat the information like an editorial, not normal factual reporting. Springee (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Springee That's a very good point. If the editorial board of the New York Times provides an opinion about a political issue, it can be cited because it's a reliable source, even though be definition it is also self-published. Yet there is a blanket ban against self-published citations for WP:BLP. The editorial board of the New York Times is untimately responsible for approving EVERYTHING they publish. As for all comments from @Berchanhimez and @George Ho, they aren't worth responding. I'm for getting the story 100% correct, period. Wikipedia's policies ensure the opposite and would NEVER be used by a reliable source. Imagine the New York Times saying it's journalist can't use primary source info?!? That's seems strange to me. In this case, Abrego Garcia is the source of the claim that he illegally arrived in the U.S. around March 25, 2011. This article is supposed to be following the policy of WP:BLP. Yet we can't even add to the mainspace a claim made by the living person whom this page is about! That seems strange to me as well. Mkstokes (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The limitation on the use of self-published sources in articles about living people isn't just a matter of reliability. The WP:Biographies of living persons policy imposes limitations beyond just reliability, WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPPRIMARY are based on concerns other than just verifying content to reliable sources. They're not something that can be ignored or argued away, other than attempting to change those policies. If the subject has made a statement about themselves, specifically only about themselves, than it can be used per WP:ABOUTSELF that is a limited exception though. It can't be a person making statements about a third party in anyway. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Your claim that "In this case, Abrego Garcia is the source of the claim that he illegally arrived in the U.S. around March 25, 2011 ... Yet we can't even add to the mainspace a claim made by the living person whom this page is about!" is mistaken. If Abrego Garcia himself had made a statement about himself in a self-published source, then we could use it as a source, as long as that source and the WP content abide by WP:BLPSELFPUB. The problem is that you wish to use a court document in which someone else makes a claim about what Abrego Garcia said. That is not an example of BLPSELFPUB. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|It would be a bit like the editorial board of a news paper publishing their views on a topic. In such a case we would treat the information like an editorial, not normal factual reporting.}} This isn't true; or, at least, it's missing a vital piece. WP:RSOPINION is for opinion-pieces in sources that are otherwise reliable, ie. the publisher must have proper editorial controls and the {{tq| reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} RS requires, even when being cited as an opinion. RSOPINION doesn't automatically make all opinions published everywhere reliable as long as we add attribution, it allows us to use opinions published in reliable sources. An opinion published in a SPS (or other unreliable source, ie. one with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or one that has no meaningful editorial controls) cannot be used even with attribution, outside of the limited restrictions allowed by SPS. And obviously this violates SPS. --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:With regard to talk shows, in no universe were any of them ever considered reliable for statements of fact. I suppose some of them might be used under WP:RSOPINION, assuming consideration of due weight, though that would indeed not be an option for self-published shows such as this one.

:To be honest though, I don't think the unreliability of the source is the main issue here, I expect the treating of Wikipedia as a battleground is the primary inhibitor towards productive collaboration. Ultimately, if one wishes to right great wrongs, I can only say that Wikipedia, not being the root cause of those wrongs, is not a place that can resolve those wrongs. We are not responsible for the reliability or lack thereof of sources that chose to take certain points of view, and if an editor wouldn't accept that, I don't think there is much we can do other than move on. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that Berliner Morgenpost (morgenpost.de) is cited quite a lot in articles that are related to politics, news, sports etc. Which also includes currently relevant people, events and organizations, such as Friedrich Merz or Alternative for Germany. I wondered if such a small newspaper can be considered a reliable source and can be safely used in articles with such high relevance? Kacza195 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Can you explain a bit more in which contexts you're unsure about the reliablity of the Morgenpost? Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::That is a German source. Not even sure if we can evaluate it adequately. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::I see that, for example, Berliner Morgenpost is used in an article about demographics of Berlin, including number of countries its residents originate from, percentage of migrants, which foreign languages dominate etc. But also murders of M. Nils, I. Abdulkadir and Matiullah Jabarkhil by German law enforcement, their reporting of arrests and altercations with Hells Angels and Bandidos in Germany, National Democratic Party/The Homeland's stance on Rudolf Hess, Friedrich Merz personal life, Berlin Pride attendance in 2019 and so on. I wondered if Berliner Morgenpost can be considered reliable enough to be used as a source in such cases. Kacza195 (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ok, thanks for going into detail. I'd say it can be considered reliable per WP:Newsorg as a well established newspaper. Also looks like Berliner Morgenpost didn't get into any trouble with the German Press Council, which would've been the case if there were grave issues with its reliability (only searched back ~10 years). With the topics you described, there should be coverage from multiple sources available. I'd opt for a non-newspaper reliable source where availabe. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:The German article might be of interest here, as well as WP:NONENG. FortunateSons (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:First, let me admit that I have never been to Berlin, and the couple of German classes I had to take as an undergrad were decades ago. But I looked at this and it seems to be reliable for "local items" such as the water shortage there, etc. Also they cover politics given that they are in Berlin. But they would not be reliable for comments on the economy of China etc. given their local nature, and lack of worldwide reporters, etc. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Would you consider it reliable for topics and events outside of Berlin but within Germany? Kacza195 (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I would assume yes, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Generally speaking, larger regional German newspapers are reliable within the entire country or even all of Central Europe. FortunateSons (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Kacza, I know that this may be a bit too techniocal to become a Wiki policy, but I think the concept pf reliability is not a yes/no issue but requires a confidence factor. In this case, I would say the reliability of the newspaper is 90% about items in Berlin, and about 50% about those in Paris. For places in between scale that linearly, so for Cologne it would be about 75% reliable. By the way, the term "generally reliable" is called a linguistic value in multivalued reasoning circles. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Just FYI: purely out of curiosity I decided to actually do the math, and for events in Cologne it would be about 68% reliable. 75% reliability would be applied to e.g. Bayreuth in Upper Franconia. Kacza195 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

One article I've been editing in relies heavily on this site. A quick look at the About page shows it is a single person running it. [https://chicagoganghistory.com/about/]. He is pretty clear when he says "My work has also involved researching Puerto Rican, Mexican, white and African American migration along with researching the neighborhoods they lived or still live in, in order to determine the origins of these streets gangs in correlation with interviews and other research. I have been doing this research for over 20 years; however, I do not have any background as an “official” researcher, I simply have been doing it out of my own home." I just want to get a second opinion on the reliability. I feel like it doesn't meet RS standards. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Well, sometimes amateurs are reputable in niche fields, and a quick google searh for [https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B07B1FWV8V/about this Zach Jones] (A.K.A Zook) did indicate that he has some respect. His an interesting read, though. and some do quote him [https://news.wttw.com/2017/05/18/sweaters-and-other-strange-ephemera-chicago-s-1970s-street-gangs]. [https://vhs.codeberg.page/site/chicago-gang-history-ii/ and his readership has been growing]. [https://core-cms.cambridgecore.org/core/books/abs/crack/acknowledgments/0C707F7A51FF6089DF7CAC4EFA0E455E This book] by David Farber published by Cambridge University Press praises him: "grateful for the amazing work of Chicago gang historian Zach Jones, whose site, Chicagoganghistory.com is the best source for a detailed, sure-handed..." I guess Farber's favorable voice counts. --Altenmann >talk 21:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• I understand sometimes amateurs are. That's why I'm here. I'm not sure that minimal stuff raises him to a RS. The lack of verification/editorial oversight troubles me. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• You do have a point in terms of our policies. I didnt vote yay/nay, just gave some indications. --Altenmann >talk 21:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Jones seems to be an amateur or folk historian, that would in general mean that his site should be treated as non-expert opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• What he does is not rocket science and does not need academic credentials. And since he spent years of research he had become an expert, recognized, e.g., by a noted scholar, David Farber (see above), which basically amounts to peer review. And of course, his findings must be attributed to him, because it is not a widespread knowledge "sky is blue". --Altenmann >talk 23:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Dengrating history as a field isn't going to get you anywhere and he doesn't even have non-academic credentials... No that doesn't basically amount to peer review, that is a completely absurd claim. I would also note that Farber is not himself a criminal historian, he's an American history generalist so not really a peer if thats what you're going for... Even if he was widely used by others I'd still say no, that is the lowest standard after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::So possibly accurate, possibly expert, possibly knowledgeable, but technically unreliable not reliable? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Any other thoughts? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_crimes_involving_the_Order_of_Nine_Angles&diff=prev&oldid=1288934272 Diff 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_crimes_involving_the_Order_of_Nine_Angles&diff=prev&oldid=1288934339 Diff 2]

Hi, a long time user, first time asker. I feel a bit stupid, not knowing the proper Wikipedia legalese, and if this is a wrong place, I apologize.

A user has added a bit of info on a person, apparently written by the subject (Chkhikvishvili is a leader of the mentioned group). But it's not really a Biography. I know self-published/primary sources/autobiographies are frowned upon, but they point out similar sources are used elsewhere. I know I probably should be able to coherently argue why they're bad, but I exclusively use news and academic sources so I have little knowledge regarding self-published sources.

Thanks RKT7789 (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:The diffs here are not WP:ABOUTSELF as they refer to group actions rather than the actions of the author. As such it is not an appropriate WP:SPS for use. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Does ABOUTSELF not also apply to some extent to groups? ABOUTSELF says "themselves", which is plural, it doesn't specify one person. Not saying this is a great use case but I've seen numerous instances of people using sources from an organization/group to cite basic facts about it. E.g. a company's or school's website says when it was founded

::I wouldn't use it here because these facts aren't basic and it doesn't appear to be due weight. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Has this ever been WP:Published? It's Chkhikvishvili's manifesto that he gave to followers and some other people, but I don't think it's publicly available. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC) ** addendum ** This was answered on the articles talk page, it is available to the public online so has been WP:Published by Wikipedia's definition. Discussion continues on that page about it's reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I know it's poor form for me to spread disputes across multiple pages, but how would you respond to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timeline_of_crimes_involving_the_Order_of_Nine_Angles#Hater's_Handbook claim it's an appropriate primary source]? RKT7789 (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd say that WP:PRIMARY doesn't give a definitive answer but does provide some good guidance. {{tq|Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.}} Qualifies the careful use of primary sources by suggesting they should be reputably published. This source was not "reputably" published. {{tq|A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge}} I don't think we can say that an educated person with access to a primary source like Nazi Terrorist (auto)biography could successfully verify the information. {{tq|Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.}} This would suggest, as it discusses living subjects, that we should exercise extra caution in the handling of primary sources.

:::Based on these three policy excerpts I would say that my policy interpretation would be to exclude the source but I will concede that policy, as described, has ambiguity and demands an editor judgment call here. So I'm going to say I would personally remove this but other editors might feel differently without deviating from policy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the Panimur page which were given from non native sources such as Assam sentinel has misinterpretation and misinformation about it. All the actual information about it, is in local FB page media outlets written in languages of the locals(Dimasa language). Can we use those pages for citation or reference instead of Assam sentinel? Mishimao (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is going to a be a very generalised answer, as you question isn't very specific. Facebook isn't generally regarded as a reliable source. The exception would be if a newspaper or other already reliable source was making Facebook posts, but even then other sources would be preferable. Sources do not have to be in English, see WP:NOENG, so there no reason sources in Dimasa can't be used. Sometimes if there is disagreement between it should be discussed in the article.

:In general secondary sources are preferred, Wikipedia is interested in what is said about a subject not what a subject says about itself. So newspaper published in Dimasa would be acceptable but your personal knowledge, or other peoples personal would not. If there's any disagreement with how articles are edited they can be discussed on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

One editor on NewsBreak [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewsBreak&diff=prev&oldid=1287597893 claims] that a library blog is not sufficient to define a company as a purveyor of Pink-slime journalism. Another editor says that it is a fine source and that the claim is correct based on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NewsBreak&diff=prev&oldid=1287597893 definition of pink-slime journalism].

[https://www.library.pima.gov/blogs/post/a-particular-kind-of-disinformation-pink-slime-journalism/ The post is] "written by members of the Library's Information Integrity Team, is part of a series that covers disinformation and other related subjects. The goal is to help create a well-informed citizenry of active participants who shape our world." i know you're a dog (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have also requested a 3O https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements i know you're a dog (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think this is an appropriate source because the authors, librarians who specialize in information integrity, can be considered experts with a sufficiently relevant expertise related to the claim. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Its an SPS, no it is not reliable for such an accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::It’s not a SPS just because it’s a blog. i know you're a dog (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Blogs are SPS as they are written and edited by the same person, or persons. In this case the library staff. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::What are you even talking about? This is not a "blog" in the sense of "I go to wordpress.com and start a site and post whatever I want on it", and it is certainly not a self-published source in any sense (it is published by the public library on its website). WP:SPS sheds no light whatsoever on whether an informational article written by members of the Pima County Public Library's Information Integrity Team and published on the PCPL website is a reliable source. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::LOL, so (hold on?) its not an SPS because it is written by the staff of the library, and published by them on... their website? Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes indeed "the library" is not the same entity as "its employees". Can you personally publish your opinions on your employer's website? Does your employer have named groups like "Information Integrity Team" whose work is not overseen by anyone? This website is a "blog" in precisely the same way WP:NEWSBLOGs are "blogs", which is to say, not in any way relevant to self-published status or reliability. (Whether it is a reliable source or not for this purpose is a question that requires an analysis carried out in a competent way, not whatever it is you're doing here.) 128.164.177.55 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Agreed. I addressed this in depth on the talk page, but will paste it here for posterity:

::::::::WP:BLOG is about self published sources, not blogs in general. In addition, it reads {{tq| Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.}}

::::::::Furthermore, (and I can't believe I have to defend libraries and librarians, but here we are) librarians who work on an information integrity team certainly meet the bar for experts. There is no inherent reason to expect that they are biased, and librarians are often tasked with research in order to present information fairly and accurately. Librarians are a critical asset for academics and they work hand in hand when conducting research. The Pima County Library appears to [https://www.library.pima.gov/blogs/post/were-hiring-a-librarian-i-system-wide/ require] a masters in library science for even their entry level positions (as is common in the [https://online.arizona.edu/news/do-you-need-masters-work-library-librarian-career-guide vast majority of libraries today].)

::::::::Moreover:

:::::::::* This specific post is referenced by [https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/12/23/kay-granger-memory-care-texas/ Snopes], which is GREL.

:::::::::*This post is [https://whyjournalismmatters.substack.com/i/160214114/beware-the-news-fakery-of-pink-slime-journalism also linked to by Ted Sullivan], [https://substack.com/@wjmfrenchlanguage who says] he is a " Retired senior lecturer in Journalism at University of Northampton". That claim can be [https://www.northampton.ac.uk/news/church-scandal-expose-to-be-screened-at-waterside-campus/ verified] by the [https://www.northampton.ac.uk/news/in-the-news-20-26-march-2020/ university] [https://www.northampton.ac.uk/news/uon-in-the-news-4-10-october/ where he worked], [https://pressgazette.co.uk/comment-analysis/going-viral-how-worlds-press-is-responding-to-the-coronavirus-pandemic/ as well as] [https://www.democraticaudit.com/2019/10/03/press-freedom-is-necessary-to-advance-environmental-protections-across-the-globe/ two different] newspapers.

::::::::* And other posts from the library's blog are linked to by:

:::::::::* [https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/no-egyptian-artifacts-were-never-found-in-the-grand-canyon Discover Magazine]

:::::::::* [https://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/heating-and-cooling/swamp-cooler.htm How Stuff Works]

::::::::As well as used as a source for:

:::::::::* John Dillinger

:::::::::* [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_bonnet Scotch Bonnet] (es.wikipedia)

::::::::Needless to say, WP:BLOG doesn't apply here. i know you're a dog (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Well as disagree as it is a self-published blog (it says its a blog). But in order to avoid wp:bludgeon, this is my last comment with a firm "No". Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Oh good I thought you might want to engage with the clear demonstration of your error, just plain last-wordism is better. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Two more sources have been identified since I posted this:

:[https://web.archive.org/web/20250416004947/https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/08/ai-reporters-are-covering-events-in-northwest-arkansas-for-okaynwa/ Nieman Lab]

:[https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/b34a84ed-8952-4efc-b51d-926d489be2dc/downloads/PF%20Georgia%20Media%20Landscape%20Report-final.pdf?ver=1698269662836 The pivot fund for the Georgia news collaborative] i know you're a dog (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::These three sources are all fine; the two new ones probably better than the original. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::If agree with 128.164.. these seem much stronger sources than the original one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• The issue here isn’t SPS but DUE WEIGHT. How much weight should we give to the opinion of a county library’s staff? Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Unless it's in respect to the county it's serves I would say none, but it's a discussion for the article's talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Why do you say that? Can’t librarians be expert in subjects that have implications outside their county? i know you're a dog 18:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The facts are established by Reuters, along with other RS. The issue is the use of the phrase, which at the time was only sourced to the library. i know you're a dog 18:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:*So use the actual RSs and don't use the SPS from the library. Seems like a simple solution here. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The source: Ecker et al has written the book "Unlocking the Emotional Brain" [2012]. I quote:{{pb}}

The fishy claim: "Psychotherapy that regularly yields liberating, lasting change was, in the last century, a futuristic vision, but it has now become reality, thanks to a convergence of remarkable advances in clinical knowledge and brain science. In Unlocking the Emotional Brain, authors Ecker, Ticic and Hulley equip readers to carry out focused, empathic therapy using the process found by researchers to induce memory reconsolidation, the recently discovered and only known process for actually unlocking emotional memory at the synaptic level." (emphasis mine).{{pb}}

The article: Neuro-linguistic programming{{pb}}

The claim it is supposed to verify: NLP isn't pseudoscience.

It this a WP:RS to WP:V such claim? tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:The fishy claim looks like it is a rephrasing of a publisher's blurb which comes before the content of [https://www.coherencetherapy.org/files/Unlocking_the_Emotional_Brain-Ch1.pdf the work] so it's probably irrelevant. You're asking if we can trust this work to tell us something about NLP's status as a pseudoscience, specifically that it is not a pseudoscience? fiveby(zero) 00:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::So the answer to that question is no. NLP is briefly mentioned twice:{{quote|Numerous other systems of psychotherapy that regularly produce transformational change could have been included in the unification demonstration in Part 2 if not for book length limitations...For case examples of transformational change via TRP in sessions of Alexander Technique, Neurolinguistic Programming, Progressive Counting, and Tapping, see (https)://bit.ly/15Z00HQ.}} on page 5 citing [https://www.coherencetherapy.org/discover/TRP-documented-therapies.htm some website]. If the authors wish to discuss NLP case examples and demonstrate it is not a pseudoscience they can write a longer book. In a chapter on EMDR: {{quote|Dual focus is present also in some other therapeutic systems of transformational change, such as Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP), Progressive Counting, and acupoint tapping, but reliance on bilateral stimulation is EMDR’s distinctive form of dual focus.}} (both quotes from 2024 Routledge edition)

::I think this work is simply irrelevant so no need to evaluate author or content. fiveby(zero) 00:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I looked at the talk page (thanks very much for that) and the content proposal seems to be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=1289284600 this]. Looking in first edition the basis is the publisher's "yields liberating, lasting change" from the blurb and the single mention in this edition: inclusion in a table labeled "Focused, experiential, in-depth psychotherapies that are congenial to fulfilling the therapeutic reconsolidation process if the therapist applies them to do so". The other Ecker source mentioned, "Using NLP for Memory Reconsolidation: A Glimpse of Integrating the Panoply of Psychotherapies" is published by the in-house magazine of some org [https://www.thescienceofpsychotherapy.net/bundles/premium-membership selling memberships]. I think no need to pay much attention to these proposals from the IPs. fiveby(zero) 02:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's important to raise the reliable source-issue in a fair and neutral way. Let's have a look.

:As @DiscipulusVirtutis notes that the first sentence of the Wikiepdia page on NLP states that NLP is pseudoscience. "The phrase "NLP is a pseudoscientific approach" implies a universally accepted categorization, which may not fully represent the complexity of the discussion".

:So the argument made is not that NLP as pseudoscience is disproven. The argument is that it is not universally seen as such in academia.

:In support of his argument I note that at least some reputable scholars vouch for NLP. One important example being the co-creator of "Coherence therapy", formerly known as Depth-oriented brief therapy, which is well-respected within its segment of postmodern therapies (Neimeyer 2003, 2009). He is the co-author of "Unlocking the emotional brain" [2012], published on the reputable academic press Routledge. The second edition was published in 2024.

:Unlocking the Emotional brain claims to equip readers to carry out focused, empathic therapy using the process found by researchers to induce memory reconsolidation, the recently discovered and only known process for actually unlocking emotional memory at the synaptic level. This neuroscientific view is not exclusive to them. In 2015, four prestigious (with a total of 500 published research articles between them) psychologists published a BBS target article, Memory reconsolidation, emotional arousal, and the process of change in psychotherapy: New insights from brain science (Lane et al. 2015)

:In their counter-response, Lane et al. noted UtEB’s model to be highly compatible with theirs, and remarked that further research is needed to nail down the conditions which make reconsolidation the most effective."

:So not only is Brucke Ecker's therapy respected (Neimeyer, Routledge), his neuroscientific approach also has respect in the scientific community. In other words: Brucke Ecker is a respected academic. Not a "fringe peddler".

:It's worth noting that the neuroscience is not the most central point of the argument. The central point is that a reputable academic vouches for NLPs clinical effectiveness.

:Ecker vouches for the clinical effectiveness of NLP in the book Unlocking the Emotional brain. My argument is that his name/authority alone is enough to warrant an adjustment of the universal categorization of NLP as a pseudoscience. Note that this categorization is a very strong statement, and can easily reach too far, and can get into conflict with wiki's NPOV. RockMarden (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Generally Wikipedia should state the mainstream view as fact, and then attribute any decenting views from reliable sources. It's not required that there's universal agreement. What is or is not the mainstream view is of course open to debate, but not everyone in the field has to agree. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Unlocking the Emotional Brain" is a WP:FRINGE/pop-science book. While (like everything) it's reliable for what it says, it is not reliable for any non-mundane knowledge, and so of zero use for writing encyclopedic content. Bon courage (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :"Unlocking the Emotional Brain" is a WP:FRINGE/pop-science book."
• :Asserted, but not argued... I'm forced to reiterate the relevant section of my comment:
• :In 2015, four prestigious (with a total of 500 published research articles between them) psychologists published a BBS target article, Memory reconsolidation, emotional arousal, and the process of change in psychotherapy: New insights from brain science (Lane et al. 2015)
• :In their counter-response, Lane et al. noted UtEB’s model to be highly compatible with theirs, and remarked that further research is needed to nail down the conditions which make reconsolidation the most effective." 194.69.213.204 (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I agree that those two quotes are passing remarks, but they do show that the book passingly endorses many disparate fringe views. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Ecker has endorsed too many quackeries to remain credible. Endorsing all those pseudoscientific therapies does not make him look sophisticated, it makes him look like a fool. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed some articles using these as sources. Are they reliable enough for inclusion? HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:We'll need more information. What is the context and what claims are they supporting? Canterbury Tail talk 16:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for your response. On the article Yesterwynde, both sources are used for the track listing for the orchestral bonus tracks below the regular track listing. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::See WP:TRACKLIST for guidance. Sergecross73 msg me 18:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Usually, we follow WP:AFFILIATE's guidance in a general sense, and Apple Music's interview content in accordance with WP:PRIMARY. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Usable in tables, usually undue in prose.--Launchballer 20:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::The context in which I have seen Apple Music and Spotify used is as references in discographies. My opinion is that in that context they are listing of products sold by vendors, and are satisfactory primary sources, although non-commercial sources are preferred. For ranking purposes (as a form of charting), they should be considered unreliable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:If they're used to verify facts about the piece itself, that's usually okay.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Vendor streaming charts must be considered reliable for the question of which songs have the highest amount of streaming from that vendor so far as independent reliable sources (such as newspapers) consider those charts to be reliable for that purpose. However, unless the vendor streaming chart position is reported by an independent reliable source (such as a newspaper), it will probably usually be WP:UNDUE (assuming that national charts such as Billboard are available). If, for example, the NYT reports a vendor streaming chart position, there is no question of rejecting that NYT article. If the NYT thinks that chart position is important, then it is important, in whatever context the NYT is reporting it. James500 (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

At Talk:Oriental (Morocco), a dispute has arisen over which name in Standard Moroccan Tamazight (written in Tifinagh) should be used to label the "Oriental" region in the article’s infobox.

I argue that the correct and verifiable name is ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ, as shown on the official Moroccan government website:

🔗 https://www.maroc.ma/amz/taxonomy/term/9

On that multilingual, government-maintained site, ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ appears on the map as the name for the Oriental region in Tamazight. The site allows toggling between languages and shows region names consistently in Arabic, French, English, and Tamazight (Tifinagh).

Opposing editors argue that other Tifinagh names exist (e.g. ⴰⵙⵏⵇⵔ, ⵜⴰⵎⵏⴰⴹⵜ ⵏ ⵓⴳⵎⵓⴹ, ⵍⵇⴱⵍⵜ), and that therefore we need reliable secondary sources to confirm which one is "official." They cite WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR to claim that we should not use ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ without independent verification.

However:

These alternative names are not supported in the sources they are said to come from. For example:

ⴰⵙⵏⵇⵔ is never actually used in the articles it's claimed to be in. Talk:Oriental (Morocco)#c-ElijahUHC-20250507212900-Skitash-20250507211400

ⵜⴰⵎⵏⴰⴹⵜ ⵏ ⵓⴳⵎⵓⴹ and ⵍⵇⴱⵍⵜ were lifted from other-language Wikipedia articles (like Tachelhit), and do not appear in government documents or authoritative contexts. Talk:Oriental (Morocco)#c-ElijahUHC-20250507205600-ElijahUHC-20250507204800

The Moroccan government is the official naming authority for its administrative regions. No interpretation is being made beyond what is directly shown on its website.

WP:PRIMARY allows citing an official source for simple factual claims (e.g., the official name of a government region), so long as we are not interpreting it beyond what is stated.

WP:BIAS suggests caution when rejecting content about marginalized languages due to lack of secondary sources, especially when a government body (in this case, Morocco) has standardized and published the name in that language and script.

Can we treat the Moroccan government's own website (https://www.maroc.ma/en) as a reliable source for the Tifinagh name of the Oriental region (ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ), even in the absence of secondary sources? Does using this verifiable, official name violate WP:PRIMARY or WP:OR? ElijahUHC (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Alas a very small fraction of people on this board speak the relevat language. So most reponses will probably be random. Sorry. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I understand. My main question is this: "Can we treat the Moroccan government's official website (https://www.maroc.ma/en) as a reliable source?" not is the word correct. Since it's a governmentally designated regional name, Should the government that coined it be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles? ElijahUHC (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::In general goverments are reliable for themselves, so in this case the Moroccan goverment is reliable for the Moroccan government using that Tifinagh name for the Oriental region. It wouldn't necessarily be reliable to say that that is the Tifinagh name people use. The difference would be between an official name and a common name, I can't say if there is a difference in this case but the Moroccan government source doesn't rule it out. Secondary sources my be required to determine what use is correct.
As Y,AMD said I doubt anyone on this board will be able to help with Tifinagh translations, you could try asking on WT:WikiProject Morocco there could be other native speakers who are part of the project. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I understand the whole issue with translation, but we’re beyond that if you’ve read what’s happening in the article. An editor is denying the use of Tifinagh unless it’s referenced. When a reference from the government itself was used, the argument shifted to the need for a secondary source. But this is all about a government-defined regional name. What I’m trying to clarify is: is the government itself a reliable enough source to be cited for a term it created? Because the talk page is getting bogged down in the rule of secondary sourcing—for a regional name officially defined by the government ElijahUHC (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sorry if i got too complex here, in short. I'm not making a linguistic claim, but asking if the government website is enough to be considered a verifiable source under what WP:PRIMARY allows for government-assigned regional names. ElijahUHC (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I tried to answer this with my first comment. Only the final sentence is related to translation. Governments are reliable for statements from that government. So in this case they are reliable for the fact that the Moroccan government uses ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ, whether that is the name that people actually use is another matter. The government source doesn't rule out disagreement from other reliable sources. There can be disagreement between reliable sources, with the government source being one of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Sometime today, I wondered why there is such a brouhaha about the use of specific languages here. Then I remembered the issue of the Catalan language. First, let me admit that I have very limited knowledge of Spanish, and speak no Catalan. But I do know that the use of Catalan vs Spanish can be a major poitical issue. And after all governments are political organizations. So before this goes any further, let us wonder if there are political rather linguistic issues at play here. That is all I have to say. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:It’s true that language choices can carry political issues, especially in multilingual states. But in this case, the issue is strictly about verifiability and official usage, not political alignment or advocacy.

:The Moroccan government uses Standard Moroccan Tamazight, in Tifinagh script, nationwide for official purposes. While there are other Berber languages and dialects, this discussion is not about them, because the name in question refers to an administrative region, not an ethnolinguistic, cultural, or historical region.

:This is about whether the name, as it appears on a official government site, meets the criteria of WP:V and WP:PRIMARY for inclusion — nothing more. ElijahUHC (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, the official government site is a reliable primary source for the names used by the Moroccan government. Just like the US government is a reliable source for the fact that they use their own name for the Gulf of Mexico. —Kusma (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• The Moroccan government website is valid only for the official name, and this would likely be due. The fact it is a primary source is irrelevant here, the Moroccan state is reliable for the naming of its own provinces.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, what are people's views on the reliability of www.Ghanahighschools.com? This is being added to Ghana school articles by an editor to verify schools' categories, day or boarding, gender of pupils etc. Examples [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunyani_Senior_High_School&diff=1288553640&oldid=1269234258 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghana_Senior_High_School%2C_Koforidua&diff=1288559613&oldid=1287933224 here]. The site says {{tq|GhanaHighSchools.com was established and programmed by the Dodoo Coding Club (DCC), a non-profit organisation based in Pokuase, Northwest of Accra, Ghana. We teach local children and teenagers computer coding. Our goal is to develop a substantial academy of capable computer programmers in Pokuase who can assist companies with IT/coding services}}. I don't see anything on the site that says where it's getting the information from, or whether there's any checking. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is a slightly odd one, I'd bet good money that they are pulling the data from some sort of official database but there's nothing on the site to explain if that's the case. The site itself appears to be a student project by the Dodoo Coding Club, I think it's the result of scrapping the internet. Some of the details could be referenced to this pdf[https://ges.gov.gh/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/doubletrack.pdf] for the Ghana Education Service. The other details, courses studies and facilities, are likely from the schools themselves. It's likely these references should be replaced with better sources.
Your first example for instance is a mix of the pdf I mentioned, and the schools about us page[https://www.susec.edu.gh/about-us]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::I suppose it can be used until there is some significant objecton to its usuage. It is a non-profit and has a database of sorts. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::so do you mean i can use that source to do my editing? Abdul Rahman Abdul Kudus (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Split "additional considerations apply"/"marginally reliable" from "no consensus" at RSP. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Lately, I have seen a lot of AfD discussions on Indian listed companies where analyst reports are used as credible/reliable sources. I think it’s time we take another look at the WP:LISTED guidelines, especially when it comes to these types of reports. From my experience during the Senco Gold AfD, I realized that many of these analyst reports aren’t truly independent. They are often made for internal use by portfolio management firms that already own shares in the company. Sometimes, they even push a specific story like hyping up a company before an IPO. If we closely look at the fine print of these reports, especially the disclaimers, the firms publishing them clearly mention {{tq|potential or material conflicts of interest}}. They also state that {{tq|they or their associates may have received compensation from the companies covered in the report within the last twelve months}}. We should be a bit more skeptical about these reports and think carefully before using them to decide if an article is notable.

: I have seen this come up in two AfDs where I shared my thoughts - Apar Industries and IdeaForge.

Charlie (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:WP:ORGIND seems to already speak to this issue. - Amigao (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::If these analyst reports are seen as trade publications under ORGIND, and given that their authors have close ties to the subject companies, either directly or indirectly then many Indian AfDs ought to be deemed entirely invalid. It is now clear that the rules related to LISTED have been wrongly assumed. Charlie (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Such "analyst" reports are clearly not WP:IS. - Amigao (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That makes things quite clear on my end. Thank you. Charlie (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::As I have pointed out at the Thermax AfD, you should refer to the "Disclosure" section of the report to assess independence in the context of that specific report, rather than the "Disclaimer" section, which is intentionally worded in a generic manner in accordance with SEBI guidelines for all registered analysts. Yuvaank (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Yuvaank I understand your point, and I have noticed it myself; the disclosure and disclaimer often contradict each other and sit uneasily within the same document. While {{tq|disclosures suggest an absence of bias}}, while {{tq|disclaimers imply that bias might exist but is being acknowledged to avoid responsibility or legal consequences}}. This tension between the two can appear contradictory when assessing the report's independence. I recognise that SEBI likely has valid regulatory reasons for requiring both, but the mixed messaging does raise questions. Charlie (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Honestly, there is no question (in my mind, at least). Analyst reports should not be dismissed solely because they contain a boilerplate "Disclaimer" with generic wording. Any actual conflict of interest pertaining to that specific company or report will be mentioned in the "Disclosure" section, which is what should be used to assess that report's independence. As SEBI has pretty stringent disclosure requirements, analyst reports tend to have a much higher level of integrity than WP:RSNOI media sources that publish paid puff pieces without disclosing. Yuvaank (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Let's explore this a little bit deeper by examining the analysts' reports discussed at the Thermax AfD;

::::::::1. [https://www.hdfcsec.com/hsl.research.pdf/HSL_Initiating%20Coverage%20Thermax%20-%20March%202023.pdf HDFC Securities],

::::::::2. [https://images.assettype.com/bloombergquint/2024-02/21a01fc3-117b-4d0f-b0ec-42d29330fd2a/Yes_Securities_Thermax_Q3_FY24_Results_Review.pdf YES Securities]

::::::::3. [https://www.plindia.com/ResReport/TMX-7-2-25-PL.pdf PL Capital].

::::::::Despite the analyst's personal independence (as declared in disclosure), each firm's prior or potential financial ties to the subject companies introduce {{tq|a possible institutional conflict}}. Moreover, in all three reports, the disclaimer introduces {{tq|a potential conflict at the associate level}}, which is not explicitly addressed in the disclosure. Here, associates are essentially different arms of the firm, such as investment banking, asset management, or advisory services—like those within the HDFC Group e.g., HDFC Bank, HDFC Mutual Fund, etc.. In the case of YES Securities, this could include YES Bank and other related entities. So, you see those boilerplate disclaimers are there for a reason, this is an ecosystem where such analyst reports are often prepared for internal use within portfolio management services. Even if the firms themselves don’t hold positions, their associates typically do often holding shares in the subject companies or promoting a particular narrative, especially around upcoming IPOs or stock market buy/sell activity. Charlie (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Also, SEBI’s guidelines for disclosures and disclaimers in analyst reports are strict and appropriate for regulatory purposes, given their role as market regulators. However, this does not mean such reports automatically meet Wikipedia’s standards of independence for the subject company especially in cases involving {{tq|cross-holdings through associates}}, or any similar arrangements. Charlie (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Maybe we can come to some sort of compromise? Maybe while we do not outright dismiss these report as not independent their reliability as a WP:ORGCRITE source is weakened and therefore should see if there a better sources for the subject first?

::::::::::Will need more views on this. I will ping @HighKing as this user is much more experienced in WP:NCORP AFD than I am. Imcdc Contact 03:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Hi {{u|Imcdc}}, {{u|CharlieMehta}}, WP:LISTED suggests some examples of where to find references which meet the criteria for establishing notability, but WP:LISTED doesn't say analyst report are de facto acceptable by their very nature - all sources should be read in conjuntion with WP:ORGIND. There is a tremenduous variety of sources classed as "analyst reports" and not all meet NCORP criteria. All sources should be read in conjunction with WP:ORGIND which states that not only must the author/publisher be independent (i.e. not have a commercial relationship whether it is direct or indirect) but that the content must also be independent (i.e. not relying entirely on content provided by the company, but must also include "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking" *about the company* "that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject".) With that in mind, it is usually a simple matter to see that some sources (classed as analyst reports) simply report on stock movements or financial reporting with nothing that can be classed an opinion/fact checking/analysis/investigation about the company. Others produce a profile with information copied from the company website or from a financial report. For me, "analyst reports" produced by a lot of companies are more like directory entries with a company profile that you can find on the company website. Unless I can see that the analyst provides some original throughts, for example the analyst compares the company to others, or positions the company within an overall sector based on particular activities (not just a bland revenue-generation table which is gleaned from company-produced financials), I am sceptical. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:The link appears to be broken, the correct one is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels#RfC on book review aggregators for anyone interested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::Apologies for the error! Thank you for the correction, I have updated the link. Οἶδα (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1745406075}}

What is the reliabilty of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor?

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

An RfCbefore can be found here. The source is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22euromedmonitor.org%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 used 89 times]. FortunateSons (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 As Genabab points out (with reference to points by Thucydides411, Lf8u2, Simonm223 and Smallangryplanet) the reports by EuroMedMonitor have not been shown to be wrong. There are objections of extraordinary claims (Chess and others), but this is an extraordinary war, and Euromed has connections with people on the ground, unlike most other RS. Isoceles-sai (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC) — Isoceles-sai (talk · contribs) is currently under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{#if:Smallangryplanet. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Please note that this user has been banned by ArbCom for {{tq|Canvassing and off-wiki coordination}}. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Generally !votes are supposed to be in chronological order. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::@chess ah, thank you for the information. (@chess is currently accusing me of being a sockpuppet) Isoceles-sai (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::: I still think you are, but I've removed the tags (except for this one, because otherwise your reply wouldn't make sense) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1285267564] since someone else has told me to wait until the SPI thread is over. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::That's nice. We wouldn't want people to think that @Chess was stalking me. Isoceles-sai (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Since this discussion, Isoceles-sai and GeoColdWater have been banned by the Arbitration Committee.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1287421004] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Option 4, fully deprecating this source, looks increasingly more appropriate for this source. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 per my previous votes on most other advocacy groups (though I did vote to deprecate the Heritage Foundation, iirc). Like others, most of their content is gonna be op-eds or similar, and those that have hard data are going to frame that data in a way that suits their cause(s). Usable with attribution, considering they seem to be fairly high-profile, but shouldn't be put in Wikivoice unless more "neutral" GRELs back up what they're saying (in which case it'd generally be better to just cite the GREL). The training program mentioned below is questionable, but I'd need to see harder evidence of potential or confirmed disruption to drop my vote any lower. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 (invited by the bot) This is the answer for every source...context-specific. For wp:ver uses, expertise and objectivity with regards to the item which cited it. For wp:weight uses, generally unreliable because it's an advocacy organization. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3. Every single time I have seen them say something unique, which was not also available in RS, the claim was extremely unlikely. Euro-Med is a blog maintained entirely from Europe with limited-at-best access to real Middle East data or witnesses. When they make a radical claim they never provide a specific or reasonable explanation as to why they are uniquely able to report it. They never retract or correct. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :> a specific or reasonable explanation as to why they are uniquely able to report it
• :I suspect that it is because Israel is finding and killing the journalists in Gaza, and not allowing in outside journalists.
• :https://cpj.org/2025/04/israel-strikes-journalists-tent-in-gaza-1-killed-8-injured/ (this week)
• :https://cpj.org/2025/02/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/ (summary)
• :Sometimes the journalists are bombed at home, killing their families as well.
• :https://www.article19.org/resources/israel-killing-of-journalists-must-prompt-independent-investigation/
• :https://rsf.org/en/israel-suffocating-journalism-gaza Isoceles-sai (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::None of those sources mention Euro-Med, let alone address why they would have access to information behind their various extraordinary claims while news organisations don't. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 for general content, Option 4 for ARBPIA if technically feasible The EMHRM is mostly cited by news sources who themselves have a strong bias or issues with reliability, such as [https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/02/28/743645/Euro-Med-Monitor-documents-shocking-torture-crimes-against-Palestinian-prisoners PressTV], [https://www.wsws.org/de/articles/2024/03/22/ozkx-m22.html WSWS], the [https://www.palestinechronicle.com/110-killed-since-gaza-ceasefire-began-euro-med-monitor-reports/ Palestine Chronicle], etc. Among the (significantly rarer) high-quality citations such as the [https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/gazastreifen-fotos-palaestinenser-1.6316864 Süddeutsche Zeitung] often use them with some sort of attribution, such as clarifying an unclear image origin. As such, the case for WP:USEBYOTHERS is mixed at best.

:The case for a strong bias, particularly against Israel, is clear. On personnel, with neither of those being conclusive but both being strongly indicative in my opinion, Richard Falk's past public statements about Israel and Jews and Ramy Abdu's indirect ties to Hamas.[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/clare-short-at-risk-of-arrest-in-israel-warns-defence-minister-moshe-ya-alon-a828401.html] While we don't depreciate sources for the views and actions of their high-level staff, I consider it to be strongly indicative, in line with the consideration of Greenblatt's statements for the ADL's reliability.

:On specifics, there are repeated cases of statements and insinuations not in alignment with reliable sources, for which use should be avoided; prototypically, the case of alleged organ harvesting is most obvious: [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982 claims regarding organ harvesting], considered by the ADL to be [https://www.adl.org/resources/article/unfounded-claims-organ-harvesting-reignite-embers-decades-old-hospital-scandal reminiscent of blood libel] (GUNREL; but rather detailed in this case, therefore useful), are not supported by evidence or reliable sources. In general, they regularly do not retract statements if no later evidence is found: for example, they still [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5953/International-investigation-must-be-opened-into-Israel’s-absurd-narrative-about-Al-Shifa-Medical-Complex claim] that there is no evidence of armed groups using hospitals, despite clear evidence to the contrary, as shown in our article Al-Shifa Hospital siege, which only shows a dispute about scope, not use. FortunateSons (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::Israel has actually, in the past, taken Palestinian organs without their families' permission[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs]. In the current conflict, it is also a fact that certain Gaza officials have stated[https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-stealing-organs-dead-bodies-gaza-officials] that organs were missing in Palestinian corpses (whether these statements are true is unknown). EuroMed's organ claims have been mentioned in RS[https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/27/israel-stealing-organs-from-bodies-in-gaza-alleges-human-right-group]. Likewise Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital shows there is disagreement in RS over whether Israeli claims regarding the hospital are true or false.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Vice regent Regarding the organs, yes, that is largely covered in the ADL-link I provided. Dubious information being picked up by one (or a small number of) RS doesn’t make it non-dubious, and most of the coverage of those claims has been in low-quality sources for good reason. Particularly, one cannot use an article referring to the same allegation as the claim being broadly made, the issue is that it’s them, a few officials and no-one else (the New Arab source).

:::For al-Shifa: there is a dispute about scope, but no serious dispute about use, and EMHRM says {{tq|In a new statement released today, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor called for an independent international investigation into Israel’s absurd claims that Palestinian groups were using Al-Shifa Medical Complex and other hospitals in the Gaza Strip for military purposes.}} Do you believe, based on RS, that the claim of military purposes (not: command centers) is “absurd”? FortunateSons (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Re: organ theft. First, can you kindly strike out the blood libel comment? Second, its not just EMRHM. It's also Euro News[https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/27/israel-stealing-organs-from-bodies-in-gaza-alleges-human-right-group], Wafa[https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/143531], New Arab[https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-stealing-organs-dead-bodies-gaza-officials], Palestine Chronicle[https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israel-stole-organs-from-bodies-of-palestinians-gaza-authorities/], Middle East Eye[https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/israel-hands-back-stolen-palestinian-bodies-missing-organs-report] who have covered allegations of missing organs.

::::Re: Al-Shifa. You're taking that out of context. That particular EMHRM article says "publishing three-dimensional maps of massive headquarters inside and beneath Al-Shifa Medical Complex...the Israeli army has been unable to produce any solid evidence to support its claims, said Euro-Med Monitor". It does acknowledge that "a few rifles and other armaments" were found in the hospital. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Vice regent the ADL described it as {{tq|Longstanding accusations of Israeli organ harvesting have reemerged in the aftermath of the October 7 massacres. This conspiracy theory plays on the blood libel trope, which dates to the Middle Ages and alleges that Jews use the blood of Christian children to bake their Passover bread}}, and I attributed it to them as reminiscent of blood libel, which I think is an accurate summary. Can you elaborate on why you want me to strike that?

:::::For the sources, the only clearly high-quality source is Euronews, which adds no new content, as far as I can tell. The others rely on the same two source (officials & EMHRM), have significant bias, disputed reliability, or a mix of those.

:::::Regarding Al-Shifa, allow me to ask the following question: do you believe their article (which is not retracted) to contain no significant statements that are either wrong or likely to be misunderstood by the average reader? FortunateSons (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Responded [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FortunateSons#c-Vice_regent-20250320223300-Unhelpful_comment here]. Keep in mind EMHRM's Al-Shifa article was published on Nov 17, 2023 and evidence Israel has presented has only been made public after that, not before. Even then, evidence presented by Israel about Al-Shifa has been doubted by [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/20/what-israels-video-of-hamas-tunnel-under-al-shifa-tells-us Al-Jazeera] and [https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/assessment-israeli-material-icj-jan-2024 Forensic Architecture]. I don't find EMHRM's article "significantly wrong" when read entirely given public knowledge on Nov 17.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I understand that view, but considering the statements (again, about military use, not command centers) were (at least almost) conclusively proven wrong within the next 3 days (not even including [https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/sites/default/files/pdf/White20140929-CTCSentinel.pdf historical alleged use]), and is phrased in an inflammatory manner, it seems like a reliable source should have issued a correction at the very least, particularly when considering the arguments (made by others, not you specifically, just to be clear) that led to the reduction of the reliability for the ADL, whose errors I found to be significantly less egregious (and some of which were [https://forward.com/opinion/626749/adl-wikipedia-ban-jonathan-greenblatt/ factually incorrect]). FortunateSons (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|Richard Falk's past public statements about Israel and Jews}}: Richard Falk himself is Jewish, so if you're trying to suggest that he's antisemitic, you're going to have to show some very strong evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::In general, Jews can be antisemitic. I‘m not making a statement in my own voice, but our own article includes pretty significant accusations (not even including the dog incident). For Israel, the sections are extensive enough not to require further elaboration, right? FortunateSons (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It's an extraordinary claim to call a Jewish person antisemitic, and you should only make that claim if you have very strong evidence, which you don't. This just looks like character assassination to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Again, I‘m not saying he‘s antisemitic, and the claim I actually did make is factually accurate, but allow me to elaborate: a) Falk has made highly contentious statements about Israel and Jews/Jewish Orgs, b) and some of those claims have been referred to as antisemitic, covered by RS enough that they are in our article about him. Do you disagree with either of those points? FortunateSons (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is becoming off topic. Also please be wary of bludgeoning, @FortunateSons. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Respectfully, responding only to people who directly challenge different parts of my argument, as I have done here, is generally not considered bludgeoning, particularly when considering my relative share of comments (9/36 and 6/27 in the survey section), which are less than the indicative 1/3. However, I agree that we’re moving off-topic, and appreciate the reminder! FortunateSons (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 per The_Kip above (and my own comments in this section).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 It is a biased blog Michael Boutboul (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 per finding raised by multiple editors
• False statements or WP:EXTRAORDINARY statements without strong support from high-quality, independent sources
• Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians [https://archive.is/OkJE8]
• Organ harvesting topic (debunked by BobFromBrockley see below)
• Link between the founder Ramy Abdu and a terrorist organization (see the photo in [https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/euro-med-human-rights-monitor/]) Michael Boutboul (talk)
• :bias isn't enough to deem a source as unreliable — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 08:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::If argument given by FortunateSons are correct, IMO it is sufficient for Option 3 Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::In addition to @FortunateSons arguments, EMHRM echoed a rumor (initially broadcast by Al Jazeera) claiming that Israel was training dogs to rape Palestinian detainees. [https://archive.is/OkJE8 Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians]. The more I am looking for this site, I found significant evidence that the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor acts as a pro-Palestinian advocacy group and has repeatedly published false and misleading statements as fact. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The dogs claim is not extraordinary, we know that trained dogs are used by Israel to torture detainees, and we know that Israelis soldiers frequently rape and sexually assault detainees, especially but not exclusively male ones. There is nothing particularly extraordinary about reporting detainee testimony that combines these two features.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 No one has as of yet pointed out a pattern of falsehoods from Euro-Med HRM as determined by RS, nor has a compelling argument been made to suggest that such falsehoods are inherently linked to the way Euro-Med HRM operates. The assertion that it is only cited by highly partisan sources, and therefore unreliable, is inaccurate. It has been cited by various high quality RS, such as [https://abcnews.go.com/International/kite-festival-gaza-offers-children-rare-break-ongoing/story?id=108629524 ABC], [https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf Amnesty International], [https://apnews.com/article/gaza-family-home-evacuation-israel-troops-f1d9838c60225a8c454e372df72ca245 AP News], [https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c4nn9x23zxzo BBC], [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/07/middleeast/gaza-israeli-soldiers-detained-men-intl/index.html CNN], [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/12/31/gaza-search-and-rescue-teams-forced-to-leave-their-own-fami/ The Telegraph], [https://www.dw.com/en/gaza-migrants-embarking-on-a-dangerous-journey-to-europe/a-66940196 Deutsche Welle], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war The Guardian], [https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-top-headlines/ap-mass-funeral-in-gaza-draws-tears-rare-criticism-of-hamas/ The Hill], [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hamas-ap-turkey-istanbul-ismail-haniyeh-b2257090.html The Independent], [https://theintercept.com/2024/08/01/israel-military-drones-charity-donations-xtend/ The Intercept], [https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/israel-target-civilians-gaza-fetterman-rcna123890 MSNBC], [https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/mass-funeral-in-gaza-draws-tears-rare-criticism-of-hamas National Post], [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/abandoned-babies-found-decomposing-gaza-hospital-evacuated-rcna127533 NBC News], [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israel-separating-families-in-gaza-taking-men-to-undisclosed-locations-in-mass-arrest-campaign-activists-say PBS], [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trapped-jobless-gaza-youths-look-way-out-2023-03-22/ Reuters], [https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3256906/israel-gaza-war-us-vows-plough-gaza-airdrops-despite-deaths-hamas-plea-stop South China Morning Post], [https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/gaza-s-children-are-calling-on-us-to-speak-up-20231105-p5eho2.html The Sydney Morning Herald], and [https://www.timesofisrael.com/everyone-is-hungry-desperate-gazans-fight-for-food-as-crisis-deepens/ Times of Israel], just to mention a few. Its reports are based on witness interviews, video and photo evidence, field investigations, and official data. They are also regularly cited by the [https://reliefweb.int/organization/euro-med-monitor UN]. WP:USEBYOTHERS is clear: {{tq|widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability}}.Lf8u2 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :For example : On June 27, 2024, EMHRM echoed a rumor (initially broadcast by Al Jazeera and repeated by LFI MEP Rima Hassan) claiming that Israel was training dogs to rape Palestinian detainees Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::You need to provide sources for such statements. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Here [https://archive.is/OkJE8 Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians]. This is just one example — FortunateSons has provided much more extensive reasoning as to why it falls short of being a reliable source by Wikipedia’s standards. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Do you have sources showing that this is a rumour? The use of dogs has been [https://www.972mag.com/sde-teiman-prisoners-lawyer-mahajneh/ covered] [https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250210-israel-using-torture-sexual-assault-with-dogs-in-prisons/ by] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/05/gazan-detainees-beaten-and-sexually-assaulted-at-israeli-detention-centres-un-report-claims other] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67581915 outlets] - while not all carry the sexual assault line, the Euro Med article's core claim: that released prisoners are saying that this happens, and that they are in one way or another being brutalised by dogs, is covered in other RS. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::You are mixing up several topics, you are using sources that use EMHRM as a source to prove it is EMHRM is right, it is a circular reporting. This is exactly how a rumor is launched. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I'm not sure what you mean. The Middle East Monitor piece mentions that there was prior reporting but includes new testimony. It builds on existing reporting that the EMHRM did. The other three sources don't mention it at all. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::None of the other media outlets (BBC, The Guardian, etc.) reported that the IDF used police dogs to rape Palestinian civilians. EMHRM has never retracted this accusation, which raises serious concerns about its reliability as a source. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::If the statement hasn't been debunked or refuted then how does it affect their reliability? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Is there any RS showing that the accusation is incorrect? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::The fact that a claim has not been refuted does not make it reliable. This is a classic argument from ignorance — assuming something is credible merely because no one has disproven it.
• :::::::::Extraordinary accusations — such as the IDF using dogs to commit sexual violence — require strong support from high-quality, independent sources (see WP:EXTRAORDINARY). If such a claim is not corroborated by major human rights organizations or reputable media, then its inclusion — and the reliability of the source making it — must be seriously questioned.
• :::::::::A source that publishes such extreme and unsupported allegations cannot meet the standards of WP:RS, particularly on contentious topics. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::That a source's reporting has not been corroborated does not "raise serious concerns about its reliability as a source."
• ::::::::::And neither is it an extrordinary claim. It's well documented in RS that the Israeli military has sexually assaulted Palestinians and that they have used dogs to attack Palestinians as well. The idea that they used dogs to sexually assault Palestinians is therefore hardly extraordinary. Additionally, as SmallAngryPlanet showed above, the RS 972mag has reported that "a Palestinian prisoner recently released from the detention camp said that he had personally witnessed [...] cases in which Israeli soldiers made dogs sexually assault prisoners."[https://www.972mag.com/sde-teiman-prisoners-lawyer-mahajneh/] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Indeed, the central allegation in the one (1) piece @Boutboul is talking about is that the Israeli military uses dogs to "attack" prisoners, something that has been cited in RS going back at least a decade or more. One surprising claim in an article (sourced to named individuals, no less) does not make a source non-RS – if that were so I'm not sure which sources we'd be able to use. To use a famous example: the New York Times once ran the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that Iraq had or was developing WMDs, which turned out to be false on multiple fronts, but I still see them cited up and down wikipedia. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::The comparison with The New York Times is flawed for one crucial reason: the NYT later retracted and critically reviewed its reporting on WMDs, acknowledging its failure — a key indicator of editorial accountability. By contrast, Euro-Med Monitor has never retracted, corrected, or clarified its extraordinary claim that the IDF used dogs to sexually assault Palestinian civilians.
• ::::::::::::This is not just a fringe detail — it is a serious allegation, unsupported by independent, high-quality sources, and remains uncorrected. That directly reflects on editorial standards, which are a core component of WP:RS. A source's reliability depends on editorial oversight, fact-checking, and a reputation for accuracy. Unlike the NYT, Euro-Med Monitor does not demonstrate these safeguards, and this example is symptomatic of a broader lack of editorial rigor. That’s why its use as a reliable source on contentious topics is problematic. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::Why should EMHRM correct it when it has not been repudiated? That's why I was hoping you had found evidence to show it was incorrect. Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Just earlier in this discussion, you yourself asked for evidence that Euro-Med Monitor had made this claim — which clearly indicates that you found the assertion extraordinary enough to require verification. That alone supports the application of WP:EXTRAORDINARY.
• :::::::::::Now that the claim is confirmed, you're arguing that it is not extraordinary. That’s inconsistent. The fact remains: Claiming that a state military used dogs to sexually assault civilians is extraordinary by any reasonable editorial standard and demands strong, independent corroboration — not a single partisan source, not one anecdotal testimony. Euro-Med Monitor does not meet the reliability criteria outlined in WP:RS, and this kind of sensational, unverified allegation is exactly the type of content WP:FRINGE warns against promoting without robust sourcing. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Right now, leaning toward Option 1 per the evidence of use by RS presented by @Lf8u2. I'm open to Option 2 if more evidence is presented that the source is being used detrimentally on-wiki. As with any advocacy org, it is best practice to triangulate Euro-Med's claims with what reliable news orgs are saying and treat claims outside of consensus with more skepticism. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 As I'd say for most reputable advocacy groups we should not assume general reliability, should be careful to attribute statements, etc. However we absolutely should not be treating a reputable advocacy group as generally unreliable solely on the basis of a perceived bias. As other editors have said, WP:USEBYOTHERS is well fulfilled. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 Agree it is biased and we should be careful and attribute statements. It seems to work above board though so I'm happy with it. NadVolum (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 per NadVolum ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2: EMHRM has an on-the-ground network of sources that provide information, which other news outlets rely on, as other editors have shown above. The only reason I'm not saying Option 1 is because all sources (even the saint New York Times) have to be considered in context. Disregarding EMHRM for the Israeli-Palestinian subject area would be absurd, given that that's precisely the area where EMHRM is strongest and where it provides novel information that other reliable sources quote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 - There is no pattern of verifiable (using other RS) falsehoods from Euro-Med as has been alleged. Nor has it been shown that there is a systemic reason – for example through the lack of rigorous editorial and investigatory standards – for these falsehoods to be produced in the first place. EuroMed is a reputable human rights organisation that works with bodies like [https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/ced/comments/general-comment1-euro-med.docx the] [https://reliefweb.int/updates?list=Euro-Mediterranean%20Human%20Rights%20Monitor%20Updates&advanced-search=%28S49218%29 UN] and [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3273/Euro-Med-Monitor-Discusses-Gulf%E2%80%99s-Human-Rights-Situation-at-EU-Parliament European] [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3726/Euro-Med-Monitor-Report-Inspires-EU-Parliament-Question-about-Middle-East-Prisons-Conditions parliament], is cited by other reputable human rights organisations such as Amnesty[https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf], as well as being cited in a diverse array of top-notch RS as noted by @Lf8u2, a list to which I can also add the New York Times ([https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/12/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/the-israeli-military-acknowledges-mistaking-a-bike-for-a-weapon-in-a-strike-but-stands-by-the-attack?searchResultPosition=1], [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/world/middleeast/gaza-israel-hamas-evacuations-strikes.html], [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/world/middleeast/israel-hostage-gaza-koslov-hamas.html?searchResultPosition=4], [https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/15/world/israel-news-hamas-war-gaza?searchResultPosition=2#those-with-family-in-gaza-struggle-with-frantic-calls-and-constant-fear]).

:I'm legitimately astounded by how Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor is being described by some editors here. Blood libel, Hamas front, a blog, worthless, random opinions, constant falsehoods… what are we doing here? I did a search to see where all this might be coming from and found a "[https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/euro-med-human-rights-monitor/ fact sheet]" about it on the first page of Google results from a group called "NGO Monitor" that contains all of these things, including the stuff about [https://ngo-monitor.org/topics/richard-falk/ Richard Falk] who is chairman of the board of trustees of EuroMed. He also happens to be an esteemed Jewish scholar, Professor Emeritus in International Law at Princeton, UPenn Bsc, Yale LLb, Harvard SJD. But he had the misfortune of being [https://www.webcitation.org/5dViuhEdA?url=http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/2ee9468747556b2d85256cf60060d2a6/0da4ba56ade85249852574190058d462!OpenDocument appointed in 2008] by the UN Human Rights Council to be the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine, and as has been the case with everyone who has held that position – including the current person, Francesca Albanese – he was subject to a vicious smear campaign by pro-Israeli groups.

:This includes "NGO Monitor", which RS describe as a right-wing Israeli propaganda front [https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13600826.2019.1640189][https://books.google.com/books?id=LTTVDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA6][https://books.google.com/books?id=xt7YAZOioLQC&pg=PA206][https://books.google.com/books?id=LHYPnxwPnlwC&pg=RA1-PT127] whose job it is to make these kinds of "fact sheets" that unfortunately end up being used as fodder to dismiss reputable human rights NGOs like Euro-Med. They have also been accused of [https://euobserver.com/foreign/142973 spreading misinformation] and having a [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-the-media-makes-the-israel-story/383262/3/ politically motivated agenda]. The Al-Shifa hospital and organ harvesting points are also on their "fact sheet"; in fact the first two listed in their "activities" [https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/euro-med-human-rights-monitor/#activities section], and I can't see how this could possibly be relevant. What Euro-Med said about Al-Shifa is entirely in line with RS as we ourselves show in the article on the topic. NGO monitor's piece is an article from November 2023 when the Israeli government and military claimed it had uncovered a vast Hamas underground network under Al-Shifa Hospital. Euro-Med said that the Israeli govt had failed to provide solid evidence for this claim and called on independent bodies to investigate it. [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5962/Israel-conducts-executions-in-Shifa-Hospital,-uses-its-staff-as-human-shields (link)]. The govt's claim turned out to be inaccurate as established by RS. Again, citing our article on it to suggest otherwise is strange as we currently refer to Hamas military use of the hospital as "allegations" and cite RS that say no solid proof has been provided for the claim. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67453105], [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/gaza-hamas-biden-hospital-israel-b2449165.html], [https://aje.io/yu4f6n?update=2492059], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/21/al-shifa-hospital-gaza-hamas-israel/], [https://observers.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231122-al-shifa-hospital-what-do-we-know-about-idf-videos-of-a-tunnel-under-the-hospital], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/03/hamas-gaza-israel-alshifa-tunnels/], [https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/03/politics/us-al-shifa-intelligence-assessment/index.html].

:The [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%E2%80%99l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%E2%80%99s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%E2%80%8B organ harvesting article] cites testimonies from doctors in Gaza who examined corpses and relayed it to the Euro-Med investigators. It then uses those allegations as the basis for calling for an investigation to verify them, as any human rights group routinely does. It also refers to reports and laws such as the Supreme Court ruling of 2019 allowing the holding of bodies – all of this is verifiable by RS. In fact, here are some sources for that from RS: [https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/27/israel-stealing-organs-from-bodies-in-gaza-alleges-human-right-group][https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-178236/][https://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/a/Rx1n5A/our-sons-are-plundered-of-their-organs][https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs][https://www.haaretz.com/2005-09-26/ty-article/abu-kabir-head-only-reprimanded-for-illegal-organ-removal/0000017f-f41d-d5bd-a17f-f63f85690000][https://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/21/israel.organs/index.html][https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34503294][https://www.972mag.com/i-witnessed-a-whole-system-of-deception-regarding-the-death-of-a-palestinian/][https://www-aljazeera-net.translate.goog/news/2016/2/28/%d8%a7%d8%aa%d9%87%d8%a7%d9%85%d8%a7%d8%aa-%d9%84%d8%a5%d8%b3%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%a6%d9%8a%d9%84-%d8%a8%d8%b3%d8%b1%d9%82%d8%a9-%d8%a3%d8%b9%d8%b6%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b4%d9%87%d8%af%d8%a7%d8%a1?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp][https://www.btselem.org/routine_founded_on_violence/20191022_hcj_greenlights_holding_palestinian_bodies_as_bargaining_chips][https://www.timesofisrael.com/high-court-state-entitled-to-hold-bodies-of-israeli-terror-suspects-for-negotiations/][https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-822542] Smallangryplanet (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::I found some of this very persuasive until we got to the organ harvesting topic, which I have read a lot about over the years. Specifically, none of the reliable sources listed at the end of the comment actually support the extraordinary claims made by Euromed, but rather mostly relate to much older scandals in which individual medical researchers used organs (of Israelis and Palestinians) for illegitimate purposes, and have no bearing on the 2020s.

::Euromed says “According to the human rights group [i.e itself], Israel has recently made it lawful to hold dead Palestinians’ bodies and steal their organs. One such decision is the 2019 Israeli Supreme Court ruling that permits the military ruler to temporarily bury the bodies in what is known as the “Numbers Cemetery”.” Compare this to the report by [https://www.btselem.org/routine_founded_on_violence/20191022_hcj_greenlights_holding_palestinian_bodies_as_bargaining_chips B’Tselem] (a partisan but very reliable human rights organisation) or [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/supreme-court-allows-israel-withhold-bodies-palestinians Middle East Eye] (an anti-Israel weakly reliable source), which report the Supreme Court judgement accurately, with no mention of “organs”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 per Simonm223's explanation of WP:USEBYOTHERS. It is reliable for Statements of fact (e.g. "Juan purchased a coal-powered car yesterday"); statements of analysis (e.g. "Juan's purchase of a coal-powered car contributed to climate change") and statements of opinion (e.g. "Juan should never have purchased a coal-powered car") may be problematic and should either not be sourced from it or should be used with attribution. Chetsford (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. Attribution should always be considered, extreme caution should be taken in verifying information, and use of the source must not be undue. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 for everything related to the I/P conflict. See the discussion for an example of content unsupported by reliable sources. They exhibit heavy bias, their founder and chairman used to lobby for Hamas [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/clare-short-at-risk-of-arrest-in-israel-warns-defence-minister-moshe-ya-alon-a828401.html] and was elated after October 7 attacks). Option 2 for everything else. If their reports are sometimes used by reliable sources, we can quote those. I don't think we should ever use information that appears only in Euromed reports. Alaexis_¿question? 08:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :As far as I can see, this link does not lead to anything linking EuroMed to Hamas. Did you intend to post a different link? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::See here [https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/euro-med-human-rights-monitor/]for example Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::NGO Monitor is not a reliable source and nor on this topic is Israel. What is the evidence of any connection to Hamas, apart from appearing on a 2013 Israeli list? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The picture where you can see the founder of EMHRM with Ismael Hanyeh, former Hamas leader. This is not sufficient? Otherwise do you accept the site Conspiracy Watch as a reliable source? Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::How does this picture link EMHRM with Hamas? If you click through to the source of the image it says it's from a [https://www.facebook.com/DrArafatShoukri/photos/t.100053795191625/356066831115475/?type=3 delegation] visiting Gaza. At the time Haniyeh was arguably the Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, so there's plenty of legitimate reasons for international figures to meet with him. It seems like WP:SYNTH to suggest that this picture alone is evidence of a COI between the EMHRM and Hamas. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::It is clear that working in Gaza requires some level of interaction with Hamas, but not to this extent. Other leaders of respected NGOs such as Médecins Sans Frontières, Save the Children, Oxfam, and CARE have never had any public contact with Ismail Haniyeh.
• ::::::Unlike major humanitarian NGOs, Euro-Med Monitor does not have the same level of international recognition, transparency, or external oversight. Such public proximity to a political leader of Hamas—an organization designated as terrorist by the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Egypt, and Paraguay—can be perceived as political alignment or, at the very least, a serious breach of the fundamental principles of neutrality and reliability to be used on Wikipedia. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::The terrorist designation is a non-sequitur. How is appearing in a photo with a leader of Gaza's civil government somehow worse than the fact that the vast majority of Israeli journalists served in the IDF? Barak Ravid quit his military position only months before beginning work at Axios. Journalists are in pictures with political leaders all the time, it does not remotely suggest a conflict of interest. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I did some digging and found [https://web.archive.org/web/20110918111933/http://thecepr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=164:delegation-to-gaza-july-2011&catid=15:delegations&Itemid=40 this summary] of the delegation's activity. They also met with Save the Children (!) and the United Nations (and several other UN agencies). It sounds like Haniyeh gave a speech and held a discussion about the situation in the Gaza at the time. These are perfectly ordinary things for a group of NGO leaders to do, and does not suggest anything untoward. At any rate, we're here to discuss if this source should be considered reliable, and I can't think of any other source we deprecate solely because the person who founded it met with a person one time. (If that alone is disqualifying, it is time to disqualify the vast majority of reliable sources!) Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Bobfrombrockley, the link I've posted establishes the connection between the founder and chairman of EMHRM and Hamas. He was a senior leader in an organisation described by The Independent as {{tquote|a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government}}. I don't know whether EMHRM are in any way connected to Hamas and I didn't claim it. For me it's just one more indication of their extreme bias. Alaexis_¿question? 22:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Alaexis that article does not {{tq|establish[es] the connection between the founder and chairman of EMHRM and Hamas}}. Shin Bet makes a claim that there is a connection between the two, but the organisation says it plans to take legal action to show that it is an independent organisation. The Independent only provides Israeli intelligence agency sourcing for this claim, which as you might imagine is hardly WP:DUE for allegations of this nature. (Hamas is a proscribed organisation in the UK, so if Shin Bet's claims were true, Clare Short could in theory be at risk of legal consequences in the UK, let alone Israel.) Not only that but Ramy himself is not mentioned in the article. Did you mean to send a different link? (We can also talk about how NGOs work with agencies and governments on the ground – even the UK government's proscribed organisation laws include [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/operating-within-counter-terrorism-legislation/for-information-note-operating-within-counter-terrorism-legislation#proscription legal comments] suggesting that 'genuinely benign' meetings may be allowed.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I don't think you're interpreting the text of the article correctly. It says "Moshe Ya’alon, former IDF chief of staff, outlawed the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) – a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government – using emergency defence regulations." The part between dashes is not attributed to Moshe Yaalon, it's the author of the article explaining what CEPR is. Alaexis_¿question? 18:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::In that case I'm not sure how we can possibly come to any conclusions - let alone deprecate a source - because of an unsourced and unverified comment! Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 There is no way to restore NPOV with this steady push to deprecate center-right/right sources and keep far-left, hyper-politicized sources like Euro-Med HRM. Also: these discussions should seek to draw in editors who have not dominated the I/P space. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Thucydides411, Lf8u2, Simonm223 and Smallangryplanet. It's cited by the following (among others):
  
  https://abcnews.go.com/International/kite-festival-gaza-offers-children-rare-break-ongoing/story?id=108629524
  
  https://apnews.com/article/gaza-family-home-evacuation-israel-troops-f1d9838c60225a8c454e372df72ca245
  
  https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c4nn9x23zxzo
  
  https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/world/middleeast/gaza-israel-hamas-evacuations-strikes.html
  
  https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/world/middleeast/israel-hostage-gaza-koslov-hamas.html?searchResultPosition=4
  
  https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/15/world/israel-news-hamas-war-gaza?searchResultPosition=2#those-with-family-in-gaza-struggle-with-frantic-calls-and-constant-fear
  
  https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/12/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/the-israeli-military-acknowledges-mistaking-a-bike-for-a-weapon-in-a-strike-but-stands-by-the-attack?searchResultPosition=1
  
  https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/07/middleeast/gaza-israeli-soldiers-detained-men-intl/index.html
  
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war
  
  https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trapped-jobless-gaza-youths-look-way-out-2023-03-22/
  
  Furthermore, they also work with the UN and the EU parliament and are cited by Amnesty International:
  
  https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf
  
  https://reliefweb.int/organization/euro-med-monitor
  
  https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/ced/comments/general-comment1-euro-med.docx
  
  https://reliefweb.int/updates?list=Euro-Mediterranean%20Human%20Rights%20Monitor%20Updates&advanced-search=%28S49218%29
  
  https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3273/Euro-Med-Monitor-Discusses-Gulf%E2%80%99s-Human-Rights-Situation-at-EU-Parliament
  
  https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3726/Euro-Med-Monitor-Report-Inspires-EU-Parliament-Question-about-Middle-East-Prisons-Conditions
  
  Their extensive use and citations means they are a RS and no one has shown or linked any point where they were wrong about something or anything that would indicate that they are unreliable. Just because they are critcial of Israel where there is evidence Israel has committed abuses, doesn't mean they should be listed as unreliable. Genabab (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::ADL is cited more frequently than EMHRM, but it is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia policy, citation frequency does not equate to reliability. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'm curious how you can square Option 1 for an advocacy group, when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable%20sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1248262682 you've previously said] option 3 for a WP:NEWSORG solely because of bias. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Samuelshraga Aplogies for the late reply, I typically forget to check replies unless pinged, but the reason is mainly because:

:::1. Its unclear what makes Euro-Med unreliable

:::2. Its unclear when they reported something that was false

:::3. Very reputable orgs cite them like AI, and they work together with the UN and the EU which suggests legitimacy. The same cannot be said for the JC Genabab (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Genabab, I think the organ theft claim is pretty clearly false, and the total lack of any hint of {{tq|editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering}} (just the things we're supposed to look for when evaluating a Wikipedia:PARTISAN source) are a case for unreliability - but that aside, I was just curious how you squared a GUNREL !vote where the only argument you cited was bias, with a GREL vote for a self-evidently biased source.

::::I also don't think that working with the UN or MEPs confers a lot of legitimacy on the best of days, but given that the MEP in question is Marc Tarabella (one of the Qatargate ones), I think it might do the opposite. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Euro-Med reports on Israeli human rights abuses, just as they do for other countries too. So I don't think bias applies here. As others have said, human rights group's like reporting on violations they gather from their teams, and then call for investigations on that basis. I don't think anyone's demonstrated that Euro-Med is biased or unreliable or actively lies or anything like that. You mention reports on organ harvesting but other sources have also reported this (As noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-Vice_regent-20250320214400-FortunateSons-20250320173400), so I don't agree that it is "very clearly false" at all.

:::::JC on the other hand is a different story. There we saw that they deliberately falsified reporting to push a narrative that was in favor of Israel, as seen in the linked sources below. Hence why I voted against JC. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/14/crisis-at-jewish-chronicle-as-stories-are-withdrawn https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/world/europe/jewish-chronicle-uk-fabricated-stories-owner.html Genabab (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::If you don't think that Euro-Med has bias, I don't think we are capable of conducting a conversation. The fact that it does not confine its reportage solely to Israel/Palestine is a non sequitur of an explanation for this view. And by the way, there are GREL-listed outlets on RSP who have notes that there is a consensus that they are a biased source. I strongly believe bias is not a problem for reliability, I only noted it here because of the inconsistency in your arguments.

::::::Secondly, on organ theft. Re: your reference to VR's "evidence" on this, I will note that I don't think that contains any reference to RS making a claim of organ theft, and are mostly unreliable sources attributing that claim to variously the Gazan authorities (a certain Hamas if I recall) and Euro-Med, so the argument is pretty circular. More importantly, the organ theft claim I'm referring to is not the bog standard "Israelis steal organs" blood libel, it's the claim by Euro-Med that [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%E2%80%99l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%E2%80%99s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%E2%80%8B the Israeli supreme court legalised organ theft]. That's the demonstrably false and extraordinary claim that I find most concerning.

::::::As for the JC, I'm not here to relitigate that RfC, but if you had written there that your reasoning was that they had published false stories, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You exclusively cited bias. Still, I don't think we're getting anywhere here so I don't mind leaving it at that. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC) edited Samuelshraga (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Everyone has bias in the general sense. Be that bias like labelling sourced reporting as "blood libel". What matters more is the question of whether the natural bias turns the source from reliable to unreliable. My primary concern is if they publish false stories as determined to be so by RS. No one has brought up an instance of that for Euro-Med. The only example that came close was on the legalisation claim. Which was attributed in the link to "Israeli doctor Meira Weiss [in] her book Over Their Dead Bodies" and "Yehuda Hess, the former director of Israel’s Abu Kabir Institute of Forensic Medicine" which demonstrates that it is not "demonstrably false".

:::::::Furthermore, I question your scepticism towards VR's sources. If a bunch of paramedics in Gaza are saying "Its possible that Israel did organ theft" then that does indeed bolster Euro-Meds claim. Alternatively if a source works for the government in Gaza that does not mean everything they say can immediately be assumed to be false. After all WHO (or at least I think it was WHO) judges the Hamas government's estimates of casualties to be reliable, so there's precedence here.

:::::::And since we're talking about double standards, I did a check for your votes and saw you voted option 1 for The Jerusalem Post (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_459#c-Samuelshraga-20241120070200-Slatersteven-20241028135900). JP has repeatedly published false stories like about beheaded babies, still published now (https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-767951). This does show a "total lack of any hint of editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". If a source that claimed to have verified photos of beheaded babies can get a "Reliable" vote from you, I'm not sure what standard you're using to justify "Generally Unreliable" here or anywhere else. Genabab (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::First of all, the claim that the Israeli supreme court recently legalised organ theft is not attributed to Euro-Med in the source I linked to, to either Meira Weiss or Yehuda Hess. A claim about the historic unlawful use of organs is attributed to them, not the claim to which I clearly referred.

::::::::Secondly, VR's sources:

::::::::* [https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/27/israel-stealing-organs-from-bodies-in-gaza-alleges-human-right-group the first] attributes the claim to Euro-Med, meaning that your use of it in this case is circular.

::::::::* [https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/143531 The second] doesn't actually make the claim (it talks about medical teams having suspicions).

::::::::* [https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-stealing-organs-dead-bodies-gaza-officials The third] attributes the claim to variously: "local authorities in Gaza" (read: Hamas), the Quds News Network (read: Hamas) and - Euro-Med.

::::::::* [https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israel-stole-organs-from-bodies-of-palestinians-gaza-authorities/ The fourth] cited "the government media office in Gaza" (pretty sure I know who that is).

::::::::* [https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/israel-hands-back-stolen-palestinian-bodies-missing-organs-report The fifth] is a live news update feed and attributes the claim to the second source anyway.

::::::::I don't know that any of the linked outlets are reliable. Some, like Palestine Chronicle, I would suspect are definitely not. I see no completed RfCs or listings for any of them. But even if they were all green - these outlets don't make the claim that you're saying they do, which itself is not the one that I referenced in the first place. A source not being reliable does not mean everything they say is false, that's ludicrous. A source being unreliable means we can't rely on it to be true.

::::::::Re: my !vote on the Jerusalem Post, the point that you made was in fact made by the proposer of that RfC I was !voting in. I stated in my !vote my agreement with what Chess had written, which included a response to that point. In fact the discussion was explicitly closed as an endorsement of Chess' position. In any case, The Jerusalem Post clearly shows editorial practices like issuing retractions and corrections, has named writers and editors, and separating commentary from news. These are important to my evaluation of what is a reliable source, so I'm not sure what double standard you're pointing to, other than you disagree with me on that RfC and you disagree with me here. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 per the sources mentioned by Lf8u2 and Smallangryplanet, but acknowledging it as an advocacy group (so not option 1), Huldra (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 as my usual response that as policy is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, it depends on the specific edit proposed and the specific cite, there is no 'this source is always right' or 'this source is always wrong'. I add the obvious limit of this source does not have much WP:WEIGHT of coverage, so other sources are more likely useful. And this source is an advocacy group and like all such may be usable as RS of the WP:BIASED kind as a POV but not as objective fact -- use in-text attribution on anything from here, not WP:WIKIVOICE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2, which Mark outlined the reasoning for above nicely. Regardless of how they describe themselves, they're essentially an advocacy organization and should not be cited without in-text attribution. I do not think other editors have outlined an actual pattern of falsehoods or deception, however, and other editors have noted their use among other RS. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3. Euro-Med is an extremely partisan advocacy group in the I/P space. This would put it in the same categroy as CAMERA, NGO Monitor and others. Both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli NGOs of this type easily fulfil WP:USEBYOTHERS in that they are frequently cited in RS, typically by RS with a bias towards "their" side. However Wikipedia should never take the claims made by such groups and put them into its own voice, and should wait for those claims to be filtered through RS before repeating them with attribution. Given that this source makes extraordinary claims for which it seems to be the only source (e.g. [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%E2%80%99l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%E2%80%99s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%E2%80%8B claiming that Israel recently legalised organ theft from Palestinians]), and that no one seems to have pointed to any clear editorial processes or history of retraction, I am shocked that anyone is advocating Option 1. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 4, or Option 3, first choice would be Option 4, but Option 3 would be a decent minimum place to start if Option 4 does not have clear consensus. I agree with the reasoning for why provided by FortunateSons. This source has no proximity to reliability. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'd just point out that this !vote has no argument and lacks any basis in out policies.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Iljhgtn said that they agree with the reasoning provided by FortunateSons above. It seems quite aggressive to go sniping at !votes for the crime of directing people to the argument that swayed them, rather than restating it. Not to mention that it's a recipe for bloat and bludgeoning if people have to repeat the same argument every time. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Agreed. @Boynamedsue should strikethrough their disrespectful comment. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1, as Lf8u2, Genabab, and Smallangryplanet stated, Euro Med is used by many reputable sources and works with many international bodies & human rights group like Amnesty International and the United Nations. No evidence has actually been presented to prove they spew false information, they're simply gathering testimonies of abuse and advocate for investigations (in many countries such as Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, Bahrain, etc., not just Israel). I would believe anything other than Option 1 sets a bad precedent. Geo (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Please note that this user has been banned by ArbCom for {{tq|Canvassing and off-wiki coordination}} FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3. Israel training police dogs to rape Palestinians is a bizarre and obvious conspiracy theory. I am surprised that editors here are defending it as truth. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Just because you personally don't believe a source, that doesn't make it unreliable. (Argument from incredulity)
• :This is also hardly an extraordinary claim. Confer this [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kPE6vbKix6A&pp=0gcJCR0AztywvtLA Oct 2024 Al Jazeera documentary] at time 1:04:20 where the allegation is made by a Fadi Bakr of Gaza, who [https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7276854 per the CBC] was "a law graduate from the University of Palestine, was searching for food for his wife and kids in Khan Younis on Jan. 5 when he was caught in the crossfires of fighting between Hamas militants and the IDF. He was shot and took refuge in a nearby building, [...] Then, he was arrested."
• :This allegation/testimony was also reported by +972 Magazine: "Multiple media outlets, including CNN and the New York Times, have reported on instances of rape and sexual assault at Sde Teiman. In a video circulating on social media earlier this week, a Palestinian prisoner recently released from the detention camp said that he had personally witnessed multiple rapes, and cases in which Israeli soldiers made dogs sexually assault prisoners."[https://www.972mag.com/sde-teiman-prisoners-lawyer-mahajneh/?utm_source=972+Magazine+Newsletter] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Fadi Bakr of Gaza is literally the only source for that claim. He's the same person cited by Euro-Med Monitor and all of the other sources.
• ::Going from a single prisoner saying he {{xt|witnessed individual Israeli soldiers using dogs to sexually assault Palestinians}} to {{!xt|Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians}} is the problem with that source. Most sources do not take a single individual's testimony and use their own voice to say the Zionists are training rape dogs to abuse Palestinians. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::You apparently haven't read the source, which says "Euro-Med Monitor received horrific testimonies from recently released detainees confirming the brutal and inhumane use of Israeli police dogs to rape prisoners and detainees". Fadi Saif al-Din Bakr is the only named witness. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{re|IOHANNVSVERVS}} I did read that. No other news outlet has been able to interview someone other than Fadi Bakr, and Euro-Med Monitor doesn't provide any other testimony from other detainees. The closest is this:
• ::::{{tqb|Thirty-six-year-old Hassan Abu Raida, another released detainee, stated: “They moved me and the other detainees to a prison. They threw us to the ground and made the dogs urinate on us [as we lay there]. In addition, one of the soldiers struck my right knee with an iron pipe, and I am still recovering from that injury.”}}
• ::::That's not rape. It's wrong and is prisoner abuse, but I think Euro-Med Monitor is stretching the definition of "rape" (which usually requires penetration) here to fit their POV instead of presenting the facts accurately, because implying penetration by dogs is much more scandalous than urination by dogs. Similar to how Israeli civilians being mutilated was exaggerated into beheaded babies by ZAKA, which also isn't reliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@Chess you are misrepresenting the source. This is now the second time I have seen you do this in a short period of time, as you did with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuseirat_rescue_and_massacre#c-Smallangryplanet-20250323220500-Chess-20250321232800 the Bloomberg article here]. This assertion was initially made by Boutboul, who also claimed that Euro-Med Monitor reported Israel was "systematically" training dogs to rape Palestinians. Euro-Med Monitor has not stated anywhere that Israel is systematically training or using police dogs to rape Palestinians. The [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6383/Gaza:-Israeli-army-systematically-uses-police-dogs-to-brutally-attack-Palestinian-civilians,-with-at-least-one-reported-rape actual report] explicitly states that Israel is systematically using dogs to attack Palestinian civilians—not to rape—and bases this on cited testimonies, with the specification of "at least one reported rape". Not systematic rape by dogs, not training dogs to rape, but at least one reported case of rape, and then they cite the testimony for that which other RS have also cited as @IOHANNVSVERVS and myself have noted.
• :::::{{tq|Fadi Bakr of Gaza is literally the only source for that claim}} - no he is not. [https://www.newarab.com/analysis/new-palestinian-testimonies-reveal-horrors-israels-prisons Here is another testimony] saying he witnessed the use of dogs to rape prisoners. Not only that, but EMHRM does not treat this claim as verified but calls for an investigation.
• :::::Criticising a human rights organisation for documenting and reporting victim testimony of alleged abuses—and for urging further investigation—is certainly an interesting position to hold. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::“Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians”: I didn’t make it up — that’s the actual title of the article. And I completely agree with you that it’s absurd, which is precisely why this source isn’t reliable. Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::That's not what the article says, though. WP:HEADLINES makes it clear we should look at what the body of the source text says. {{tq|Palestinian Territory – The Israeli military is using police dogs to systematically attack Palestinian civilians during military operations in the Gaza Strip. The dogs are also used to intimidate, beat, and sexually assault prisoners and detainees in Israeli detention facilities.}} (Emphasis mine.) I do not think we should deprecate or downgrade a source because of a poorly deployed comma splice in a headline on a single article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::That's a big move of the goalposts. You said "not stated anywhere", now it's "stated in the headline, but that doesn't count". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Goalposts remain firmly in place, because the headline has [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6383/Gaza:-Israeli-army-systematically-uses-police-dogs-to-brutally-attack-Palestinian-civilians,-with-at-least-one-reported-rape been updated], to a version which reads {{tq|Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack Palestinian civilians, with at least one reported rape}}. The [https://archive.is/OkJE8 archival version] of the piece that @Boutboul is citing was taken on 28 Jun 2024 05:38:44 UTC. The updated version was itself first archived [https://web.archive.org/web/20240628143044/https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6383/Gaza:-Israeli-army-systematically-uses-police-dogs-to-brutally-attack-Palestinian-civilians,-with-at-least-one-reported-rape roughly 9 hours later], at 28 Jun 2024 14:30:44 UTC. So not only did they have accurate content in the body from the get-go, but they very quickly moved to update to a more precise headline that same day. The updated version [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6383/Gaza:-Israeli-army-systematically-uses-police-dogs-to-brutally-attack-Palestinian-civilians,-with-at-least-one-reported-rape is still live to this day]. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Pick one argument. At the start of this discussion, you said {{tq|Why should EMHRM correct it when it has not been repudiated? That's why I was hoping you had found evidence to show it was incorrect.}} Now you're saying that it has been repudiated, but EMHRM corrected it.
• ::::::::::So, what factual position are you currently endorsing?
• ::::::::::# Israel systemically uses dogs to rape Palestinians
• ::::::::::# Israel has raped one person with a dog
• ::::::::::# One detainee said they saw another detainee be raped by a dog, but it's unconfirmed whether that is true
• ::::::::::I think 3. is a correct assessment of the situation. EMHRM said 1. initially, then silently changed it to 2 without a public correction. The vast majority of sources that do cover the alleged canine molestations go with option 3: quoting Fadi Bakr but without endorsing his claims as true. However, EMHRM says they "confirmed" this based on one person's uncorroborated testimony. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Repudiation is "the act of refusing to accept something or someone as true, good, or reasonable". There has been no repudiation here, just a routine editorial improvement of a headline to better align it with the content of the article. The original headline could have been read in 2 different ways and now it is clearer. Isoceles-sai (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Agree with @Isoceles-sai on repudiation. I am not endorsing any factual position, other than that I am correctly interpreting an old initial headline. None of the three options you listed, @Chess, are correct interpretations of the headline. The original title does not make the claim that dogs are being trained to systematically rape Palestinians. They put {{tq|attack, rape}}. If they had been making the claim that position (1) is correct, then they would have said "attack and rape." In any case, it was quickly clarified and, again, WP:HEADLINES. The content of the article reports what EMHRM has been told ({{tq|testimonies...confirming...}} is a standard formulation used by plenty of RS for all manner of things) and then they call for an investigation, which is perfectly reasonable. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::https://archive.is/OkJE8 Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Advocacy. Can be used with in text attribution. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 - should be attributed, but its well cited and their reports are cited by reliable sources. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't see what the fuss is about with PIA topic area? If the only reason we are knitpicking supposed errors {{small|(that some of their reports weren't reposted by other groups)}} is because a human rights org is saying there are human rights violations in Gaza, some of these votes should be considered in that context. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 or if necessary Option 2 - In practice, labeling a source as 'advocacy' is too often misused to selectively cast doubt on that source. The line between advocacy and journalism is much, much too blurry to be a convenient pass/fail test for Wikipedia editors. As for the "police dog" issue, the [https://archive.is/OkJE8 article itself] is somewhat ambiguous about what exactly happened, because the testimony it discusses is somewhat ambiguous. Per the source Israeli attack dogs were used against Palestinian civilians. This doesn't qualify as an extraordinary claim. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• :What about [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%E2%80%99l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%E2%80%99s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%E2%80%8B the claim that the Israeli supreme court legalised organ theft from Palestinians]? Samuelshraga (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. Highly partisan advocacy group that we should not use without attribution. Use by RSs with attribution suggests it is a source we can cite, but at least one egregious example of highly inaccurate reporting on an inflammatory topic (organ traffic, where they eg made a false claim about an Israeli court decision, documented above) indicates we should not cite it without extreme care and caveats. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 or at least Option 2, since they regularly published unverified reports (i.e. [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%E2%80%99l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%E2%80%99s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%E2%80%8B 1]) as news reports. See 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy. At the very least, we need a strong distinction between news and opinion, as most articles on the site fall squarely into the latter. --FeldBum (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 The source is largely reliable but relies heavily on the testimony of detainees and residents of Gaza which cannot, at this minute, be verified for obvious reasons. This means that we should often be careful to attribute both to EuroMed and to the source of the testimony. (i.e. {{tq|EuroMedMonitor has reported that released detainees describe...}}). It is also occasionally careless with wording, it did actually state in a single sentence that the Israeli supreme court had made organ-harvesting legal, even though it was clear from the text of the report in which this claim appears that this was not correct. But this one error/false claim is not enough to allow us to discard the wealth of information the source brings given its access to Gaza. Far worse errors have been made by mainstream sources we accept as reliable, for example uncorrected parroting of the 40 beheaded babies claim.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2, all these interested parties have an axe to grind and should be looked at critically but I've not seen anything particularly bad compared to all the Israeli ones, and I get the feeling it is more reliable and does more fact checking than the Telegraph which just spews out misinformation, how that gets to be generally reliable I don't know. NadVolum (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC) I'd already !voted a while ago and completely forgot! -this RfC has been around so long. At least it looks like I've been consistent onoption 2. NadVolum (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 per WP:USEBYOTHERS. ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :"{{tq|If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.}}"
• :WP:USEBYOTHERS does not support an Option 1 !vote, but could well support an Option 2 or Option 3. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 due to extreme bias (its founder's closeness with Hamas leadership and its outright refusal to report on Palestinian war crimes against Israelis despite styling itself as a human rights monitor. Its refusal to self-correct, its promotion of the systemic canine rape conspiracy theory based on one unverified testimony where one incident was alleged and its canvassing operation on Wikipedia are also hallmarks of an GUNREL source. I would say Option 2 outside of Israel-Palestine, because the problems, besides their canvassing operation, are confined to Israel-Palestine affairs and not other theatres of its work. However, they are an advocacy group and considering their sloppy coverage of Israel-Palestine and their canvassing operation, more reputable human rights groups (like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) are preferable. Closetside (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :A further problem is that it [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6708/Infographic:-577-days-of-genocide-in-Gaza| claims] that only 6,204 non-civilians (i.e. militants) were killed during the war. However, a Hamas official [https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/in-first-acknowledgement-of-significant-losses-hamas-official-says-some-6000-operatives-killed-in-gaza-fighting/| acknowledged] 6,000 operatives in February 2024, 4 months into the war. The notion that only 204 other operatives were killed, whether Hamas operatives after February 2024 or operatives of other militant groups since the war's beginning is ludicrous. As late as December 2024, it [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6645/Infographic:-444-days-of-genocide-in-Gaza---23-December-2024 | claimed] that less than 6,000 militants were killed despite the official's admission. While Hamas denied the official's claim, there is no reason to doubt the official's credibility and every reason to suspect Hamas officially denied the claim to avoid a morale loss among its forces, similar to its denial of Mohammed Deif's killing. Closetside (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 They appear to hold a clear bias and have repeatedly published unverified information, potentially even misinformation, about Gaza, despite being based in Europe. --Bruebach (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 Usable with attribution. It would be have been better if there were any journalists from reliable sources operating in Gaza but due to the circumstances an advocacy group is one of the few voices that remain. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 I came across this discussion while looking into the reliability of the source before using it. From what I've seen so far, and also based on what other editors have pointed out, it seems to be cited fairly often by reliable sources. Personally, I don't find the accusations of "extreme bias" very convincing. It is a human rights organization, and by nature such groups can be seen as controversial, depending on whom they are criticising or perhaps whom they are not. If it is used with proper attribution that should be sufficient. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• It's important to note that Euro-Med runs [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/projects/5/WIKI-Rights Wiki-Rights], which "trains" Wikipedians with what appears to be a desire to change the coverage of certain topics to allign with their values. I believe that any participant is at minimum obligated to disclose their COI if they choose to participate in this discussions. FortunateSons (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :@FortunateSons while I see your reasoning, I think WP:ADVOCACY/WP:SOAP might be better targets than WP:BATTLEGROUND there. ADVOCACY covers trying to shape Wiki articles to fit certain beliefs or narratives in violation of WP:NPOV, while BATTLEGROUND moreso constitutes general aggressiveness and incivility (sometimes in pursuit of advocacy, but not always). The Kip ^(contribs) 18:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Ah, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Jesus fucking christ... — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Wow, they've been running this program since 2015! Considering that I've never seen anyone disclosing this, there are definitely WP:COI/WP:CANVASSING issues here, however they should probably be discussed elsewhere. It's definitely a biased source, with their founder and chairman being [https://x.com/RamAbdu/status/1710979802717372844 really] [https://x.com/RamAbdu/status/1711014615885185265 happy] about the October 7 attack. Alaexis_¿question? 14:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The political views of Jeff Bezos have zero impact on the reliability of Washington Post, so long as he doesn't interfere in the newspaper in a way that would undermine its accuracy. Same applies here.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Vice regent If I recall correctly, though, statements made by Jonathan Greenblatt outside of his role as head of the ADL were partly used as rationale to rate the ADL as GUNREL; there's also been other instances where the views/statements of a publication's main or sole owner/editor/etc were similarly used as points of unreliability, such as The Grayzone and Max Blumenthal's other outlets. That's not to say Abdu's had direct effects on EMHRM's reliability/lack thereof, but from a hypotheticals standpoint I don't think the argument that his views have impacted their publications is that out there.
• ::WaPo's a bit of a poor comparison as well, considering it's a large newspaper with an editorial process and (at least formerly?) fairly robust fact-checking; EMHRM, like the ADL, is an advocacy group, which aren't usually run to those same standards. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Don't forget the Jewish Chronicle, unreliable due to right-wing ideologues taking it over.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_455#RFC_Jewish_Chronicle] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Of course, newspaper owners have influence over their publications! That’s true for Jeff Bezos and many others. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::The views of a proprietor have no bearing on the reliability of the publication they own, correct. But the false statements of an editor do, I think, have bearing on the reliability of the publication they own. It’s not comparable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Did the proposer of this just think there wasn't enough happening in the world? They should not be wasting people's time dragging up again without some good reason. None was provided. NadVolum (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The original discussion wasn’t an RfC, this is. The source comes up in discussions regularly, and is cited within many contentious articles, so a clear consensus on reliability is beneficial. FortunateSons (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Regarding the lack of reliability, here is a good example [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5962/Israel-conducts-executions-in-Shifa-Hospital,-uses-its-staff-as-human-shields]

{{cquote|After failing to find any evidence of a military presence in the medical facility, the Israeli soldiers went crazy and deliberately carried out a series of executions, eliminating and directly shooting a number of the wounded in cold blood.}}

: They published it in November 2023. It's hard to prove that this didn't take place but we can check whether anyone else has reported on this ever since. Amnesty International said nothing about summary executions of the wounded in their [https://www.amnesty.org.au/israel-opt-israels-raid-of-al-shifa-hospital-is-a-devastating-attack-on-human-rights-in-gaza-crisis/ piece] about the Al-Shifa raid, which is otherwise quite critical of Israel's actions. I searched for other reports and found none.

: It's possible that their reliability varies and sometimes their bias doesn't prevent them from publishing valuable information that is then re-published by reliable sources, as demonstrated by some editors. In that case we should use those reliable sources. I don't think we should ever use information that appears only in Euromed reports. Alaexis_¿question? 08:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::"It's hard to prove that this didn't take place" - then this is in no way "a good example of their lack of reliability". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::A source making an exceptional claim that no other reliable source corroborates does have negative indications for notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• This needs to be closed formally by an uninvolved closer, and I restored the text above after a bot automatically had tried to archive the discussions and RfC. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Why have you bothered to do this, the RFC tag has been removed, the extra time from the do not archive tags has elapsed, and in all that time no new comments have been added. Maybe it will never be closed, having it on the noticeboard won't make that happen, and if it is closed the closer can restore it to the noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::How do we formally request a closer to come and close it? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::It’s already on WP:Closure requests! FortunateSons (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::How do we prevent an RfC from being auto-archived prior to being closed? Sorry, I am unfamiliar with such requests and the deadlines before archive etc. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::You don’t, generally speaking. It can still be closed despite being archived, and no new comments make that closure easier. FortunateSons (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Oh I thought it could not be closed once archived, or at least it would be much less likely due to being much less visible. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::In practice, that’s a reasonable concern, in theory, the closure request noticeboard should take care of that. FortunateSons (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I posted a closure request to WP:CR when the RFC tag was removed on the 19th of April, it will remain on CR until someone closes it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

What is the reliability of https://maorinews.com specifically this article [https://maorinews.com/writings/papers/other/pakeha.htm]?

It is being used on the pakeha article. It should not be confused with Te Ao Maori News [https://www.teaonews.co.nz/] Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that is a self-published website with no evidence of any reliability or use by other sources that'd establish it as an RS. I also don't believe it is a newspaper despite the name. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:: It appears to include the archive of a periodical published between 1988 and 1990 https://putatara.net/about/ What statement sourced to it are you querying? Per the instructions at the top of this page "supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." Daveosaurus (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:: The article at maorinews was just a draft. The citation has now been replaced with a citation to the final published article from the University of Auckland research repository. Nurg (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm struggling to figure out if that is a peer-reveiwed publication; according to the National Library (https://natlib.govt.nz/records/21982578) 'They provide a forum for the dissemination and discussion of educational ideas, and present research and scholarship being undertaken by members of the Faculty.' Traumnovelle (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an entry for the [https://cbc.ca CBC]? CoolDino1 (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Long live the disambig of course regarding CBC. And here is the page Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Only need an entry if people have questioned it a lot. As far as I know, it hasn’t been. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Okay, I get it. CoolDino1 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, CBC's reputation is generally good enough that it's rare for it to be brought to WP:RS/N so it's not a perennial source largely on the basis of a good reputation. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)