Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs

Which of the following describes the reliability of Check Your Fact?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1. Check Your Fact is a certified member of the International Fact-Checking Network (see WP:IFCN for more information) and has been a fact-checking partner of Facebook for quite a while now. The most recent assessment by the International Fact-Checking Network indicates that this is a fact-checking operation with eight dedicated staff. Per the review, which conducted independent sample testing of the fact checks produced by Check Your Fact, this is a fact-checker that uses the best available primary sources where available (to avoid games of telephone; see criteria 3.2), uses multiple sources of evidence where available (see criteria 3.3), makes public a clear structure for editorial control with three dedicated editors (see criteria 4.3-4.4), lists a public methodology (see criteria 4.5-5.1), provides relevant evidence to support or undermine claims when applicable (see criteria 5.3), applies its methodology consistently regardless of who is making the claim (see criteria 5.4), attempts to seek comment from individuals who made claims, when possible (see criteria 5.5), has a published corrections policy, and publishes corrections when applicable (see criteria 6.3), among other items. Funding for the project comes from Facebook (via its fact-checking contracts) and The Daily Caller (via advertising revenue and its general budget). Since at least 2019, Check Your Fact has been editorially independent of The Daily Caller's newsroom, though it is owned by The Daily Caller.
  Based on the independence of the newsroom for Check Your Fact, and the WP:IFCN's certification of the source as a fact-checker, I do think that this is a generally reliable fact checker. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2/3 While I am receptive to the relatively positive report at the International Fact-Checking network I have some concerns about the methodology. Particularly 1.5 ignores corporate ownership as a potential source of bias. 2.1 allows the fact-checking agency to self-select the facts it checked for review. 5.1 only states that a methodology exists but the link to the actual posted methodology [5] is absurdly vague. 6.2 points to a corrections page but articles to do with hot-button social issues such as abortion access / planned parenthood on the corrections page contain no information beyond that the article was taken down for not meeting editorial standards. So not exactly a correction so much as a redaction. 6.5 assumes that the parent company "has and adheres to an open and honest corrections policy" which I don't believe to be the case notwithstanding the certification of IFCN. Furthermore the IFCN rubrick does not sufficiently address the ways in which the selection decisions of what facts to check can necessarily impact the metanarrative of a fact-checking website. Because of this I find the IFCN certification not entirely persuasive. However it is persuasive enough that I wouldn't go straight to option 4. Simonm223 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With due respect, I would contrast 2.1 allows the fact-checking agency to self-select the facts it checked for review with the random sampling enforced in 1.4, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. And while 2.1 (The applicant fact-checks using the same high standards of evidence and judgement for equivalent claims regardless of who made the claim) is a self-attestation, 5.4 requires a random sample to be tested to check the same thing (The applicant in its fact checks assesses the merits of the evidence found using the same high standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim). So the alleged flaw in criteria 2.1 (that there is no independent checking here) is illusory due to the testing in 5.4.

  If you don't like the methodology of the IFCN, that is one thing, but the resounding RSN consensus is that it is generally reliable for this exact purpose. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I hear you but I think that irregularity is part of what makes the IFCN methodology questionable. That being said my big two concerns with the IFCN methodology, as I said below in the discussion area, are 5.1, 6.2 and 6.5. Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean by that irregularity? Do you mean that the certification requires both self-attestation and independent assurance? Because that sort of thing is extremely standard in industry. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be happier if there were no self-selection criteria and if the certifying body was fully controlling what is selected. But, again, this is not my main point of contention. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 Although CYF started as little more than a new URL for the Daily Caller it now has a separate editorial staff and writers. However I don't think fact checking sites are good sources in general, better sources should be found with fact checkers only used sparingly and with care. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 until such time as unreliable factual reporting is identified. The perennial sources list is intended for sources that we've repeatedly identified actual problems with, and despite their concerning ownership (classification as generally reliable doesn't preclude WP:WEIGHT) the discussion to classify them here feels preemptive. I think we should wait until someone spots an incorrect or heavily biased fact check being used in the encyclopedia, and at that point Check Your Fact could be brought to RSN. The main header of this very page states fairly clearly that "RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed": this is preemptive and out-of-policy.
  For what it's worth on the source itself, I agree with ActivelyDisinterested regarding fact checking sites in general; however, I don't see a reason to consider them anything less than reliable. As a disclaimer, I am the editor who initially included Check Your Fact at Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, noted above by CommunityNotesContributor. This was the best source I could find for the claim, as the staff claim to have done due diligence trying to find evidence for the false rumor. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum: struck my criticism of the RfC after reading the previous discussions and realize this may actually be necessary. I still think it should be considered generally reliable, but with an RS:P notice addressing both the concepts of fact checking ("Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant." from WP:SNOPES, "Check Your Fact is often a tertiary source. Editors prefer reliable secondary sources over Check Your Fact when available." adapted from WP:BRITANNICA) as well as a note about its ownership ("It is a subsidiary of The Daily Caller, a deprecated source, and there is no consensus on whether/a consensus that it is independent of its parent." adapted from the Deseret News entry). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Premature/Unclear (which I guess would fall under option 2 by the definitions of the categories). I don't see the reason why we should have a whole ass RFC on a source that is used on Wikipedia all of two times, and for which both previous discussions were heavily focused on some vague abstract notion of reliability rather than any challenges to use in context, as is more typically appropriate for this noticeboard. I would oppose making any changes to RSP based on such abstract and meta discussions in general. As for the specifics, I don't think a single affiliation is sufficient to establish a reputation, and it seems to early to call the organisation well-established, so I cannot endorse a classification as generally reliable. For its use on the hurricane article specifically, the primary issue I see here is not reliability, but that neither source actually directly supports the text in question, which is also rather weaselly (some have claimed, really?). Being threatened with arrests or execution is not the same as actually being arrested or executed, as I'm sure nobody actually executed will dispute, so rumours of actual vs threatened action should ideally not be equated either. The best source in the world still shouldn't be used to support a claim it doesn't actually make. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to #Discussion: Check Your Fact

• Option 1 Red-tailed hawk made a good case. Even attempting to self-impose such methodological strictures justifies assuming reliability for the time being. Roggenwolf (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 per Red-tailed hawk. Nemov (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 per Red-tailed hawk and WP:IFCN, which says There is consensus that [IFCN] is generally reliable for determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations. No evidence of inaccurate reporting has been presented here. I've looked through the articles on the front page and they seem even-handed and well-researched. Most of them are focused on debunking false claims on social media, so editors should consider WP:DUE when deciding if the content is worth including. Astaire (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1: This is a pretty standard fact-checker and should be treated similarly to other major fact-checkers. According to scholarly reports, it is "considered by the fact-checking community as highly reputable." [6]. Likewise, academic studies frequently utilize CYF in their research (see [7], [8], [9], etc.). Though, I will note it is quite strange--and rare--to see a fact-checker owned by an unreliable source. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1. There appears to be a lack of tangible evidence that CYF has actually published any false or misleading statements, or otherwise failed to correct errors etc. While I'm sceptical that any publication under the control of TDC can be considered generally reliable here, I'm not seeing any evidence as to why CYF should be considered unreliable. Instead, there appears to be strong arguments as to why it is in fact generally reliable. I otherwise think the status quo should apply here; if IFCN believes it is reliable, then it is generally reliable, and either there needs to be very strong arguments as to why this is not the case, or otherwise the previous consensus needs to be overturned. CNC (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant option 1 While I'm personally uncomfortable with their Daily Caller ownership, most everything posted above seems to indicate that they're editorially independent and considered reliable by most other sources. Probably worth keeping a closer eye on them, though. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1. While there may very well be few cases in which it's necessary or appropriate to actually cite CYF for a statement of fact, there has been no compelling evidence provided that CYF is anything but a reliable source. I really dislike any of us random Wikipedians engaging in beard-stroking, second-guessing of the criteria used by a reliable source like the IFCN, just as random Wikipedians should not be saying "how come that New York Times article didn't interview X, Y, and Z, who I think really would set the record straight?!", or "I don't like that systematic review in The Lancet because I think they should have used a different methodology!". If the IFCN rubric is 'bad', then WP:IFCN is bogus, and I guess every fact-checking website under its purview should be jettisoned just because someone on the internet has an issue with it. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Aside from my comments above in the survey section, I would note that I do take objection lumping this source in with The Daily Caller on RSP without prior RSN discussion; it is extraordinarily sloppy to do that when it's got an independent newsroom and it wasn't discussed prior. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Likewise, I've attempted to address this at WP:CHECKYOURFACT until the RfC closes. Note this does not mean that CYF is no longer deprecated (it's still listed as such), only that there lacks consensus over categorisation. CNC (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm a bit concerned that decisions about CYF should not just be derived from the IFCN page which has methodological faults. Particularly their treatment of the corrections policy of the parent company and the handling of corrections surrounding Planned Parenthood by CYF are concerning. However we have a lot of garbage sources that aren't deprecated. I don't think this is a good source of information. But it's probably not as bad as Daily Caller unfiltered. Simonm223 (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue is that when CYF was first setup it was just the editor of the Daily Caller posting content very similar to what was on the Daily Caller. If they setup a new site tomorrow called the Caily Daller that simply duplicate the content of the Daily Caller, then it would be silly to say it required a new RFC because it was using a different url.

  Saying that the CYF now has a separate editorial staff and writers, it's just that hasn't always been the case. So there was nothing sloppy about initially including it in the DC RSP entry. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that it was added to RSP in 2024, despite no discussion on it and despite prior public reporting that the newsroom had been independent... 5 years before that. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It would have been included in the Daily Caller RFC, that happened 5 and half years ago. As per my comment in the survey section, I think things have changed. But it had little separation at that point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "It would have been included in the Daily Caller RFC" It wasn't. CNC (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If a unreliable source starts publishing at a new URL that URL is still unreliable, the idea that a new RFC is required when that happens is just bureaucracy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from #RfC: Check Your Fact

• "I don't see the reason why we should have a whole ass RFC on a source that is used on Wikipedia all of two times" Because RfCs are for dispute resolution and there is a clear dispute over this source. Unless you can identify the consensus in the above discussion for us to save us all time and effort? It otherwise doesn't matter if it's only used twice, an RfC can even be for source usage in a single article if there is a dispute regarding it's usage. There is also no obligation to engage in this (even if it is a "request"); so if it seems like a waste of time for you, then might be worth considering not engaging to avoid time wasting. CNC (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What would "save us all time and effort" is for people to read the part of the editnotice where it says the article it is used in, and the claim it supports and not create discussions where no real dispute in articlespace actually exists. Yes, technically there have been (multiple!) previous discussions on this source (one of them in this very section, even!), but starting discussions and RFCs that, intentionally or not, exclude the context surrounding the source gives the appearance of trying to bypass WP:RSCONTEXT, which is highly inappropriate and detrimental to evaluating the quality of a source in the places and situations it is likely to be used on Wikipedia. My objection on the RFC is thus on both procedural and substantive grounds. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (Procedurally, this is premature because there is virtually no use, no dispute affecting actual article content, and neither of the two previous discussions are valid. It is unclear because I have no idea how people use it, other than that they don't actually appear to do so. Substantively I don't think it's appropriate to call a newsroom that's existed all of 5 years well-established as per NEWSORG, and unclear because I am not in the habit of taking a single source as gospel, no matter how good it is.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course there is no use, it is deprecated. I think that it should be removed from the perennial sources listing. If it comes up, then it can be discussed. I think the fact that it has its own newsroom and is a specific type of journalism, means that it can be treated differently. From a quick look, it is mostly debunking social media posts. So I don't think any of those might be relevant for Wikipedia. The bias is probably more in what they choose to debunk. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are well over a thousand uses of The Sun, which is similarly deprecated. Removing it from RSP seems fine though, I doubt people will suddenly start using it... Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature

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

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

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

The real question comes to is the editorial process compared to that of the Time Magazine, or is it more along that of two well known and popular, but generally unusable Forbes Contributors and Huffington Post contributors sources?

Many of the writers in IVM articles are band members, rather than professionally trained journalists.

Things to be addressed here are:

What sort of things can it be relied on for factual accuracy?

Is it of any use at all for establishing notability and if so, for what?

3family6 said it's reliable because it's in the Christian Metal list, but they did acknowledge they are more or less the lone curator of that list, so that list should perhaps be seen similarly as a blog or a personal website. Graywalls (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify, currently I'm essentially the sole contributor, that was not the case 10 years ago when the list was created. And I last found the discussion, see below

• Ah- I found the talk page discussion where this source along with a lot of others were added. multiple editors were involved and approved that listing--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the site's staff page looked like when it was added to WP:CM/S. I'm pinging editors who were either involved in the discussion of adding the sources (which included IVM) or who have otherwise been - or are now active 11 years later - in WikiProject Christian music (and who are still active - sadly, a couple accounts got banned for socking unrelated to this issue): TenPoundHammer, Toa Nidhiki05, Royalbroil, TARDIS, The Cross Bearer. I'm also going to reach out to Brandon Jones about the editorial policy (without mentioning this discussion), and see what he says.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:, The RS/N specializes in evaluating sources. I don't know why you've pinged five users you hand picked. It's kind of WP:CANVASSish in a recruiting kind of way especially when you hold one particular position on the matter on hand. Graywalls (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained why I pinged these editors. Most of them were involved with curating the sources list, which included IVM. I don't know what their opinions on this issue are. It's not Canvassing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:, Going off a bit on a tangent, but it seems to me sockpuppetry seems rather prevalent among music focused editors. Sometimes, it's necessary to go back and discount inputs from sock form consensus. Graywalls (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in a large part precisely WHY I tagged editors who were involved in that discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Invisiboy42293, Booyahhayoob, and TrulyShruti as they are also currently active and are part of the Christian music WikiProject. I also will post a notice of this discussion there so other active editors I have missed might still be notified.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting people enthusiastic, probably part of a somewhat cohesive group who share common views may foster more groupthink. Graywalls (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People in the subject area are informed. Per WP:CANVASS "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." It's ridiculous to say that people who are interested in the topic and edit it should be precluded from important discussions about what constitutes reliable sources regarding that subject. Especially given the import that the outcome has, one way or the other.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's like notifying hand picked known railfanning people from WikiProject Trains and asking whether certain railfanning websites are reliable and expert sources. You chose an area of your enthusiasm and you handpicked a set of people from (relatively niche) Wikiproject group, as opposed to general music. I'm not surprised the responses so far have been from people you have hand notified, and of predictable input. Graywalls (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also posted in WikiProject Albums, I'll ping some editors from there in a day or two if they haven't responded. The niche is why I notified editors from that project, as they're familiar with the sources. I'll post a notice to the general music WikiProject as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and I posted to Projects Journalism, and Magazines. Graywalls (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah, I was trying to think of relevant projects, especially since this hasn't gotten any eyes apart from the users I tagged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also notified WikiProject Albums.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Important clarification: The band member mentioned by me and Graywalls above no longer writes for the site (not naming them because they might be a Wikipedia editor and I don't want to out them).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Pinging these editors from a related discussion to see what they think: Saqib, Axad12. The COI editing from User:Metalworker14 included this source (IVM), as well as HM. The latter has no association with the issue, whereas one former IVM author, who hasn't written for the site since 2017, since 2018 has a COI with some bands and their work was used by the paid editing for Metalworker14. Does this taint the entire source, or would the source be unreliable even if this specific issue hadn't occurred?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This looks like any other dime-a-dozen unreliable music site, self-published by amateurs with no apparent training or background in music criticism, no editorial policies, and only known by other niche or local outlets. I see no reason why we'd give their viewpoints any weight, either for reviews or for consideration of notability. I'll also note that I wasn't canvassed here. Woodroar (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Harp has a decade of experience or so at HM it seems to have come on to IVM more recently. Regarding the other authors I don't know of previous work. Brandon Jones founded IVM and only more recently has joined HM.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:, you've mentioned sharing of writers as an indicator of reliability, but I am not sure if that's true. Writers don't write whatever they want and they are expected to write certain things to the publication's standards.

Although it says to evaluate case-by-case, we're generally discouraged from using contributor articles on Forbes. Such freelance writer sharing isn't uncommon but doesn't turn the source into reliable category. One example article https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrolli/2019/10/17/metallica-scores-biggest-global-rock-event-cinema-release-with-sm/ their profile says I am a music and entertainment reporter who specializes in pop, hip-hop and heavy metal. I cover numerous festivals, interview local and national touring musicians, and examine how artists' personal brands and social media antics affect their art and their earnings. My work has appeared in Billboard, Paste, Consequence of Sound, Noisey and the Daily Dot but just because that person wrote it doesn't mean it can be treated as an equivalent of a Billboard or Daily Dot article.

Another source, such as HubPages and their now defunct sister projects like Delishably and ReelRundown did have editorial oversight and editorial policy but with specific purposes and they're rated based on AI evaluation, moderator reviews and "search traffic" over a long term. Those are MONETIZED articles and the purpose is to drive traffic so that hosting service can maximize ad revenue. The simple presence of editorial oversight doesn't make it reliable. So, what remains to be determined is the editorial process of IVM. Is it more like Forbes contributors, Hub Pages and like or comparable to Billboard, Consequence of Sound or National Geograpics? Graywalls (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the context, Graywalls. I was responding to this statement self-published by amateurs with no apparent training or background in music criticism,. For one of the writers, this is not true, as he has an extensive background with a reputable magazine. You already brought up your point about Forbes contributors, you don't need to do so again.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was providing an actual piece written by someone with respectable experience so there's a specific example. It's not just a simply rephrased version of the same thing I said which appears to be what you may have been implying. Graywalls (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point, I appreciate that these are much more fleshed out example. But that's not the point of this particular part of the discussion. What was in discussion here is the professionalism of the writing staff, particularly prior experience. And it's a mixed bag. To your point, yes, just because they're a professional writer doesn't mean that they aren't essentially self-published in some cases. Still, the professionalism of the writers is a useful tool for determining reliability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My feeling is that the recent discussion at COIN (here [12]), which ultimately resulted in Metalworker14 being blocked as a primarily promo account, indicates the problems that can be encountered in small scenes (whether they be music scenes or other relatively small groups of enthusiasts).

  When a user who has a range of potential COIs starts to edit Wikipedia under a pseudonym, evidently the undisclosed nature of what they are doing will create issues. However, whether that necessarily casts a cloud over their work off-wiki is a different question.

  My feeling is that material created within small scenes is primarily for the benefit of fans - who are probably aware of the possibility of some form of COI existing (whether that be direct financial COI or individuals reviewing the work of their friends, etc.). Fans are, I'd suggest, untroubled by such issues and are grateful for the fact that dedicated coverage exists at all, created by individuals who are also enthusiasts. Whether the material is of a nature that an encyclopaedia ought to be depending on, however, I am inclined to doubt.

  Really we are probably in the realms of fanzines, i.e. where editors are likely grateful that material has been submitted at all and significant editorial oversight is potentially lacking. Axad12 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I was asked to comment here rather than at the notice at RS/N, and this extensive discussion has suggested my priors on this issue are still the case: this is a standard mid-level independent source on a specialized musical topic, and 3family6's comments indicate that its writers have the level of musical expertise and training that any other music rag would have. They are not investigative journalists, but rather critics evaluating based on a background in an understanding of musical style and history - which is what you get from most staff who write for e.g. Pitchfork, Allmusic, Popmatters, or Dusted. I don't think the use of the source by one troublesome editor casts doubt on the source generally, and I'm inclined to buy the argument that the writers IVM carries that also write for HM has some weight (since HM is reliable). We'd want to exercise COI caution for any artist directly associated with Indie Vision's label or a musical release from a staff member, but that's not a cause for general concern about the source. Chubbles (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still waiting to hear back from the website/Brandon Jones about the policy, but, I was able to determine that they do issue corrections and edits: [13], [14], [15], [16]. So that's a good sign of editorial oversight and ensuring accuracy.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I meant to post this here, not the WP Music, but posted there by mistake. Looking at https://www.indievisionmusic.com/author/brandon-j/ it sure seems like a self published source. My personal take on it is that it can't be used to support notability. These small time bands are not competing against each other but rather supporting each other. The blogosphere of these band blogs is an echo chamber of like minded bands boosting and praising each other publicly to collectively raise themselves. It's like friends and family writing references for each other. If they offer correction notices, it's better than not doing that, but people do that even on Wikipedia pages with strike out. It's not a one man show, but still a blog. Editorial process that only consists of fixing grammar/spelling and suppressing contents of liability concerns prior to publishing isn't really much of editorial oversight. Graywalls (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me address the part about "like-minded bands": Indie Vision Music isn't a band, it's a website, and for awhile was also a record label. So far, it's been shown that one author was in some bands. Authors are allowed to also be musicians, there's nothing wrong with that. And that writer has not written for the site since 2017. "boosting and praising each other publicly to collectively raise themselves." - that's not correct, as the site will give out negative reviews (this one, for example). "Editorial process that only consists of fixing grammar/spelling and suppressing contents of liability concerns prior to publishing isn't really much of editorial oversight." What are you referring to here? Hypotheticals aren't useful. Please substantiate them. The correction examples I found and listed above are more than that. Does the review process involve more than that? Maybe yes, maybe no. You are speculating here that they don't actually fact-check. This could be a group blog, which, yes, is an example of a self-published source. Or, this could be a site with an editorial process. We know it has a reputation and is used by others. The question is about the editorial process, since that isn't public knowledge.

Now, as to Brandon Jones and self-published sources, Brandon Jones is the publisher but also writes for the site. Other writers for the site, it's not an issue - they're the writers, he's the publisher, so they aren't self-published. But, are articles by Brandon Jones self-published? I think I asked about cases where a publication owner and publisher writes material for that publication years ago, I think in reference to Doug Van Pelt of HM or John DiBiase of Jesus Freak Hideout. I couldn't find that discussion, and so I brought this to the WP:V talk page. As I asked there, Like, for example, if Ian Danzig writes an article for Exclaim! (which he owns and publishes), or HM's founder and publisher Doug Van Pelt or Jesus Freak Hideout's owner and publisher John DiBiase write articles for their respective websites, or A. G. Sulzberger writes a story for The New York Times, are those articles self-published sources only or are they considered reliable, independent published sources? And basically, it depends. There's actually two current, very active discussions on basically this and more broadly related questions about orgs where the publishing process is internal to the organization (as opposed to an external entity, for example, Blabbermouth.net being hosted by Roadrunner Records). And there doesn't seem to be a consensus. I think a lot of it depends on the editorial process. On that point, with Indie Vision Music, I think there's two distinct eras to that site on this issue. From 2006 to 2020, the site had a managing editor, Josh Murphy. That adds a layer of editorial process, both for the site and for Brandon Jones. But, conversely, how much is that editorial control independent when it comes to Brandon's writings, as Brandon will be the one publishing them? That still seems to be a pretty close relation. I don't know if there's an answer here. I think that having a managing editor does indicate an actual editorial process from 2006 to 2020 at least. I still haven't heard back yet what the policy is at present. I don't know if I will get a response (which I don't think proves things one way or the other, it just leaves that question unanswered). I'm wondering if perhaps Brandon's writings from 2017 onward (that year being the year he was hired by HM) are self-published material from a reliable expert in the field, whereas the other writers are not self-published.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, RSN discussions tend to find that anything written by the site runner would be considered self-published. For example, see the WP:RSP entry for Quackwatch. The editor, Stephen Barrett, is an expert on quackery but because he basically runs the site, we often can't use his pieces per WP:BLPSPS. That's not a problem with other authors at the site, because their work would proceed through the normal editorial process (i.e., Barrett). Woodroar (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's what I was thinking. Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating the presence/absence of editors is easy enough, but evaluating their effectiveness and reliability is the tricky one. They could just be a website with contributors and editors from various bands each given various titles. As another editor mentioned, we have to differentiate professional editors vs a group of volunteer band members with no formal training in journalism running a glorified blog. Graywalls (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On that metric, then, Indie Vision Music is reliable. Volunteer professional staff is expressly allowed. The site publisher has been operating the site since 2000, and since 2017 is a professional writer for HM. A current writer has written for HM since 2009. The only band member I'm aware of is one, now former writer. And band members are allowed to also write music journalism, there's no wiki-guideline prohobiting this. So, how do we evaluate the effectiveness of the source? This is where WP:USEBYOTHERS comes into play - we can check if it has a good reputation. And, as I demonstrated above, the copy of IVM is referenced or republished by other established reliable sources, and a reliable source calls IVM "well-regarded".--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:, As has contents from NYPOST or the DAILYMAIL, both of which are red in [{WP:RSP]]. So, I wouldn't rely much on USEBYOTHERS. Graywalls (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with WP:V, then hold an RfC at Village pump. This isn't the venue.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up one point, and I addressed that point. Graywalls (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up that point because WP: USEBYOTHERS is one of the two primary means of determining of a source is reliable (the other being an editorial oversight process). If you disagree with USEBYOTHERS, then by all means bring that up at an RfC.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disagreeing in your interpretation and application. Graywalls (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chubbles, what do you think in light of the question that Graywalls raises here and that I've tried to address. Do you think the site is still reliable, in light of this?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do, but I'm not the one you need to convince - he is. Chubbles (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what your reasoning is here and why this is more than just a group blog.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Graywalls is setting an unnecessarily high bar and making unnecessary presumptions about the nature and motives of music criticism and journalism (here specifically, but also generally). Most music publications would fail under his definition of an independent source - which is precisely his point; I believe he is convinced that the vast majority of popular music coverage on the site isn't worthy of the site, and this is one step in that effort. I'm confident that, say, Pitchfork, Popmatters, Stereogum, or Brooklyn Vegan would also fail his criteria; they are also "group blogs" in exactly the same way he means. If the standard of a reliable source for popular music is the journalistic equivalent of The New York Times, we will have precious little music to write about on Wikipedia. Chubbles (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that explanation--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here but also generally, Chubbles and I rarely see eye-to-eye on things though but most of our disagreements are over the notability of record labels. I firmly believe they're companies and are not expressly exempt under music related SNG, therefore should be held to NCORP, but they believe record labels articles should be permitted to remain with unnecessarily low bar. Yes absolutely, journalistic equivalent of NYT is expected for record labels, like any other articles subject to NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about record labels. You are correct that NCORP applies, but that's not relevant here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3family6, you keep bringing up HM and USEBYOTHERS as if it's a slam dunk case, but I don't think it is. When niche sources share authors with and are cited by similar niche sources, that's not evidence that they're reliable—it simply means that they've created a walled garden. You compared HM to No Clean Singing and MetalSucks above, but No Clean Singing has more than 3x the number of Facebook followers, and MetalSucks has 25x as many. Before this discussion, I'd never heard of Indie Vision Music or HM, and I've been listening to metal for more than 3 decades. (Not to personalize this discussion too much, but after checking your User page, longer than you've been alive!) I'd even consider No Clean Singing to be pretty insignificant as far as sources go. It's also a niche source, but not as niche as "metal but ALSO Christian". Woodroar (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those might be something that might belong to the same web ring in the pre-Facebook days. Graywalls (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USEBYOTHERS isn't necessarily a slam dunk. My objection to Graywalls was because I had the impression of them blanket dismissing that usage rather than engaging in the examples given. Yes, DailyMail is used by others, but it also has a mixed reputation and demonstrated consistent issues with bias and inaccuracies. Such a poor reputation hasn't been demonstrated in the case of IVM - that an editor doing undisclosed paid editing also used a source that was deemed accepted prior to them joining Wikipedia doesn't disqualify a source.

Now, as to the sources used, HM was just one of several references - there's also the less niche CCM Magazine and Cross Rhythms, as well as the Manteca Bulletin, and a reference in [Arrow] Lords of Metal (might still be niche, but isn't the Christian metal niche). I find it a bit interesting that the heavy metal reviews/coverage is the majority of the examples I could find, as IVM is more of an indie music site than specifically metal.

Regarding HM, it probably was a lot more significant before I was born and when I was a very small child, when Stryper was still big and a mainstream act. The publication does regularly interview mainstream artists such as Alice Cooper and Trans Siberian Orchestra. Still, yes, Christian metal is niche, apart from the big 2000s metalcore wave, and Christian extreme metal is so niche and online-based (apart from in some Nordic countries) that a recent book noted the fact of its obscurity to scholars. That HM is for a more niche market doesn't make it less reliable, and a 2018 discussion at WikiProject albums agreed that it is reliable as well. My point with NCS (which discussion on this noticeboard concluded was unreliable - I have changed my mind and agreed with that assessment, based on the evidence) and MetalSucks or numerous other RS is that they are structured the same way. I haven't really seen an argument that demonstrates how IVM is unreliable other than it being a more niche source than those. I wouldn't be as liberal as Chubbles, perhaps, in assessing sources, but I don't see why unreliability is being presumed outside of the issue with how the source was used in COI ways on some select articles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hypothetical example of where USEBYOTHERS justification would be inappropriate. The vlog referenced is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eFIaubn24E That video was a tip that to the story in a WP:RS source Bon Appetit https://www.bonappetit.com/story/best-vodka-taste-test. If we go along with 3family6's idea of application, we'd consider Meagan After Dark YouTube an acceptable source, because some of their content was used by Bob Appetit. I'd say citing IVM directly would be along the line of citing that MAD vlog directly. Graywalls (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yeah, I've realized that this would have helped. The uses of this source are primarily for music journalism - news reporting about bands, music reviews, and retrospectives/music history.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start. But we should take a look at the structure of this conversation. Graywalls is seemingly arguing for blanket exclusion of this source. My thought is that is unlikely, and in any case, per the heading of this page, this would not be the place for it. The heading of this page says to include the specific article and text which it is supporting. Maybe a good start would be to give a specific example. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give some examples. Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

IMO #1 is fine if the veracity in the info isn't doubted. #2 isn't a use, it a type of source/source content. #3 looks good for uncontroversial factual claims. I don't know enough about the site to comment on #3 regarding reviews/criticism. #4 IMO looks good for uncontroversial factual history. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

#2 I should have been more specific. Use as a source of critical opinion and discussing and categorizing musical style of artists, and of making factual claims about artists and band members.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Critical opinion of some non-professionally trained band member author from some random highly non-notable run of the mill vanity band is severely UNDUE for inclusion in any capacity at all. Graywalls (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could see, and might endorse, not using that specific author.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The group blog/webmaster-contributors argument could be argued with many of the RS on WP:A/S - do you want to open a discussion about those?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any consensus reached there is a local consensus and wouldn't override the broader consensus that would form here. Graywalls (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those have had consensus from here. Again, do you want to open up a broader discussion about any websites which do not have an entity as the publisher separate from the site itself?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is, coincidentally, actually one such discussion open right now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I discovered that. I commented in a couple spots, regarding that question.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, if you're interested, I asked over at the Grey Literature RfC about this issue of websites published by one or two individuals.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Invalid RfC but, while I'm here, Unreliable for everything. Indie Vision Music is an extremely niche self-published fanzine, with USEBYOTHERS limited to other extremely niche fanzines. The complaint that only 3 or 4 sources in a walled garden cover these subjects is evidence that these sources are in the extreme minority and UNDUE. Meanwhile, the "similar" RS sites mentioned above are orders of magnitude larger and are themselves widely cited by actually reputable sources outside their niche subject. Besides that, the given options for this RfC only appear to include the opinions of editors who were repeatedly canvassed to the above discussion, and largely ignore editors who weren't canvassed. Woodroar (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything you claim here is untrue. "Unreliable for everything" is an option. If your objection is that I excluded interviews, interviews are considered primary sources and thus the site can't be unreliable for that usage, per guidelines on primary sources. I also specifically mentioned yours and other editors concerns above about it being a niche source that that caters to fans and thus can't be regarded as being factually accurate or good for notability. And lastly, Lords of Metal is a Netherlands based general metal music website completely unrelated to the Christian scene as far as I've been able to tell over the years; Manteca Bulletin is a newspaper of record dating back to 1908, so definitely not a nice Christian music scene source; and Cross Rhythms is a long-standing UK-based publication that also was print-based, deals with the whole gamut of Christian music including artists like Natasha Bedingfield and classical musicians, and the site runners and editors are separate from the overarching company that publishes the site (if that was also a concern). If you think IVM is unreliable, that's fine, but you shouldn't need to then make false statements to justify that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper of record is many orders of magnitude larger than anything we're discussing here. The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, those are newspapers of record. These are much smaller, regional publications that are as good as fanzines in that they cover everything that is happening locally, typically in a positive, promotional fashion. That Manteca Bulletin article could easily be a template for any "Local Boy Band Makes Good" story. Interviews at these types of outlets are just as bad. They're like a talk show, asking softball questions, letting the subject promote whatever they want or get out their talking points. We're an encyclopedia. We shouldn't be relying on these kinds of sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article lead described it as a newspaper of record, which is why I referred to it as such. However, the description section describes it as a community newspaper, which seems more accurate. However, they definitely are an RS, and even if it's a local paper, your "walled garden" claim of only niche sources referencing IVM is still demonstrably false.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this is starting to approach WP:BLUDGEON Graywalls (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My response to Woodroar?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way in which approach each time there's dissenting opinion, generally speaking in this discussion. Graywalls (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to go there, the same could be said regarding yourself. We're both the overwhelming majority of the comment here. Regarding Woodroar's statement above, I could have argued far more, but I opted to let it rest, for the reasons elaborated in that guideline. I actually wasn't aware of that linked guideline, but already was trying to approach this discussion in a similar spirit. To be clear, I've been presuming the RfC as a fresh discussion, as the previous one had stalled (if we want the tally, excluding you and I and people I pinged and/or who came from notices on WikiProjects, it was 1 in favor of how the source is generally used (North8000), and 1 against any usage (Woodroar). If we include people who responded to my notices, it was 3 in favor of general reliability, 1 of which has been at least partly rescinded per discussion in this RfC, and 1 against (Axad12) (so a total of 2 for, 1 against, 1 effectively stricken.). After North8000's and your comments and my replies to those, the discussion stalled for 4 days (and discussions are archived here after 5 days). I was hoping that this RfC would be a fresh start, but it doesn't seem to have been that but just the same three re-hashing the same arguments (apart from the discussion with Toa Nidikhi05 regarding the student writer). I personally am not responding to anything more unless it's comments from someone else or is new information.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Woodroar here. Graywalls (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, you've brought up WP:FORBESCON, which I think is one of the most relevant hypotheticals you've posed. Presuming it is such a situation where the editorial oversight is minimal, Options 2, 3, and 4 are all consistent with that, dependent on what level of expertise we're presuming of the contributors. While Woodroar might not have heard of HM and Doug Van Pelt, the 110,000 print and over 2 million online subscribers to Christianity Today have had multiple opportunities over the years to have heard, and that's just one publication of many which have talked about or referenced HM. There's also academic coverage of that publication. I can provide examples if requested, but a quick Google search should confirm what I've stated here. Given that, why would you still lean to complete exclusion (Option 2) rather than Options 3 or 4?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I did find this example from 2007 of a former writer for IVM (2005-2011) had started writing for the site when he was in high school. So the professionalism of the writers definitely seems to vary.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Toa Nidhiki05 - you've said that you consider this publication reliable. You also on my talk expressed concern about another source (The Phantom Tollbooth) seeming to be amateur. Given this above instance of a high schooler writing for IVM, does that change your opinion at all? 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not necessarily opposed to the use of high school or college aged students as long as the reporting is of high quality (student papers can actually be good resources - I think I used one in the article for 10) - but it's very unusual for a credible website to use them. This definitely impacts how I view this site, or at least the quality of average contributors. Toa Nidhiki05 15:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Both this and going back and seeing archived versions of the site as it was in the mid-2000s, I am questioning that at least at that time if it is a reliable source. I think it's important that this is a year after Murphy joined as an editor. So I'm wondering if, if it's not entirely unreliable, there should be a cutoff of it being unreliable before certain date. or at least that contributor not reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through his resume, he doesn't seem to have done any other music journalism, and his other journalism all student journalism. So nothing afterwards to suggest he became a more professional writer. He does seem to perhaps be a subject expert as a tour guide for Reading, Pennsylvania, but that's a completely different subject area.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toa Nidhiki05, do you have a recommendation that you would suggest regarding the reliability of this source? 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more options, and updated the statement to reflect what I subsequently found regarding the student staff writer.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the ways that this source is used typically used is for news about artists and album reviews, both of which also are presumed to contribute to an artist's notability. I'm also using it for an article I'm building in my sandbox (about Christian death metal) to discuss the history and stylistic evolutions of some bands as that relates to Christian death metal. Specifically, these articles: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about a certain questionable author, but rather they seem to casually allow run of the mill people to write for them making them more or less similar to Forbes Contributor articles. Still not having their editorial policy is a red flag. So, my take on this is that it's a freaking blog with no bearing on raising notability score of others. Graywalls (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about them letting run of the mill people write for them is concern about a questionable author, or authors, in this case. I think you need to reread FORBESCON. The issue with Forbes contributors is not the writers, it's the editorial policies. Forbes contributors *can* potentially be reliable as expert self-published sources, provided they are not being used to make BLP statements. So by that standard, Lloyd Harp would be fine to use, and arguably Brandon Jones since 2017. There's a reason I provide that as an option: because I was taking your Forbes contributors comparison seriously. But there's two concerns: The quality of the writers, which I agree varies, and the editorial policies. We don't know that there isn't a lack of editorial policy. But we haven't been able to confirm that there is. I've never received an email back. Either way it's a bit of speculation. You are convinced that they don't have one, but we can't say that for sure, especially since prior to 2020 they had a head editor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another potential comparable situation to how IVM functions is WP:NEWSBLOG. This was the consensus for About.com music contributors - reliability is contingent on their professional experience, and a table was created for ease of tabulating which writers are professional and which are not. IVM isn't necessarily comparable to this situation, but it might be, and I think that's another relevant consensus.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you haven't been able to produce published editorial policy for IVM. Graywalls (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just said this above that I haven't heard back. Which means it could exist, or might not. that they had an editor suggest that there was some type of process. What's at issue here is whether it's robust or not. Could you explain more of what you mean by "published editorial policy"?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example: https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html Graywalls (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's what I thought. I wish there was such a public statement. And that would probably have made both this and the previous discussion unnecessary.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done)

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

What is the reliability of Al-Manar?

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

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

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

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

• Option 3, per comments from Amigao, Alaexis, and BobFromBrockley in the prior thread. It seems to be a comparable propaganda/disinfo outlet to Al Mayadeen, which we deprecated several months ago, but with a handful of instances (i.e. the soccer player info brought up by Chess, or WP:ABOUTSELF reasons) where it may be somewhat appropriate to use. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If and only if this ends up option 2, which would be problematic in itself, the RSP entry should make a clear distinction between justified usage (ex. non-controversial events in Lebanese life and society) and problematic usage (ex. conflicts that Hezbollah is a direct party to (Arab-Israeli, Syrian civil war), etc). That should be the absolute baseline, considering newer precedents set with the Jewish Chronicle and other sources that have some valid uses but are systemically unreliable with regards to the conflict. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Many of the comments from Amigao, Alaexis, and BobFromBrockley in the prior thread have been rebutted as misrepresenting Al-Manar. I encourage users to click through the links and see for themselves.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Having clicked through the links, I continue to endorse my position and disagree with the rebuttals' rationale. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Would also like to emphasize the verbatim re-reporting of articles from RT and TASS, both GUNREL/deprecated sources, that's been pointed out below. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 per The Kip. ~ HAL333 05:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2. I'd pick 3 for pretty much anything relating to conflicts in the Middle East or other contentious issues. But things happen in Lebanon other than war. Al-Manar's Arabic section has a decent amount of information on uncontroversial aspects of Lebanese society. I would like to see more evidence about how Al-Manar is used to support false claims onwiki before a full GUNREL !vote. Right now, GUNREL means blanket removal for a lot of people. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 - it's very blatant propaganda. The English content is also just quite sloppy and amateurish. Just glancing at a few front page articles,

• [24] the Hitler of our time, Benjamin Netanyahu
• [25] the Zionist invaders are incapable of facing men of God directly (in their own voice, not marked as opinion or anything)
• [26] Israeli police will question Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief of staff over blackmailing of an Israeli occupation officer - implies wrongdoing (maybe unintentional from a bad translation?), never mentioning that this was ruled out by a police investigation
• Regularly accuses "Zionist media" of lies with no details, e.g. this vague accusation of a "fabricated report" by Maariv.

There's just a complete lack of professionalism; RT is better in many ways. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[75] no comment (I don't want to violate BLP).

[76] nothing wrong with an opinion that is shared by hundreds of millions. Yes, in their own voice (it's not Wikipedia).

[77] the usual news reporting (nothing wrong with that either).

Regularly accuses "Zionist media" of lies So? it's not like the Zionists don't have a very long history of lying. M.Bitton (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Such statements of fact in their own voice demonstrate zero regard for journalistic objectivity.
• Reliable sources will not imply wrongdoing based on allegations (again it might be a sloppy translation, but either is bad), and will correct false accusations when someone is cleared by an investigation.
• "the Zionists" is not an entity; Maariv is an entity and a fairly reputable newspaper. But the point is that reliable sources will offer some kind of substantiation when making serious accusations. Here it's not even clear what exactly they're claiming is fabrication.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be pretend to be objective when describing those who are exterminating their people (with the help of those who pretend to be neutral).

So called reliable sources such as the NYT, literally fabricated a story to help Israel. By you standard, we should deprecate NYT. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XDanielx, The Times of Israel frequently calls Hamas members as "terrorists"[27], a subjective term, so I'm not sure why its unprofessional for Al-Manar to refer to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as "Zionist invaders"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was more getting at incapable of facing men of God directly. Professional news orgs will have at least some modicum of journalistic objectivity and would never write such things in their own voice. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 per Chess. Obviously should not be used anywhere near I/P, but may be marginally reliable for things in Lebanon outside of that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3. I believe they are generally unreliable, due to multiple examples of disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories. Comparable sources might be as The Cradle, al-Mayadeen and IRNA, all of which I believe are designated gunrel. Option 2 might be worth considering, if phrased stringently, as the source might be usable for some uncontroversial facts about e.g. Lebanese sport or the statements of Hezbollah and Hezbollah-aligned politicians, but presumably (a) those could be sourced from better places (Lebanon has some decent free press) and (b) might be permissable uses of an unreliable source anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 per Chess. I don't see anything that would justify option 3 (if the word "generally" has changed meaning recently, then we need discuss the so called "reliable sources" that have been caught misrepresenting the events, or worse, fabricated stories, such as the NYT). M.Bitton (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I want to point out that, with the exception of Al-Jazeera, pretty much every source listed at WP:RSP from the Arab world and Muslim world is listed as GUNREL or MREL. We really need to check our WP:Systematic bias.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe there is more to it than systematic bias. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The nature of RSPN means we're much more likely to discuss crap sources than good ones. And given many if not most governments in the Arab/Muslim world are not fond of freedom of the press, it should be no surprise that most entries here lean on the unreliable side. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that right? Mada Masr? Lebanon Daily Star? L'Orient-Le Jour? The New Arab/Al-Araby Al-Jadeed? The National (Abu Dhabi)? Asharq al-Awsat? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  None of those are on RSP, which is what VR said. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is a point against systematic bias against A/M reliable sources. RSP is a bunch of planes with holes in them, some of which made it out to be considered reliable for another day. If A/M sources were being regularly, unfairly challenged, there would be more green entries. Safrolic (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree in that I think it says something that every time we have brought a non-Israeli middle eastern source to RSP it has been declared MREL or GUNREL, except Al Jazeera, which had an extremely large contingent of editors wanting to declare them GUNREL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry I misread. My point is several Arab sources which are heavily used on Wikipedia have not been designated unreliable, undermining the argument for systematic bias. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These all appear to be Western-aligned and/or liberal newspapers, some with serious financial COIs. I do agree that it's a bit imprecise to say Wikipedia's systemic bias is against Arab/Muslim sources as a whole, but the fact that many of the Arab/Muslim sources considered reliable are funded by and/or supportive of Western aligned MENA oil and real estate interests is illustrative of exactly the systemic bias problem that @Vice regent points out. The systematic downgrading of sources critical of Western and Western-aligned perspectives makes Wikipedia more biased and unreliable, and less legitimate to a non-Western audience. Even if the camp of pro-Western sources is broadly more reliable than Russian or Chinese or Iran-aligned sources, excluding the reporting and viewpoint of those sources extensively makes Wikipedia blind when pro-Western sources lie or make an error, which they often do because all media does. Unbandito (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Media in the Arab and Muslim world has a systemic bias. It really shouldn’t be surprising that media in countries with poor freedom of press often governed by autocrats is disproportionately represented among sources considered unreliable. A deluge of bad sources from a region of the world is not reason to relax our standards when assessing sources from the region. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 per above. Despite people throwing links in the section below it hard to find evidence of systematic disinformation in the past 20 years. Reporting that Putin said X (in quotes) doesn't constitute disinformation. Being biased against certain Lebanese politicians (most RS have a certain partisan bias) doesn't make it unreliable. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 per BobFromBrockley pretty much word-for-word. That is, some form of option 2 could be viable if very stringent, but the list of topics for which this source is generally unreliable would probably be too long to be manageable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Idk what number it would be, but I would only use it for something internal Lebanese and non-controversial or for attributed views to Hezbollah's media outlet. Either 2 or 3, whichever fits that statement best. nableezy - 23:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 based on the comments from BobFromBrockley and Amigao. There appear to be many instances of sharing disinformation, including from clearly unreliable sources like RT. Plus the fact that it is banned in many countries. Alenoach (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Al-Jazeera is also banned in many countries. Politicians shouldn't get to decide what is or is not reliable.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 per Bobfromblockley Andre🚐 00:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 I don't see how this is better than Al Mayadeen or RT. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2, where the "additional considerations" include not presenting its assertions related to the conflict as factual in wikivoice. Zero^talk 04:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2-3 based on Chess and others. Should not be used around I/P topic area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 (4 for I/P and Jews only) based on the arguments presented, specifically regarding the spread of misinformation/disinformation and hateful conspiracy theories. I think some use as aboutself/for national politics per Chess and co may be a reasonable exception. Use in regards to Israel and Jews (very broadly construed) should be completely avoided. FortunateSons (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3, per above. --NAADAAN (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 per BobFromBrockley. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 for non-controversial issues such as Lebanese football or basic, uncontested details about the news, as well as attributed statements from organizations that align with its bias such as Hezbollah or the IRGC. Option 2 for more controversial subjects, statements by organizations that tilt against its bias, or anything disputed by other sources. In my reading of the discussion section, editors have given evidence that Al-Manar is biased and at times prone to questionable editorial decisions, but I have not seen evidence of systemic unreliability, much less evidence of a detrimental impact of such unreliability on-wiki. Special considerations bordering on Option 3 should be given to any extraordinary claims, and republished content from other sources should be cited at the original source rather than at Al-Manar unless the original source is paywalled or otherwise inaccessible. Unbandito (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4, deprecate per M.bitton comments. Highly unreliable, beyond unreliable though as it is a deliberate and intentional arm of propaganda. That is the classic case of where deprecation is appropriate. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2: Per Chess. GrabUp - Talk 19:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 to 4 This is clearly a worse-than-average source with a history of misattributed claims, occluding untrustworthy information sources and generally bad journalistic practice. Is it pervasive enough to deprecate? I don't know. Maybe it's fine for Lebanese football news as mentioned elsewhere. But for any contentious topic we absolutely should not be using this source. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 no evidence of unreliability seems to have been demonstrated. I don't care what it is comparable to, I'd like to see evidence of unreliability. You don't need an RfC to tell that you shouldn't be citing this for Middle East conflicts. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Traumnovelle, can I clarify if I understand: you think additional conditions should apply (option 2), and the specific additional conditions in this case is not to cite it for topics to do with Middle East conflicts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is really just common sense. If what this source states about a Middle East conflict is truthful and due it almost certainly will be reported elsewhere. I apply the same standard to sources such as the Time of Israel too. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• almanar.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Comment: Bias and inflamed rhetoric against Israel is NOT a valid reason for !voting options 3/4. Reporting that Israelis evacuated the Twin Towers on 9/11 IS a good reason for !voting options 3/4. I'll post some other examples of misinformation and unreliability here later, in addition to the ones in the discussion further up this page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Here's an example:[reply]
  • Schafer, Bret (30 May 2024). "The Russian Propaganda Nesting Doll: How RT is Layered Into the Digital Information Environment". GMFUS. Retrieved 15 November 2024.: we discovered RT content on Al Manar TV, a site owned and operated by Hezbollah. Though not technically a state-backed media outlet, Al Manar is a mouthpiece for a major political and geopolitical player in the Middle East, and thus exists as a politically backed, if not state-backed, channel... We found eight occurrences of RT content reposed to Al Manar, but a manual review of content tagged with “Russia” or “Ukraine” on Al Manar’s website revealed that those articles are sourced primarily, if not exclusively, from RT, Sputnik News, and Tass, all of which are Russian state-controlled outlets. Oddly, many other articles were attributed to “Agencies”, though those too appeared to be sourced from Tass. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you suggesting we treat a claim from a US based source as a fact? M.Bitton (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It depends on what the content they reposted from RT was. Did Al-Manar quote the RT (or Sputnik) for uncontroversial sports news? Or for official statements of Putin? I don't see that as much of a problem.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The source says at least some of the content is about Ukraine, so I think that counts as controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That claim was made by Al-Manar some 20 years ago (shortly after 9/11). Do you have more recent examples of disinformation? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "If You Can't Make It, Fake It: The Age of Invented News". Royal United Services Institute. 4 September 2012. Retrieved 15 November 2024.: Al-Alam and Al-Manar, two Arabic-language television channels owned by Iran and its regional allies, frequently lead with stories which have never happened. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A partisan source (in the middle of ongoing war) means propaganda (that they are welcome to feed to their kids). M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer any concrete evidence that the statement above by the Royal United Services Institute was factually inaccurate? - Amigao (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming it, I don't see any concrete evidence in the article itself to support the claim. Do you? It appears the author is relying on the reader's implicit bias that "inventing news is the norm rather than the exception" in Arabic language media and guilt by association with Iran as evidence of the claim. I don't see any examples of debunked or falsified stories. Unbandito (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RUSI's statement was a fair one. A more recent example would be Al-Manar's story stating that the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine "officially tops efficacy and safety" standards without anything else backing it up. - Amigao (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Manar's story ... That's a factually incorrect claim! It's not their story, it's clearly attributed to Sputnik. M.Bitton (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So they are re-publishing COVID-19 disinformation from an unreliable and deprecated source like WP:SPUTNIK. That does not exactly help the reliability of Al-Manar, at least for the purposes of an RfC. Also, here is a March 2022 Al-Manar article that spreads a version of the Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory with bat coronavirus thrown into the mix. - Amigao (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First things first: you misrepresented a source.

Second, they can re-publish anything they want, and so long as they attribute it to the original source, it has zero (as in none whatsoever) effect on their reliability.

Third, you're doing it again: the above source is attributed to the chief spokesman for the The Russian Defense Ministry.

I have no idea why you're doing this, but it certainly doesn't look good (to be honest, it' quite worrying). M.Bitton (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-publishing known vaccine disinformation narratives from WP:DEPRECATED sources has quite a lot to do with a source's editorial judgment and overall reliability for the purposes of an RfC. - Amigao (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting the sources, like you keep doing, is what makes a source unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily unusual or a sign of poor editorial judgment for a source to cite a deprecated source. Just this morning, I read this article from the FT, which says: Separately his deputy, Brigadier General Ali Fadavi, told Al Mayadeen, a Lebanese television channel close to Iran, that a response would be “inevitable”. In more than 40 years, “we have not left any aggression without a response”, he said. Reliable sources often need to cover what biased or unreliable sources are saying in order to tell the full story. The fact that this guilt by association tactic of "citing an unreliable source = unreliable", which has been used on the RSN to knock sources down like dominoes, isn't even accepted as an actual journalistic standard shows that it's just silly politicking. Unbandito (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a quote from deprecated source, as the FT example does, is quite different from directly re-publishing a deprecated source article verbatim, as Al-Manar frequently does. - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV), so do yourself a big favour and give this a break. M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an even more recent 2023 Al-Manar article that directly re-publishes the same WP:SPUTNIK piece. - Amigao (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and attributes it to them. I'm starting to question your motives. M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-publishing unreliable sources that the community has long WP:DEPRECATED with attribution does not somehow make a source more reliable for the purposes of an RfC. - Amigao (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe that the real world cares about some irrelevant WP RfC or the "community" (a handful of editors)? You seem to have forgotten one very important rule: we don't lead, we follow. M.Bitton (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republishing from bad sources is not the same as citing, and indeed does indicate poor editorial policies/standpoints. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today Al-Manar has an article on Ukraine verbatim directly copied (with attribution at the bottom) from Tass, a red flag source for us. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good you can read Amigao’s mind to understand the motivation for his arguments here. But Amigao is correct that translating and reposting an article (as Jerusalem Post does of Walla, as noted in the discussion above, or as Al-Manar) is completely different than citing an article and attributing a claim to it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness. 22:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point that quoting and republishing a source are two different things. However, I would still question why we should take republishing another source as an indication of one source's reliability. We wouldn't typically use republished content on Wikipedia, except perhaps in the case of a paywall on the original source, so it seems unnecessary to me to judge source reliability based on their republications. And we wouldn't make this judgment in the other direction, for example if Al-Manar republished a story from the AP, we wouldn't take that as an indication that they are reliable. If Al-Manar is merely a content aggregator then I suppose we shouldn't use it, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

What evidence do we have of the reliability or unreliability of Al-Manar's original reporting? Unbandito (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, here is a prime example of misrepresentation of sourcing by Al-Manar: Al-Manar claims this article was sourced from Reuters but the article was actually sourced from this one at WP:RT.COM, another deprecated source. - Amigao (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your hard work in continuing to analyze the source and build a stronger critique of it. I can't find the Reuters article that Al-Manar claims to have sourced that content from (not to say it doesn't exist, I just can't find it) so that's concerning. However, the Al-Manar article has more material than the RT article, which means at least some of the material must come from a different source. I can't read Arabic outside of the use of translation tools so it's possible that I am missing some nuance here, but the overlapping aspects of the article such as Lukashenko's statement in an interview with Sky News Arabia are not identically phrased (except for the quote itself) as one might expect if the material were republished from RT. So while the Reuters article in question appears to be missing right now, I find the evidence that the article was in fact republished from RT to be insufficient. Even if it were, it's not clear that the information published by RT and allegedly republished by Al-Manar in this case is unreliable, and the material that might be republished is just a quote from a Sky News Arabia interview, so hardly a reflection on either of the sources' reliability. Unbandito (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Manar's article does not have more text in the body than the WP:RT.COM article. They are the same, but Al-Manar claims that it sourced the content from Reuters, which is clearly not the case. Here is the Al-Manar version and the RT version via Internet Archive links for ease of comparison. (Interestingly, Al-Manar does not appear to source other articles from Reuters.) - Amigao (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my bad, you're right that the articles are the same, except that the syntax of the line about the quote from the Sky News interview appears to be slightly altered. The "read more" box inside the RT article interfered with my efforts to translate and threw me off.

That being said, I don't see how this is evidence of systematic unreliability on the part of Al-Manar. If you could demonstrate a pattern of passing off the original reporting of unreliable sources as if they came from reliable sources like Reuters, I would find that more convincing. Unbandito (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another common tactic Al-Manar uses to obfuscate its sourcing is to claim to source from unspecified "agencies" when, in fact, it is copying article text verbatim from Russian state media such as WP:TASS. For example:

• Al-Manar article - original TASS article
• Al-Manar article - original TASS article

Amigao (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "Dangerous precedent seen in decision to put Al-Manar on list of terror organisations". RSF. 20 December 2004. Retrieved 15 November 2024. "Some of the anti-Semitic statements broadcast on Al-Manar are inexcusable but putting this TV station in the same category as terrorist groups worries us and does not strike us as the best solution" BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, more than 20 years ago. Also see weaponization of antisemitism.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing RWB of weaponising antisemitism? Why would they want to? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are we supposed to “see” here? You have reason to believe that this is a manipulative and dishonest claim of antisemitism? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• EUvsDisinfo has cited Al-Manar at least 14 times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) for spreading disinformation. Some are re-publications of articles from deprecated sources such as WP:SPUTNIK and WP:RT.COM, and include claims such as conspiracy theories about the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine leading to Alzheimer's disease. - Amigao (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A pro NATO source criticising Russia and anyone who doesn't consider NATO's word as the absolute truth. What a surprise. M.Bitton (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  M.Bitton, is there a criticism of Al Manar, real or hypothetical, that you would accept or at least not consider to be bullshit? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked at some (not all) of the links. Every single one is simply reporting what Russian or Syrian officials said, and attributing it directly to them. It is the job of journalists to quote officials' statement no matter how unsavory they may be (and many of these statements are quoted in Western RS themselves).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vice regent: while this discussion is talking place, Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find to the "Al-Manar" article. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is very offensive to call another editors’ edits “garbage”. I would be grateful if other people could look at these edits too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's what you've been collecting and adding while the discussion is taking place. That's not something I would expect from an experienced editor, least of all when another discussion involving sources misrepresentation is also taking place on the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @M.Bitton I must reiterate: The Kip ^(contribs) 00:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is an Al-Manar article (sourced from WP:SPUTNIK and WP:DAILYMAIL, another deprecated source) that speaks about the COVID-19 lab leak theory as if it is a fact without any balance or qualification. Source: EUvsDisinfo - Amigao (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mintz, John (22 December 2004). "U.S. Bans Al-Manar, Says TV Network Backs Terror". Washington Post. Retrieved 15 November 2024.: French officials prohibited the network from broadcasting in France, citing what it called al-Manar's anti-Semitic content and appeals to violence. French officials cited al-Manar programs reporting that Jews spread AIDS around the world and that they seek children's blood to bake into Passover matzoh. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In France, you can bash the Arabs and the Muslims all day long (under the protection of the so-called freedom of speech and bla bla bla), and believe me when I say that they do (they will even honour you for doing so), but the moment your criticize Israel, you get accused of being antisemitic. M.Bitton (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Jews spread AIDS around the world and that they seek children's blood to bake into Passover matzoh" is NOT a "criticism of Israel". BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm referring to clear theme (when citing the opinions of their enemies who are known for their double standard). In France, you can say about the Arabs and the Muslims and that's fine given that Arab and Muslim bashing is literally a sport. M.Bitton (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the French state is deeply racist and Islamophobic. That doesn't make it "reliable" to accuse the Jews of the blood libel. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  the French state is deeply racist and Islamophobic so why are paying attention to what it says? M.Bitton (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am paying attention to what the French Jewish community said. There are other sources for this too in the Al-Manar article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean the CRIF? M.Bitton (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bobfrombrockley can you find Al-Manar articles in the past 20 years that say Jews use blood in Passover? That's clearly antisemitic, but please actually find such articles.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was a TV series made by a Syrian company, which they screened. So not as straightforward as if they were claiming that in their own content (as they did with Israelis having foreknowledge of 9/11) but it shows you their editorial standards are incompatible with a reliable status. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They screened a Syrian TV series that some pro-Israel sources don't like. What's that got to do with their reliability as a source? M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  again, it is not “pro-Israel” to say the blood libel and the protocols of the elders of Zion are not the content carried by a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a Syrian TV series that they screened, it's their right to do so. What's that got to do with their reliability as a source? M.Bitton (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sigh. Yes it’s their right to screen something based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but nonetheless the Protocols were a forgery so doing so indicates unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a baseless claim that nobody can substantiate. What does a TV series (produced in Syria) have to do with al-Manar's reliability? M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m confused. It’s widely agreed that the Protocols were a forgery. Numerous RSs say two different series screened on Al-Manar in the 2000s (one Syrian, one Egyptian) were based on the Protocols. So maybe this isn’t a dealbreaker in terms of reliability; it seems that they did subsequently apologise after France banned the station. But I think it’s obvious that it is a data point in the unreliability column. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Who cares about the protocol and whether it is a forgery or a fact? It's a flipping TV series.

  it is a data point in the unreliability column that's another baseless claim that nobody can substantiate.

  I repeat the question that you ignored: what does a TV series (produced in Syria to boot) have to do with al-Manar's reliability? M.Bitton (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Was this TV Syrian TV series a drama or presented as factual? If a channel has broadcast a syndicated drama which contains blood libel and the allegation around AIDS, I feel all of its output needs to be looked at carefully in terms of reliability. Propaganda of this nature is a strong indicator of extreme antisemitic conspiracist views which may also be present in its factual output, even though no unreliable claim has technically been made. However, if it has broadcast a syndicated program presenting this as factual information then it becomes immediately unreliable for our purposes. If we aren't using the Daily Fail, and we can in good faith argue about the Telegraph's reliability based on them publishing a true story that was somewhat litter-tray adjacent, then there's no way we should be using a source that parrots blood libel.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Very well put, and good question, which the sources are vague about. It appears to be a docudrama, but Al-Manar initially seemed to think it was factual: Al-Manar’s program director, Nasser Akhdar, stressed that the series was “purely historical” and that it was based on some 250 sources written by Jews. The program covers the history of the Jews and the Zionists between 1812 and 1948, he said, and underlines the Jewish emigration to Palestine, the Balfour Declaration, and the European policies regarding this issue during that period. “It offers a clear image of what the Zionists have committed in the social, political, and ideological fields,” Akhdar said. “It is a voice against all those who wish to hide the truth.” He said US complaints were an attempt to “misguide public opinion,” adding that this was part of the US strategy of hegemony over the media to “cancel other people’s opinions.”[28] It might be a point in Al-Manar's favour that they later removed the show from their archive and said they erred in showing it and that they never saw it before they broadcast it (although I am not sure that's been reported by anyone other than Counterpunch, an unreliable source). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  this was part of the US strategy of hegemony over the media to “cancel other people’s opinions.” it certainly looks that way.

  When the US complained to Lebanon over the series, Lebanese officials refused to interfere and one of them said:

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

  — Lebanese official

  M.Bitton (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If a channel has broadcast a syndicated drama which contains blood libel and the allegation around AIDS, I feel all of its output needs to be looked at carefully in terms of reliability I see, so channels in the west can distort history and portray the Muslims and Arabs as terrorists in their dramas, while hiding behind the cherished freedom of speech, but the rest of the word has to abide by some fictitious standard that only the west has the key to. Fascinating. M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We deem Western sources that repeat racist conspiracy theories unreliable too (Boynamedsue mentioned the Daily Mail; we also rate the Lebanese minister's example, Fox News, as an unreliable source). I think there's a difference, though, between perpetrating stereotypes that are deep in a culture (as the majority of Western AND non-Western sources do) and repeating actual conspiracy theories such as Jews deliberately spread AIDS or Jews kill Christian children to harvest their blood for ritual purposes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, we certainly don't judge the reliability of western sources based on the TV series and movies that they screen. M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If an Arab drama series portrayed a group of Israelis, or even Jews, as nefarious villains sabotaging a society, I agree that would be a pretty perfect analogy to what Western media does to Arabs, and I wouldn't say it had any effect on how we should evaluate news output. However, if a Western channel broadcast a drama that said, say, Arab Muslims worship Baphomet and train children to suicide bomb Jews as they believe (and the following is a deliberately offensive example) their inherent, irrational and motiveless antisemitism is more important than the lives of their children, then we would have a more precise analogy to the question of blood libel.

I am a strong opponent of Israel's aggression against Palestine and Lebanon, and I am disgusted by the despicable attempts by various ghouls to suggest that any mention of the IDF and West Bank Settlers' mass murder of children is equivalent to blood libel. However, blood libel is an incredibly serious thing. It is not hard to find out that Jews absolutely do not mix blood with flour to make special biscuits, or that this belief has had terrible consequences in the past. Anybody not prepared to make that little bit of effort will have, in my view, question marks over their reliability..Boynamedsue (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if a Western channel broadcast a drama that said... Have you ever noticed that the TV series "Homeland" (based on an Israeli television drama) that was being screened all over the place is actually Islamophobic and Arabophobic? That's just an example; in fact, Islamophobia and Arabophobia have become so common in the western media (especially, in the last two decades) that one doesn't even notice them, i.e., they've become the acceptable norm.

What we have here is a clear case of double standard, where freedom of expression seems to only be acceptable when it comes from the west. Franky, it beggars belief that a country such as the US (the "champion of free speech") would try to censor a TV series in another country. M.Bitton (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen Homeland, so I don't know whether its level of Islamophobia would be equivalent to blood libel. But it is made by Fox 21, whose sister news network we DON'T USE for politics or science.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who made it, it was screened everywhere and it received many awards. Like I said, that was just an example amongst the many. This all comes down to one thing and one simple choice: one either supports freedom of expression or one doesn't. M.Bitton (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll make this crystal clear. I absolutely do not support freedom of expression. I have used physical violence in the past to prevent nazis from freely expressing their views, and would do so again. However, even if I believed in freedom of expression, freedom to express your views is not freedom to be accepted as a reliable source on wikipedia. Have a look at WP:RS for the criteria which apply.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will make this crystal clear: the reliability of a source doesn't depend on what TV series it screens (WP:RS doesn't say otherwise). M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current relevance of this sort of content comes through when you look at how they report Israeli "organ harvesting", mixing reliable and unreliable sources and misrepresenting both to shape a narrative echoing the Protocols, or how they describe settlers engaged in "Talmudic rituals" at al-Aqsa to describe something that isn't actually Talmudic but again fits an antisemitic narrative (in contrast, e.g., to Al-Jazeera who use quote marks when reporting this). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "LEBANON: Did Tunisia's tyrant buy off Hezbollah TV?". Los Angeles Times. 24 May 2011. Retrieved 15 November 2024. Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television was allegedly paid $100,000 to polish up the image of deposed Tunisian dictator Zine el Abidine ben Ali... The newspaper said Al-Manar, which used to receive $150,000 a year to support the Ben Ali regime, asked for an extra $50,000 annually if ACTE wished to raise the profile of the ruler, who now resides in Jeddah with his wife. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  allegedly no need to read further than this. M.Bitton (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Cochrane, Paul (7 March 2007). "Bombs and broadcasts: Al Manar's battle to stay on air". Arab Media & Society. Retrieved 15 November 2024.: France banned the channel following complaints by the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France to the French Higher Audio Visual Council (CSA) that scenes in a 30 part Syrian-made series, Al-Shatat (The Diaspora), aired during Ramadan 2003, were anti-Semitic. The show, which claimed to depict the history of the Zionist movement, stoked widespread condemnation by portraying the killing of a Christian child by Jews to use the victim's blood to make matzoh bread. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I already told you: unbelievable as it sounds, in France, you can bash the Arabs and the Muslims all day long and make up any story about them (under the protection of the so-called "freedom of speech"), but the moment you say anything that is related to Israel, then your freedom of speech ceases to exist. M.Bitton (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you saying the show, Al-Shatat, did not portray Jews as child-killers, and that the French Jews are making this up? Because otherwise French racism and free speech ideas are not relevant to determining this Lebanese source's reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is? They are free to show whatever they want. Arabs and Muslims are often portrayed as terrorists (when they're not portrayed as something worse) in the western media, and their history often falsified, yet, you don't see them crying and whinging about it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @M.Bitton your tone throughout this discussion is verging heavily on WP:NOTFORUM/WP:BATTLEGROUND, I heavily encourage you to slow down a bit. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Kip: Your targetted comment is verging on aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Aside: our article on this series, Ash-Shatat, has been nominated for deletion, in case editors are interested in that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There's always heat in discussions of contentious topics, but even given that this sections is starting to go off topic. Discussions should be about the source in relation to policies and guidelines, how the source is described by other reliable sources, or matters relating to the handling of the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previously I kind of left this particular bone of mine unpicked as the time it takes to review whether a philosophy journal constitutes a WP:FRINGE source is rather a lot, especially as some people like to incorrectly suggest that fringe philosophies aren't a thing. However I've been picking away at it in the background.

1. Presently the journal is being used in a lot of contentious topics including WP:GENSEX, WP:AP2 and, alarmingly considering its content Diversity, equity, and inclusion (the journal has published papers in favor of the fringe concept of Transracialism) and Race and sexuality with an article that argues in favor of a biological theory to ascertain race-specific dating practices, you know Scientific Racism.
2. The founders have said that they would be open to publishing pro-eugenic material [49]
3. There is evidence that the founders specifically started the journal in response to negative reactions over a pro-eugenicist paper [50]
4. The founders, themselves, have expressed pro-eugenicist points of view [51]
5. Associate Professor of Philosophy at Deakin University, Patrick Stokes, said of the journal a pseudonymous journal devoted entirely to “controversial” ideas starts to look less like a way to protect researchers from cancel culture, and more like a safe-house for ideas that couldn’t withstand moral scrutiny the first time around.
6. Henry Reichman, professor emeritus of history at California State University at East Bay and chair of the American Association of University Professors’ Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, expressed concerns about the ethics and effectiveness of a pseudonymous journal to protect academics but also pointed out the academic dangers of a pseudonymous journal, saying there is “potential for abuse” of such a journal, in that “academic research is generally assessed by peers in open discussion and debate.” And what if any author publishes one view under one name and a slightly different one under a real one? Or self-plagiarizes? Still, Reichman said, “it seems an interesting if potentially dangerous endeavor.”
7. In practice the journal has allowed an academic veneer to be applied to the fringe beliefs of scientific racism, transracialism and transphobia.

It's my contention that this pseudonymous journal acts precisely in the manner that Stokes was worried it would and that it has precisely the dangers that Reichman identified regarding its deviation from standard academic publishing practice. In light of its irregular publishing practices, its use to support fringe social science beliefs and its deep relationship specifically to eugenics I think we should treat this journal as a WP:FRINGE publisher and should not consider any articles published in it as reliable sources for anything other than the personal opinion of the author under the usual intersection of WP:FRINGE and WP:ABOUTSELF. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the scope seems to specifically be things that does not have widespread acceptance I struggle to think of any situations where it would be appropriate to cite it alone, without other sources to contextualise. JCW for 10.35000 to 40000 seems to indicate it's onlyy cited a few times though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's missing articles likely due to failures in citation format. [52] shows 16 - although in some cases it's identifying people involved with the journal in some formal capacity. However my assertion is that it should not be cited at all. So even if we ignore incidental references I'd like to take that 5 and make it a 0. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Especially the article that contends that east and south-east Asian women are biologically more attractive than Black women needs to be off this encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really need to ask permission to remove fringe stuff supported by fringe sources from mediocre publishers (MDPI). You can just do it if you want to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've past experience removing fringe sources that are "journals" and was pretty much immediately reverted because it came from a journal. In my experience, when dealing with sources that claim academic credentials it's best to first demonstrate that they're clearly unreliable and gain consensus for that before you start cutting. That way you can point back to the discussion and go, "I know they're a journal, here's a discussion about why they're not a usable journal." Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This resource should never be used unless there are third-party expert and reliable independent sources referencing it. No indication that it functions as anything but an outlet for WP:PROFRINGE without context. Compare the Journal of Scientific Exploration. jps (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the journal should not be used to make claims about intra-scientific consensus... I see no reason, however, why it could not be included in articles on, themselves, highly controversial topics. The comparison to a journal publishing about ufos is, frankly, disingenuous. Roggenwolf (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is the comparison disingenuous? jps (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the main problem with the Journal is that it is immoral, and not that it is unreliable. The anonymity is an issue as well, but no one has mentioned any facts they got wrong. I don't see why this can't be used as a source for controversial opinions. If an article wanted to discuss the arguments for eugenics, then that might be a good source. Arguments about WP:Due should be made on a case by case basis. It is possible an article receives a lot of attention from outside sources, that increases its relevance. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The journal also makes no attempt to vet the reliability of its contributors. A "controversial idea" according to their definition is one that is simply not widely accepted and generally eschewed in the relevant academic circles. There is no indication to me, for example, that the journal would reject papers that purported to show the Earth is flat or that climate change is not caused by human activity or that there is evidence that homeopathy worked. As long as the author could convince the editor that such "opinions" were on the out-and-out, they seem to be willing to give space for controversial ideas.

This is far removed from those journals which have as normal editorial philosophy that the judgement of expert reviewers is what is necessary for publication. That is a fundamental feature of editorial review for reliable sources. This source explicitly rejects that standard. As such, the only thing it is reliable for is a demonstration of what it has published. Beyond that, there is no means to decide that anything found in that venue is worth anything save that there might be third-party vetting identifying diamonds in the rough, for example. This is a classic instance of WP:PROFRINGE sourcing.

jps (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have they published anything saying the earth is flat? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nom, please provide examples of usage for WP:AP2. Seems unlikely to me.

It is not particularly helpful that you found a dozen examples of politically untoward social science / philosophy. This is exactly the kind of content such a journal is meant to contain.

Please also note that not all contributors are anonymous. There have been a number of notable academics publishing through them. I'm strongly opposed to formally deprecating it. Roggenwolf (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the DEI article would be covered under AP2 - would it not? Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd formally declare it unreliable but it should probably be recognized that for 99% of topics it would not be due weight by its nature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

99% of topics... Yes, I agree. But it should not be an issue to include a sentence summarizing one such paper in the, say, controversy or reception section of an already controversial scientific topic. Roggenwolf (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fringe claims the Journal puts forward, it'd consider the source unreliable. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unreliable. Any anonymous article in this publication should be considered unreliable since there clearly is no editorial oversight ensuring proper methodologies have been followed. Any article with a real byline should be treated as WP:SPS, so if a subject-matter expert chooses for some reason to publish there and attach their own name to it, we can potentially use that where relevant and as limited by policy (i.e. not in BLPs per WP:SPSBLP). Roggenwolf's argument that we might use it for articles about controversial topics misses the point of WP:FRIND: this is precisely where the guideline tells us we need to avoid in-universe fringe sources. Generalrelative (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an anonymous article have failed to undergo editorial oversight? The author would not be anonymous to the editors, and blind peer review is the norm anyway. - Bilby (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: my argument was that :none: of JCI's articles appear to receive proper editorial oversight. That's why we should treat it as equivalent to SPS, an idea also endorsed by ActivelyDisinterested below. Any subject-matter expert publishing there should be evaluated as WP:EXPERTSPS and anyone else, including any anonymous contributors, should be considered unreliable.

You may disagree, but I'm persuaded by the sources, e.g. those cited by XOR'easter and jps below. You've characterized these elsewhere as "don't like it" arguments but they are not. They are substantive, source-based arguments for the unrelaibility of JCI's editorial oversight.

(PS: I see that there's a lot of sniping going on right now. Y'all can miss me with that. I won't be responding further unless there's a point worth responding to.) Generalrelative (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But JCS clearly states their review process, which incorproates blind peer review, editorial oversight, and a well respected editorial board. [54] I am lost as to why you think this means that they do not undergo proper editorial oversight when they clearly do. Can you provide some evidence that they publish without editorial review? Because it sounds to me as if your complain has no basis. - Bilby (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond again since this is clearly a good-faith question. My point is that while there is an editorial process, that editorial process is manifestly unreliable. That is, it lets methodologically unsound ideas through in the interest of some other criterion –– perhaps shock value, or owning the libs, or a genuine belief in the value of unrestrained platforming of silly ideas. I don't know.

Here is a quote from two highly regarded subject-matter experts, Eric Turkheimer and Kathryn Paige Harden (who chose to publish in JCI to refute a prior paper published there): [55]

Human intelligence and human evolution are controversial areas of scientific inquiry that require the highest levels of scientific rigor and editorial discretion, which are absent here.

Editorial discretion is absent here. Note what they didn't say. They didn't say that the paper they're refuting presented some scientific hypotheses that didn't stand up to further evidence. They explicitly refer to the paper they're refuting as pseudoscientific and castigate the journal for publishing it. The Chronicle of Higher Education sources cited by XOR'easter come to similar conclusions, though perhaps less stridently. Generalrelative (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a significant difference between saying "there is no editorial oversight" and "editorial discretion is poor". If you had made the latter argument it would have been much easier to understand. - Bilby (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said "no editorial oversight ensuring proper methodologies have been followed" but okay. I see how I could have stated that more clearly. Generalrelative (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally an unsuitable source I'm going to avoid strictly calling the source "unreliable" because it's possible (I haven't read it) that the articles are very well reasoned but due to politics the authors are concerned about putting their names on things. That they are anonymous isn't strictly my argument against usage, though it's a big negative. Instead, my concern is that, in general Wikipedia's take on subjects should be rather vanilla. This is an encyclopedia, not a latest trends and ideas source. If an idea is controversial to the point where the author can't say it aloud, then perhaps that idea shouldn't be included here. A well reasoned argument in such a source my provide a reason to given less weight to an argument who's authors are public with their ideas but that falls into the arguments against including something that is WP:V (a perfectly reasonable thing to do). Just as OR on talk pages is fine but cannot appear in an article, a source like this might make very solid arguments but should not appear in Wikipedia as a RS. Usage as a reference when discussed by a cited RS would of course be it's own case by case thing. Springee (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you'll note that I'm not rushing to AfD for Journal of Controversial Ideas (though giving it some TLC is on my long-term to-do list) nor am I angling to remove mention of it from a page like Peter Singer - I just don't think the journal's articles should be used as sources for the topics they discuss. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unreliable WP:FRINGE journal with no mainstream academic support. They allow authors to use pseudonyms which is an obvious red flag. They published an article claiming bestiality is "Morally Permissible" [56]. They have also published an article by a pedophile defending non-offending pedophilia [57]. This type of nonsense wouldn't pass peer review anywhere else. They have no editor in chief, nor a statistical advisor. They will publish anything for media attention. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the bestiality one and, frankly, it'd be best positioned as a piece of poorly advised satire trying to equate bestiality to the trans experience. The idea of treating it as if it were a work of philosophy is frankly offensive to the discipline with how shoddy it was. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the editorial board are utilitarians who put out useless "thought experiments" or those who have co-authored articles with Singer, so there is some COI there. Some of the others are those that have complained about "wokeness". I am familiar with most of the names on the list, the only one that makes no sense to me is Susan Blackmore. Odd to see her name on that list. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmore has some spicy takes on drugs that would definitely constitute "controversial ideas" although from the opposite direction from the usual array of eugenicists and scientific racists who tend to gravitate to "heterodox" academia. Maybe that was the avenue of her interest in this. Or maybe it was something entirely different. For all I know, she owed Singer a favour. LOL. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychologist Guy Minus the fringe question, is a source being immoral really a reason it is unreliable, especially in philosophy of all disciplines? The University of California Press published a book defending pedophiles in the past few years as well. If they're unreliable it's because they're fringe but I don't really know why making immoral arguments would get someone declared unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable (at least for what it would be used for). I'm curious about in what way these articles would be used such that reliability is a problem. I've checked every current use of the journal, and only once is it used to reference a claim (specifically "KAU has faced criticism for allegedly paying highly cited researchers from around the world to cite KAU as a "secondary academic affiliation" in order to boost their rankings."):[58]. The article being referenced is Saudi Universities Rapid Escalation in Academic Ranking Systems: Implications and Challenges Both authors are published academics, the journal is peer reviewed, and the editoral board looks fine. I'm not seeing any red flags. Is the fear that this will be used to say "controversial idea is ok"? If so, I do not see that it would be used in that way. Are there any examples of it being used inappropriatly? - Bilby (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is at the level of the journal. Frankly the article about Saudi universities may be bromine but we cannot trust it because of the journal's untrustworthy editorial practices and the involvement of its founders in WP:FRINGE topics. I would not prejudice an author who has published there for work published in reputable outlets. This journal is not a reputable outlet. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are there untrustworthy editorial practises? This is not a predatory journal. The editorial board is impressive. The editorial polices and peer review process is sound. They are going to publish things we do not agree with, and they will write on fringe topics, but that does not mean it is unreliable. What specific editorial practises are untrustworthy? - Bilby (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The journal was set up to provide space for ideas that could not be published in other journals. It does this by adopting an editorial position that reviewers who reject papers are not fit to sit in judgement over these controversial ideas. jps (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like backflipping. Can you quote from their editorial policy? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like sealioning, but here you go: [59] The decision to accept or reject a paper will be made by the editors and will be based primarily on the comments and judgments of the reviewers, though the three editors will also ask for advice from appropriately qualified members of the editorial board. jps (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aspersion noted, eyes rolled. How does this quote indicate unreliability? Because it doesn't include the word "expert"? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It rejects the expert evaluation if the editors think that's a good idea. jps (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get that from the last quoted phrase? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. jps (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't say that they'll override expert rejections. "Advice" could mean anything in terms of the "decision to accept or reject a paper", and there's no reason to believe it means superior scientific review. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They reserve the right to publish over the objections of the reviewers. jps (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, doesn't say that. Says reviewers will seek advice from the editors. Your reading leaps. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can deny it all you want. Let others read the exchange and maybe let them decide which of us has identified the editorial policy correctly. jps (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say the reviewers will seek advice from editors, it says the editors will primarily base their decision to accept/reject on the judgement of reviewers, but that the three editors will also seek advice from other editors. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's true that It rejects the expert evaluation if the editors think that's a good idea, that would not make the journal unique, or even particularly unusual. As our article on Scholarly peer review puts it, "During this process, the role of the referees is advisory. The editor(s) is typically under no obligation to accept the opinions of the referees".

This makes me think that the problem here is merely that they publicly admit to doing what everyone else does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading far too much into a standard process. For example, Nature states that the final decision is made by the editors [60] Springer also describes the as their process for review "Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein" [61] It is normal in quality journals for editors to use the peer review process to inform the final decision, but not necessarily to make it. - Bilby (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As my last engagement with this inane thread where I’ve sufficiently voiced my stance, I co-sign this comment and thank you for pulling some other papers’ policies. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability stems entirely from reputation. Journal policies that revolve around personal preference are looked at askance, yes, even when they come from such reputable journals as Nature. There is a reason that Nature has the reputation of "everything you read in Nature is wrong." Their goal is to publish work that pushes the envelope for good reason. And they have had some doozies in the past.

Interestingly, we don't take Nature papers when they first come out at face value. It is only after they have generated the appropriate confirmation from third parties do we use them as foundational work. But for every Nature paper that leads to Nobel Prizes and high citations, there are perhaps dozens which amount to fizzling nonsense.

I have proposed nothing more here than to apply the same standards to this Journal. That unless there are third-party references to the works therein published, they don't deserve inclusion in Wikipedia.

jps (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you said was it adopts "an editorial position that reviewers who reject papers are not fit to sit in judgement over these controversial ideas". Clearly, this was a misreading of the editorial policy, given that the same editorial policy that you described this as is used by all major academic journals. But ok, if I understand what you are writing now, your concern is that you do not suppoprt using articles from a peer-reviewed journal unless those articles have been cited elsewhere. While the seems to go well beyond standard editorial practice, I think we can work with that in this case. Before using an article we should confirm that it has been cited elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most academic journals will not accept a paper over the objections of the reviewers. They may allow for arguments that the reviewers were biased, or whatever, and allow for a different reviewer, but they will not publish against the recommendations of the reviewers. There is a suggestion (published in JOCI no less, referenced below) that JOCI will do just that. I know that Nature does that. jps (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unsuitable for Wikipedia's purposes, by its very nature. We are here, first and foremost, to summarize mainstream and consensus thought. The people behind this journal basically went out of their way to create the Journal of Ideas Not Viable on Wikipedia. Using it on a bland topic would be at best redundant; using it on a controversial one is all but guaranteed to weight a fringe view out of proportion. The Journal of Scientific Exploration or Physics Essays are better points of comparison than MDPI: in the latter case, there is just a low standard of peer review, so that publishing an article there is not really better than posting a preprint, whereas in the former, there's a deliberate bias to what we may politely call "contrarianism". Use should be restricted to the usual intersection of WP:FRINGE and WP:ABOUTSELF as said above, and only then in cases where other considerations indicate that a citation is genuinely due. XOR'easter (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is how I would tend to read it. But this does not make it unreliable - just not something we would typically have cause to use. And that is born out in practise, as currently it is only being used to source a single claim, and that claim is solely that criticism exists and is backed by two other sources. I am not seeing a reliablity concern, but simply a source that has limited use. - Bilby (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd call it unreliable, too. Does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? No, it doesn't. I am not convinced it has much of a reputation at all, except maybe for tedious edgelordism [62][63]. Here's a take from the Chronicle of Higher Education back in 2021, when the JCI finally came out with an issue: Eyes did roll in some quarters. A bunch of Twitter wags floated tongue-in-cheek ideas for their own faux-controversial essays (example: “Kant was just ok”). There was more substantive criticism too. One philosopher dismissed it as a “safe-house for ideas that couldn’t withstand moral scrutiny the first time around.” [64] And from a CHE opinion column in 2024: The problem is that the Journal of Controversial Ideas emphasizes noncomformity above other goals. It sidesteps the necessary process of engaging with and responding to ethical critiques and deprioritizes the downstream effects of its publications on the populations they study. By delighting in counterintuitiveness and mere controversy, the journal places shock value over rigorous research, and undermines the thoughtful exploration of complexity. In doing so, the journal further marginalizes controversial viewpoints by reducing them to a form of scholarly political gamesmanship that rewards conservative scholars for “owning the Libs.” [...] The Journal of Controversial Ideas sets out to advance knowledge, but instead it merely turns reasonable questions into outrageous positions and attempts to demonstrate rhetorical prowess. [65] XOR'easter (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am aware that some people do not like it. The idea of a journal covering contraversial ideas is always going to upset people, and some of that would be justified. But in saying that it does not have a reputation for being reliable - can you follow that up with examples of problems in the publication? Have they had to retract any articles? Are there reports of poor editorial standards? I searched retraction watch, but couldn't find anything. - Bilby (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that people look at the journal and are "upset"; I don't think that's a fair summary of either CHE item. Scholars aren't angry about it. They're disappointed, indifferent, and bored. I don't know that the JCI has had to retract anything, but I don't see how that matters one way or the other here. Retractions by themselves don't make a journal bad, and the lack of them doesn't make a journal good. XOR'easter (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but if you are going to say it is unreliable, you need some reason for saying that. So far, I have seen a lot people saying that they don't like the content, but no evidence of actual unreliability being posted. I am absolutly in support of marking a peer reviewed journal as unsuitable because it has evidence of being unreliable. I just want to see that case being made first. - Bilby (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, the board in all its magnanimity published a "controversial opinion" that it was publishing unreliable pseudoscience: [66]. If the charges of those authors are true, most other journals would have not published or retracted an article. If the charges are not true, most other journals would not have published the riposte. So there is indication here that something is unreliable in the journal. This serves as the demonstration proof. The editorial concept of the journal itself all but guarantees that "unreliable" ideas are not cause for refusing publication. This is more-or-less how I would describe an "unreliable source". jps (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's such a thing as "unreliable ideas"? If they are willing to publish counterpoints to other papers that they have published previously, then that sounds like a positive, and not as if they are pushing a particular agenda. - Bilby (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are unreliable ideas. jps (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not comparing it to MDPI, it is published by MDPI so I'm pointing out the publisher already indicates it's going to be mediocre. The scope, of course, makes it even worse for our purposes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their website runs on some software by MDPI ("JAMS"), but they say they are published by the "Foundation for Freedom of Thought and Discussion" [67]. (I don't think that foundation does anything other than publish the journal.) XOR'easter (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unreliable. Outlets that regularly publish pro-fringe material are routinely classified as unreliable. I can't see how this journal is any different. JoelleJay (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it as pro-fringe. It seems the intent is to discuss controversial ideas, which could be difficult to discuss elsewhere. If it was to push controversial ideas I'd approach it differently. - Bilby (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is if you just want to say eugenics is wrong or won't work, or bestiality is wrong or come at a controversial idea from the mainstream viewpoint you're unlikely to publish in this journal. It's only if you have a "hot take" against the mainstream that you're going to publish there. This might not always be saying we should do something or there is evidence in support of something but it would say least be in the form of we shouldn't just dismiss eugenics as nonsense like the mainstream view. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that philosophers and others should have outlets where they can discuss controversial views. If there was an article pushing eugenics, I'd have a problem with that article. But if there was an article exploring eugenics, published in a non-predatory double-blind peer-reviewed journal with an outstanding editorial board, then I wouldn't have a problem with using it to source the existence of an argument. The issue I have is that I have seen no real evidence of a problem. People claim it has editorial issues, but can't point to an example. They claim that it is used inappropriately on Wikipedia, but I can barely find a single use, and nothing that represents an issue. Thus the only argument I can find is "we don't like that it publishes controversial ideas", and I would hate to deem a peer-reviewed academic journal unreliable because we do not like the topics it discusses.

Years ago I was working at a different university from where I am now, and two of the philosophers there published a satirical article along the lines of Swift's A Modest Proposal. They even called it "A Modest Proposal". I spent the next two weeks fielding emails from angry people insiting that we should fire the philosophers for expressing such a horrible idea, completely missing the point of what they wrote. I do not want to end up in the same place here without genuine reasons. I will support defining this as unreliable if it is being misused or if there are problems with the editorial practises, just as I would with any journal, but I am waiting on that evidence. - Bilby (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable with caveats. This is a journal with an impeccable editorial board, and most of the authors are established academics. This is a not an outlet to push outrageous ideas; it is a forum for philosophers to pick apart and interrogate traditional beliefs. That's what philosophers do. Claims of lax editorial practices are not based on evidence and seem to be wrong. Arguments based on the journal publishing ideas we don't like are inadmissible; there is not and has never been such a criterion for reliability. First caveat: It is OK to deprecate anonymous articles, since the expertise of the author is an important criterion for us. Such articles are indicated by the journal and they are rather few (none at all in the 2024 volume). Second caveat: The majority of the articles count as opinion pieces for us. Although we cite opinion pieces all the time, they have to be attributed and some opinions might be too fringe to mention. A few of the articles are more than opinion pieces; for example, this article contains a lot of factual information and the author is eminently qualified, so I don't see why it can't be cited for some of its facts. Zero^talk 11:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion piece saying that California researchers should be allowed to keep the human remains of the victims of a genocide because, apparently, the study of California history is more important than treating the survivors of genocide with basic dignity. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mixture of opinion and fact and I only wrote that its facts can be cited. I'm not interested in responding to your characterisation. Zero^talk 01:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that can be considered FRINGE, because it is discussing current or recent practice and as far as I can tell is an issue of morality, not science. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How could this possibly be misused on Wikipedia? To support a wikivoice moral statement? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally treat as WP:opinion and weigh WP:DUEness - Journal articles are usually WP:PRIMARY by default, though articles here are a mix of both primary data and secondary opinion-ating. this journal seems to be more about publishing commentary in soft fields like humanities. Science and other fields generally publish more reliable, less opinionated data that congregates around non-controversial hypotheses. If an article here proposes a very controversial opinion in a contentious field, it should be compared to other opinion pieces folks put up. Any controversial idea by definition does not have broad support from the field and should be considered in that context. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How are journal articles primary? Sure, some of the more scientific ones are mostly data, but they even have analysis. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, research articles are primary for the results they report and any novel interpretations (but can include secondary content in e.g. the background section in the form of discussion of other published work). This is consistent with how journal articles are considered in academia. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. We were talking about journal articles, not research articles. The source you linked lists research articles under primary sources, but lists journal articles under secondary, noting that it varies based on field. I think this would be very field dependent, which I was implying in my first comment. I think in some fields, "novel interpretations" are the bulk of scholarship, whereas some are data heavy, and others a mix. Most journal articles that I have read have been history related, where I believe "primary sources" usually means historical documents or other evidence, although it can also be applied to data. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote all journal articles are primary, as i was thinking only of research journals. But yeah, some of the social sciences are more like opinion columns.

In general, highly fringe hypotheses or controversial ideas are by definition not fully accepted by the scientific field. I think these articles are more like opinion pieces, and there dueness is a major concern if they are asserting a fringe idea. I have no clue about reliability for assertion of facts, and think that if there is an important fact that is discussed in the field, it should be well known in other journals that aren't advertising themselves as "controversial ideas". Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it's undoubtedly a WP:FRINGE publisher, that it's reason to exist. If a WP:EXPERTSPS were to publish using the journal it could be reliable for intext attributed opinion, DUE would obviously apply. The anonymous pieces wouldn't be reliable though. Also obviously anything from it would have to be used in the context of mainline academy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an SPS. I'm not sure why WP:EXPERTSPS would need to apply, although I can see why we should not use anonymous articles. - Bilby (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where the publisher is being discounted but the author could still be a reliable source, the situation is the same as if it was self-published. I would say the same would apply of a reputable author deciding not publish in predatory journal, for instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting argument. In this case we're not looking at a predatory journal. I do think it is worth a wider discussion unrelated to one journal, though. - Bilby (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a novel idea. It's been applied in other cases where a publishers is less reliable than the author it publishes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that if a publisher was genuinely unreliable, could the article have been manipulated in ways that the author did not approve? If you self publish only you are responsible for the content. For good or ill, it says what you wanted it to say. If you do not, you sacrifice some control. So I'd much rather use a preprint if I have a genuine concern with the publisher than treat something that the author did not have full control over as self published. - Bilby (talk) Bilby (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the difference between generally unreliable and deprecation. If the publisher can't be trusted to publish honestly, an issue beyond reliability, then it should be deprecated. If the source is unreliable, because it lacks a reputation for accuracy and fact checking for instance (there could be many reason it's not reliable for wikipedia's purposes), then it could still be trusted as a platform for an author to publish through. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes some sense, but honestly I would be loathe to treat something that is no self-published as if it was, because the author has surrended control over what they wrote. If it is a case of "unreliable, but we can still use it", I'd rather just argue that we treat the journal on a case-by-case basis than treat articles from it as an SPS, or see if the author has published the article seperatly and use that. - Bilby (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're treating a source on a case by case basis, and are not considering the publisher as it's generally unreliable, what do you base you assessment on? I would say the author would be the best option. Also although an author gives up some control when publishing, they give up some control not all control. If the publisher wanted to alter the work in some major way before publishing them the author could decide not to publish with them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do see where you are coming from. But I know of many people who have complained that what was published had been altered from what they submitted. We've all heard those strories, I'm sure. Which is why this approach makes me uncomfortable. - Bilby (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is always a sliding scale, the more contentious or problematic the content the more high quality it's source needs to be. Using the work of experts published in otherwise generally unreliable sources as EXPERTSPS is something that will be fine for somethings and not for others. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 04:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really haven't seen any evidence of pro-fringe content here. No, peer review is not mutually exclusive with publishing a philosophy paper that arrives at a very unpopular moral conclusion, and Wikipedia does not state moral claims in Wikivoice. What problems have emerged or would emerge from using this source? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable; generally treat as opinion given the great editorial board and the fact that the “fringe positions” opponents have been able to produce are all just scary moral positions that Wikipedia would/should never repeat in wikivoice anyways. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that eugenics and scientific racism are not "just scary moral positions" but are, in fact, pseudoscience that falls firmly within WP:FRINGE, right? Like even if you want to argue that Wikipedia should be an entirely amoral and dispassionate dispenser of expert opinion, these two topics, one of which was the founding basis for the journal and the other of which it regularly entertains, are, in fact, fringe academic topics by Wikipedia's definition. This is clear to you, right? Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, dial it back, because I’m not interested in being wailed at. Being pro-eugenics is indeed a moral position, not an error of facts. Nobody has shared any incidence of the JOCI publishing pseudoscience. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the latest JOCI, this article on immigration and intelligence is pseudoscience [68]. To their credit at least they allowed Eric Turkheimer to publish a commentary on said paper [69], "We contrast their pseudoscientific approach with valid scientific methods. Human intelligence and human evolution are controversial areas of scientific inquiry that require the highest levels of scientific rigor and editorial discretion, which are absent here." The pseudoscience paper was co-written by two far-right fringe academics Heiner Rindermann and James Thompson.

A month before their paper came out in JOCI, Rindermann had his paper retracted from another journal, "The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised about the methodology and dataset used in this research. Independent post-publication peer review has confirmed fundamental flaws in the use of student assessment studies as a measure of IQ or cognitive ability, and in the prominence of individual examples taken from the author's life". [70]. This is fraudulent research, no journal wants to publish it. JOCI is basically a dumping ground for all sorts of garbage and anti-science. They published a paper by a pedophile. They will publish anything that no good journal will publish. There is a serious lack of rigour, the journal doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There are better journals that cover WP:Fringe content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm citing someone from above: Generally unsuitable for Wikipedia's purposes, by its very nature. I agree. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable (and particularly wherever a section or paragraph directly discusses a relevant controversy). I should have really made this more clear in the above (with my old acc name): of course this journal is unlikely, though also not impossible, to find good use in an article lede etc., but its articles often do give good overviews over some long-standing academic controversies and the like. ChopinAficionado (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should also be careful not to casually expand WP:FRINGE to politicized fields of science. ChopinAficionado (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which fields exactly are you referring to? Because this journal dabbles in scientific racism (fringe) arguments in favor of eugenics (fringe), arguments favoring sex-based difference as invalidating the social construction of gender (fringe) a paper which was just "the HWOKES! use rhetorical lampshades too (no scientific merit attempted) and the paper about bestiality was, as I mentioned, an attempt at a transphobic satire and had no scientific merit. So can you please clarify? Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable fringe journal. This is a journal whose mission is explicitly giving a platform to ideas that are such fucking nonsense that they can't get published anywhere else in the name of free speech. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering whether this journal might serve as a good indicator that any view published in it is not accepted by mainstream scholarship, and therefore UNDUE (except for ABOUTSELF sorts of material).

@Simonm223, years ago, I found our article on Medical Hypotheses to be very helpful in evaluating a source, and I would encourage you to work on Journal of Controversial Ideas for the sake of future Wikipedia editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my extended to-do list. LOL. Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out one of the papers and have concluded that its description in the original list of complaints above was a thoroughly uncharitable misinterpretation, so I'm now skeptical that the papers found in this journal are quite as bad as described. However, I think the journal occupies a space between WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY, and so are unlikely to be usable for much Wikipedia content. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable with attribution for subject matter expert opinion/analysis: WP:RSOPINION and WP:DUE. Treat as similar to The Conversation (website) (see WP:THECONVERSATION). Rather than myopically hyperfixating on the most hyper-partisan culture war issue of the day, let's take a broader view. It's not pseudonymous, it merely offers authors the option to publish pseudonymously should they so choose. Authors of recent articles include anthropologist Elizabeth Weiss writing about controversies in anthropology, literary scholar Pamela L. Caughie writing about controversial words in education, philosopher Raja Halwani on sex, gender, and sexual orientation, philosopher David Benatar on controversial ideas themselves, and a 29-author treatise in defense of merit in science whose diverse authors include Anna Krylov, Jerry Coyne, Peter R. Schreiner, John McWhorter, and Peter Boghossian (I realize that some Wikipedians may not like some of the views of some of the authors, but dislike is not a valid reason to categorically dismiss a scholar's contribution). Contrary to popular opinion, the JCI is not, in fact, a journal consisting entirely of far-right, racist pseudonymous authors advocating eugenics and trans-exclusionary radical zoophilia. The authors I mentioned above would be likely be cited in a heartbeat should their same works appear in a news article or their own blog per WP:EXPERTSPS. It may well be the case that not every article in JCI needs citing anywhere on Wikipedia, regardless of the author, but in this discussion I see people missing the forest for the trees, and forgetting, that, yes, topics published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas, will tend to be, surprise surprise, controversial. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad RfC/Mistrial, reliable with caveats. This whole thread has been nothing but poisoning the well, over and over. It's homing in on articles that (to borrow an analogy from law) fail to clear the bar for relevance. All the examples here have a huge prejudicial value that outweighs any possible probative value.

When we ask if a scientist or journal can be considered a reliable source, we focus on their factual reliability, not their personal integrity or controversial opinions. To take an extreme example, Erwin Schrödinger's published papers clearly count as reliable sources. Schrodinger was a brilliant physicist whose insights revolutionized quantum mechanics. He was also a serial rapist and pedophile. If I came to RSN and asked "Should we consider papers by X reliable? By the way, they're also a serial rapist and pedophile" I would clearly be poisoning the well and (rightly) pilloried for it.

What I can't understand is how nobody noticed now that it's a journal instead of a person. Does publishing one author's opinions on bestiality reflect in any way on the journal's factual or scientific reliability? Well, does the article at any point make a single substantially false statement of fact? As far as I can tell, it doesn't. It discusses purely ethical and philosophical arguments. So why in god's name was it brought up here? I see zero reason for this except as an attempt to smear the journal. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]