Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) (bot |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) (bot |
||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
:GFI is part of the Military Factory ecosystem (which includes GFI, militaryfactory.com, WDMMA.org, WDMMW.org, SR71blackbird.org, etc). The entire ecosystem is deeply unreliable and primarily consists of information which has been scraped from other sources (including Wikipedia). Unreliable or worthy of deprecation. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 20:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC) |
:GFI is part of the Military Factory ecosystem (which includes GFI, militaryfactory.com, WDMMA.org, WDMMW.org, SR71blackbird.org, etc). The entire ecosystem is deeply unreliable and primarily consists of information which has been scraped from other sources (including Wikipedia). Unreliable or worthy of deprecation. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 20:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC) |
||
== [[Amnesty International]] == |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 15:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1647529283}} |
|||
There are reasonably frequent discussions about Amnesty: |
|||
:[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_276#Is_research_by_Amnesty_International_a_valid_source_for_Wikipedia?|2019 - Is research by Amnesty International a valid source for Wikipedia?]] |
|||
:[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_324#Amnesty| 2021 - Amnesty]] |
|||
*'''Option 1:''' Generally reliable for facts |
|||
*'''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply |
|||
*'''Option 3:''' Generally unreliable for facts |
|||
*'''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated |
|||
[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion (Amnesty International)=== |
|||
*'''Comment''' I would ordinarily consider Amnesty a reliable source for facts and with attribution for opinion. Nevertheless, its use is not infrequently contested and there have been more than a few discussions in the past. Recently, at the [[Israel]] article, it has twice been referred to as ''questionable''. The purpose of this RFC is to clarify usage. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I would go with somewhere between option 1 and option 2. Their statements are notable, but I would attribute what they say, "According to Amnesty International". --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 14:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1''' because we shouldn't even be asking this of a source with Amnesty's reputation, and of its book-length study, the result of 4 years of research, with 1,500+ footnotes meticulously sourcing virtually every statement. What is contested on the Israel page from Amnesty is a '''fact''', furthermore, not Amnesty's opinion.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 14:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:I wasn't aware we were assessing a specific publication. The OP does not note any specific publication. I'm not sure why you changed the topic of the RFC from a general assessment to one of a specific publication, which may be more or less reliable. than a general assessment of the organization. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 15:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::We are not, although Amnesty in an Israeli context has come up recently at both BDS and Israel articles. People might think that Amnesty is unreliable in an Israeli context but it is I think usual for the targets of Amnesty reports to not agree with them as a matter of course, even the UK and the US do so. What I would like is agreement on the way to treat Amnesty as a source in general, rather than in any given setting (unless people think it is appropriate to comment on a given setting, that is). [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#Amnesty_revert see here]. I didn't change anything. I don't think there is much point in framing this request in terms of AI's general reliability. It has always been accepted here that it is a top-ranking human rights organization known for careful research. The only point here is to ask whether when Amnesty's remark, not exceptional (B'tselem/Human Rights Watch and dozens of scholarly papers have made the same general observation)- can be used for the details about the known fact that Palestinian Israelis are 'restricted' in their access to land, and find themselves confined to '139 densely populated towns and villages' in just 3 areas of Israel. No one contests the fact from Israeli official statistics that they live predominantly in 139 towns and villages, in three areas, that Israeli land regulations do not allow any significant expansion of those areas, hence 'densely populated', as opposed to the prerogatives for ethnic-exclusive landuse accorded the Jewish majority population. AI's report, based on a huge number of sources, states the known facts succinctly. Some editors do not want it as a source for this page, ergo, they call it, weirdly, 'questionable'. It is national governments, as noted above, from China to the US and GB, that contest AI's work, not scholars. What is 'questionable' is what any reader of Israeli newspapers will find regularly reported in the national press. Go figure. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:::It doesn't really matter if ''you'' want to frame the question in terms of general reliability, the OP did. If you want to assess the reliability of a specific document, that should be a different discussion. It's not helpful to steer the discussion into a different direction. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::::[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]], you're right and that is why this discussion is misleading from the start. The only reason we're discussing Amnesty now is because the OP wants to use a specific Amnesty report to claim that Israel is an apartheid state. That particular report has been widely disputed by many democratic governments. So to frame this discussion as being about Amnesty in general, when the OP himself states on the talk page of [[Israel]] that he started the discussion because of the report, is very misleading, to the point of being dishonest. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]], you should ''either'' start a discussion about the specific Amnesty report you want to use, ''or'' accept that the opinion on Amnesty in general does not give you a carte blanched to use that particular report. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 11:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::I refer you to my reply below.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1, with an asterisk'''. Amnesty International is an authoritative human rights advocacy group with a long history. They are generally reliable with respect to the facts. Their opinions are highly respected but sometimes controversial; they should generally be included and attributed in-line. Amnesty International's decisions regarding what to cover <strike>should be understood to</strike> ''may'' reflect a [[left-wing politics|left-wing]] bias; in particular, they should be considered [[WP:PARTISAN|partisan]] in the [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]]. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]] <sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 15:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:To skew human rights, which is inscribed as a constitutional right in all modern democracies and constitutions, underwritten by founding fathers who were republican, liberal, democratic etc., as 'left-wing' is unacceptable. Indeed it is a term applied to Human Rights bodies simply because the job they do is unpleasant for most governments that violate elementary principles of humanity. That is not a concern which is the exclusive preserve of some (radical/Marxist/extreme) 'leftists'. The left, in regard to Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, has a notable record of criticizing those agencies for underplaying or ignoring human rights issues in Israel and several other countries. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. Respect for human rights is a decidedly centrist position; disrespect, an extremist position present in both wings. I was merely observing that Amnesty International's reporting consistently favors Palestinian perspectives versus Israeli ones, a tendency that is consistently associated with left-wing politics in the United States and, from what I understand, Western Europe also. Perhaps if we were to examine other controversial conflicts, we would find a similar bias. I don't know, I am not an expert in Amnesty International, merely reporting my impressions like everyone else here. If it helps, I have edited my statement that they "should be understood to" show a bias, which implied more consistency than I had intended. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]] <sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 16:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Amnesty International consistently states what its field reporters, and the general consensus of Israeli academics who study their own area document. That Palestinian complain, and Amnesty reports their grievances is no more 'left-wing' that would be the case if the Uyghurs or Tibetan or any other indigenous population had their complaints addressed by an external analytical human rights group. Amnesty like B'tselem and Human Rights Watch regularly criticize abuses by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and lone wolves ( and the standard 'left-wing critique of their reports on Palestinian violence takes exception to the way all three groups address Israeli accusations). They are neutral to the kind of one-eyed partisanship we associate with right/left wing. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 17:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option 1 with an asterisk'''. As an advocacy organization, Amnesty's views should be attributed, as they can be controversial. Amnesty is highly critical of some governments but less so of others, which some say makes them biased. [[User:Pious Brother|Pious Brother]] ([[User talk:Pious Brother|talk]]) 16:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::'''Comment'''.We should exercise care when describing groups as 'advocacy' organizations. AI advocates, globally, for human rights, i.e., due respect for law and the fundamental values of the UN charter, and modern democracies. Huma rights are a universal principle, not a partisan cause. I'd rather see a distinction between advocacy that evinces a rigorous call for the former and advocacy which is only for a specific human group, ethnos, nation, national interest etc. That is a different kettle of fish, since the militancy of the latter is primarily to vindicate a sectional interest. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 17:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1'''. I'm not sure if the use of AI has been credibly challenged; but they have a long history as a highly respected human rights organization. Yes, they're an advocacy organization, meaning their opinions should be attributed, but factual information does not need to be, and I see no evidence that they're in any way unreliable for factual information. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1''' - agree with Vanamonde, the very definition of a respected, widely cited, and professional organization. When they make an accusation of such and such being a human right violation it should of course be attributed, and since their views are routinely cited in reliable sources it should not be difficult for a secondary source for their views. But when they report facts, like in the last 20 years there have been X refugees fleeing Y country, an absolutely solid source. "According to Amnesty International" can be found [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22according+to+amnesty+international%22+site%3Anytimes.com 600+ time on nytimes.com], [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22according+to+amnesty+international%22+site%3Abbc.co.uk 469 times on BBC], [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22according+to+amnesty+international%22+site%3Aguardian.co.uk 352 times on The Guardian], some [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36&q=%22according+to+Amnesty+International%22&btnG= 5000 results on google scholar], [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22according+to+amnesty+international%22&so=rel nearly 700 times on JSTOR]. A solid source on all counts. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 19:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
**Not for nothing, but {{tq|According to Xinhua}} appears [https://www.google.com/search?q="according+to+xinhua"+site%3A"nytimes.com over 700 times on the NYT], [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22according+to+xinhua%22+site%3A%22bbc.co.uk%22 around 275 times on the BBC], [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22according+to+xinhua%22+site%253A%22theguardian.com%22 about 280 times in ''The Guardian''], [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22according+to+Xinhua%22+site%253Awsj.com about 580 times by ''WSJ''] and [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22according+to+Xinhua%22+site%253Ascmp.com over 2000 times in the ''South China Morning Post'']. Amnesty International certainly has more integrity than Xinhua, but it's important to note that the way in which RS [[WP:USEBYOTHERS|use Amnesty international]] matters more than merely the times that somebody says something according to them. Are these uses mostly uses as a source for facts, or because the NGO carries weight even if it is seen to fudge numbers at times? — [[User:Mhawk10|Mhawk10]] ([[User talk:Mhawk10 |talk]]) 05:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, examine those results. You will see that reliable sources cite material from Amnesty International as a matter of course ''and'' that when they make an accusation they discuss it to show that the NGO carries weight for just their opinions. But yes, often for facts. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 23:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*'''Option 1'''. Widely respected organisation, they can be used without attribution when dealing with uncontested factual assertions. Where they are contradicted, or where they draw inferences from factual data, they should be attributed. The same as any other Reliable Source really. They should, of course, be understood to have a bias in favour of human rights and against organisations which violate them. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 21:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1''' if we (=wikipedia) were not to cite them, we would be about the only ones (outside right-wing Israeli sources) not doing so, so yes; of course we can cite them, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 21:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1'''; widely trusted as a reliable source. Whether they can be cited for facts should depend largely on whether there are other sources that disagree with them, but their reputation is sufficient that when they state something as a fact ''and'' there's nothing to contradict it then we can generally report that as fact ourselves. I don't think there's sufficient evidence to consider them generally biased - if a government disagreeing with AI's conclusions was enough to make it biased, then there would be no unbiased sources describing any governments. As someone said above, if people think it is biased I'd want to see ''scholarly'' sources (or, more specifically, sources we can reasonably consider unbiased ourselves) saying so. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 22:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 2''' I think that it's pretty clear that there is a bias with Amnesty when it comes to the Middle East. It's not just Israel (or the US) that repudiated their report. Many countries, and even Arabs within Israel have repudiated the report. [https://apnews.com/article/amnesty-international-israel-middle-east-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-093b9df838a901bf752f971fb43efc22 Arab party leader in Israel rejects Apartheid label], they have shown that they look at things with a predetermined outcome. As such, they should not be deemed reliable in this area. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 00:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::With respect, we are not being asked whether the source is biased. All sources are biased. We are being asked whether it is reliable, nothing you post above contradicts its reliability. The suggestion that if an individual or government disagrees with a statement the source it comes from can not be reliable does not hold much water. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 07:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1''' All indications are that they are generally reliable for facts. Their inferences, evaluations, position statements, etc., should be attributed, since they are the organization's own work. That's just giving intellectual credit where credit is due. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 01:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option 1''' Amnesty checks all the important boxes of reliability in my opinion. Like XOR'easter has noted above, personal opinions and collective positions are to be attributed. Some research services that Amnesty offers are trusted across the board by reliable sources: for example, in the wake of the [[Pegasus Project (investigation)|Pegasus Project (investigation)]], it released a peer review of the investigation in parallel to uToronto's [[Citizen Lab]] [https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/citizen-lab-publishes-peer-review-of-amnesty-investigation-on-nso-groups-pegasus-spyware/], which was widely cited by the RS that led the investigation, such as [https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/07/18/takeaways-nso-pegasus-project/ ''the Washington Post''], [https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2021/12/09/des-activistes-kazakhs-vises-par-le-logiciel-espion-pegasus_6105390_4408996.html ''Le Monde''], and [https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2021-11/pegasus-spaehsoftware-palaestinensische-menschenrechtsaktivisten-handy-fund-spionagetechnologie ''Die Zeit'']. [[User:Pilaz|Pilaz]] ([[User talk:Pilaz|talk]]) 18:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Reliable''' for facts, '''attribution required''' for evaluations and position statements. "X journalists were assassinated in country Y in 2021" is a factual statement. "Media freedom in country Y is restricted" is their own position and must be attributed. Of course both facts reported by them and their opinions may or may not be DUE in any given article. The discussion of the '''bias''' is out of the scope of this noticeboard but it certainly exists: they report (relatively speaking) more on open and democratic societies and focus on the recipients of the US aid (see [[Amnesty_International#Country_focus]]). While it's understandable as they want to maximise the impact of their work, we should keep it in mind when assessing the relevance of the AI reporting and positions. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::What bias? Amnesty International's remit (bias?) is to report accurately and reliably on human rights abuses anywhere. That is why has regularly denounced systematic abuses of human rights and violation of the rules of war by the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas, Israel's adversary. As to the distinction re facts, versus opinions, many Israeli sources state international laws, on which AI relies, are opinionable. Are they?[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 22:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::: Look, I've myself used their reports when writing about various post-Soviet conflicts and I consider them reliable in general. The bias criticism in [[Amnesty_International#Country_focus]] is about varying levels of coverage. To give an example, they have [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/?qlocation=2031 725 reports on Israel] and [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/?qlocation=1808 111 reports about North Korea]. I don't think you'd argue that there are 7 times more human rights abuses in Israel. Being generous to them, the reason is probably that it's easier for them to get information about the Israeli abuses and also because they consider it more likely that their reporting with make an impact there. My point is that we should not let this imbalance skew the coverage in Wikipedia. We have WP:NPOV and they don't. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 07:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::If you want to argue that AI is reliable for every other country except for Israel then argue for that. If enough agree, then a special exemption can be carved out as was done with the Jewish Chronicle where it was decided that it was reliable except for some areas. That the Israel situation has more reports is not at all surprising, I don't know why you would think otherwise, Israel also gets more attention everywhere else not just at AI, this has been going on for a long time.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 09:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::: That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's mostly reliable but biased in its coverage. As you rightly note, many media outlets have the same problem. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 13:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Fair enough, accepting that there is a bias, as is the case with all sources, is this bias of a nature sufficient to justify excluding the source for the case of Israel? I think it is not.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{tq|they have 725 reports on Israel and 111 reports about North Korea. I don't think you'd argue that there are 7 times more human rights abuses in Israel.}} - [[Strawman|Who said that]]? [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::: No one. It's a [[rhetorical question]] which served to emphasise my point about the level of coverage not correlated with the level of violations. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 12:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''[[WP:GREL]]''' and '''[[WP:BIASED]]''', so '''attribute the source'''. There are obviously claims that the group makes that are indeed opinions—that [https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/ {{tq|The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment}}] or that [https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/freedom-of-expression/ {{tq|Governments have a duty to prohibit hateful, inciteful speech}}] are two such examples—unless we are going to start trying to define [[WP:RS]] for claims of moral fact and natural law made in Wikipedia's voice. I think that doing so would be a bad idea and would be contrary to [[WP:NPOV]]. There's evidence that Amnesty carries substantial weight, but at its core the group is focused on human rights advocacy ''through its own particular lens''. There's little question the group leans left in certain areas—the [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/05/amnesty-international-publishes-policy-and-research-on-protection-of-sex-workers-rights/ legalization of prostitution], [https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/ opposition to capital punishment], and [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/amnesty-updated-abortion-policy-faqs/ resolute support of abortion rights without any restrictions] all are stances on controversial issues involving human rights where Amnesty falls to the left side of the political divide. I'm hard pressed to find a human rights issue with a left-right divide where Amnesty leans hard right. That being said, [[WP:BIASED]] keenly notes that {{tq|sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources}} for certain sorts of information and that {{tq|when dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.}} [[WP:BIASED]] also indicates that a strong bias on a topic {{tq|may make in-text attribution appropriate}}. Amnesty is a highly respected organization that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as well as a substantial review process for its at-length reports, so its reports seem to be [[WP:GREL]] where it's independent from the topic it is covering. I'm not so sure about using Amnesty's website more generally, particularly its opinionated "what we do" pages, but I don't think people would seriously try to cite the equivalent of Amnesty International's "about us" pages in a contentious manner when its ''detailed reports'' exist, are publicly accessible, and contain higher quality information. — [[User:Mhawk10|Mhawk10]] ([[User talk:Mhawk10 |talk]]) 05:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::To repeat, concern for human rights, at least historically, was a liberal concern. The word 'liberal' itself came to mean 'communist-leaning' exclusively in American right-wing discourse, and 'liberals' are now bunched in with 'leftists', who in any case, can't agree who's on the 'left'. Such branding is pointless, esp. in this case, where it functions in right-wing discourse to discredit without discussion anything critical of government policy.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::If we’re going to attempt to trace the history of human rights activism, there are real and profound splits among campaigners over things like prostitution, abortion, and capital punishment. I do not see anywhere where I am saying that Amnesty International are communists—they aren’t. Certainly [[center-left]] and [[left-liberal]] groups exist, are not communist, and fall to the left of the left-right divide. I’d find it really odd to deny that If you are arguing that the idea of left-liberal ideology is centered entirely in the USA (it’s not) or that describing a group as center-left is mere {{tq|right-wing discourse to discredit without discussion anything critical of government policy}}—I am going to have to sharply disagree with you there. There are indeed times when “left wing” and “right wing” get lazily thrown around to discredit an argument without backing up the substance of one’s claims—the comment above this one is a good example—but I don’t think that noting that the lens that Amnesty looks at human rights is a left-liberal lens. In areas of controversy regarding what human rights actually are, it is proper to attribute to Amnesty when they are [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/amnesty-updated-abortion-policy-faqs/ stating their stances on issues], such as {{tq|Is abortion a violation of the right to life? No.}} This sort of stuff is key to [[WP:NPOV]]—just as [https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-condemns-amnesty-internationals-latest-effort-to-demonize-israel attribution to the ADL] that Amnesty’s report on Israel {{tq|creates fertile ground for a hostile and at times antisemitic discourse}} is something we should do rather than putting the generally reliable ADL’s claim in wikivoice. Attributing sources on these sorts of issues is exactly what [[WP:NPOV]] calls us to do—avoid stating opinion as fact. — [[User:Mhawk10|Mhawk10]] ([[User talk:Mhawk10 |talk]]) 17:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You introduced the idea of a source evaluative benchmark, the left-right distinction.I think this is meaningless in the context of human rights. As I noted on the talk page, [[Yossi Sarid]], [[Ehud Barak]], [[Ehud Olmert]], [[Michael Ben-Yair]], [[Ami Ayalon]] and [[A. B. Yehoshua]] have drawn the same comparison as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch (both frequently the targets of what some in this schema might identify as ‘ leftist’ criticism regarding Israel) comparison, over a decade before those NGOs finally accepted the idea. Are they all identifiable with some ‘left-leaning viewpoint? No. Israeli NGOS like [[B'tselem]] and [[Yesh Din]] idem. Does it throw light on their reliability to regard those two as ‘leftist? No, such accusations just shift the goalposts from analysis of their data and inferences, to insinuations that their work‘s conclusions are predictable because it fits a ‘leftist’ mindset, whatever that is. It's the impression 25% of American Jews have,that “Israel is an apartheid state”.(Ron Kampeas, [https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-finds-a-quarter-of-us-jews-think-israel-is-apartheid-state/ ‘Poll finds a quarter of US Jews think Israel is ‘apartheid state’,’ ] [[Times of Israel]] 13 July 2021; [[Chris McGreal]],[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/05/amnesty-israel-apartheid-israeli-politicians-agree Amnesty says Israel is an apartheid state. Many Israeli politicians agree] [[The Guardian]] 5 February 2022) The figure is more dramatic if we take into account The Jewish Electorate Institute poll last year which found 38% of American Jews under 40 concur with that interpretation, while 15% were unsure. Only 13% of the over 64 bracket entertained that view. This means it is a generational divide in Jewish American opinion. (Arno Rosenfeld , [https://forward.com/news/481843/amnesty-international-apartheid-report-changes-conversation/Sweeping Amnesty ‘apartheid’ report solidifies human rights consensus on Israel,'] [[The Forward]] 1 February 2022) Do those 25% vote for Ralph Nader or even the Democratic Party which is rumoured to be, somewhat laughable, leftwing? No.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 23:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option 1''' . Generally reliable for facts; their work is on a par with much serious scholarship. That what are clearly opinions should be attributed is a given - it attaches to any publisher or author. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">[[User:Cambial Yellowing|<i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>]]— [[User talk:Cambial Yellowing|<b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b>]]</span> 06:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option 2''' and '''dubious discussion start'''. Given that the discussion starter launched thus discussion with the sole purpose of claiming that Israel is an apartheid state, I find the discussion misleading as it pretends to be about Amnesty in general. Amnesty's recent report about Israel has been debunked by most leading democracies in the world (the US, the UK, Germany etc.). Given that this discussion is about that specific report (see the long discussion at the talk page of [[Israel]] where the discussion starter explicitly admits starting this discussion for the purpose of using that report), the question is rather whether Amnesty is infallible. So for me it's option 2. I generally trust Amnesty. If Amnesty puts out a report that is widely discredited in the Democratic world, that report should not be used as a neutral fact, pretending all the criticism of it doesn't exist. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 11:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:I did not add the Amnesty material to the Israel article so your premise is just false. I initiated one of the prior discussions on Amnesty linked in the opening. I also referred in my opening to the fact of Amnesty having been twice referred to at the Israel article as a questionable source, said assertion being given as reason to revert material which was not added by me. Since Amnesty validity as a source has been questioned on a number of occasions, it is logical that we establish it's status, that is what this is about and not your offensive innuendo, for which an apology would be in order. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Just to clarify, whether or not Amnesty are a Reliable Source (and all the evidence suggests they are), the governments of Israel, Germany, The UK and the USA absolutely are not. Nor are any other governments. Their statements of opinion on the Amnesty report on Israeli apartheid have no bearing on whether wikipedia should consider Amnesty to be RS. Also, the word "debunk" indicates a systematic and convincing rebuttal. The governments in question have not done this, nor has anybody else. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 15:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Jeepiz. This arose when I cited it for a specific, and uncontroversial datum about residential confinement of Israel's minority,- which no one doubts since it comes from Israeli statistics - and an immediate war of expunction flared up. I presume because it contained the word 'apartheid' in the discreetly footnoted title. Neither the US, nor Germany nor the UK have 'debunked' what is the result of a 4 year long 280 page study, with 1,564 footnotes. Two official foreign spokesmen dismissed it on the day it was issued (I presume they didn't read the whole study in one day - to digest it has taken me a week) echoing outrage in Israeli government circles. The only valid criticism of whatever inadequacies or inaccuracies it may be found to contain will come from scholars or policy wonks who take the trouble to tackle the intricate details and show where AI's report is, in their view, flawed. Therefore official reactions by allied states are meaningless. No such overnight hysteria greeted [[Gunnar Myrdal]]’s groundbreaking ''[[American Dilemma]]'' (1944) when its detailed analyses, ''anti litteram'' of quasi-apartheid segregation policies in the United States came out in two massive volumes, and over time, esp. after [[Douglas Massey]] and [[Nancy Denton]]’s book [https://books.google.it/books?id=S2zsDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover ''American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass,'' ] [[Harvard University Press]], 1998, (' the singularly most influential study of segregation in the United States' Gershon Shafir , [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743817000915 From Overt to Veiled Segregation: Israel's Palestinian Arab Citizens in the Galilee], ''International Journal of Middle East Studies,'' Volume 50 Issue 1 February 2018, pp.1-22 p.3, who uses such works and models to examine comparable Israeli demography) sociological studies of things like ethnic profiling of residential patterns as a US variety of apartheid are commonplace. The Report collects a huge range of data bearing on patterns of discrimination which echo a vast range of articles and books in Israeli and diasporic scholarship. Rather that provide 10 scholarly sources for each assertion, a synthesis as we have it in AI’s report, or the very similar HRW report, is textually easierWhy is it that, anytime even a hint is made that Israel fits some pattern, or has institutional arrangements best understood in comparative perspective since similar things are evidenced in many other countries, all on the basis of quality scholarship and its sourcing, people get nervous and argue for exceptionalism? Or accusations arise that ignore the substance and dwell on political fallout as a criterion for reliability? The question is rhetorical, since the answer is that Israel is a Jewish state, ergo, given the toxic longevity of anti-Semitism regarding Jews that makes us extremely careful of bias against them, anything regarding Israel can be construed as offensive to Jews. Any critical thought will lie dead in the water, stillborn, if that specious premise becomes ubiquitous. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::'''Option 2,3 and Option 5 UNDUE WEIGHT for Israel article''' Also dubious discussion start. The question was incorrectly presented (see talk page on "Israel article) AI report claiming Israel is apartheid state was cherry picked and inserted into an article that is basically supposed to be primarily apolitical. There are thousands of NGOs and tens of thousands of opinion's regarding Arab-Israeli conflict, so prioritizing one report of one NGO is cherry picking. AI is as much reliable as other NGOs and political parties when their views are presented with proper attribution, DUE weight and in WP:NPOV fashion. Nothing of this was done in this particular case. The report was rejected by some government's, ignored by all others and defined as antisemitic by other NGOs. What makes this report so special that it should go to every article related to Israel and what gives it special WEIGHT over others to go into the main Israel article? ''' Is AI a legal authority to define any state as genocidal or apaprtheid nation?''' Its just their highly contested opinion in the same way as claiming Israel as perfect place, only remaining multicultural and multiethnic democracy in Middle East, only country where minorites are rapidly increasing in numbers that gives the highest standards of democracy and freedom to all minorities in that part of world, is opinion of some other NGOs. I would understand mentioning it in the article regarding Israel/Apartheid analogy but here this report is fully ''' UNDUE''' . I see same group of people going from one to another article and adding negative opinion's about Israel and although such opinion's could be worthy for Wikipedia, cherry picking a highly contested and controversial report of one particular NGO and presenting it as an established fact in an article that is not supposed to cover that topic is against Wikipedia policy of neutrality and fully out of DUE in this particular case. The "Israel article" shouldn't be based on the claims and contra-claims of countless NGOs and particularly not on opinion of just one that fits someone POVs. User Selfstudier ignored my and concerns of others regarding UNDUE weight and went to this noticeboard to open question regarding AI reliability. I hope that he dosent see this as the easiest way to overrun the DUE problem with his edits.[[User:Tritomex|Tritomex]] ([[User talk:Tritomex|talk]]) 01:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Weight is decided by the amount of coverage something receives in Reliable Sources, not who agrees with it. The attention given to Amnesty International's report by reliable sources was immense, therefore it is notable for the Israel article. To use wikivoice to state "Israel is an apartheid state" would clearly be inappropriate. However, something like "Human rights groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'tsalem consider Israel to be committing the crime of Apartheid in its treatment of Palestinians in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank." followed by those who reject this view is clearly entirely [[WP:DUE]]. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 07:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::As an example, take [https://forward.com/news/481843/amnesty-international-apartheid-report-changes-conversation/ Forward's coverage] where they give over a substantial space to the argument that there is a global consensus among human rights organizations on this issue, it's not just AI opinion. Arguing for UNDUE doesn't hold water. As I said above, by all means make the case for an exemption on Israel but so far I have not seen that case.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 09:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option 2''' Can be used with attribution. As an advocacy organisation, it tends to be less nuanced and more forceful in its descriptions than standard RSs such as when it [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501838.html?nav=mb equated] Guantanamo Bay with a Soviet gulag. [[User:AllOtherNamesWereTaken|AllOtherNamesWereTaken]] ([[User talk:AllOtherNamesWereTaken|talk]]) 09:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:You mean a 278 page report with 1,564 sourcing notes lacks nuance, compared to other RS? Most of our RS are newspapers without footnotes. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 09:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Nuance is not synonymous with detail. While they might accurately report events, they are not jurists or historians and their moral, political and legal judgements can be unsophisticated and overstated. This is not a criticism of them per se and similarly applies to other advocacy groups.[[User:AllOtherNamesWereTaken|AllOtherNamesWereTaken]] ([[User talk:AllOtherNamesWereTaken|talk]]) 14:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::There are two major problem here. First a political advocacy group is not a legal authority that establishes legal facts. So this claim is just an assertion of one NGOs that was ignored or rejected by all major international players (mostly ignored). Second, and in this case even bigger problem is that there are m dozens of events weekly related to Arab-Israeli conflict that are covered by some and in many cases even larger number of RS, it doesnt mean that all of them should be inserted in any article related to Israel. Especially not in the main Israel article. There are many reports of NGOs and political groups whose position could be added to many Wikipedia article's tackling issues of Apartheid analogy. Here we have a case of cherry picking one report of one political advocacy group whose claims are elevated into the level of facts and than inserted without any WEIGHT into the body of article regarding the State of Israel. [[User:Tritomex|Tritomex]] ([[User talk:Tritomex|talk]]) 10:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::We attribute opinion, claimers and deniers alike, that is not in dispute, therefore irrelevant. That there is a literal worldwide consensus of NGOs both in and outside of Israel on this issue is also not in doubt so that argument falls flat. The only way to achieve your goal here is to make out a case that Amnesty has an exceptional bias in the case of Israel and I see no evidence for that, other than your opinion. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 10:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::: "A literal worldwide consensus of NGOs" Common, please, there are millions of NGOs worldwide, thousands just in Israel, 2000 in my small country of Serbia and 99,999+% of those NGOs never herd about this report, not to mention giving consensus to this report. Very few NGOs even reacted, mostly accusing AI for bias, although what would give some weight to this article would be reaction of states, international bodies and institution's which was with few rebuffs equal to zero. [[User:Tritomex|Tritomex]] ([[User talk:Tritomex|talk]]) 11:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::[https://forward.com/news/481843/amnesty-international-apartheid-report-changes-conversation/ Sweeping Amnesty ‘apartheid’ report solidifies human rights consensus on Israel] |
|||
::::[https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2022/0208/1278414-israel-palestine-apartheid/ 14 Israeli human rights groups back Amnesty International's 'apartheid' report] |
|||
::::I have sources to support my view, do you? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Option 3''' Regarding I/P conflict one of the number one antisemitism experts [[Deborah Lipstadt]] call amnesty reports as “ahistorical and unhistorical.”. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/lipstadt-tells-senate-hearing-not-all-criticism-of-israel-is-antisemitic/]We cannot really trust what it says in it report regarding Israel as it has clear agenda in its mind. Amnesty have a bad record regarding AntiSemitism [https://www.timesofisrael.com/amnesty-international-rejects-call-to-fight-anti-semitism/]--[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 16:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Lipstadt has no specialist knowledge here, so her comments are irrelevant, as revelaed by the comments themselves. The [[Apartheid (crime)|crime of apartheid]] is not a matter of history, it is a matter of international law which is in place at this time.--[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 06:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Lipstadt is specialist on antisemitism and her desription about the report quite telling It seems that amnesty have jewish problem [https://www.wiesenthal.com/about/news/wiesenthal-center-amnesty.html] [[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 19:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::A specialist on antisemtism is not an expert on international law. The [[crime of apartheid]] was criminalized by the [[Rome Statute]], and there is nothing "historical" about it. Shocking development, Israel advocacy organization itself accused of intolerance and racism (eg [https://www.latimes.com/news/la-oe-yanai23jan23-story.html here]) objects to human rights organization criticizing Israel's actions. And this has what exactly to do with Amnesty's reliability again? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 19:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::::So, it is established that Lisptadt is not an expert in the matter at hand. Seems we are now talking about the SW centre's criticism of AI not opening a separate investigation into antisemitism in the UK in 2015. That criticism is exceptionally weak, it presupposes either that antisemitism was more prevalent in the UK than any other form of racism, or that it was more important than any other form of racism. Disagreeing with those premises in good faith can not be reasonably construed as antisemitism. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 21:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Option 1''' for facts but with attribution needed for when this strays into advocacy and opinion. AI is, after all, a group that is involved in advocacy, lobbying and campaigning. However, their research and publications are very robust and the findings are usually backed up by other reliable orgs. The idea of "left-wing" bias doesn't make sense really considering the actual history of AI. Perhaps editors are here are too young to remember, but AI angered left-wing groups by not giving Nelson Mandela the [[prisoner of conscience]] title. [[User:Vladimir.copic|Vladimir.copic]] ([[User talk:Vladimir.copic|talk]]) 21:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1''' wrt to facts. If used to source an opinion, attribute it, but AI is a stellar source in most context.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 01:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1''' Stellar source. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1''' Extremely reliable for what it does, which is extremely considered secondary research, in consultation with teams of humans rights lawyers, of the facts on the ground in humanitarian situations around the globe and their relationship with international law. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 14:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 2 or 3''': Amnesty is a political advocacy organization, so views it expresses on political questions should be attributed to Amn esty and only used in situations where Amnesty is relevant. For example, regarding Amnesty's latest Israel report, many countries disputed Amnesty's claims including the US, Germany, the UK, Austria, the Czech Republic, Australia, Ireland, Canada, and Israel. This is not to disparage Amnesty as an organization, it's just their opinions are fundamentally not suitable encyclopedic sources. [[User:OtterAM|OtterAM]] ([[User talk:OtterAM|talk]]) 17:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::What relevance do political declarations by countries have in assessing a scholarly report concerning another country? None.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nishidani|contribs]]) </span> |
|||
*'''Option 1''', as always if there is disagreement or incoherence with other WP:RS then statements/opinions should be attributed. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 18:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* Since it's an advocacy organization that often takes controversial positions, I'd say its claims should generally be '''attributed''' in text, especially if disputed by other sources. (I'm deliberately not choosing an option on the 1–4 scale because I don't think the scale is particularly useful in this case.) —[[User:Mx. Granger|Mx. Granger]] ([[User talk:Mx. Granger|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Mx. Granger|contribs]]) 21:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''None of the above''' AI is a very notable advocacy group, and as such it’s claims and accusations are worth mentioning… HOWEVER, because it IS an advocacy group it’s claims and accusations should be stated as OPINION (with in-text attribution) and NOT stated as fact (in Wikipedia’s voice). Once that is done, we can cite them as a primary source for that opinion. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 13:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:Option 2 then? Attribute everything, even facts? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment'''. Of course, attribution for its '''interpretation''' of the facts. If the interpretation looks like a circle, then it is the huge number of fact dots that make up the appearance of roundness that warrant our attention, not the issue that Amnesty and every major human rights group tend to call the arrangement a circle, as opposed to those who state it may be a skewed rectangle. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 13:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Reliable for facts, attribute for opinions''' - which is what we should do with any opinion. Whether Amnesty's opinions are DUE is not something that can be determined here beyond saying "sometimes yes, sometimes no". [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1''' They have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy when it comes to human rights issues. Just today I stumbled upon this while working on the [[torture]] article: "Because of its extensive quality control procedure, which includes research teams of subject and area experts as well as approval by veto players, AI is agreed to produce credible allegations (e.g. Clark, 2001). This reputation for credible reporting has not only made AI an effective advocate, but also made its reports a source for content analysis by researchers generating data " ({{cite journal |last1=Conrad |first1=Courtenay R. |last2=Hill |first2=Daniel W. |last3=Moore |first3=Will H. |title=Torture and the limits of democratic institutions |journal=Journal of Peace Research |date=2018 |volume=55 |issue=1 |pages=3–17 |doi=10.1177/0022343317711240|ref={{sfnref|Conrad et al.|2018}}}}) ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 22:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*An advocacy group that is reasonably accurate for facts, so: '''generally reliable for facts, attribute for opinions'''. If there are questions about a specific report they have published, then the reliability of that report should be considered individually and not bundled into a discussion about general reliability. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1''' – "Reliable for facts, attribute for opinions" per BilledMammal, Buidhe, Thryduulf, ''et al.'' seems to be a good summary. [[User:Davide King|Davide King]] ([[User talk:Davide King|talk]]) 15:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 1''' -- reliable for facts, attribute for opinions; good reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Assessments and opinions are best attributed. --[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 08:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Option 3:''' for the apparent context of reporting on Israel. Factually, they are an advocacy group - and such are not supposed to be objective. Publications from advocacy groups are commonly intended to achieve a goal, to sell a POV. In the case of “apartheid”, obviously emotional phrasing intended to incite and not to be technically accurate. So may be cited with attribution as a [[WP:BIASED]] source, but should not be treated as fact. See also the prior discussions about advocacy. Googling them and Israel does find criticisms of method and accusations of a bias do exist to minor extent. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 00:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Here you are in effect arguing that anybody who has an opinion is not reliable. All sources are biased, but some are careful not to publish false information. The Guardian, Telegraph, Haaretz and New York Times all have very strong biases, but we treat them as reliable sources as they are careful not to publish factually inaccurate information. Do you have any reason to believe AI publishes inaccurate information? |
|||
:: In terms of the apartheid analogy, the [[crime of apartheid]] has a technical legal definition which AI states, in a very closely argued report, Israel are in breach of. Now, you can disagree with their reasoning, which is why everybody who votes Option 1 states their opinions should be attributed, but characterising this as "emotional phrasing" aimed to sell a POV is a gross misunderstanding of the situation.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 07:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::''obviously emotional phrasing intended to incite and not to be technically accurate'', pure fantasy. AI is discussing the [[crime of apartheid]] and its technical definition and saying it applies. That is their view, and it should be included as their view. But it is fantasy that the phrasing is ''intended to incite'' or ''not technically accurate''. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 16:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
*'''Option 1 with a caveat'''. Compassionate727 nailed it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 17:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion=== |
|||
How is it a RS issue? AI reports are tautologically reliable for the position of AI. The inclusion of the said position in any given article should be determined by WP:NPOV, specifically the due weight considerations. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 19:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the question people are really asking is whether 1. AI is usable for facts (ever), or solely for its own attributed opinion, and, 2. is it biased in the I/P area specifically. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, the second question should be asked at WP:NPOVN probably but I see your point. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah the question is on things like AI saying things that are not their position but are reporting as fact. Like, to take one totally hypothetical example, AI saying that of the Palestinians in Israel 90% of them dwell in 139 densely populated towns and villages restricted to the Galilee, [[Triangle (Israel) | Triangle]] and [[Negev]] regions, with the remaining 10% in mixed cities sourced to one of their reports and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=1070709555&oldid=1070708309 removed as one-sided propaganda that cannot be RS]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 21:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::Its not just propaganda it is factually falls. Just in Jerusalem there are close to 400 000 Palestinians who are counted in Israeli Arab population and who themselves represent 20% of population. Nazareth, Rahat, Um el Fahem, Akko, Lod, Ramle, Tel Aviv-Yaffa,...are not villages, but towns and and just those place that I mentioned are home to another 300 000 Arab people (cc 15%) which means that the 90% claim is nothing but falsification.[[User:Tritomex|Tritomex]] ([[User talk:Tritomex|talk]]) 14:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Source saying it is false please.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:: Just Jerusalem had last year 350 000 Arab inhabitants which is almost by itself 20% of Arab population counted by Israeli CBS. [https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/jerusalem-in-2021-by-the-numbers-667356]. So just apply WP:COUNT and you see that the 90% out of 1.9 million claim in 139 villages is falsification. Off course I can give source for each localities I mentioned above and for other as well. [[User:Tritomex|Tritomex]] ([[User talk:Tritomex|talk]]) 15:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Except the portion in Jerusalem is not in Israel? East Jerusalem being considered by Amnesty and nearly the entire international community to be in the Palestinian territories, not Israel. I get that you dont like Amnesty or the positions it espouses, but there is zero evidence that they are unreliable in any way. You disliking their positions matters for a blog maybe, not for our articles. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 17:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:::How many of the Arabs in East Jerusalem are citizens of Israel? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::2020 figures from [https://strategicassessment.inss.org.il/en/articles/israeli-demographics/ this source] gives Israeli pop as 6.87 million Jews, 1.96 million Arabs (Muslims (1.67 million) Druze and Christian Arabs) and 0.46 million others for a total of 9.29 million. The Muslim 1.67 million includes the Muslim Arabs living in East Jerusalem, who are not Israeli citizens. "It can therefore be concluded that there are 1.3 million Muslim citizens of Israel (author’s calculation based on the Central Bureau of Statistics, 2020c)." (For "Muslim", you can read "Palestinian").[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::They are Israeli residence card holders and are counted in all Israeli demographic reports, by Israeli CBS and every single source plus everywhere here in Wikipedia (without anyone even questioning it) without single exception. In all article's, including this one. Otherwise the number of Israeli Arabs wouldn't be 1.9 but more like 1.5 million and their share in population wouldn't be 21.1% but somewhere between 16-17%. The 1.9 million and 90% claim falls already in Jerusalem, but there are many many other towns and cities from whom I mentioned few above. You raised a good but off-line question which is on my mind for very long time. Why we always count Jerusalem and Golan Arab population in Arab population of Israel without any notes or explanation?<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tritomex|Tritomex]] ([[User talk:Tritomex#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tritomex|contribs]]) </span> |
|||
:::There are ongoing discussions about this at the relatively new article [[Palestinian citizens of Israel]] [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::[https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Housing/SubmissionsCFIhousingdiscrimin/Adalah.docx Spatial Segregation in Israel] says "The vast majority (90%) of PCI live in around 140 Arab towns and villages, while around 10% live in the so- |
|||
:::called “mixed cities”, including Haifa, Acre, Lod, Ramla and Natzeret Illit." June 2021 |
|||
:::[https://imeu.org/article/fact-sheet-palestinian-citizens-of-israel Fact Sheet: Palestinian Citizens of Israel] says "Most Palestinian citizens of Israel live in three areas: the Galilee in the north, the so-called “Little Triangle” in the center of the country, and the Negev desert (Naqab to Palestinians) in the south." So "most" rather than 90%, March 2021 [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::These figures must surely hinge on whether, as a baseline, East Jerusalem is interpreted as being within Israel or as an occupied territory, with the former obviously lacking the support of international law (presumably AI's position). [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 14:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' - What are these "with an asterisk" !votes? The question explicitly regards facts and reliability as a source is as a matter of long-standing policy a thing we recognise even when the source is also known to have biases or be partisian in some respects. We do not ask that reliable sources reflect a view from nowhere. If the "with an asterisk" opinion don't document actual reliability concerns, I recommend the existence of the asterisks be disregarded by the closer. — [[User:Chalst|''Charles Stewart'']] <small>[[User_talk:Chalst|(talk)]]</small> 14:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
**In general, comments on whether or not a source is [[WP:BIASED]] on a particular topic do wind up getting reflected in closes, especially if this would render in-text attribution for the source to be a best practice in controversial topic areas. There are real reasons to consider the asterisks and to not artificially limit discussion to something narrower than what normally is permitted in the standard 4-option RfCs. — [[User:Mhawk10|Mhawk10]] ([[User talk:Mhawk10 |talk]]) 02:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
***Since all sources have a bias, what does an asterisk mean? If one wants to insist on attribution, one has merely to select Option 2 and say so.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 07:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* {{u|Sceptre}}, you forgot to sign your close and I do not think closing this a week in was a good idea. It is arguable whether "with an asterisk" applies or not and the discussion isn't an obvious snowball so I think you should undo your close. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">[[User:Tayi Arajakate|<span style="color:#660000">'''Tayi Arajakate'''</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Tayi Arajakate|<span style="color:#660000">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sub></span> 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:I agree that this isn't a good case for a snow close, not least given that the "with asterisk" perspective is currently a minority position compared to unequivocal "option 1". The close language also seems to imply that AI's Israel report is not reliable, which does not appear to be a consensus position here. I would also expect a close for a discussion like this to address and evaluate the specific arguments made and their relative strength, which the current close does not. If the close isn't self-reverted shortly, it should be challenged formally. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 16:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hat|previous close}} |
|||
It's clear after just a week that there won't be a consensus to take Amnesty International, ''as a whole'', below "'''generally reliable (with an asterisk)'''". However, several editors have noticed that because AI are necessarily partisan on certain issues, it's a good idea – but not necessarily mandatory – that anything cited to Amnesty should be attributed to them (i.e. "According to AI, country X executed N prisoners in 2021") just to cover our bases. If ''certain'' publications by AI are questionable (e.g. their Israel report), then those should form another part of the discussion, ''but'' GREL does allow for the quality for some of its work to be below the usual standards as long as it isn't habitual (at which point, of course, they'd be susceptible to being knocked down to MREL). '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
*::Seeing as the OP also wants it reopened, I've reopened it. FWIW, I was working on the assumption that AI already occupies GREL, and I don't think there's a likely prospect it'll go to MREL (like I said, the "asterisk" option is the absolute limit downwards in this discussion). I'm happy to admit I'm wrong. (Also, I make no opinion on the Israel report myself; I'm just saying that ''if'' it's questionable, then it can be discussed without affecting GREL). '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 18:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Considering the head of Amnesty has a problem with the report should tell you that at the very least we should not be using the report as a RS, but as an opinion. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/amnestys-israel-chief-criticizes-groups-report-accusing-israel-of-apartheid/ Amnesty’s Israel chief criticizes group’s report accusing Israel of apartheid] [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 15:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:The head of Amnesty International Israel not the head of Amnesty. Same sort of situation as Amnesty in Germany.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Um Sir Joseph, everybody agrees that when AI presents their own view it should be presented as their own view. But what they report as factual is reliable. And you should read that link, the AI Israel head didnt actually dispute the findings of the report, only that it overlooks the work of human rights groups within Israel and the accomplishments of some Palestinians in Israel, and that she does not generally find the report helpful in advancing any cause. That is certainly fine for her to feel, but that has nothing to do with is Amnesty a reliable source. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 22:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
== Suspected Webhost-based "Gerontology" sites == |
|||
I discovered some gerontology-related sites on the internet that are suspected of being webhost-based. |
|||
*Supercentenari d’Italia: https://www.supercentenariditalia.it/ |
|||
*Oldest of Ireland : https://finbarrconnolly.com/chronicle/ |
|||
*Najstarsi Polacy: http://www.najstarsipolacy.pl/ |
|||
*Oldest people in Britain: http://oldestinbritain.nfshost.com/chronology.php |
|||
If any of these websites use webhost, please tell me down in the comments and tell which one (s) is/are it/them.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SPEEDYBEAVER|SPEEDYBEAVER]] ([[User talk:SPEEDYBEAVER#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SPEEDYBEAVER|contribs]]) </span> |
|||
:Well, for an easy no-brainer, that last one is at NearlyFreeSpeech.NET, a seller of webhosting services. --[[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:#F80">Orange Mike</span>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<span style="color:#FA0">Talk</span>]] 14:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:How exactly is this an issue for this noticeboard? None of the websites listed are cited on Wikipedia. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 14:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, if someone decides to add links to these sites, I wanted to learn which one (s) are reliable or not. [[User:SPEEDYBEAVER|SPEEDYBEAVER]] ([[User talk:SPEEDYBEAVER|talk]]) 17:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please don't clutter the noticeboard with hypothetical questions. That isn't its purpose. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 18:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:14, 23 March 2022
Archive 365 | ← | Archive 369 | Archive 370 | Archive 371 | Archive 372 | Archive 373 | → | Archive 375 |
Please let me know if this is the wrong place to ask this.
Background: Social media has been blowing up about Jimmy DiResta's Netflix show "Making Fun" teaching children to use power tools in an unsafe matter.[1][2] Of course we ignore all of that -- what someone writes on Reddit or Twitter is not an acceptable source for adding negative information to a BLP.
But what about Are Jimmy DiResta’s Builds On Netflix’s ‘Making Fun’ Safe? This Self-Proclaimed “Sexy Cyborg” Doesn’t Think So?
Would that be an acceptable source for something along the lines of "Naomi Wu has criticized the show's misuse of power tools."?
06:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:3CAE:6306:8B34:1600 (talk)
- Decider is a website operated by the New York Post (RSP entry), which was determined to be generally unreliable in a 2020 RfC. The claim in question concerns living persons, so Decider is not reliable for the purpose of inserting this claim into a Wikipedia article.Decider does quote Naomi Wu's Twitter posts, but these tweets are also not reliable in the context of the Jimmy DiResta article, since WP:ABOUTSELF does not allow self-published claims regarding third parties. — Newslinger talk 05:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! I did a search and no other source has covered this, so unsourced and not usable it is. Good call. Maybe we should create a TwitterFightPedia where we can cover things like the president of the united states picking a twitter fight with a 16-year-old girl[3][4][5][6][7] and losing badly (smile). 08:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:2D70:A1E3:9521:34F5 (talk)
- Just to clarify, BLP is not an issue in this as almost all of the tweets concerned are about the technique and safety protocols. Not the person. Its fairly common for shows that are centered around a single personality to fall into this trap, as any criticism of the show ends up being levied at the personality and will often bleed into their biography article. The only real question here is 'Is Naomi Wu a significant enough expert on workshop safety that her criticism isnt undue weight?'. I would say probably not. And absent any other experts taking public offense.... She would be worth including as part of a body of criticism should other reliable sources take issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. If it's in the Jimmy DiResta article then not acceptable to include it if it's SPS. If we had an article on the show perhaps we could, but not when it's in the Jimmy DiResta article since it has no relevance to the Jimmy DiResta article if it isn't a commentary on Jimmy DiResta in some way. If this is ever added with SPS, I'm taking it to BLPN and strongly fighting to keep it out. We have the same problem where people try to add nonsense about someone's book or something based on SPS, it's not any acceptable there either. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, BLP is not an issue in this as almost all of the tweets concerned are about the technique and safety protocols. Not the person. Its fairly common for shows that are centered around a single personality to fall into this trap, as any criticism of the show ends up being levied at the personality and will often bleed into their biography article. The only real question here is 'Is Naomi Wu a significant enough expert on workshop safety that her criticism isnt undue weight?'. I would say probably not. And absent any other experts taking public offense.... She would be worth including as part of a body of criticism should other reliable sources take issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! I did a search and no other source has covered this, so unsourced and not usable it is. Good call. Maybe we should create a TwitterFightPedia where we can cover things like the president of the united states picking a twitter fight with a 16-year-old girl[3][4][5][6][7] and losing badly (smile). 08:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:2D70:A1E3:9521:34F5 (talk)
RS for Board Games- Board Game Quest, Ars Technica, Kotaku and TechRaptor
I am currently working on the board game article Scythe. Should the following be considered RS for articles covering games: Board Game Quest (which seems somewhat unreliable), Kotaku, TechRaptor and Ars Technica (the latter is an RS but for 'tech or science related' articles)? Many thanks.
Note: In error, I originally and accidentally placed this in an archived noticeboard page (337). I have reverted it now myself and corrected the mistake. Apologies- VickKiang (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- If they're listed as an RS at WP:VGRS, they should be usable for board game articles as well. Mlb96 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Kotaku and Ars Technica are listed so, but TechRaptor is not listed as so and Board Game Quest is merely an article pertaining board games. Could you please inform me more about your opinions on those websites (I think that the latter might likely be unreliable)- VickKiang (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- VGRS is not applicable since you’re talking boardgame, not videogame. I think any publisher second-party account is reasonable to use as RS. A publisher-run view is at least somewhat professional and going to be around for the cite to work. If it’s a SELFPUB review, I’d say not really usable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Boardgames and videogames are close enough that I would assume good faith if someone attempted to use a source commonly used in one in the other. It is not like they are trying to use an astronomy source to discuss zoos or something like that. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- A VGRS listing is simply not applicable for board games. First because those listed are simply not reviewing board games, so there is not going to be board game reviews there to pull from, and it is unlikely that video games are always based on board game or faithful to that board game when it is. Second, their focus and expertise is on electronic non-board game topics — on soundtrack, animation, fps, qualities of bot opponent(s), operating systems, computer accessories, their relationship to programming companies, etcetera. This seems like saying use a movie or tv reviewers versus a book reviewer. It just has no edge over any other publisher second-party account. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- VGRS is not applicable since you’re talking boardgame, not videogame. I think any publisher second-party account is reasonable to use as RS. A publisher-run view is at least somewhat professional and going to be around for the cite to work. If it’s a SELFPUB review, I’d say not really usable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- About Board Game Quest lists most of its staff as "reviewers", which I think makes it clear that they are mostly in the business of publishing subjective opinions about games. The website could be a reliable source for the reviews published by its staff, but it's not clear to what extent a mention of their review would be WP:DUE. The home page shows that the site publishes some "Board Game News", but all of the news article are written by Tony Mastrangeli, who is also the publisher. I could not locate any editorial policy, so I think the news articles are not reliable to source factual claims. JBchrch talk 18:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Update: So is there a consensus on the general reliability of Ars Technica and Kotaku to be listed as generally reliable in the WikiProject for board games, situational for TechRaptor, and unreliable for Board Game Quest? Thanks for all of your help and suggestions and I will subsequently list the reliabilities once this thread is archived. VickKiang (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
German hard cover to ePub
Book title: Zwettlers großes Buch der Bullterrier, Bulldoggen und Molosser (Pt 1), publisher: Verlag Ulmer Manuskripte (2007), isbn: 978-3-939496-43-4, authors: Walter & Marlene Zwettler. It appears they published an electronic version of the hardcover via self-published epubli.de as seen here. From what I gleaned via online searches, they publish different topics such as agriculture, and various other types of books. Is there anything more in German or in libraries that might be available? After reading the Introductory, it appeared to me the book was reliable per CONTEXTMATTERS. The author(s) appear to have a good understanding of cynology and of Hauck's (veterinarian) contributions. Sometimes, because of the rarity of these older books, we must depend on sources that publish old articles, and/or re-publish hardcovers as self-published ebooks. I would appreciate a yes or no as to its use for this information, (which I've removed until consensus tells me otherwise). Any helpful information you have time to provide about RS in other languages, and getting access to rare books will be greatly appreciated. Atsme 💬 📧 18:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I assume this is related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Atsme (Don't blame for the bad section title I did not name it that). --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)- No, it isn't related. In fact, it's related to this, and the kind of work I'm accustomed to doing on WP. Atsme 💬 📧 19:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, will strike my comment. Carry on the good work you are accustomed to. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, it isn't related. In fact, it's related to this, and the kind of work I'm accustomed to doing on WP. Atsme 💬 📧 19:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- As long as you are reasonably certain that the ebook is essentially a facsimile of the print version, I would consider it to have the same reliability as that book. If you are asking for someone to procure a copy of the print book to verify the citation, you want WP:RX. If you are asking whether the publisher is trustworthy, I shouldn't comment because I can't read German, although I am inclined to assume German publishers are trustworthy unless there is evidence otherwise. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- What makes the authors of the book reliable, or experts on the topic and the like? The only thing i could find about them was that they owned dogs for 30 years and use them to hunt as well as breed. Surely that is a self description as well. Not specified what kinds of dogs they breed (potential conflict of interest in their work?). I cannot find much detail about the publisher either, only what they claim about themselves. Not that they seem unreliable. This looks like enthusiastic hobbyists publishing with a small publisher. Even the publisher says published authors range from hobbyists to scientists. And in their 'how to' to use them as a publisher, they also make no note of needing any specific expertise on any given topic. The publisher does claim specialist editing (fachlektorat in german), but how much in that about self statement is true for any given thing they publish seems questionable given the range of topics and small size of the publishing house. The 'about us' does claim they try to work with experts and try to avoid publishing 'bad information', to protect their brand and so on. And yes, i am a native german speaker. This seems a little dodgy to be honest. Just people writing about a hobby and perhaps source of income, with a potential conflict of interest due to it, in a very small publishing house on which i could only find what they claim about themselves. No secondary source about the publisher at all after a quick search, no indication on how they are viewed in the field. Again, not saying they are outright fabrications or lies either. Just that there is no indication that any of the claims the publishing house makes about themselves are true, or false for that matter, and there are no secondary sources talking about the publisher i could find after a quick search. Only claims about themselves and nothing else. The authors just seem to be hobbyists though. But not up to me in the end. Have a good one anyway. 91.96.24.109 (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- As i see the source is in the article now. Atsme, you surely have looked at the source, who is the specialist editor that has edited the book written by two amateurs? Surely that infromation would be in the book, both hardcover and e-book. The specialist editing would be the only thing making this book by two amateurs with a potential conflict of interest reliable. So, what is their claim to topic expertise? 85.16.41.223 (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
lostarmour.info
Previous discussions: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285 and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313
Source: [8]
Background: lostarmour.info is a Russian-language intelligence project to catalogue the loss of various types of military equipment.
Articles: OTR-21 Tochka
Content: "The Ukrainian Army continued to use ballistic missiles throughout the conflict, until February 2015 when the second Minsk Accords were signed. In total, no less than 43 missiles were launched, with both fragmentation and cluster warheads, only two of the latter achieving hits on military targets."
Discussion: I am hoping to create a consensus as to whether lostarmour.info is a reliable source or not.
I will argue it is not, as it is clearly biased with a pro-Russian slant. For example, there is this line in the article:
"Думаю, не слукавлю, если скажу, что она даже не стремиться, а просто-напросто РАВНА нулю. В молоко запустили, как говорятся. Никакого ущерба не нанесено, даже по домам гражданских не попали (что ВСУ умеет делать лучше всего), а с точки зрения пропаганды, польза явно отрицательная."
Machine translated as I don't read Russian:
"I think I’m not lying if I say that it doesn’t even strive, but simply IS equal to zero. They launched into milk, as they say. No damage was done, not even civilian homes were hit (which the Armed Forces of Ukraine can do best), and from the point of view of propaganda, the benefit is clearly negative."
Emphasis added is mine.
I shouldn't need to explain that a Russian source that claims that the Ukrainians are only good for killing civilians is not a reliable source, particularly where it pertains to the Russian-Ukraine conflict.
For the record, this section has been removed by myself and another user several times, before being added back in.Kylesenior (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Please. Obviously this is not WP:RS. I dislike deprecating sources. Not sure if that's needed here or not. Users should know better than to try to use this. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, someone feels the need to keep undoing the removals.Kylesenior (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier
Are independent, secondary sources considered reliable to state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by the names "Bull and Terrier", "Bull Terrier", "Pit dog", "Half and Half" and "Bulldog Terrier"? Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Background. It has been claimed none of the below sources are reliable to state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by any of the names "Bull and Terrier", "Bull Terrier", "Pit dog", "Half and Half" and "Bulldog Terrier". Further, it has been claimed that citing them is WP:OR, [9][10][11][12]. Discussions at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Merger proposal: Bull and terrier and WP:FRINGEN#Staffordshire Bull Terrier have failed to reach a consensus.
Sources that directly support the former names
|
---|
These sources are further corroborated by almost all kennel clubs that provide an historical summary of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier:
|
The below sources and specific quotes have been claimed to refute the sources above.
Sources claimed to refute the above
|
---|
Some ambiguous language used by the United Kennel Club, an explanation is provided here.
|
Question. Are the sources detailed in the top box considered reliable and specifically are they reliable to cite the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier? Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Survey
- Yes all of the sources are reliable and yes they are reliable for citing the claim the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly known by all of the various names listed above. Cavalryman (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hasn't this question already been asked at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Staffordshire Bull Terrier? How is this not forum shopping? Damn, I was about to note that Talk:Bull and terrier had not been edited since 2019 and suggest that these discussions continue there, when you started this!! wbm1058 (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- wbm1058, there has been no determination on the reliability of the sources. This is just to seek a determination about whether the the community considers these sources reliable, I believe the discussions have broken down because of a refusal to accept their reliability (or potential lack of). Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC).
- Wow - a malformed RfC improperly worded to get the answer you want? The fact that you already failed to gain consensus at 2 other venues over this same issue needs an admin's attention. If this isn't forum-shopping with a splash of TE, then I don't know what is. I've seen editors get t-banned for far less than what you've been doing for over a week now. Atsme 💬 📧 06:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Most of the sources in the first box are WP:TERTIARY (Atlas, Dictionary, Encyclopedia). These are down-scale quality. Some are also quite old. It may be there are two perspectives: traditional cultural understanding, and scientific/DNA analysis. Thus it is possible both are right, depending on context. Stuff like this is best handled with careful prose. Report what we know including contradictions. -- GreenC 03:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment(invited by the bot) You basically have wp:RS's saying somewhat conflicting things. IMO your solution isn't going to come from deciding on inclusion or exclusion of sources based on policy. I certainly would not knock out either claim or source based on that. Most likely you'll need to say both with attribution. North8000 (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes that the sources are reliable for saying the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was formerly called the sundry names given above. This has been hashed out a few times now, and I'm familiar with the arguments out forth. Happy editing, --SilverTiger12 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Trout and close. Why is this RfC even here? It's as if this page didn't have instructions at the top about what it's for` and how to post. Alexbrn (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, these appear in reliable secondary sources. There are a few sources that disagree, so they should be referenced as well with their point of view.--Seggallion (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- More or less. Quite a few of these are clearly tertiary sources, including Coile, Jones (both books), Morris, and Wilcox. Beaufoy is probably a primary source. That said, all of them except maybe Beaufoy (depending on whether he has a reputation as an expert) are probably reliable enough for the facts at issue. I agree with complainants here, however, that these facts should not be at issue on this page, after just being discussed on another noticeboard and being subject to an ongoing thread at Talk:Bull and terrier#Continuing from where we were on the fringe theories noticeboard. Cf. WP:TALKFORK. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. If the question here is to evaluate the sources, I would say that the first group of sources appears to include more in the way of books about the subject, which is a point in its favor, but the sources on both sides of the disagreement are largely reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, albeit with the caveats about tertiary sources noted above. This is not a decision between reliable sources and junk/deprecated sources. Since the underlying question goes beyond source reliability, to which POV should be reflected by the page content, I'd agree with some of the other editors here that the best resolution of the ongoing dispute is to acknowledge both sides, with attribution, and not to come down strongly one way or the other in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a waste of time. Why can't Cavalryman and Atsme work out a compromise wording that explains both sides of the dispute? Why do Cavalryman and Atsme feel the need to start these noticeboard discussions? The sources are disputing the facts. As others have said, say both with attribution. This is an AN/I thread in the making because neither one of you feels the need to compromise and you are both adamant on your correctness. How hard is it to just write the article acknowledging that there's a dispute in reliable sources? For what it's worth, the dog breed doesn't have to be proven to exist as a separate dog breed to have its own article. Look at the Khorasan group. This group may or may not exist as a separate cell of Al-Qaeda, although many reliable sources have said that it does exist many have said it doesn't. It gets a separate article because many reliable sources have covered it as a separate entity, and then in the article itself we go into detail on the dispute over its existence. Dog breeds should be less controversial than international terrorism but for whatever reason it was a whole lot easier to adopt a compromise wording in that article. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 00:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)- Is the Greater Khorasan the parent breed of the Afghan Hound? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment, it is certainly not my intention here to recontest the close of the merge proposal, there is a pretty clear process for how to do so and it does not involve this noticeboard. My intention here was simply to gauge the community's views on the sources listed because their reliability has been continuously denied throughout the two other discussions, this noticeboard is for
posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context
. That being said, if general feeling is this is a waste of time I have no objections to it being closed. Cavalryman (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC) - Comment - in summary, the sources have been assessed as being reliable by the vast majority of editors here. That established, it is now time to close this thread. 182.239.144.134 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Thomas B. Costain
A cursory search of the archives brought back nothing. This particular book is used in Eleanor of Provence. Any thoughts?
- Costain, Thomas B. (1959). The Magnificent Century. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- 60+ year old popular history by a non-historian. Not utterly inaccurate, but way out of date and not academic. We don't have to only use academic sources, but when the non-academic sources are this old, we shouldn't. We can have much better sources and should use those. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, Margaret Howell's Eleanor of Provence: Queenship in Thirteenth Century England is cited in the article and is both forty years more recent than Costain and academic. In the world of popular history, Four Queens: The Provencal Sisters Who Ruled Europe by Nancy Goldstone is from this millenium and at least is by someone with undergraduate-level history training; The Two Eleanors of Henry III: The Lives of Eleanor of Provence and Eleanor de Montfort by Darren Baker is from 2019. I'm not a medievalist, so I defer to Ealdgyth's expertise on the specifics, but I would imagine either of those would at least be more up-to-date than Costain. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- My sincerest thanks to both of you for this information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- And I said the above even though Costain was one of the influences on me in getting interested in history - my parents had copies of his paperbacks and I read them while still in grade school and loved his style and engaging way of making history interesting. They are probably still good reads even now, but they aren't going to be as good for our purposes as Goldstone or Baker's works. (Eleanor of Provence is a bit later interest than I normally edit here, but I've read some of Goldstone's book and it's at least aligning with what I've read of the academic sources for the period. Haven't run across Baker's book yet.) Ealdgyth (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- My sincerest thanks to both of you for this information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, Margaret Howell's Eleanor of Provence: Queenship in Thirteenth Century England is cited in the article and is both forty years more recent than Costain and academic. In the world of popular history, Four Queens: The Provencal Sisters Who Ruled Europe by Nancy Goldstone is from this millenium and at least is by someone with undergraduate-level history training; The Two Eleanors of Henry III: The Lives of Eleanor of Provence and Eleanor de Montfort by Darren Baker is from 2019. I'm not a medievalist, so I defer to Ealdgyth's expertise on the specifics, but I would imagine either of those would at least be more up-to-date than Costain. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I think this is unreliable because
1) A one dimensional index is not sufficient to measure firepower. For example the military are generally far more powerful when defending their own country.
2) User:Femkemilene/crime against significant digits - for example 0.1382 for UK is different from 0.138 or 0.14?
3) January 2022 is out of date in showing Russia second most powerful as they have lost significant power since then.
Chidgk1 (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- GFI is part of the Military Factory ecosystem (which includes GFI, militaryfactory.com, WDMMA.org, WDMMW.org, SR71blackbird.org, etc). The entire ecosystem is deeply unreliable and primarily consists of information which has been scraped from other sources (including Wikipedia). Unreliable or worthy of deprecation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
There are reasonably frequent discussions about Amnesty:
- Option 1: Generally reliable for facts
- Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
- Option 3: Generally unreliable for facts
- Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated
Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion (Amnesty International)
- Comment I would ordinarily consider Amnesty a reliable source for facts and with attribution for opinion. Nevertheless, its use is not infrequently contested and there have been more than a few discussions in the past. Recently, at the Israel article, it has twice been referred to as questionable. The purpose of this RFC is to clarify usage. Selfstudier (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- I would go with somewhere between option 1 and option 2. Their statements are notable, but I would attribute what they say, "According to Amnesty International". --Jayron32 14:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 because we shouldn't even be asking this of a source with Amnesty's reputation, and of its book-length study, the result of 4 years of research, with 1,500+ footnotes meticulously sourcing virtually every statement. What is contested on the Israel page from Amnesty is a fact, furthermore, not Amnesty's opinion.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware we were assessing a specific publication. The OP does not note any specific publication. I'm not sure why you changed the topic of the RFC from a general assessment to one of a specific publication, which may be more or less reliable. than a general assessment of the organization. --Jayron32 15:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- We are not, although Amnesty in an Israeli context has come up recently at both BDS and Israel articles. People might think that Amnesty is unreliable in an Israeli context but it is I think usual for the targets of Amnesty reports to not agree with them as a matter of course, even the UK and the US do so. What I would like is agreement on the way to treat Amnesty as a source in general, rather than in any given setting (unless people think it is appropriate to comment on a given setting, that is). Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- see here. I didn't change anything. I don't think there is much point in framing this request in terms of AI's general reliability. It has always been accepted here that it is a top-ranking human rights organization known for careful research. The only point here is to ask whether when Amnesty's remark, not exceptional (B'tselem/Human Rights Watch and dozens of scholarly papers have made the same general observation)- can be used for the details about the known fact that Palestinian Israelis are 'restricted' in their access to land, and find themselves confined to '139 densely populated towns and villages' in just 3 areas of Israel. No one contests the fact from Israeli official statistics that they live predominantly in 139 towns and villages, in three areas, that Israeli land regulations do not allow any significant expansion of those areas, hence 'densely populated', as opposed to the prerogatives for ethnic-exclusive landuse accorded the Jewish majority population. AI's report, based on a huge number of sources, states the known facts succinctly. Some editors do not want it as a source for this page, ergo, they call it, weirdly, 'questionable'. It is national governments, as noted above, from China to the US and GB, that contest AI's work, not scholars. What is 'questionable' is what any reader of Israeli newspapers will find regularly reported in the national press. Go figure. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter if you want to frame the question in terms of general reliability, the OP did. If you want to assess the reliability of a specific document, that should be a different discussion. It's not helpful to steer the discussion into a different direction. --Jayron32 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Jayron, you're right and that is why this discussion is misleading from the start. The only reason we're discussing Amnesty now is because the OP wants to use a specific Amnesty report to claim that Israel is an apartheid state. That particular report has been widely disputed by many democratic governments. So to frame this discussion as being about Amnesty in general, when the OP himself states on the talk page of Israel that he started the discussion because of the report, is very misleading, to the point of being dishonest. Selfstudier, you should either start a discussion about the specific Amnesty report you want to use, or accept that the opinion on Amnesty in general does not give you a carte blanched to use that particular report. Jeppiz (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I refer you to my reply below.Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Jayron, you're right and that is why this discussion is misleading from the start. The only reason we're discussing Amnesty now is because the OP wants to use a specific Amnesty report to claim that Israel is an apartheid state. That particular report has been widely disputed by many democratic governments. So to frame this discussion as being about Amnesty in general, when the OP himself states on the talk page of Israel that he started the discussion because of the report, is very misleading, to the point of being dishonest. Selfstudier, you should either start a discussion about the specific Amnesty report you want to use, or accept that the opinion on Amnesty in general does not give you a carte blanched to use that particular report. Jeppiz (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter if you want to frame the question in terms of general reliability, the OP did. If you want to assess the reliability of a specific document, that should be a different discussion. It's not helpful to steer the discussion into a different direction. --Jayron32 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware we were assessing a specific publication. The OP does not note any specific publication. I'm not sure why you changed the topic of the RFC from a general assessment to one of a specific publication, which may be more or less reliable. than a general assessment of the organization. --Jayron32 15:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1, with an asterisk. Amnesty International is an authoritative human rights advocacy group with a long history. They are generally reliable with respect to the facts. Their opinions are highly respected but sometimes controversial; they should generally be included and attributed in-line. Amnesty International's decisions regarding what to cover
should be understood tomay reflect a left-wing bias; in particular, they should be considered partisan in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)- To skew human rights, which is inscribed as a constitutional right in all modern democracies and constitutions, underwritten by founding fathers who were republican, liberal, democratic etc., as 'left-wing' is unacceptable. Indeed it is a term applied to Human Rights bodies simply because the job they do is unpleasant for most governments that violate elementary principles of humanity. That is not a concern which is the exclusive preserve of some (radical/Marxist/extreme) 'leftists'. The left, in regard to Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, has a notable record of criticizing those agencies for underplaying or ignoring human rights issues in Israel and several other countries. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise. Respect for human rights is a decidedly centrist position; disrespect, an extremist position present in both wings. I was merely observing that Amnesty International's reporting consistently favors Palestinian perspectives versus Israeli ones, a tendency that is consistently associated with left-wing politics in the United States and, from what I understand, Western Europe also. Perhaps if we were to examine other controversial conflicts, we would find a similar bias. I don't know, I am not an expert in Amnesty International, merely reporting my impressions like everyone else here. If it helps, I have edited my statement that they "should be understood to" show a bias, which implied more consistency than I had intended. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Amnesty International consistently states what its field reporters, and the general consensus of Israeli academics who study their own area document. That Palestinian complain, and Amnesty reports their grievances is no more 'left-wing' that would be the case if the Uyghurs or Tibetan or any other indigenous population had their complaints addressed by an external analytical human rights group. Amnesty like B'tselem and Human Rights Watch regularly criticize abuses by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and lone wolves ( and the standard 'left-wing critique of their reports on Palestinian violence takes exception to the way all three groups address Israeli accusations). They are neutral to the kind of one-eyed partisanship we associate with right/left wing. Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 with an asterisk. As an advocacy organization, Amnesty's views should be attributed, as they can be controversial. Amnesty is highly critical of some governments but less so of others, which some say makes them biased. Pious Brother (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment.We should exercise care when describing groups as 'advocacy' organizations. AI advocates, globally, for human rights, i.e., due respect for law and the fundamental values of the UN charter, and modern democracies. Huma rights are a universal principle, not a partisan cause. I'd rather see a distinction between advocacy that evinces a rigorous call for the former and advocacy which is only for a specific human group, ethnos, nation, national interest etc. That is a different kettle of fish, since the militancy of the latter is primarily to vindicate a sectional interest. Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1. I'm not sure if the use of AI has been credibly challenged; but they have a long history as a highly respected human rights organization. Yes, they're an advocacy organization, meaning their opinions should be attributed, but factual information does not need to be, and I see no evidence that they're in any way unreliable for factual information. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 - agree with Vanamonde, the very definition of a respected, widely cited, and professional organization. When they make an accusation of such and such being a human right violation it should of course be attributed, and since their views are routinely cited in reliable sources it should not be difficult for a secondary source for their views. But when they report facts, like in the last 20 years there have been X refugees fleeing Y country, an absolutely solid source. "According to Amnesty International" can be found 600+ time on nytimes.com, 469 times on BBC, 352 times on The Guardian, some 5000 results on google scholar, nearly 700 times on JSTOR. A solid source on all counts. nableezy - 19:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not for nothing, but
According to Xinhua
appears "according+to+xinhua"+site%3A"nytimes.com over 700 times on the NYT, around 275 times on the BBC, about 280 times in The Guardian, about 580 times by WSJ and over 2000 times in the South China Morning Post. Amnesty International certainly has more integrity than Xinhua, but it's important to note that the way in which RS use Amnesty international matters more than merely the times that somebody says something according to them. Are these uses mostly uses as a source for facts, or because the NGO carries weight even if it is seen to fudge numbers at times? — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not for nothing, but
- Yes, examine those results. You will see that reliable sources cite material from Amnesty International as a matter of course and that when they make an accusation they discuss it to show that the NGO carries weight for just their opinions. But yes, often for facts. nableezy - 23:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1. Widely respected organisation, they can be used without attribution when dealing with uncontested factual assertions. Where they are contradicted, or where they draw inferences from factual data, they should be attributed. The same as any other Reliable Source really. They should, of course, be understood to have a bias in favour of human rights and against organisations which violate them. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 if we (=wikipedia) were not to cite them, we would be about the only ones (outside right-wing Israeli sources) not doing so, so yes; of course we can cite them, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1; widely trusted as a reliable source. Whether they can be cited for facts should depend largely on whether there are other sources that disagree with them, but their reputation is sufficient that when they state something as a fact and there's nothing to contradict it then we can generally report that as fact ourselves. I don't think there's sufficient evidence to consider them generally biased - if a government disagreeing with AI's conclusions was enough to make it biased, then there would be no unbiased sources describing any governments. As someone said above, if people think it is biased I'd want to see scholarly sources (or, more specifically, sources we can reasonably consider unbiased ourselves) saying so. --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 I think that it's pretty clear that there is a bias with Amnesty when it comes to the Middle East. It's not just Israel (or the US) that repudiated their report. Many countries, and even Arabs within Israel have repudiated the report. Arab party leader in Israel rejects Apartheid label, they have shown that they look at things with a predetermined outcome. As such, they should not be deemed reliable in this area. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- With respect, we are not being asked whether the source is biased. All sources are biased. We are being asked whether it is reliable, nothing you post above contradicts its reliability. The suggestion that if an individual or government disagrees with a statement the source it comes from can not be reliable does not hold much water. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 All indications are that they are generally reliable for facts. Their inferences, evaluations, position statements, etc., should be attributed, since they are the organization's own work. That's just giving intellectual credit where credit is due. XOR'easter (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 Amnesty checks all the important boxes of reliability in my opinion. Like XOR'easter has noted above, personal opinions and collective positions are to be attributed. Some research services that Amnesty offers are trusted across the board by reliable sources: for example, in the wake of the Pegasus Project (investigation), it released a peer review of the investigation in parallel to uToronto's Citizen Lab [13], which was widely cited by the RS that led the investigation, such as the Washington Post, Le Monde, and Die Zeit. Pilaz (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Reliable for facts, attribution required for evaluations and position statements. "X journalists were assassinated in country Y in 2021" is a factual statement. "Media freedom in country Y is restricted" is their own position and must be attributed. Of course both facts reported by them and their opinions may or may not be DUE in any given article. The discussion of the bias is out of the scope of this noticeboard but it certainly exists: they report (relatively speaking) more on open and democratic societies and focus on the recipients of the US aid (see Amnesty_International#Country_focus). While it's understandable as they want to maximise the impact of their work, we should keep it in mind when assessing the relevance of the AI reporting and positions. Alaexis¿question? 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- What bias? Amnesty International's remit (bias?) is to report accurately and reliably on human rights abuses anywhere. That is why has regularly denounced systematic abuses of human rights and violation of the rules of war by the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas, Israel's adversary. As to the distinction re facts, versus opinions, many Israeli sources state international laws, on which AI relies, are opinionable. Are they?Nishidani (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Look, I've myself used their reports when writing about various post-Soviet conflicts and I consider them reliable in general. The bias criticism in Amnesty_International#Country_focus is about varying levels of coverage. To give an example, they have 725 reports on Israel and 111 reports about North Korea. I don't think you'd argue that there are 7 times more human rights abuses in Israel. Being generous to them, the reason is probably that it's easier for them to get information about the Israeli abuses and also because they consider it more likely that their reporting with make an impact there. My point is that we should not let this imbalance skew the coverage in Wikipedia. We have WP:NPOV and they don't. Alaexis¿question? 07:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to argue that AI is reliable for every other country except for Israel then argue for that. If enough agree, then a special exemption can be carved out as was done with the Jewish Chronicle where it was decided that it was reliable except for some areas. That the Israel situation has more reports is not at all surprising, I don't know why you would think otherwise, Israel also gets more attention everywhere else not just at AI, this has been going on for a long time.Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's mostly reliable but biased in its coverage. As you rightly note, many media outlets have the same problem. Alaexis¿question? 13:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough, accepting that there is a bias, as is the case with all sources, is this bias of a nature sufficient to justify excluding the source for the case of Israel? I think it is not.Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's mostly reliable but biased in its coverage. As you rightly note, many media outlets have the same problem. Alaexis¿question? 13:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
they have 725 reports on Israel and 111 reports about North Korea. I don't think you'd argue that there are 7 times more human rights abuses in Israel.
- Who said that? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)- No one. It's a rhetorical question which served to emphasise my point about the level of coverage not correlated with the level of violations. Alaexis¿question? 12:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to argue that AI is reliable for every other country except for Israel then argue for that. If enough agree, then a special exemption can be carved out as was done with the Jewish Chronicle where it was decided that it was reliable except for some areas. That the Israel situation has more reports is not at all surprising, I don't know why you would think otherwise, Israel also gets more attention everywhere else not just at AI, this has been going on for a long time.Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Look, I've myself used their reports when writing about various post-Soviet conflicts and I consider them reliable in general. The bias criticism in Amnesty_International#Country_focus is about varying levels of coverage. To give an example, they have 725 reports on Israel and 111 reports about North Korea. I don't think you'd argue that there are 7 times more human rights abuses in Israel. Being generous to them, the reason is probably that it's easier for them to get information about the Israeli abuses and also because they consider it more likely that their reporting with make an impact there. My point is that we should not let this imbalance skew the coverage in Wikipedia. We have WP:NPOV and they don't. Alaexis¿question? 07:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- What bias? Amnesty International's remit (bias?) is to report accurately and reliably on human rights abuses anywhere. That is why has regularly denounced systematic abuses of human rights and violation of the rules of war by the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas, Israel's adversary. As to the distinction re facts, versus opinions, many Israeli sources state international laws, on which AI relies, are opinionable. Are they?Nishidani (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:GREL and WP:BIASED, so attribute the source. There are obviously claims that the group makes that are indeed opinions—that
The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment
or thatGovernments have a duty to prohibit hateful, inciteful speech
are two such examples—unless we are going to start trying to define WP:RS for claims of moral fact and natural law made in Wikipedia's voice. I think that doing so would be a bad idea and would be contrary to WP:NPOV. There's evidence that Amnesty carries substantial weight, but at its core the group is focused on human rights advocacy through its own particular lens. There's little question the group leans left in certain areas—the legalization of prostitution, opposition to capital punishment, and resolute support of abortion rights without any restrictions all are stances on controversial issues involving human rights where Amnesty falls to the left side of the political divide. I'm hard pressed to find a human rights issue with a left-right divide where Amnesty leans hard right. That being said, WP:BIASED keenly notes thatsometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources
for certain sorts of information and thatwhen dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.
WP:BIASED also indicates that a strong bias on a topicmay make in-text attribution appropriate
. Amnesty is a highly respected organization that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as well as a substantial review process for its at-length reports, so its reports seem to be WP:GREL where it's independent from the topic it is covering. I'm not so sure about using Amnesty's website more generally, particularly its opinionated "what we do" pages, but I don't think people would seriously try to cite the equivalent of Amnesty International's "about us" pages in a contentious manner when its detailed reports exist, are publicly accessible, and contain higher quality information. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- To repeat, concern for human rights, at least historically, was a liberal concern. The word 'liberal' itself came to mean 'communist-leaning' exclusively in American right-wing discourse, and 'liberals' are now bunched in with 'leftists', who in any case, can't agree who's on the 'left'. Such branding is pointless, esp. in this case, where it functions in right-wing discourse to discredit without discussion anything critical of government policy.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- If we’re going to attempt to trace the history of human rights activism, there are real and profound splits among campaigners over things like prostitution, abortion, and capital punishment. I do not see anywhere where I am saying that Amnesty International are communists—they aren’t. Certainly center-left and left-liberal groups exist, are not communist, and fall to the left of the left-right divide. I’d find it really odd to deny that If you are arguing that the idea of left-liberal ideology is centered entirely in the USA (it’s not) or that describing a group as center-left is mere
right-wing discourse to discredit without discussion anything critical of government policy
—I am going to have to sharply disagree with you there. There are indeed times when “left wing” and “right wing” get lazily thrown around to discredit an argument without backing up the substance of one’s claims—the comment above this one is a good example—but I don’t think that noting that the lens that Amnesty looks at human rights is a left-liberal lens. In areas of controversy regarding what human rights actually are, it is proper to attribute to Amnesty when they are stating their stances on issues, such asIs abortion a violation of the right to life? No.
This sort of stuff is key to WP:NPOV—just as attribution to the ADL that Amnesty’s report on Israelcreates fertile ground for a hostile and at times antisemitic discourse
is something we should do rather than putting the generally reliable ADL’s claim in wikivoice. Attributing sources on these sorts of issues is exactly what WP:NPOV calls us to do—avoid stating opinion as fact. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)- You introduced the idea of a source evaluative benchmark, the left-right distinction.I think this is meaningless in the context of human rights. As I noted on the talk page, Yossi Sarid, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Michael Ben-Yair, Ami Ayalon and A. B. Yehoshua have drawn the same comparison as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch (both frequently the targets of what some in this schema might identify as ‘ leftist’ criticism regarding Israel) comparison, over a decade before those NGOs finally accepted the idea. Are they all identifiable with some ‘left-leaning viewpoint? No. Israeli NGOS like B'tselem and Yesh Din idem. Does it throw light on their reliability to regard those two as ‘leftist? No, such accusations just shift the goalposts from analysis of their data and inferences, to insinuations that their work‘s conclusions are predictable because it fits a ‘leftist’ mindset, whatever that is. It's the impression 25% of American Jews have,that “Israel is an apartheid state”.(Ron Kampeas, ‘Poll finds a quarter of US Jews think Israel is ‘apartheid state’,’ Times of Israel 13 July 2021; Chris McGreal,Amnesty says Israel is an apartheid state. Many Israeli politicians agree The Guardian 5 February 2022) The figure is more dramatic if we take into account The Jewish Electorate Institute poll last year which found 38% of American Jews under 40 concur with that interpretation, while 15% were unsure. Only 13% of the over 64 bracket entertained that view. This means it is a generational divide in Jewish American opinion. (Arno Rosenfeld , Amnesty ‘apartheid’ report solidifies human rights consensus on Israel,' The Forward 1 February 2022) Do those 25% vote for Ralph Nader or even the Democratic Party which is rumoured to be, somewhat laughable, leftwing? No.Nishidani (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- If we’re going to attempt to trace the history of human rights activism, there are real and profound splits among campaigners over things like prostitution, abortion, and capital punishment. I do not see anywhere where I am saying that Amnesty International are communists—they aren’t. Certainly center-left and left-liberal groups exist, are not communist, and fall to the left of the left-right divide. I’d find it really odd to deny that If you are arguing that the idea of left-liberal ideology is centered entirely in the USA (it’s not) or that describing a group as center-left is mere
- To repeat, concern for human rights, at least historically, was a liberal concern. The word 'liberal' itself came to mean 'communist-leaning' exclusively in American right-wing discourse, and 'liberals' are now bunched in with 'leftists', who in any case, can't agree who's on the 'left'. Such branding is pointless, esp. in this case, where it functions in right-wing discourse to discredit without discussion anything critical of government policy.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 . Generally reliable for facts; their work is on a par with much serious scholarship. That what are clearly opinions should be attributed is a given - it attaches to any publisher or author. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 and dubious discussion start. Given that the discussion starter launched thus discussion with the sole purpose of claiming that Israel is an apartheid state, I find the discussion misleading as it pretends to be about Amnesty in general. Amnesty's recent report about Israel has been debunked by most leading democracies in the world (the US, the UK, Germany etc.). Given that this discussion is about that specific report (see the long discussion at the talk page of Israel where the discussion starter explicitly admits starting this discussion for the purpose of using that report), the question is rather whether Amnesty is infallible. So for me it's option 2. I generally trust Amnesty. If Amnesty puts out a report that is widely discredited in the Democratic world, that report should not be used as a neutral fact, pretending all the criticism of it doesn't exist. Jeppiz (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I did not add the Amnesty material to the Israel article so your premise is just false. I initiated one of the prior discussions on Amnesty linked in the opening. I also referred in my opening to the fact of Amnesty having been twice referred to at the Israel article as a questionable source, said assertion being given as reason to revert material which was not added by me. Since Amnesty validity as a source has been questioned on a number of occasions, it is logical that we establish it's status, that is what this is about and not your offensive innuendo, for which an apology would be in order. Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, whether or not Amnesty are a Reliable Source (and all the evidence suggests they are), the governments of Israel, Germany, The UK and the USA absolutely are not. Nor are any other governments. Their statements of opinion on the Amnesty report on Israeli apartheid have no bearing on whether wikipedia should consider Amnesty to be RS. Also, the word "debunk" indicates a systematic and convincing rebuttal. The governments in question have not done this, nor has anybody else. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Jeepiz. This arose when I cited it for a specific, and uncontroversial datum about residential confinement of Israel's minority,- which no one doubts since it comes from Israeli statistics - and an immediate war of expunction flared up. I presume because it contained the word 'apartheid' in the discreetly footnoted title. Neither the US, nor Germany nor the UK have 'debunked' what is the result of a 4 year long 280 page study, with 1,564 footnotes. Two official foreign spokesmen dismissed it on the day it was issued (I presume they didn't read the whole study in one day - to digest it has taken me a week) echoing outrage in Israeli government circles. The only valid criticism of whatever inadequacies or inaccuracies it may be found to contain will come from scholars or policy wonks who take the trouble to tackle the intricate details and show where AI's report is, in their view, flawed. Therefore official reactions by allied states are meaningless. No such overnight hysteria greeted Gunnar Myrdal’s groundbreaking American Dilemma (1944) when its detailed analyses, anti litteram of quasi-apartheid segregation policies in the United States came out in two massive volumes, and over time, esp. after Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton’s book American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Press, 1998, (' the singularly most influential study of segregation in the United States' Gershon Shafir , From Overt to Veiled Segregation: Israel's Palestinian Arab Citizens in the Galilee, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Volume 50 Issue 1 February 2018, pp.1-22 p.3, who uses such works and models to examine comparable Israeli demography) sociological studies of things like ethnic profiling of residential patterns as a US variety of apartheid are commonplace. The Report collects a huge range of data bearing on patterns of discrimination which echo a vast range of articles and books in Israeli and diasporic scholarship. Rather that provide 10 scholarly sources for each assertion, a synthesis as we have it in AI’s report, or the very similar HRW report, is textually easierWhy is it that, anytime even a hint is made that Israel fits some pattern, or has institutional arrangements best understood in comparative perspective since similar things are evidenced in many other countries, all on the basis of quality scholarship and its sourcing, people get nervous and argue for exceptionalism? Or accusations arise that ignore the substance and dwell on political fallout as a criterion for reliability? The question is rhetorical, since the answer is that Israel is a Jewish state, ergo, given the toxic longevity of anti-Semitism regarding Jews that makes us extremely careful of bias against them, anything regarding Israel can be construed as offensive to Jews. Any critical thought will lie dead in the water, stillborn, if that specious premise becomes ubiquitous. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, whether or not Amnesty are a Reliable Source (and all the evidence suggests they are), the governments of Israel, Germany, The UK and the USA absolutely are not. Nor are any other governments. Their statements of opinion on the Amnesty report on Israeli apartheid have no bearing on whether wikipedia should consider Amnesty to be RS. Also, the word "debunk" indicates a systematic and convincing rebuttal. The governments in question have not done this, nor has anybody else. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2,3 and Option 5 UNDUE WEIGHT for Israel article Also dubious discussion start. The question was incorrectly presented (see talk page on "Israel article) AI report claiming Israel is apartheid state was cherry picked and inserted into an article that is basically supposed to be primarily apolitical. There are thousands of NGOs and tens of thousands of opinion's regarding Arab-Israeli conflict, so prioritizing one report of one NGO is cherry picking. AI is as much reliable as other NGOs and political parties when their views are presented with proper attribution, DUE weight and in WP:NPOV fashion. Nothing of this was done in this particular case. The report was rejected by some government's, ignored by all others and defined as antisemitic by other NGOs. What makes this report so special that it should go to every article related to Israel and what gives it special WEIGHT over others to go into the main Israel article? Is AI a legal authority to define any state as genocidal or apaprtheid nation? Its just their highly contested opinion in the same way as claiming Israel as perfect place, only remaining multicultural and multiethnic democracy in Middle East, only country where minorites are rapidly increasing in numbers that gives the highest standards of democracy and freedom to all minorities in that part of world, is opinion of some other NGOs. I would understand mentioning it in the article regarding Israel/Apartheid analogy but here this report is fully UNDUE . I see same group of people going from one to another article and adding negative opinion's about Israel and although such opinion's could be worthy for Wikipedia, cherry picking a highly contested and controversial report of one particular NGO and presenting it as an established fact in an article that is not supposed to cover that topic is against Wikipedia policy of neutrality and fully out of DUE in this particular case. The "Israel article" shouldn't be based on the claims and contra-claims of countless NGOs and particularly not on opinion of just one that fits someone POVs. User Selfstudier ignored my and concerns of others regarding UNDUE weight and went to this noticeboard to open question regarding AI reliability. I hope that he dosent see this as the easiest way to overrun the DUE problem with his edits.Tritomex (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Weight is decided by the amount of coverage something receives in Reliable Sources, not who agrees with it. The attention given to Amnesty International's report by reliable sources was immense, therefore it is notable for the Israel article. To use wikivoice to state "Israel is an apartheid state" would clearly be inappropriate. However, something like "Human rights groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'tsalem consider Israel to be committing the crime of Apartheid in its treatment of Palestinians in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank." followed by those who reject this view is clearly entirely WP:DUE. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- As an example, take Forward's coverage where they give over a substantial space to the argument that there is a global consensus among human rights organizations on this issue, it's not just AI opinion. Arguing for UNDUE doesn't hold water. As I said above, by all means make the case for an exemption on Israel but so far I have not seen that case.Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 Can be used with attribution. As an advocacy organisation, it tends to be less nuanced and more forceful in its descriptions than standard RSs such as when it equated Guantanamo Bay with a Soviet gulag. AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- You mean a 278 page report with 1,564 sourcing notes lacks nuance, compared to other RS? Most of our RS are newspapers without footnotes. Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nuance is not synonymous with detail. While they might accurately report events, they are not jurists or historians and their moral, political and legal judgements can be unsophisticated and overstated. This is not a criticism of them per se and similarly applies to other advocacy groups.AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- There are two major problem here. First a political advocacy group is not a legal authority that establishes legal facts. So this claim is just an assertion of one NGOs that was ignored or rejected by all major international players (mostly ignored). Second, and in this case even bigger problem is that there are m dozens of events weekly related to Arab-Israeli conflict that are covered by some and in many cases even larger number of RS, it doesnt mean that all of them should be inserted in any article related to Israel. Especially not in the main Israel article. There are many reports of NGOs and political groups whose position could be added to many Wikipedia article's tackling issues of Apartheid analogy. Here we have a case of cherry picking one report of one political advocacy group whose claims are elevated into the level of facts and than inserted without any WEIGHT into the body of article regarding the State of Israel. Tritomex (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- We attribute opinion, claimers and deniers alike, that is not in dispute, therefore irrelevant. That there is a literal worldwide consensus of NGOs both in and outside of Israel on this issue is also not in doubt so that argument falls flat. The only way to achieve your goal here is to make out a case that Amnesty has an exceptional bias in the case of Israel and I see no evidence for that, other than your opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- "A literal worldwide consensus of NGOs" Common, please, there are millions of NGOs worldwide, thousands just in Israel, 2000 in my small country of Serbia and 99,999+% of those NGOs never herd about this report, not to mention giving consensus to this report. Very few NGOs even reacted, mostly accusing AI for bias, although what would give some weight to this article would be reaction of states, international bodies and institution's which was with few rebuffs equal to zero. Tritomex (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sweeping Amnesty ‘apartheid’ report solidifies human rights consensus on Israel
- 14 Israeli human rights groups back Amnesty International's 'apartheid' report
- I have sources to support my view, do you? Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 Regarding I/P conflict one of the number one antisemitism experts Deborah Lipstadt call amnesty reports as “ahistorical and unhistorical.”. [14]We cannot really trust what it says in it report regarding Israel as it has clear agenda in its mind. Amnesty have a bad record regarding AntiSemitism [15]--Shrike (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Lipstadt has no specialist knowledge here, so her comments are irrelevant, as revelaed by the comments themselves. The crime of apartheid is not a matter of history, it is a matter of international law which is in place at this time.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Lipstadt is specialist on antisemitism and her desription about the report quite telling It seems that amnesty have jewish problem [16] Shrike (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- A specialist on antisemtism is not an expert on international law. The crime of apartheid was criminalized by the Rome Statute, and there is nothing "historical" about it. Shocking development, Israel advocacy organization itself accused of intolerance and racism (eg here) objects to human rights organization criticizing Israel's actions. And this has what exactly to do with Amnesty's reliability again? nableezy - 19:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- So, it is established that Lisptadt is not an expert in the matter at hand. Seems we are now talking about the SW centre's criticism of AI not opening a separate investigation into antisemitism in the UK in 2015. That criticism is exceptionally weak, it presupposes either that antisemitism was more prevalent in the UK than any other form of racism, or that it was more important than any other form of racism. Disagreeing with those premises in good faith can not be reasonably construed as antisemitism. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Lipstadt is specialist on antisemitism and her desription about the report quite telling It seems that amnesty have jewish problem [16] Shrike (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Lipstadt has no specialist knowledge here, so her comments are irrelevant, as revelaed by the comments themselves. The crime of apartheid is not a matter of history, it is a matter of international law which is in place at this time.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 for facts but with attribution needed for when this strays into advocacy and opinion. AI is, after all, a group that is involved in advocacy, lobbying and campaigning. However, their research and publications are very robust and the findings are usually backed up by other reliable orgs. The idea of "left-wing" bias doesn't make sense really considering the actual history of AI. Perhaps editors are here are too young to remember, but AI angered left-wing groups by not giving Nelson Mandela the prisoner of conscience title. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 wrt to facts. If used to source an opinion, attribute it, but AI is a stellar source in most context. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 Stellar source. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 Extremely reliable for what it does, which is extremely considered secondary research, in consultation with teams of humans rights lawyers, of the facts on the ground in humanitarian situations around the globe and their relationship with international law. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 or 3: Amnesty is a political advocacy organization, so views it expresses on political questions should be attributed to Amn esty and only used in situations where Amnesty is relevant. For example, regarding Amnesty's latest Israel report, many countries disputed Amnesty's claims including the US, Germany, the UK, Austria, the Czech Republic, Australia, Ireland, Canada, and Israel. This is not to disparage Amnesty as an organization, it's just their opinions are fundamentally not suitable encyclopedic sources. OtterAM (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1, as always if there is disagreement or incoherence with other WP:RS then statements/opinions should be attributed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Since it's an advocacy organization that often takes controversial positions, I'd say its claims should generally be attributed in text, especially if disputed by other sources. (I'm deliberately not choosing an option on the 1–4 scale because I don't think the scale is particularly useful in this case.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- None of the above AI is a very notable advocacy group, and as such it’s claims and accusations are worth mentioning… HOWEVER, because it IS an advocacy group it’s claims and accusations should be stated as OPINION (with in-text attribution) and NOT stated as fact (in Wikipedia’s voice). Once that is done, we can cite them as a primary source for that opinion. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 then? Attribute everything, even facts? Selfstudier (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Of course, attribution for its interpretation of the facts. If the interpretation looks like a circle, then it is the huge number of fact dots that make up the appearance of roundness that warrant our attention, not the issue that Amnesty and every major human rights group tend to call the arrangement a circle, as opposed to those who state it may be a skewed rectangle. Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Reliable for facts, attribute for opinions - which is what we should do with any opinion. Whether Amnesty's opinions are DUE is not something that can be determined here beyond saying "sometimes yes, sometimes no". Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 They have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy when it comes to human rights issues. Just today I stumbled upon this while working on the torture article: "Because of its extensive quality control procedure, which includes research teams of subject and area experts as well as approval by veto players, AI is agreed to produce credible allegations (e.g. Clark, 2001). This reputation for credible reporting has not only made AI an effective advocate, but also made its reports a source for content analysis by researchers generating data " (Conrad, Courtenay R.; Hill, Daniel W.; Moore, Will H. (2018). "Torture and the limits of democratic institutions". Journal of Peace Research. 55 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1177/0022343317711240.) (t · c) buidhe 22:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- An advocacy group that is reasonably accurate for facts, so: generally reliable for facts, attribute for opinions. If there are questions about a specific report they have published, then the reliability of that report should be considered individually and not bundled into a discussion about general reliability. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 – "Reliable for facts, attribute for opinions" per BilledMammal, Buidhe, Thryduulf, et al. seems to be a good summary. Davide King (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 -- reliable for facts, attribute for opinions; good reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Assessments and opinions are best attributed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3: for the apparent context of reporting on Israel. Factually, they are an advocacy group - and such are not supposed to be objective. Publications from advocacy groups are commonly intended to achieve a goal, to sell a POV. In the case of “apartheid”, obviously emotional phrasing intended to incite and not to be technically accurate. So may be cited with attribution as a WP:BIASED source, but should not be treated as fact. See also the prior discussions about advocacy. Googling them and Israel does find criticisms of method and accusations of a bias do exist to minor extent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Here you are in effect arguing that anybody who has an opinion is not reliable. All sources are biased, but some are careful not to publish false information. The Guardian, Telegraph, Haaretz and New York Times all have very strong biases, but we treat them as reliable sources as they are careful not to publish factually inaccurate information. Do you have any reason to believe AI publishes inaccurate information?
- In terms of the apartheid analogy, the crime of apartheid has a technical legal definition which AI states, in a very closely argued report, Israel are in breach of. Now, you can disagree with their reasoning, which is why everybody who votes Option 1 states their opinions should be attributed, but characterising this as "emotional phrasing" aimed to sell a POV is a gross misunderstanding of the situation.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- obviously emotional phrasing intended to incite and not to be technically accurate, pure fantasy. AI is discussing the crime of apartheid and its technical definition and saying it applies. That is their view, and it should be included as their view. But it is fantasy that the phrasing is intended to incite or not technically accurate. nableezy - 16:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 with a caveat. Compassionate727 nailed it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
How is it a RS issue? AI reports are tautologically reliable for the position of AI. The inclusion of the said position in any given article should be determined by WP:NPOV, specifically the due weight considerations. Alaexis¿question? 19:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think the question people are really asking is whether 1. AI is usable for facts (ever), or solely for its own attributed opinion, and, 2. is it biased in the I/P area specifically. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the second question should be asked at WP:NPOVN probably but I see your point. Alaexis¿question? 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah the question is on things like AI saying things that are not their position but are reporting as fact. Like, to take one totally hypothetical example, AI saying that of the Palestinians in Israel 90% of them dwell in 139 densely populated towns and villages restricted to the Galilee, Triangle and Negev regions, with the remaining 10% in mixed cities sourced to one of their reports and removed as one-sided propaganda that cannot be RS. nableezy - 21:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Its not just propaganda it is factually falls. Just in Jerusalem there are close to 400 000 Palestinians who are counted in Israeli Arab population and who themselves represent 20% of population. Nazareth, Rahat, Um el Fahem, Akko, Lod, Ramle, Tel Aviv-Yaffa,...are not villages, but towns and and just those place that I mentioned are home to another 300 000 Arab people (cc 15%) which means that the 90% claim is nothing but falsification.Tritomex (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Source saying it is false please.Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Just Jerusalem had last year 350 000 Arab inhabitants which is almost by itself 20% of Arab population counted by Israeli CBS. [17]. So just apply WP:COUNT and you see that the 90% out of 1.9 million claim in 139 villages is falsification. Off course I can give source for each localities I mentioned above and for other as well. Tritomex (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Except the portion in Jerusalem is not in Israel? East Jerusalem being considered by Amnesty and nearly the entire international community to be in the Palestinian territories, not Israel. I get that you dont like Amnesty or the positions it espouses, but there is zero evidence that they are unreliable in any way. You disliking their positions matters for a blog maybe, not for our articles. nableezy - 17:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- How many of the Arabs in East Jerusalem are citizens of Israel? Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- 2020 figures from this source gives Israeli pop as 6.87 million Jews, 1.96 million Arabs (Muslims (1.67 million) Druze and Christian Arabs) and 0.46 million others for a total of 9.29 million. The Muslim 1.67 million includes the Muslim Arabs living in East Jerusalem, who are not Israeli citizens. "It can therefore be concluded that there are 1.3 million Muslim citizens of Israel (author’s calculation based on the Central Bureau of Statistics, 2020c)." (For "Muslim", you can read "Palestinian").Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- They are Israeli residence card holders and are counted in all Israeli demographic reports, by Israeli CBS and every single source plus everywhere here in Wikipedia (without anyone even questioning it) without single exception. In all article's, including this one. Otherwise the number of Israeli Arabs wouldn't be 1.9 but more like 1.5 million and their share in population wouldn't be 21.1% but somewhere between 16-17%. The 1.9 million and 90% claim falls already in Jerusalem, but there are many many other towns and cities from whom I mentioned few above. You raised a good but off-line question which is on my mind for very long time. Why we always count Jerusalem and Golan Arab population in Arab population of Israel without any notes or explanation?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs)
- There are ongoing discussions about this at the relatively new article Palestinian citizens of Israel Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Spatial Segregation in Israel says "The vast majority (90%) of PCI live in around 140 Arab towns and villages, while around 10% live in the so-
- called “mixed cities”, including Haifa, Acre, Lod, Ramla and Natzeret Illit." June 2021
- Fact Sheet: Palestinian Citizens of Israel says "Most Palestinian citizens of Israel live in three areas: the Galilee in the north, the so-called “Little Triangle” in the center of the country, and the Negev desert (Naqab to Palestinians) in the south." So "most" rather than 90%, March 2021 Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- These figures must surely hinge on whether, as a baseline, East Jerusalem is interpreted as being within Israel or as an occupied territory, with the former obviously lacking the support of international law (presumably AI's position). Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Its not just propaganda it is factually falls. Just in Jerusalem there are close to 400 000 Palestinians who are counted in Israeli Arab population and who themselves represent 20% of population. Nazareth, Rahat, Um el Fahem, Akko, Lod, Ramle, Tel Aviv-Yaffa,...are not villages, but towns and and just those place that I mentioned are home to another 300 000 Arab people (cc 15%) which means that the 90% claim is nothing but falsification.Tritomex (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - What are these "with an asterisk" !votes? The question explicitly regards facts and reliability as a source is as a matter of long-standing policy a thing we recognise even when the source is also known to have biases or be partisian in some respects. We do not ask that reliable sources reflect a view from nowhere. If the "with an asterisk" opinion don't document actual reliability concerns, I recommend the existence of the asterisks be disregarded by the closer. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- In general, comments on whether or not a source is WP:BIASED on a particular topic do wind up getting reflected in closes, especially if this would render in-text attribution for the source to be a best practice in controversial topic areas. There are real reasons to consider the asterisks and to not artificially limit discussion to something narrower than what normally is permitted in the standard 4-option RfCs. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Since all sources have a bias, what does an asterisk mean? If one wants to insist on attribution, one has merely to select Option 2 and say so.Selfstudier (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- In general, comments on whether or not a source is WP:BIASED on a particular topic do wind up getting reflected in closes, especially if this would render in-text attribution for the source to be a best practice in controversial topic areas. There are real reasons to consider the asterisks and to not artificially limit discussion to something narrower than what normally is permitted in the standard 4-option RfCs. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sceptre, you forgot to sign your close and I do not think closing this a week in was a good idea. It is arguable whether "with an asterisk" applies or not and the discussion isn't an obvious snowball so I think you should undo your close. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that this isn't a good case for a snow close, not least given that the "with asterisk" perspective is currently a minority position compared to unequivocal "option 1". The close language also seems to imply that AI's Israel report is not reliable, which does not appear to be a consensus position here. I would also expect a close for a discussion like this to address and evaluate the specific arguments made and their relative strength, which the current close does not. If the close isn't self-reverted shortly, it should be challenged formally. signed, Rosguill talk 16:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
previous close |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It's clear after just a week that there won't be a consensus to take Amnesty International, as a whole, below "generally reliable (with an asterisk)". However, several editors have noticed that because AI are necessarily partisan on certain issues, it's a good idea – but not necessarily mandatory – that anything cited to Amnesty should be attributed to them (i.e. "According to AI, country X executed N prisoners in 2021") just to cover our bases. If certain publications by AI are questionable (e.g. their Israel report), then those should form another part of the discussion, but GREL does allow for the quality for some of its work to be below the usual standards as long as it isn't habitual (at which point, of course, they'd be susceptible to being knocked down to MREL). Sceptre (talk) |
- Seeing as the OP also wants it reopened, I've reopened it. FWIW, I was working on the assumption that AI already occupies GREL, and I don't think there's a likely prospect it'll go to MREL (like I said, the "asterisk" option is the absolute limit downwards in this discussion). I'm happy to admit I'm wrong. (Also, I make no opinion on the Israel report myself; I'm just saying that if it's questionable, then it can be discussed without affecting GREL). Sceptre (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Considering the head of Amnesty has a problem with the report should tell you that at the very least we should not be using the report as a RS, but as an opinion. Amnesty’s Israel chief criticizes group’s report accusing Israel of apartheid Sir Joseph (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- The head of Amnesty International Israel not the head of Amnesty. Same sort of situation as Amnesty in Germany.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Um Sir Joseph, everybody agrees that when AI presents their own view it should be presented as their own view. But what they report as factual is reliable. And you should read that link, the AI Israel head didnt actually dispute the findings of the report, only that it overlooks the work of human rights groups within Israel and the accomplishments of some Palestinians in Israel, and that she does not generally find the report helpful in advancing any cause. That is certainly fine for her to feel, but that has nothing to do with is Amnesty a reliable source. nableezy - 22:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Suspected Webhost-based "Gerontology" sites
I discovered some gerontology-related sites on the internet that are suspected of being webhost-based.
- Supercentenari d’Italia: https://www.supercentenariditalia.it/
- Oldest of Ireland : https://finbarrconnolly.com/chronicle/
- Najstarsi Polacy: http://www.najstarsipolacy.pl/
- Oldest people in Britain: http://oldestinbritain.nfshost.com/chronology.php
If any of these websites use webhost, please tell me down in the comments and tell which one (s) is/are it/them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPEEDYBEAVER (talk • contribs)
- Well, for an easy no-brainer, that last one is at NearlyFreeSpeech.NET, a seller of webhosting services. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- How exactly is this an issue for this noticeboard? None of the websites listed are cited on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, if someone decides to add links to these sites, I wanted to learn which one (s) are reliable or not. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please don't clutter the noticeboard with hypothetical questions. That isn't its purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, if someone decides to add links to these sites, I wanted to learn which one (s) are reliable or not. SPEEDYBEAVER (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)