| Revision as of 15:14, 8 December 2021 view sourceSelfstudier (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers41,162 edits →Arbitrary break for ease of editing← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:56, 11 January 2025 view source Sceptre (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors79,193 edits →RFC: The Heritage Foundation: 4 and a bitTag: 2017 wikitext editor | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}} | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| {{cent}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 463 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchivSee = 1 | |minthreadstoarchivSee = 1 | ||
| |algo = old(5d) | |algo = old(5d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ <!-- | }} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | ||
| <!-- | |||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION | NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |||
| == RfC: Joshua Project == | |||
| == RFC Science-Based Medicine == | |||
| <!-- ] 14:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1638972077}} | |||
| {{discussion top|There is a general consensus that at least some articles on this site can be considered self-published, and substantial disagreement over whether the site's editorial control is adequate, with even some partial supports acknowledging that material on the site may not be substantially reviewed if reviewed at all. As such, material from this site should be used with caution, probably with attribution, and should not on its own be used to support negative or controversial content in BLPs. Particular articles from the site may still be reliable on the basis of self-published sources by experts; those should be considered on an individual basis. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC) }} | |||
| Is the demographic data published by the reliable? ]<sub>]</sub> 13:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 02:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736474472}} | |||
| Is the blog ] in whole or in part, a ]? ] (]) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It's been discussed many times in the past ],<br>],<br>],<br>],<br>],<br>],<br>]. As far as I can gauge it, the consensus has been that it's unreliable. It's still being used so I'd like to add it to the WP:RSP list. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :From the above I agree that an RSP entry is a good idea. A potential summary may include: Religious advocacy group, cites unreliable data sources. Often the RSP talk page is enough to agree on what to write... —]] – 03:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. You cannot trust any of that website's claimed population numbers for ethnic groups even to an order of magnitude. The real population might be 0 because there is literally no such ethnic group: ]. ] (]) 07:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Comment for context: Note that a ] that Science-Based Medicine is considered ] and not considered ]. See ] for more details at ]. ] (]) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Reliability of ''theaerodrome.com'' == | |||
| :{{strikethrough|], is there a reason that you chose not to list this RfC on the Maths, science, and technology list? If not, would you mind adding that topic area to the RfC template? Thanks,}} ] (]) 19:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 15:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1639839677}} | |||
| ::Never mind, Raladic added it. ] (]) 20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfc|prop|rfcid=8375798}} | |||
| ===Responses (Science-Based Medicine)=== | |||
| Which of the following best describes the reliability of ? | |||
| *'''Not SPS''' - Per the previous RfC, there seems to be no reason to rehash this. The editorial practices of SBM show that they do not act like an SPS and that has not changed since the prior RfC. So there appears to be no reason to deviate it from it now. What is the rationale for this repeat RfC other than to try to discredit it? SBM is one of the watchdog media that help keep ] science out of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' {{summoned by bot}}, @] has there been in discussion of this on this noticeboard since the last RFC? '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1''': Generally reliable | |||
| *:OP created different RFC here: ] which was closed as a bad RFC as it was not neutral and editors pointed out the lack of RFCBEFORE on a reasoning of why this needs to be rehashed. Given that that one was just closed and now this new one was immediately opened again without any RFCBEFORE discussion, it similarly appears to be looking for a problem without information as to why this RfC is here without any new evidence that should change the established consensus of the community. ] (]) 03:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2''': Unclear or additional considerations apply | |||
| *:There was a discussion from a few years ago listed on RSP that seemed very mixed as to whether SBM is a SPS ] (]) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''': Generally unreliable | |||
| * '''SPS'''. Per what they wrote on their site: "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" If people are able to publish directly, by themselves, without being reviewed, then that meets the definition of SPS and we need to treat it that way for BLPs. Noting that this only means that it can't be used for direct statements about living people, but can still be used for statements about the truth (or, more often, otherwise) of views held by living people, the views of the authors about living people, and statements about fringe theories themselves. - ] (]) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight - {{tq|After careful review, the editors of SBM decided to retract this book review. Because we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness, occasionally corrections need to be made post-publication. In this case we felt there were too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science, and leaving the article up would not be appropriate given the standards of SBM.}}, so this looks like exactly what you'd expect from a non-SPS. You basically just made the case why they are not an SPS. ] (]) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - ] (]) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::"''As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs''". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. ] (]) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as ]. ] (]) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! ] (]) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::This just seems like sealioning but here you go... ] (]) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You have linked to several articles by ]. Where does it claim on those articles they are self-published? David H. Gorski obviously reviewed those articles, he is listed in the link you cited below as the other editor. There are two editors so this isn't self-publishing. ] (]) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). ] (]) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::The website says "''SBM is entirely owned and operated by the ]''" . So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella . This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. ] (]) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. ] (]) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology . My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! ] (]) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --] (]) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::Thanks for the correction. The dude looks young for his age, fooled me. ] (]) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::So between Jay, Steve, and Robert Novella it seems that we have a lot of relatives here. ] (]) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::What is your source for the organization having 25 employees? ] (]) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::{{Ping|Psychologist Guy}} you've claimed three times that the organization currently has exactly 25 employees... It is the core of your argument, but I don't think its true and I can't find it anywhere online... So how are you getting that number? ] (]) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. ] (]) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::::Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. ] (]) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::::::::{{Reply|Psychologist Guy}} Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. ] (]) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::::::I have contacted someone who should know about this; hopefully they get back to me and I can let you know what the current figure of their employees is with documentation if possible. ] (]) 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::::::::::{{Reply|Psychologist Guy}} it has been a week, did you find out anything useful? ] (]) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS''' This isn't a self-published source, the articles are reviewed before being published by an editorial board. The four current editors are: Steven P. Novella, David H. Gorski, Kimball C. Atwood, Mark Crislip. Guest editors can submit articles to the website, all of which are reviewed before publication. Critics of SBM are jumping a single retracted article that this is an SPS. Seems like a bad case of cherry-picking. There is no good evidence this is an SPS. '''Update''' There are two editors not four my mistake. The publisher is the ]. ] (]) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That doesn't match what is currently on their website, they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. ] (]) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. ] (]) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? ] (]) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. ] (]) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. ] (]) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by ], it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. ] (]) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The New England Skeptical Society, of which Novella is founder and president. ] (]) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Their own statement was "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" Given that, it is clear that in at least some cases, people can publish directly on SBM without being reviewed before publication. - ] (]) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''', seems to be pretty cut and dried at least when it comes to Novella's pieces (remember SBM claims to be a blog, its generally presenting personal opinions... When its two expert editors want to publish their actual work they do not publish it there but in real journals). I would also note that this discussion should include the sister blog NeuroLogicaBlog. If anyone wants to disagree with me they can lay out what editorial checks and balances would apply to Novella. ] (]) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. ] (]) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. ] (]) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own . There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. ] (]) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Is it two or several? ] (]) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:(How) does the following factor into your assessment that it's an SPS? In their of "Why Dr. Harriet Hall’s review of Abigail Shrier’s ''Irreversible Damage'' was retracted," they note that "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing," and that they "have mechanisms of quality control" for articles that are posted without prior review, including "clarification in the comments" and "corrections to the original text of the article." Their about outside submissions says in part "The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using an informal peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a 'rough and ready' peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission." ] (]) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. ] (]) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I was asking ], in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for ] as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." ] (]) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::With Quackwatch we came to a similar position - articles published by the editor are self published, but articles on the site by other authors are not. I'm ok with something similar here. The only problem is that all they say is "trusted authors" can post directly. I would read that as safe to assume people who do not regularly have articles posted on the site would not be trusted, but it doesn't say only the editors are trusted to publish without prior review. Thus there may be some gray area between the two. - ] (]) 21:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The others are more a grey area for me, most of what we are currently using on wiki is pieces by Gorski and Novella... And we have discussions elsewhere about some guest authors like Harriet Hall not producing work of the same quality/rigor as Gorski and Novella. Its a bit of an odd situation, normally the editors are not also the authors and even when they are they're normally not the primary and most reliable authors. Its made extra odd because most of the editors/authors are subject matter experts so usable under EXPERTSPS no matter where we come down on general reliability. ] (]) 03:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS'''. It's a group blog with some guest authors. Having multiple contributors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Having guest authors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Retracting a post does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. This language in ] is particularly relevant: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". As a pro-SBM editor argued in the aborted RfC, the need for SBM in Misplaced Pages is to enable wikivoice accusations of "grift, fraud and quackery" ''that cannot be sourced otherwise''. In other words, the reason this group blog has been elevated to a reliable source is to work around NPOV. - ] (]) 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) ] (]) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::That is a direct quote from ]. - ] (]) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. ] (]) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If you have a problem with WP:SPS the appropriate venue is ] - ] (]) 21:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment'''. Do some people !voting here have a connection to the source? I see one editor referring to Steven Novella as "Steve" and another who may be affiliated with the New England Skeptical Society. I have seen some surprising interpretations of WP:COI in the past so I'm not sure if this is important, but thought it was worth noting. - ] (]) 18:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:That is also a great point and worth investigating as part of any close here. Looks sus at the very least... ] (]) 01:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. I personally think this source is fine to use on BLPs, but there is no way to honestly read our (convoluted, strange) SPS guidelines and not come to the conclusion that it is one. It is a small group of people most of whom publish without prior review on a blog. That they make arguments we like does not make it not a blog. ] (]) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. It's a group blog, but still a blog. Group blogs are specifically called out on ]. As noted above, SBM "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness". The fact that they later retracted one article doesn't negate that the norm for "trusted authors" (probably including regulars, and definitely including the owners of the site such as Gorski and Novella) is to publish without any editorial review of the author's work. Hence, it is clearly by and large an SPS. | |||
| :The claim that we need this to not be an SPS to effectively fight fringe and quackery is often made but I've never seen it backed up with an example of a fringe topic whose Misplaced Pages article would become credulous to pseudoscience without it. There are plenty of published and even academic sources that stuff like homeopathy is pseudoscientific, quackery, etc.; we are perfectly capable of sourcing something like "John Smith is an advocate of homeopathy, a pseudoscientific practice" in just about any case it is needed. SBM being an SPS also doesn't preclude its use in cases of ], as pro-fringe sources themselves are often SPS or otherwise poor. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The ] article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. ] (]) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's no shortage of reliable sources establishing that the germ theory was a huge advance in medicine and that we have basically incontrovertible proof of it for maybe thousands of diseases. | |||
| ::: - ] (]) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But using any of those sources to draw conclusions about the specific claims of a particular germ theory denialist would be ]. ] (]) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Reliable SPS'''</s> - can be used to describe fringe theories proposed by people as discredited or as quackery, including on a bio... should not be used to describe people themselves as quacks. ] (]) 00:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Partial SPS''' - saw some of the info of arguments below from CoffeeCrumbs, and FactOrOpinon. I think the partial peer-review for some articles is... frustrating for a direct answer, but if there is peer-review on an article, it should stand as non-SPS material. ] (]) 01:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS''' - We see at ] that an SPS has clear rules and restrictions, such as not being used '''ever''' for a ], absolutely '''never'''. Some seem to be arguing that this obvious SPS should for some reason be granted an exception to the clear language of "'''never'''" and should be allowed on biographies of living persons in some cases (or in many). There are many reasons why that is not allowed generally, but we have now learned that this source is essentially the soapbox of primarily only ''two individuals'', and most importantly, is not part of a media outlet or organization or inclusive of any external (or even further internal vetting). No, rather, it is a '''blog'''. An SPS '''blog'''. One perhaps run by scientists, two scientists, but a blog, nonetheless. Again, quoting directly from WP:SPS, "{{tq|'''Never''' use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.}}" So here we have this source, which is obviously beyond ] a blog and a self-published source, we must then at the very least clarify that it absolutely must not be used in any circumstances for BLPs going forward, by the fact that it is so clearly a SPS.] (]) 00:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Partly SPS and partly non-SPS''' - The site makes it clear that some authors can publish without prior review. I consider their articles to be self-published; for example, I put Steven Novella's articles in this category. The site also says that other articles undergo prior review (e.g., "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing"). I consider the latter to be non-self-published. Examples of authors who clearly aren't regular article authors there and whose articles presumably underwent prior review: and . For some articles/authors, it's not clear to me whether they fall in the SPS category or instead in the non-SPS category. ] (]) 03:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * It seems that posts by some established contributors are self-published (as shown by links above), while guest contributors are not. So the answer to whether SBM is an SPS or not is 'yes'. '''SPS and not SPS'''. Certainly the idea that it's fully SPS has no basis. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS''': As noted by other contributors, SBM openly acknowledges that it often publishes content without prior peer review. Consequently, this makes it a self-published source (SPS), with the opinions expressed representing those of individual authors. Like any other SPS, its use requires caution, especially in articles about living people or controversial topics, where ensuring accuracy and neutrality is critical. ] (]) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The website ''theaerodrome.com'' is currently referenced in over <s>500</s> 1500 articles chiefly related to World War I aviation ( search), including articles assessed as GA-class (e.g. ]). It has been previously discussed on WP:RSN twice, first ] and later (very briefly) ]. A recent ] at ] was closed with instructions to discuss the topic here. | |||
| -] (]) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC); upd. reference count 07:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS for reviewed articles''' They directly state they have editorial peer review for a number, if not most, of their articles. And only a select few don't go through that process (though appear to have after the fact review, considering the retraction, so even that seems to be in question). I will note that this appears to be yet another attempt by ] pushing editors to try and remove skeptical debunking media from negatively covering their fringe topics. Par for the course attempt, honestly. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ''NB: I'm new to both RfCs and WP:RSN, so please let me know if I have made any procedural mistakes, if this is not the proper format/forum, or you have a suggestion on how to better phrase the options above.'' -] (]) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:It's a day that ends in -Y.... ] (]) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:If we can't tell what is and isn't peer-reviewed and what is SPS material, is that not a problem? ] (]) 11:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:And how we will determine which articles have been reviewed? Also note that editorial review and ] are different things and they do not appear to make a claim of peer review. ] (]) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a '''blog''', they are a '''''trusted''''' blog." ] (]) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Poor editorial control is a matter of reliability, but all matters of reliability don't have to be decided by classifying a source as self-published. It's accepted that other sources follow their stated editorial practices, and noone has shown why that shouldn't be the case here. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS for reviewed articles''' They've got editors, which sets it apart from a standard SPS. Those articles that could be self published are still reliable for most purposes anyway, since they are from subject matter experts. It is also worth noting that while it should not be used for biographical details in general, even if this were to be considered a SPS that would not rule it out for comments on science, medicine, or the reception of fringe ideas, even when those ideas happen to appear on an article with a person's name at the top. - ] (]) 18:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * |
*'''Not SPS''' by virtue of having either pre-publication review or the possibility of editorially imposed retraction. A source that is truly ''self-published'' wouldn't have either of those. ] (]) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Partial SPS''' It's a bit awkward since they do so much good work, but "our own editors, however, have earned the privilege of publishing articles without prior review, since they have a proven track record," is extremely concerning. What they describe as an editorial process for these articles, saying that "if any concerns about accuracy, fairness, or completeness come to our attention, we deal with them in a number of ways," is just not enough. The job of an editor is checking before, not just maybe cleaning up after "if," so I would have to say that the articles by their own editors have to be considered '''SPS''' until they revise this. Things they actually do vet ''before'' putting up, I consider as being subjected to an editorial process, however. ] (]) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * {{ec}} The website appears to be a ]ed resource, with an anonymous editorial team (i.e. the contact email is simply ''webmaster@...'' and there is no page listing the editorial staff). The website's main content consists of pages for individual aviators and aircraft models. Notably, the pages for individual aviators and airplanes do not contain by-lines (e.g. and ). As such, this main content is effectively anonymously authored. In addition to the general anonymity of the editorial team, there is no indication of what the editorial or fact-checking processes related to the published content are. Some of the website's subpages list more general articles, which are hosted on the website's forums (see e.g. section "Articles" on ). This publishing method blurs the line between user-generated content and staff-authored editorial content. While these articles contain by-lines, at least some of them appear to be copies of content published originally by 3rd parties in unrelated venues, e.g. being also available at Project Gutenberg and being scanned copies of books/booklets. I have not investigated whether any of these constitute ]. Some general articles appear to be original content and are published with by-lines (e.g. ), but there is no indication that the same authors are behind the unattributed pages related to the individual aviators, aircraft or -] (]) 15:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Generally not SPS''', though additional scrutiny for articles by Gorski and Novella may be appropriate. Essentially per ]. I'm also frankly not impressed with this RFC, and the manner the proposer starts these discussions in general. Said discussions are not {{em|quite}} up to the point of disruption, but I would nonetheless heavily suggest that they seek advice as to the drafting of their statements and formatting of their proposals and whether adequate prior discussion has taken place, from one of the other editors supporting their point of view. ] (] • ]) 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ** Note that of the two scanned books/magazines, one is a US book published in 1919 and so is OK to link to as it's public domain (how useful it is as a reference is a different matter), while the final one is a copy of a 1990 magazine and so most definitely isn't ok.] (]) 15:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''' A group blog posting guest postings is still a group blog, and still self-published. Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella, whose blog it is), previous claims to having a robust editorial process seem unconvincing. There is no consistently documented publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and this source is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. ] (]) 16:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''': Not a reliable source -- a self-published resource by a non-expert; no indications of a reliable publishing process or fact checking. The site appears to be someone's personal project. --] (]) 15:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as , and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. ] (]) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I followed a few links, and what we have here is another hobbyist site, with authors like "Dan San Abbot" and "John". No evidence of an editorial board that offers oversight, etc. '''Option 3''': not to be used. ] (]) 18:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am responding to suggestions that some sort of allegedly robust editorial and accountability process makes it not an SPS, which I think is a nonsense. | |||
| *'''Option 3'''. This is a non-professional self-publishing exercise, AKA a fansite. So, generally unreliable. It could be primary-source reliable for certain things, e.g. an interview they publish with an aviator might contain some ] statement, and the interview would likely be good enough for that. But it's not a reliable source for general claims about the world, like airplane specs or someone's achievements. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 22:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::My favoured definition of SPS is: if it isn't traditionally published (book, newspaper, journal) or something directly comparable structurally, it is an SPS. That is in line with USESPS since it considers virtually all websites to be self-published. It is narrow, yes, but it is also consistent across media. It is also not a reflection on reliability in other ways, as SPS vs GREL are two different concerns. | |||
| *'''Option 3'''. Tweaked version from my contribution to the Milhist discussion. I don't think that this website meets the requirements of WP:RS. All three (author, publisher and source) need to be reliable. If one argues they are rarely wrong about a detail, if that is accurate, that only meets the third requirement. We still need to know about the author and the publisher, and I can't see anything above that says that the authors (obviously they vary, but only a couple of them are published aviation authors) and the website as publisher (reputation for quality copy-editing, fact-checking etc) are reliable. I recommend that it is considered unreliable and deprecated. If the website has list of sources used for a given article on a pilot (which it does in some cases), then examine those listed secondary sources (assuming they themselves are reliable) and use them to source the article. ] (]) 08:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::I think the "self" in "self-published" causes much confusion, as does the consideration that "publishing" is the mere act of putting information online. A publishing company is more than a person who vets content and presses a button to place material on a website. If we consider something not self published simply because the person who writes it has to go through another person before it is published, that means celebrity social media accounts where an intern reports to a manager aren't self published, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing (ie, virtually nothing is self-published by that standard). | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. The main criticisms aired above stack up. Also, there are idiosyncracies in the Glossary, such as; "'''Barrage balloon:''' A small spherical captive balloon raised as a protection against aeroplanes." where aerodynamically-shaped ]s were also used, "'''Airship:''' A motor-driven balloon of elongated form; should not be applied to "heavier-than-air" craft." where the use of "airship" to describe a large aeroplane was common enough up until the WWI period, or "'''Fin:''' A fixed vertical plane generally fitted in front of the rudder..." where (when fitted, often not the case in WWI) it is more usual to put it the other way round and say that the (fixed) fin provides a mounting point or hinge for the rudder. So even if the claims of respectable oversight are true, their peer review process leaves much to be desired. Nevertheless, it is a useful site and should be acceptable to support and expand on content cited from other, more reliable sources. In other words, it is a source where any given citation must be taken on its individual merits; does a byline identify the author, is the context for the cited factoid appropriate, etc. The forum, of course, is off-limits, and so too should the Glossary be. — Cheers, ] (]) 09:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::I consider "science based medicine" to be a publication as a whole rather than something that can be approached article-by-article. There is no distinct, separate, traditional publishing entity, as with a newspaper, a book, or an academic journal. The owners and editors are all the same, and that they solicit other people's content to add to their own publication which they entirely control still makes it their own self-published publication, in exactly the same way as any blog with guest posts. | |||
| **Thanks for your comment, ]. Just to clarify your position, does your statement {{talk quote inline|the forum, of course, is off-limits}} extend to the articles linked from the "Articles" box of e.g. ? Note the addresses of the individual articles are <nowiki>.../forum/...</nowiki>. -] (]) 09:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::I know there are difficult edge cases to the whole "what is a traditional publisher" model, but I don't think a group blog like SBM is even close to that, and considering it to be one (because editors want to use it to make BLP claims about quacks) has turned into a slippery slope IMO. ] (]) 10:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **:In general, just because a url includes a certain file path, or a certain piece of authoring software is used, this does not define the status of the destination page. These articles are locked out of the forum discussion and logically form part of the static site, which indicates at least a degree of sanity checking by an admin. But a trustworthy author's byline is still necessary. — Cheers, ] (]) 12:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. ] (]) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ***: Of the authors listed in the "articles section, Frank Olynyk is a published author in aviation history, who is a co-author with Chris Shores ''et al'' on the multi-part ''History of the Mediterranean Air War 1940–1945'' and would count as a trustworthy author, while the contemporary personal accounts are just being hosted by theaerodrome.] (]) 23:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::] is '''policy''', <u>not an essay</u>. It is clear '''policy''' that '''<u>blogs</u>''' like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs <u>at a bare minimum</u>. ] (]) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - I see the site as "generally unreliable", per the comments above. While the site may be useful for finding some information, as well as citations to the same, those citations (when reliable themselves) should be examined and used for in-line verification of content instead of using this site.--] (]) 08:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I said "'''USESPS''' is an essay, not a policy" (emphasis added). It seems that you're confusing ] (which as I noted is an essay) with ] (which is a policy). People clearly have different opinions about whether SBM is wholly SPS or only partially SPS, and if the consensus of this RfC is that it is only partially SPS, then the part that isn't SPS can be used for statements about living persons despite identifying itself as a blog. Also, the BLP policy is for statements about living persons, wherever they occur, but AFAIK, RS expert blogs can be used for DUE statements about non-persons, even if that statement appears in a biographical article. BLPSELFPUB is also an exception. ] (]) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - I have visited the site, no author, no "about" sections, it makes me feel that the site is n't build by experts. ]] 05:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I'm aware. We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them. When I raised this weeks ago I asked what I was missing, and it turned out I wasn't missing anything except a massive intractable tarpit. I think none of it is obvious. Your objection here is understandable depends very much how you interpret "author", "publisher" and the work being published, and a narrow definition restricted to natural persons means any source with two people can be argued to be not self published. But to me it remains obvious that for a self published book in which my friend writes the foreword, their content is still self published even though I acted as "editor", and I don't see a difference between a self published book with multiple contributors and a group blog with multiple contributors. And the trouble is a lot of the discussions about how we classify X or Y revolve not around what they are, but about how we want to use them, which makes it ever more messy. Personally I would like to see clarity on *why* BLPSPS exists, and define the standard clearly there, because that would inform what sort of sources are acceptable in BLPs, which is really the nub of the matter. BLPSPS feels like it might once have been shorthand for "a source who's probably had the lawyers look it over before publishing it", but that's just my impression/speculation. Absent BLPSPS, the question of whether sources like grey literature or SBM are SPS or not is largely moot. ] (]) 11:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Option 3''', there is no indication that this website is reliable. There is no listed author or team of editors.] (]) 10:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)</s> | |||
| *:::::@] makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. ] (]) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **<small>Blocked sock. --] (]) 13:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *::::::So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Yes, most local and hyper local news outlets are in fact self-published. ] (]) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Not SPS for reviewed content. Where content is clearly reviewed, definitely not SPS. Where we’re not certain, treat it with extra caution. By the way “blog” and “SPS” are not synonyms. Blog is a format that can be edited and published by reputable organisations, as with eg The Conversation or perhaps the SPLC’s Hatewatch. ] (]) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I would agree with you that your two examples are not SPS, however I have seen people argue the contrary in both cases. ] (]) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Everything in ] is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per ]. I also don't believe that '''any''' of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." ] (]) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this '''<u>blog</u>''' are considered '''reviewed''', and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. ] (]) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That argument is ]. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone ''needs'' to make, but ] overrides ]. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. ] (]) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling ] a guideline). ] (]) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of ] that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using {{tq|self-published sources as third-party sources about living people}}, but that fails to apply in two different ways. ] (]) 23:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::How does "fail to apply in two different ways"? ] (]) 01:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There seems to be a lot more than that which is pertinent, that whole section for example is pertinent not just that one sentence. Many of the "not SPS" arguments also seem to be based on ]. As for it somehow not applying you've lost me, gonna have to explain. ] (]) 07:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''', several editors seem to claim something along the lines of "since Science-Based Medicine is 'reviewed' it cannot be a SPS". This claim would benefit from some proof, ideally other secondary sources validating this claim, and not just the very same source saying that it does so. Alex Jones might claim that he is reviewed and reliable etc. That claim by itself does not make it so. Also, I am not saying that Science-Based Medicine is anything like AJ in terms of reliability etc., and to be clear, this RfC is not about reliability, it is just on whether or not the SBM source is an SPS, which I think it pretty obviously is. ] (]) 01:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models: | |||
| *:# Book publisher: External authors submit book outlines and sample chapters; if selected, the publisher contributes substantially towards editing (including ] if necessary), designing, and marketing the book. The author pays for none of this and expects to get paid (at least if sales exceed a minimum threshold). If the publisher rejects the book, then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher. | |||
| *:# Newspaper: The publisher/publication hires editors and journalists. The editor assigns stories (to internal staff) or commissions them (among freelancers; alternatively, editors may accept external pitches, in the book-publisher model). The journalists write the stories; the editor and publisher/publication representatives decide whether to publish what the journalists wrote. If an employee instead of a freelancer, the journalist expects to get paid the same even if the article is ] (not published). If a freelancer, and the piece doesn't run, the freelancer is free to sell it to a different publication. | |||
| *:# Peer-reviewed journal: The (usually for-profit) publisher or (usually academic) sponsoring body creates the publication and hire editors. External authors submit whole papers; editors send the papers for external review and use that information to decide which ones to publish. The authors usually pay for publication, but this is understood to be akin to volunteer work on all sides, with the money usually coming from a third-party grant rather than the author's own funds. If the journal rejects the article, the author is free to submit it to another journal. | |||
| *:I wonder if any of these models feel similar to how you imagine SBM to work. ] (]) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I have in a sandbox. I wonder whether people would find that comparison useful in, say, ]. ] (]) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I do not think any of the above apply to SBM, but I'd like to see you perhaps write up a few methods for what clearly SPS look like, and then we could compare to the above, and determine which SBM most closely resembles. Again, if you write stuff, then you are the publisher, that is by definition "self-published", which is very often the case even if not always for Science-Based Medicine...even by their own admission! ] (]) 14:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I don't think defining none self-published sources are the ones we give a free pass because of our social-culture background is a good way to define them. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. The website describes itself as a blog. According to ] blogs are considered SPS. In addition, SBM publishes unknown proportions of articles without prior editorial review. Therefore, SBM could only be used with attribution, because it is impossible to tell which articles passed editorial review and which did not. ] (]) 17:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:@], WP:SPS says {{xt|"...self-published material such as...personal or ] blogs (as distinguished from ], above)...are largely not acceptable as sources"}}. Are you sure that this isn't a ]? They have an ] and a ], which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with ], too. ] (]) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "{{tq|These '''may''' be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, '''but use them with caution''' because '''blogs''' may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.}}" ] (]) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want ] to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. ] (]) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per ] we are advised to {{xt|use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process}}. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. ] (]) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Exactly. ] (]) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Use with caution and statements of opinion are covered by other parts of the guidelines, separate from SPS. Whether a source is self-published or not doesn't mean it's reliable or unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Mostly SPS'''. It seems to be the Novella and Gorski show. That doesn’t make it unreliable for topics in which they are recognised experts - neurology for Novella and oncology for Gorski, apparently. That would make them reliable reviewers of any guest content on those topics too. But outside their domains of expertise, they are just blogging. Expertise in one domain does not imply expertise in another - and sometimes it’s quite the opposite, in that smart people who are accomplished in their niche start to think their opinions on everything else are equally robust (looking at you, Elon). ] (]) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. Editorial oversight is insufficiently verifiable nor independent enough to call this something other than self-published. ] (]) 19:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS''' It seems their peer-review is only for new contributers, the staff is volunteer and they explicitly say that they like to avoid as much editing as possible. There also doesn't seem to be much of editorial indepencence from the owner (New England Skeptical Society) which is an advocacy group. Especially troubling is that the Executive Editor is also the President of NESS. NESS also has two other members of the Novella family on the board. That makes three of the five board members from the same family. This is no what oversight should look like. The group of writers is also small and probably know each other well and are of course, ideologically similar. ] (]) 11:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>Partial SPS</s> '''Partly unclear, partly not SPS''' As discussed above, it isn't clear which articles by Gorski and Novella have been reviewed and we should probably lean towards treating those ones like ] just to be safe. They do, however, have a very clear review policy on guest articles (see ) which states {{tq|volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which '''at least three of our editors evaluate the submission'''}} (emphasis added). That's pretty obviously not self-publishing. I do want to note though that this type of discussion would really benefit from more consensus on what an SPS is. Maybe some more experienced editors should consider drafting a big RfC to revise SPS with more detail on what it means in practice (probably after ARBPIA5 is over so admins have more time to focus on it)? ] (]) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Reply|CambrianCrab}}The main problem is that they currently only have two editors (one being the managing editor), so we can be relatively sure that they do not follow that policy becuase it requires a minimum of four editors to follow (the managing editor and at least three others). ] (]) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Exactly. ] (]) 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good catch on the number of editors, I missed that the other ones had retired/passed, but I don't really think that makes it SPS since articles are still getting reviewed. Imo, it's a red flag in terms of ''reliability'' that either the list of editors and/or review policy is out of date, but no impact towards whether or not it's ''SPS''. ] (]) 02:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See and that is interesting because I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I think that it could be reasonably argued that SBM is reliable, but that there is no case at all that it is somehow not SPS. When there is <u>one</u> person in most cases writing something and then just directly launching it to the internet on a blog, that is self-published. Which we have no way of knowing if these <u>two</u> editors even check one another, so it is very possible that frequently this is exactly what is happening. However, how different is it really when there are only <u>two</u> editors from one checking on anything. That is practically and definitionally a self-published source by every possible measure for evaluating whether or not a source as SPS or not. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? And again, even if that is true, if there are only two editors doing the "reviewing", that is not due diligence, that is back scratching and ]. ] (]) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To be clear, I don't think SBM is unreliable, just that outdated pages would be a red mark towards reliability. Whether or not pages or up-to-date has nothing to do with if something is self-published. | |||
| :::::I don't really follow the rest of your argument. {{tq|We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed?}} Yeah we generally take sources at their word on their own policies unless we have reason to question it. SBM is a relatively long-running and well-known outlet run by experts in the topic area. I don't see any reason we should think they're lying about their policy. ] (]) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Those are fair point, review is review and it seems that at least some are seemingly getting reviewed. ] (]) 19:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS'''. What someone means by "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" is "these writers aren't dumbasses and we trust them" with an implied "if an issue is found after the piece is out, we'll put out a correction", not "these people are infallible and we will never correct them because reasons".  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 21:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:So they are essentially "Not SPS" because they claim to sometimes not be SPS. Got it. ] (]) 01:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:The purpose of oversight is due diligence, not dumbass detection. ] (]) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Partly SPS and generally unsuitable for contentious topics on Misplaced Pages.''' While SBM is valuable for some scientic topics, it self-described as blog with inconsistent editorial oversight, allowing authors like Novella and Gorski to pubish without review. Gorski, who often takes strong positions, is a polarizing figure, and his articles often reflect a bias and lack of nuance. For controversial topics or biographies, more neutral and independently vetted sources would better meet Misplaced Pages standards. ] (]) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''' As I've said before on previous RfCs, this is explicitly a self-published source. ] (]) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not SPS unless Gorski and Novella wrote the piece''': SBM is one of the best sources for coveraging ] and ] activism we have <small> and I'll note ''some'', certainly not all, wanting to make it a SPS tend to have, at best, a ] attitude </small>. Simply put, there is editorial oversight of contributors. We don't know if there is for Gorski and Novella, and should act accordingly and treat them as subject matter experts outside BLPs, but we do know that there is for other contributors. I'm somewhat concerned with the shape of this RFC - we have longstanding consensus that SBM is a reliable source and not an SPS. Instead of challenging that, this RFC was opened to challenge specifically the SPS designation in a seemingly roundabout way to question it's reliability. | |||
| : I also want to note that per ] {{tq|In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed.}} - so while I still maintain it's not an SPS, the standards for ] allow non-peer reviewed sources on fringe topics as long as they're reliable, so an SPS designation should not, unless we ''also'' agree it's not reliable, be used to go a purge of its use. ] (]) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''No''' due to editorial oversight. ] <small>(])</small> 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Given that the editors have stated that they do not provide oversight on all contributers prior to publication, this does not seem to be universally true. - ] (]) 09:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''' I think it's important that the arguments about whether Science Based Medicine is SPS or not are removed from our own assessment of the topics they’ve covered, otherwise we infuse topic bias on a process matter and risk floating away from the core question of this RfC. SBM is SPS simply because of the lack of editorial oversight and independence needed for subject matter of medicine.--] (]) 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Is Peakbagger.com a reliable source? == | |||
| <!-- ] 11:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1640689288}} | |||
| <!-- ] 15:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1640703684}} | |||
| {{rfc|hist|rfcid=2EF9BC6}} | |||
| Is Peakbagger.com a reliable source? | |||
| # '''Source:''' (description page , terms of service ) | |||
| # '''Article:''' ] (as a test-case, and maybe ) | |||
| # '''Content:''' Primarily the prominence and elevation of various mountain peaks, also appears to be relied on in some articles to substantiate a ] pass. | |||
| ] (]) 14:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS''' when it's "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" it means that you have to become a trusted author first before you can publish without prior review, i.e., the editorial oversight comes from becoming a trusted author. ] (]) 01:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Background (Peakbagger.com) === | |||
| *:Editorial oversight means reviewing content prior to publishing to ensure the content being published is factual, etc. It's not about who the author is, it's about the substance of the content. ] (]) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Peakbagger.com is used on a large number of articles regarding various peaks, primarily to substantiate the height of them above sea level and their prominence relative to the surrounding terrain, but also in at least some cases it appears to be only source that actually talks about the feature specifically (other sources being about the climate or geology of the area in which the peak is, but not about the peak specifically).<br/> | |||
| *::Are you suggesting that if I write a letter to the editor of some local newspaper, and it is published, then the newspaper is a SPS? ] (]) 03:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] If it was published without review? Yes. A website that published unreviewed content is not a publisher, it's a self-publishing platform. ] (]) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Are you suggesting that the editors of the local newspaper basically do nothing? ] (]) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I think you are using the wrong analogy. If you can publish directly, based on your own decision to publish, without anyone else reading or vetting your writing before it appears, you are self publishing. If an editor checks the material and approves it before publication, it is not self publishing. SBM allow some editors to publish without checking or vetting the material before it is published, as you akcnowledged, so in those cases it is an SPS. - ] (]) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::At the very least anything written by Gorski and Novella there seems to be strong consensus that at minimum those articles are very clearly SPS. In other cases, I think it is dubious at best, since Gorski and Novella run the show and whether or not any real "editorial review" is happening on this blog appears to be very, very much in doubt. The analogy of a "local newspaper" and a ] is not actually analogous, and it is weird that an exception was ever carved out for this blog for it to somehow not be considered SPS. Thankfully it appears as if a new consensus has emerged as a result of this RfC in favor of SBM now being considered SPS, or at minimum, anything published by Gorski or Novella absolutely is without a shadow of a doubt SPS. ] (]) 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{reply|Bilby}} That's where we disagree. By letting you publish directly, the editor is saying they trust you to write content that doesn't need to be edited - and that means it's not SPS. In fact, one could argue it's a higher bar than having to read and vet the writing. ] (]) 09:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::By publishing directly, it is by definition self publishing. By being trusted to publish directly, it means you are seen as reliable. The two are not mutally exclusive. - ] (]) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:We are all making assumptions about "what it means" because SBM is not transparent enough about its editorial policies. It pales in comparison to journals that tackle many of the same topics. This is precisely why it's SPS. ] (]) 16:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thats right. This "Not SPS" argument is without merit. SBM is not a journal, it is a blog and is 100% SPS. ] (]) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind. ] (]) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Are you suggesting that they post "bogus content"? If not, how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote? ] (]) 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::"Bogus content" is related to an argument about reliability. Which some contributors to this RfC have mistakenly believed is part of this discussion, it is not. This RfC is on the question of whether or not SBM is SPS, which it so obviously is. Therefore, my response was simply reframing that we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all, instead, we are simply discussing whether or not the "editorial review" which some allege occurs at SBM (with scant evidence), is done by the very same people who publish content (Gorski and Novella). | |||
| *::::::Given the self-publication by Gorski/Novella, which evidently is what happens, then the source is a self-published source, and "bogus" doesn't even enter into the conversation. Or at the very minimum, any article published by SBM by Gorski/Novella ought to 100% be considered SPS. ] (]) 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Banedon wrote: "If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind," and you responded "If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks." | |||
| *:::::::As best I can tell, you did not respond to my second question, so I'll ask it again: If , how is your comment at all '''''responsive''' to what Banedon wrote''? | |||
| *:::::::Just so you're clear, the current ] "self-published" explicitly refers to reliability. When you say "we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all," that's not entirely true. It's relevant to whether some of the content on the site is '''not''' self-published. ] (]) 01:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::You've moved the goal posts, Banedon is arguing that none of the content on the site is self-published. ] (]) 01:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I know that Banedon's !vote was "Not SPS," but I interpreted Banedon's comment to Iljhgtn (who claimed that SBM is "100% SPS") as a point about outside contributors to SBM (outdated description ). Maybe I misinterpreted. ] (]) 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::I think in the case of Gorski and Novella there is absolutely no question that it is SPS, but I am more and more wondering how much "editorial review" actually happens even in other cases. From the link you provided if we review, "{{tq|How to submit a guest article: '''Anyone is welcome to submit content to ScienceBasedMedicine.org, regardless of credentials'''. We’ll publish anything '''we think is interesting''', relevant, well-written, and, above all, scientifically sound. ('''The less editing we need to do, the better.''') The '''volunteer editorial staff''' looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission. Please embed citations as weblinks rather than footnotes or endnotes, it saves us a lot of time. How to submit a guest article for publication on SBM Submit your article by email directly to Dr. Gorski (SBMeditor@icloud.com), the managing editor . If he thinks it has potential, he will distribute it to the editorial staff for further consideration. '''Please note that none of the editors are paid for our work on SBM''', '''and most of us have demanding day jobs.''' That means that, '''more frequently than we would like, the process is less than optimal''' and not as fast as writers (or we) would like. (For instance, if Dr. Gorski is working against a grant application deadline, you might not hear for a while, '''because trying to keep his lab afloat trumps his extracurricular activities on SBM.''')}}" There are claims that "at least three of our editors evaluate the submission", but again, I don't trust this, but beyond that, this only applies (if they even do it) to guest submissions, which can be Gorski may post even if he just thinks its "interesting" and "The less editing we need to do, the better" (all well and good, but again, doesn't sound like much "editorial review" is happening even in the case of guest submissions... But again, that is only part of the discussion. The other part that has overwhelming consensus at this point is that anything from SBM authored by Gorski or Novella is SPS. ] (]) 03:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::No offense, but you just posted a bunch of text that once again didn't answer my question. Here it is again: If , how is your comment at all ''responsive to what Banedon wrote''? | |||
| *:::::::::::I'm not looking for your personal opinion about SBM, as you've already made that clear in your many comments. I'm not looking for your opinion about the RfC consensus. I'm trying to understand ''your response to Banedon''. ] (]) 04:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::His comment was, "{{tq|'''If you can write in your own article''' with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind.}}". I was not in any way focused at all on the "bogus content" aspect that you are laser focused on, I was refuting the fact that obviously I, Iljhgtn, cannot get stuff published on their page, but that if I could sure, it would not be a self-published source perhaps. Though it is a ridiculous point he made and that is why I am citing the direct text, instead of offering opinion. If that does not answer your query then I am exasperated and we can both just move on from this odd reading comprehension and/or semantics confused discourse we've been having. ] (]) 04:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Yes, I think we're talking past each other, and it's fine with me for both of us to step away from it. ] (]) 14:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::But you're not Gorski or Novella, are you? That kind of renders the entire point moot. Obviously ''you'' can't publish bogus content, because you're not trusted, ergo, there is editorial control and it is not SPS. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Contributions by the editors are SPS'''. Definitely contributions by Gorkski, Novella, and the other listed editors are clearly ] by both the letter and spirit of ]. By the letter of ] I don't think contributions by other people are SPS but I do have serious doubts about the editorial policy, and thus the overall reliability, of SBM if they're allowing the editors to regularly publish articles without fact-checking. ] (]) 02:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not SPS'''. This is a web publication of the ], not the personal vlog of ]. ]. The premise that organizations publishing stuff written by members of their organizations amounts to self-publishing seems like it can't help but lead to something like, "the LA Times publishes stuff written and reviewed by members of the LA Times so the LA Times self publishes itself". ] (] | ] | ]) 08:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society whose leadership overlaps with that of the blog and is largely restricted to a single family, the Novellas. The same man, Steven Novella, is in charge of both so there is no independence here that would make it not self published. I would also note that if the Washington Post ever fired all its professional staff and started hosting stuff by Jeff Bezos and his buddies we would treat it as a SPS. ] (]) 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Did you consider the editorial that Bezos wrote in the Post (re: his decision to block the Post's endorsement of Harris) to be SPS? ] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, but note that we already treat editorials and opinion pieces as SPS so its a bit of a moot point. ] (]) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::That's news to me. Are you saying that an editorial or opinion piece cannot be used unless it either falls under EXPERTSPS or BLPSELFPUB? ] (]) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Its a bit (some would say a lot) wider than that because ] also applies. ] (]) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I don't understand how ABOUTSELF comes into play, since an editorial / opinion piece is typically representing the view of a single person, though I guess it's occasionally written by more than one, as with something from an editorial board. But even assuming that ABOUTSELF is in play, that says "'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we cannot use an opinion piece or editorial in the NYT to make a statement —attributed to the author(s) — about a living person whose relationship to the author(s) is third-party. If that's the case, I think there's a lot of WP content that's in breach of this. ] (]) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::There might be some (wikipedia is full of violations of any rule you care to name), but most of those uses are as primary (under aboutself) not as third-party sources. ] (]) 22:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Whether it's primary is distinct from whether it's self-published. Many opinion pieces are used as third-party sources for attributed opinions about living people. Here's an example: in the ] article, the text "Following the January 6 Capitol attack, ], who had initially resisted calling Trump a fascist, announced that the label now seemed necessary," sourced to opinion piece by Paxton, which is a third-party source for a statement about Trump. Are you saying that you think that text must be removed because the source is SPS? ] certainly doesn't say that all opinion pieces should be treated as SPS. ] (]) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::You argue they're amateurs and unqualified to write the coverage that they do; that doesn't on its own bear on whether they're self-published or not. I've limited the scope of my !vote here to concluding they aren't self-published. Whether they are a reliable publication that isn't self-published or an unreliable publication that isn't self-published is a different question. As for Novella heading NESS and ''Science-based Medicine''—um, well, yeah, duh. The latter is an organ of the former. I'm not aghast that the editor in chief of the LA times runs the LA Times, or that ] ran ]. ] (] | ] | ]) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society. The LA Times is owned by ], the editor in chief of the LA times is Terry Tang. A book by Alfred A. Knopf Sr. or ] published by Alfred A. Knopf would be considered SPS for wikipedia purposes, that isn't groundbreaking thats totally normal. ] (]) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::To add to this, being an editor and running an interest organization are (and should be) two very different roles. I can't imagine the director of the National Association for People that Can't Edit and Hate Editorial Integrity (NAPCEHEI) would make a good editor in chief for the org's publication. ] (]) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I said, {{Tq|You argue they're '''amateurs'''}}; you said, {{Tq|'''No''', I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an '''amateur''' society}} (emphasis added). I'm not seeing how I've mischaracterized what you believe about their qualifications when you immediately repeated it. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:There is a distinct difference between the ''LA Times'' and SBM in that it would appear as if at SBM just Gorski can write something or just Novella and then publish it. That is different that the LA Times or other non-SPS in that those have editorial review by other staff. These staff are known and are publicly verifiable as they have | |||
| *:At minimum, it must be acknowledged that material written by Gorski and Novella is SPS. For the record, that is also not saying it is not reliable (as several commenters above continue to be confusing), <u>just that Gorski and Novella work from SBM is SPS.</u> ] (]) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Forbes.com is owned by Forbes Media LLC. Because it is owned by a company, does that mean we should not regard it as self published? In the case of Forbes.com it is not the ownership that matters, but the ability of people to publish directly as contributors without editorial review. With SBM, I would argue that it is also not the ownership that matters, but whether or not people can publish directly without editorial review. - ] (]) 22:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Forbes.com includes content both from Forbes staff and from Forbes contributors. So some of the Forbes.com content is SPS and some isn't. ] (]) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Presumably, that is because the Forbes staff material is published under editorial control. It is not the ownership that decides if something is an SPS, but the process by which material becomes available after it has been written. - ] (]) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::That was my point, as it seemed you were claiming that we should regard all of Forbes.com as self-published. Why did you conclude that the subset of SBM material that does undergo prepublication editorial review is nonetheless SPS? ] (]) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I've never assumed that material on SBM that undergoes editorial review is SPS. My only concern is that the argument that the publication belongs to the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not SPS, is not sound. I think you can reasonably argue that some material published by SBM does not under go editorial review prior to publication, and that some material is therefore self published, or you can argue that all material undergoes pre-publication editorial review, and therefore SBM is not an SPS at all. But I don't think you can argue that SBM is owned by the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not an SPS. - ] (]) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I should have been clearer. I was asking because in your Dec.6 !vote, you said that you consider SBM to be wholly SPS (or at least, you didn't qualify your SPS response). ] (]) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::I think I have been fairly consistent, but to explain my reasoning: it is clear that trusted authors are allowed to self publish on the site, but what is not clear is who these authors are. We khave been assuming that this means the editors can publish directly, and we have assumed that guest contributors probably can not, but we do not know if all guest editors are not trusted enough, nor do we know where the authors that sit between those two come. Given that, rather than say "partial SPS" but not know who is self publishing, I think it is safer to say "SPS" but realise that there may be exceptions. From a BLP perspective I prefer to errr on the side of caution. - ] (]) 07:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''' A group blog where the participants can publish without review is a SPS, even if it calls certain people editors and sometimes deletes things (if that were the standard, even much of ''social media'' wouldn't be a SPS, because sometimes those sites have deleted stuff like COVID misinformation). I also do not think accepting occasional outside submissions consistutes "review" to the degree those posts become not-SPS. Nor do I think being "published" by an organization the blog authors *also* control consititutes sufficient independence, as some have claimed. I think sometimes the authors can be cited under the WP:SPS subject-mattere expert exception, but only in the ''specific'' area of their academic speciality (e.g. neurology, surgery and oncology, family practice medicine) but not in other areas. - ] (]) 15:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussion bottom}} | |||
| == RfC: Bild == | |||
| I have discussed the reliability of this source with ], who has created a number of articles using this source, in a discussion that can be seen ], and we both agree that it would be useful to get some feedback from the RSN community about it's reliability. ] (]) 14:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736895671}} | |||
| === Survey (Peakbagger.com) === | |||
| What is the reliability of the German tabloid ], including its website Bild.de? | |||
| *'''Unreliable under any circumstance''' - Based on appears to be a ] hobby project, a lot of the data is apparently simply copied from GNIS with all that entails but other data has no clear origin and may have been submitted by individual climbers or comes from the author themselves. The tells us that {{tq|"Information uploaded to Peakbagger.com by site users, including ascent information, trip reports, provisional peaks, GPS tracks, and photographs, all becomes part of the master integrated Peakbagger.com database"}} meaning that the database is to an extent crowd-sourced. It also literally tells us that {{tq|"The master Peakbagger.com database of peaks and associated content <u>'''has thousands of errors in it'''</u>, and text content, trip reports, and GPS tracks from the site's administrators and users are <u>'''subjective and not necessarily authoritative'''</u>"}} (my emphasis) - it straight up tells us that it is not a reliable source. Even if it were a reliable source for the height/prominence data, simple statistical entries in a database don't amount to significant coverage of the subject such as is needed to pass ], and it would amount to a ] source. For GNIS or other gazetteer data, the original gazetteer should be referred to directly. | |||
| # Generally reliable | |||
| :I'd like to highlight that I think that most of Ron's work is OK and I like these articles about peaks, this is just about the sourcing in a lot of articles about peaks (not just his). ] (]) 14:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| # Additional considerations apply | |||
| ::Instead of making assumptions by using the word "appears", why don't you contact the webmaster to get the facts on the sources. Assumptions = unreliable, which is worse than the argument you are making. Interesting that you now encourage using GNIS data, but on my talk page you didn't.] (]) 22:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| # Generally unreliable | |||
| ::::We have the website managers own words telling us not to use it, seems enough, no? And it's worth remembering that once a source is challenged ] - if you want to email them, please feel free to do so. As for GNIS, ] and it should anyway not be relied on to support a ] pass because it is not significant coverage. ] (]) 08:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| # Deprecated | |||
| :::::* Where does the webmaster state not to use it (whatever you mean by "it")? ] (]) 04:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unreliable''' By their own statements, this is a crowd-sourced, unchecked, and admits to having numerous unfixed factual errors. This source, as useful in general as it might be to hikers, is not an appropriate source for any information at Misplaced Pages. --]] 14:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ===Responses (Bild) === | |||
| :*Peakbagger.com is frequently referenced by reliable books and magazines: The data which I use from the site is not crowdsourced. ] (]) 00:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3/4''' Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, , routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation) {{tq|Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers.}} ... {{tq|The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary}}... EDIT: another quote {{tq|BILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.}}} ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unreliable for factual information''' - Appears to be the classic hobbyist/] website with no sourcing on the few pages I randomly sampled and no indicia of a reliability-establishing editorial policy. That, alone, seems sufficient for "unreliable" even if we interpret the "thousands of errors" statement as a generic "we take no responsibility if you hurt yourself because of our info" disclaimer. Seems to also contain trip reports, which might theoretically be used per ]/] with the usual disclaimers, but I'm not familiar enough with either the site or the general topic to say whether that's a realistic prospect. -] (]) 15:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 , as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic ] (]) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*Peakbagger.com is frequently referenced by reliable books and magazines: But thanks for declaring it unreliable when you state that you are not familiar with this subject. ] (]) 00:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that ] is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reliable''' when framed as "according to" etc.. it often receives notice in other reliable sources as being a significant source: | |||
| *'''Option 3/4'''. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--] (]) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **"Greg Slayden, founder of www.peakbagger.com, a national climbing registry where baggers can record their conquests." | |||
| *'''3''' at least, and I wouldn't say no to '''4'''. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for ] material; if they claimed something as simple as {{var|X}} number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **"A website called Peakbagger.com, '''a major arbiter for the country’s “high pointers,”''' made the change to its database. As far as Peakbagger was concerned, Jackie Jones Mountain was now supreme." | |||
| *'''3''' I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. ] (] • ]) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **"He had read about Baker Mountain on peakbagger.com, a storehouse for people looking to summit prominent mountains. " | |||
| *'''3/4''' Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **"Before the advent of peakbagger.com, climber.org, and summitpost.com, climbers sought information about routes up peaks in guidebooks, in newsletter reports, and by word of mouth, still all good sources. " | |||
| *'''bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people''' it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and ''allegedly'' breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. <small> Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable </small> ] (]) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **"If you want more information and maps of these peaks, a good source is peakbagger.com." | |||
| * '''Option 2, provisionally''', since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*Peakbgger.com is frequently referenced by reliable books and magazines: | |||
| * '''Option 3''', I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :-- ]] 17:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Misplaced Pages project. ] (]) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::These point to it being a useful source for Peak-bagging ''hobbyists'', in a similar way to how ] is a useful source for Star Wars fans and ] is a useful source for Trekkers. It does not make it a reliable source for an encyclopaedia article. ] (]) 08:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''', there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – . But see my comment in the discussion section below. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You failed to take note of the last bullet: Peakbagger.com is frequently referenced by reliable books and magazines: which is a Google search result showing all the reliable published books that reference Peakbagger.] (]) 10:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' per ActivelyDisinterested. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Just because a book appears in a Google Books search does not mean it's a reliable source. For example the very first search result for me is "Stargate SG1 Compendium" published by ]. If you actually search for "peakbagger.com" with quotation marks, you'll see a significantly reduced amount of hits, less than 50 based on my quick count. Some of the hits, e.g. ''The Mountain Encyclopedia'', appear to simply list it in a large list of general websites related to the topic, rather than using it as a source or even making any explicit claim about its reliability. Others, such as '''The Making of Modern Baseball'', ''Sports Nation: Contemporary American Professional Organizations'', ''Indiana Courthouses - Southeast Edition'' and ''Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities'' are in so wildly different domains that they really can't be used to establish reliability here. To establish that multiple highly reliable sources view peakbagger.com as a reliable source, you'd need to provide clear examples rather than just linking to a Google Books search. -] (]) 10:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per ] would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. ] (]) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Unreliable''', at best its a group blog edited by Greg Slayden but you have to squint really really hard to see that... Its a high quality hobbyist site but even the best of those are generally not ], especially for obscure hobbies like peak bagging. ] (]) 17:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *''' |
* '''Option 3/4''' per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. ] (]) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *:it's ''snowing 3'' ] (]) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ** How did you determine that the peak data comes from USGS? I can't find any indication of that on the website. Does that source also extend to peaks not in US? If the data comes from USGS, why not cite the original source of the data? -] (]) 22:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3/4'''. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --] (]) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ***The webmaster states "I added peaks by hand, or from large public-domain databases like the GNIS and BGN gazetters." GNIS and BGN = USGS. https://www.peakbagger.com/Contact.aspx As for why? Convenience, and parameters such as Prominence and Isolation data are not provided directly by from USGS, but derivations thereof. Prominence and Isolation are not something found in "published" sources, but can be obtained at these websites. I don't use Peakbagger or LOJ for peaks outside the US.] (]) 23:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3/4''': Tabloids usually fail reliability. It seems this one is no different. ] (]) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::* That does say "by hand", though... not particularly reliable if you ask me. Surely there are reputable sources that would compile this information. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 00:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 3/4 (depending on whether anyone can make a case that there's some e.g. ABOUTSELF use we would still want them for — but I doubt we should be using them 1,800 times, as Hemiauchenia says we are at present) per Aquillion and Hemiauchenia; as RSP says, a reliable source "has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction"; ''BILD'' has the opposite reputation. ] (]) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Again with the assumptions. Please tell us your reputable sources that compile Prominence and Isolation. ] (]) 00:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*The GNIS database is public domain and freely accessible. It also isn’t clear which data on Peakbagger comes from there and which doesn’t and instead comes from another source. And just to emphasise this: the website itself says not to trust it. If data cannot be reliably sourced, the answer is not to use an unreliable source, the answer is just not to include that data at all. ] (]) 08:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* No, it doesn't say "not to trust it". It says there are thousands of errors in the site, a site which he says has millions of data points. Every data base and reliable source is going to have errors. If Peakbagger's elevation value for a given peak matches what's on the USGS topographic map, we know where the information came from.] (]) 09:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*Sorry Ron, but it literally says right in the terms of service {{tq|"The master Peakbagger.com database of peaks and associated content has thousands of errors in it ... there is no guarantee of accuracy"}}. That's them right there telling you not to rely on their data, for the very good reason that it is not an authoritative source and is transcribed from other sources and/or provided by users (and it is not clear which is which). Now you're saying "don't worry, it's only thousands of error amongst millions", but how many thousands? This is a very useful source for hobbyists, but that doesn't make it a reliable source for an encyclopaedia article. As for it matching USGS data, if that's so then why don't you just refer to the USGS data directly? And if you can't access the USGS data then how do you know this? | |||
| ::::::::Let me take the opportunity again to say that I like your articles on peaks, especially the photos, and I think they're a net value-add for Wiki. I just think this specific source (and LoJ, though that's much-less-used) shouldn't be used. ] (]) 10:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* Sorry, but you sliding down a slippery slope if you expect "guarantees of accuracy" from all reliable sources. Please provide a link to that Misplaced Pages policy requiring sources to guarantee their accuracy, and also a list of sources that you are aware of which do meet such a requirement. I can't recall ever seeing a publication which did. ] (]) 10:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::*I'm not requiring that they give such a guarantee, I'm requiring that they don't literally tell us that they can't give such a guarantee because of all the errors they have. ] (]) 10:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::* Can you provide a link to the Misplaced Pages policy that requires that? ] (]) 11:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::*See ] and ]: {{talk quote inline|Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and '''accuracy'''.}} (emph. added). Are you claiming that a source that ''literally states'' it contains thousands of mistakes has a "reputation for accuracy"? -11:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)] (]) | |||
| ::::::::::::* Thousands of errors in millions of data points. We don't know exact numbers, but for the sake of simplicity let's say 1000 errors for every one million data points. That works out to 99.9 percent accuracy. In my book, that's pretty accurate, reliable information. And that site is aware of the errors and fixes them (according Peakbagger, and my personal dealings with them when I pointed out an error. ] (]) 11:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::* So what you're telling us is that you've found errors on there (more than once?) and they corrected them when you told them. Which sounds an awful lot like ]. "Thousands" can mean many more than 1,000, they clearly don't know how many errors there, just that there are a lot. ] (]) 12:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::* You're missing the context. Thousands of errors in millions of data points. He doesn't say tens of thousands of errors, nor tens of millions of data points, so the numbers must be between two and ten. Let's take the worst case example that favors your side: 9,999 errors in two million data points. That's 99.5 percent accuracy. On the other hand the math for the flip side has 2,000 errors in nine million data points. That's 99.98 percent accuracy. ] (]) 21:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::* Yes, over the last five years I found an error there. Coordinates for a peak were wrong, only because USGS had within the past year corrected a USGS error, and Peakbagger originally used that erroneous data from USGS, and the change was not caught by Peakbagger. All websites that I checked were still using the erroneous USGS data. Case in point: ]. A quick search now and I found mapcarta.com and topozone.com and peakvisor.com all still using the erroneous location. ] (]) 12:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::*I don't understand: if USGS has more accurate data, and updates it more frequently, why aren't you just referring to USGS directly? Moreover you only know about this error because USGS is there as a reliable source. It seems that whilst the maths needed to calculate prominence/isolation are simple, determining what data to use is non-trivial and we shouldn't be relying on Peakbagger.com for it. ] (]) 15:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::*Who claims USGS has more accurate data and updates it more frequently? If you don't understand, it's because you haven't paid attention. As I stated in my Talk page to you: "I have found plenty of stuff in "published" material that is flat out incorrect, and would not use. And stuff can be found in communities such as Summitpost that is excellent and correct (but I don't use). So the balancing act is to be accurate, which means using best data where it's found. GNIS is good for coordinates, but terrible at elevations, so that's where Peakbagger comes in." ] (]) 21:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Unreliable'''. It's probably fine for an external link but I don't see how we can use a source that is at least partially user-generated, otherwise curated by someone whose subject matter expertise has not been established (]), and that by its own admission contains errors. I sympathize with Ron Clausen's position that 99.9 is pretty great accuracy, but the difference between this source and a reliable source is that we have no way to verify the reliability--we have no idea which data is accurate. I do have a question about "Prominence" and "Isolation"; I'm unfamiliar with those terms and their importance. Ron notes above that these are "derived", are they derived from the USGS data, and is this a mechanical calculation, or is something more involved? ] ] 12:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :* ] and ] simple calculation, based on USGS data. ] (]) 12:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would beg to differ about prominence: one has to identify the ] to compute the prominence. That is a calculation, but involving a graph of elevations. For a description of the algorithm, see . I would not characterize it as simple. Misplaced Pages editors cannot perform prominence calculations under ]: it would be a violation of ]. We have to rely on Peakbagger for prominence and isolation, or use an alternative site. There are not that many of them. — ] (]) 19:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reliable''' as the person is an expert in his field so can be used in Misplaced Pages as per the guidelines on SPS and blogs. No significant problems with using this source have been put forward and carrying out simple calculations is fine for such an expert on the subject, in my view ] (]) 01:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Could you expand a bit on how you determined that the editor behind the website is "{{talk quote inline|an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications}}", given that others below seem to have reached different conclusions? -] (]) 09:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reliable''' for quantitative information: elevation, coordinates, location, prominence, isolation. Not reliable for ascent and travel accounts. To my mind, Peakbagger is the authoritative source for some of the quantitative information about mountains, and a secondary reliable source for other quantitative data. That doesn't mean there aren't errors on Peakbagger, but all "reliable sources" have errors and discrepancies.] (]) | |||
| *'''Reliable''' per Smallchief and others for hard data such as prominence, isolation, elevation, coordinates and location. Likely to be more accurate and up to date than some official sources e.g. Ordnance Survey. ] (]) 21:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reliable''' While FOARP, Ljleppan, Jayron32, and A. C. Santacruz are correct that Peakbagger does not pass ] under ], there is another way to establish reliability: via ]. In the small field of publications on orometry (e.g., ], ] and ]), the following papers treat the data in Peakbagger as "gold standard" data to incorporate or compare against: | |||
| *:{{cite journal|last1=Arundel|first1=Samantha T|first2=Gaurav|last2=Sinha|title=Automated location correction and spot height generation for named summits in the coterminous United States|journal=International Journal of Digital Earth|volume=13|issue=12|year=2020|pages=1570-1584|url=https://www.academia.edu/download/63992014/Automated_location_correction_and_spot_height_generation_for_named_summits_in_the_coterminous_United_States20200722-25279-5e6qkk.pdf}} | |||
| *:{{cite journal|last1=Kirmse|first1=Andrew|first2=Jonathan|last2=de Ferranti|title=Calculating the prominence and isolation of every mountain in the world|journal=Progress in Physical Geography|volume=41|issue=6|year=2017|pages=788-802|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309133317738163}} | |||
| *:{{cite journal|last1=Kelso|first1=Nathaniel Vaughn|first2=Tom|last2=Patterson|title=Introducing natural earth data-naturalearthdata.com|journal=Geographia Technica|volume=5|issue=82-89|year=2010|page=25|url=https://technicalgeography.org/pdf/sp_i_2010/12_introducing_natural_earth_data__naturaleart.pdf}} | |||
| *:{{cite journal|last=Wiens|first=John J|display-authors=et al|title=Climate change, extinction, and Sky Island biogeography in a montane lizard |journal=Molecular ecology|volume=28|issue=10|year=2019|pages=2610-2624|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/am-pdf/10.1111/mec.15073}} | |||
| :Aside from ], the 10+ years of WP usage of quantitative data from Peakbagger has uncovered no systematic biases or serious accuracy problems. — ] (]) 02:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thank you for these references, I only had time to check the first this morning, but made some quick observations. Notably, the study clearly acknowledges that ''peakbagger.com'' is not a provider of high-quality data: "{{talk quote inline|Ideally, results would be compared to a higher-accuracy dataset. Unfortunately, such reference data are unavailable. As a result, for a reality check, results were compared to the following: nearby National Geodetic Survey (NGS) control points, where they exist, spot elevations manually collected from historical 7.5-minute USGS topographic maps, values published by Peakbagger (peakbagger.com), a mountain climbing website, and values by Topozone (topozone.com), which offers value-added USGS topographic data.}}" It later notes that "{{talk quote inline| Many tested summits were missing from the Peakbagger lists}}" and "{{talk quote inline|Topozone values corresponded more closely to snapped summits than did Peakbagger values, but the difference is unclear because both products use basically the same source data, although Peakbagger contains some values derived from amateur Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) devices.}}" I'll check the other references later today. -] (]) 08:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Continuing to check the references, Kimse and de Ferranti refer to ''peakbagger.com'' in a few ways. First, on page 790, they simply state that it exists as part of their description of previous works. Second, on pages 792-793, they refer to it for peak height data. They go on to note that the ''peakbagger.com'' height data seems to disagree with their other data in some cases, discussing in detail how their analysis/computation is affected by this disagreement. They present no argument ''why'' they hold the ''peakbagger.com'' data to be more accurate, only making a vague gesture at "{{talk quote inline|accurate surveys}}". The third mention on page 798 is, in my view, the most notable a it suggest a conflict of interest between the authors and ''peakbagger.com'', as the authors describe their own contributions to the database. Tangentially related, I found the following sentence on page 791 interesting: "{{talk quote inline|Many voids were filled with samples from the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer global DEM (ASTER GDEM), although a review of its properties showed that it has too many artifacts near water bodies, clouds, and high mountains to make it suitable as the primary database for our analysis."}} This appears to be a tacit admission that they are not confident in their underlying data for the whole globe. It's not completely clear to me from the paper whether this statement applies only to "{{talk quote inline|norther parts of Scandinavia and Russia}}" or to a wider area. | |||
| ::The third reference (Kelso & Patterson, 2010) simply states they use peak name and height data from ''peakbagger.com'' in a single sentence. I believe it's notable that despite stating their website is intended for a mountain cartographer audience, they do not use any other data from ''peakbagger.com''. | |||
| ::The fourth reference (Wiens et al., 2019) similarly only uses peak height data from the ''peakbagger.com''. | |||
| ::In total, the references appear to contain one that acknowledges that ''peakbagger.com'' is not of very high quality, and three that only employ peak heights. Of the three height-only papers, Kimse and de Ferranti have a potential conflict of interest and also acknowledges that the ''peakbagger.com'' data disagrees with other data available to them. Based on this analysis, I don't think the references support a ] argument outside of peak heights, and even for peak heights it seems somewhat iffy. -] (]) 10:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (Bild) === | |||
| ::::If the four articles cited above use Peakbagger data to one extent on another, then that is a recognition that the data is either reliable, the best available, or not available elsewhere, isn't it? If, in the four cited articles, only some Peakbagger data is used and some is not that is not an indication that the unused Peakbagger data is bad. It just means that Peakbagger data about, for example, prominence wasn't relevant to the author of the article. | |||
| Bild is currently used over 1,800 times on the English Misplaced Pages per {{duses|bild.de}}. It is already currently listed on RSP as "generally unreliable". This RfC was prompted by a discussion at ], where a user questioned the lack of participation in previous discussions. ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I asked the initial question at WT:RSP since I don't like when we classify sources based on vibes. So I'll play the role of the devil's advocate. I have very little knowledge of the German media landscape and I'm open to arguments in both directions. The sources provided by u:Hemiauchenia make two claims: | |||
| ::::Peakbagger is cited as a source on Misplaced Pages thousands of times. Let's look at just one article: ]. Peakbagger is the source most cited for information about all 200 mountains on the list. Dozens of other articles about mountains use Peakbagger as their main source. Are we going to delete these articles not because they are inaccurate but because we have declared that Peakbagger -- often the only source or the best source -- is not up to Misplaced Pages's bureaucratic standards? Instead see: "Misplaced Pages has guidelines and policies -- not firm rules." To delete articles from Misplaced Pages sourced from Peakbagger would be counter-productive and destructive -- and would not make the encyclopedia one whit more authoritative. Our task is to compile and improve the encyclopedia not impose a rule that would do the opposite.] (]) 13:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * {{tquote|articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary"}} - this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities | |||
| :::::The reliability of ''peakbagger.com'' has been questioned, and the comment I replied to acknowledged that it does not pass ]. It was then suggested that it might be considered reliable through another criteria, and evidence for this position was presented. I argue above why I believe this evidence fails to establish reliability for all factual information, and at best establishes reliability for a minor subset of the data on the website. If you believe I have misread or mischaracterized the proposed evidence above, please let me know how and I'll happily reconsider my position and correct any mistakes I might have made. The fact that the source is currently referenced a lot in Misplaced Pages is immaterial for this discussion. -] (]) 13:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes . ]<sub>]</sub> 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So, what is your remedy? Shall we delete all the articles that use Peakbagger as a principal source? This is not just an intellectual discussion. A problem should be in search of a solution.] (]) 14:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This is neither the time nor the place for those hypothetical discussions, the need for which is dependent on both the result of ''this still ongoing'' discussion and the content of each individual article. -] (]) 14:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated): {{tq|From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.}} | |||
| ::::{{ping|Ljleppan}} I believe your summary does not accurately reflect Peakbagger nor my UBO argument: | |||
| ::If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Kirmse explains the details of his prominence analysis . Kirmse clearly uses Peakbagger as a ground truth source of data to compare his output to. It is the best alternative. | |||
| :::I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Kirmse uses DEM data which is contaminated with trees (DEMs find the height of object at scan time, rather than true ground level, a well-known problem in remote sensing). This causes Kirmse's height data to be less reliable than Peakbagger. Again, see Kirmse's explanation . | |||
| ::::The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. ] (]) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Quoting "many tested summits are missing from Peakbagger" is not a strike against Peakbagger. Because Peakbagger is curated, it cannot have as many summits as Kirme's system. The simple fact that Kirmse (a reliable source) used Peakbagger as gold-standard data should count in favor of Peakbagger. | |||
| :::::@], I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks! | |||
| ::::* I cannot find any guidance in ] that specifies that ''specific data'' (e.g., prominence) be used, as far as I can tell. It just asks us to analyze whether the source is used by other reliable sources. | |||
| :::::These are the key points from the foreword | |||
| ::::* I also cannot find any guidance about "conflict of interest" in ]. If Kirmse donated data back to Peakbagger, why is that a negative? Instead, wouldn't that show that Kirmse thought Peakbagger was a worthwhile source? If it were truly unreliable (e.g., like '']''), Kirmse would be less likely to give it data, not more. — ] (]) 00:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::# articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Hike395}} Thanks for the link to Krimse's personal website/blog, I didn't see it linked from the peer-reviewed article. I'm afraid I'm still not too convinced by the way it's discussed on the page, see e.g. "{{talk quote inline|In some areas, especially in Indonesia and Africa, Peakbagger's peak locations were very far off, enough to generate incorrect values even for ultra prominent peaks}}". In general, looking at all the various sources, I'm getting the impression that its data tends to be fairly accurate for the areas highly frequented by climbing enthusiast, but less so for elsewhere. Such data quality uniformity issues would be expected for a hobbyist source, and are one of the main reasons why I'm extremely wary of using these kinds references: it's going to appear accurate based on the things people will naturally check, but that deduction is not necessarily extensible to all data, nor is it possible to know for certain where that "uncertainty horizon" lies in the data. | |||
| :::::# BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples | |||
| ::::::Regarding the ''specific data'' aspect, I do concede might be reading the "{{talk quote inline|for similar facts}}" part of ] rather closely (also, I'm not too familiar with how this has been interpreted historically), but I don't think my reading is unreasonable. I do find it notable that of the linked articles, the one that would have most expected to use e.g. the prominence data (the one providing a mapping service aimed at a mountain cartographer audience) does not do so. This might be simply resulting from the limited amount of prominence data available on the site prior to Krimse's contribution. Did the site contain prominence data in 2010s? | |||
| :::::# is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze | |||
| ::::::Regarding the conflict of interest, my point is that since the argument is about , does Krimse count as an ''other''? In my understanding, the underlying UBO argument is essentially "there are verifiable reliable independent sources that hold ''peakbagger.com'' as a reliable independent source". I'm not convinced Krimse is "independent". -] (]) 07:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::# A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Ljleppan}} I believe some of the assumptions you're making are incorrect: | |||
| :::::# A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable. | |||
| ::::::* Misplaced Pages has been using Peakbagger as a source of prominence data at least since 2005, possibly before. See {{diff|List_of_mountain_peaks_by_prominence|diff=prev|oldid=12432207|label=this diff}}, and the . It has been a stable and durable source. | |||
| :::::I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed? | |||
| ::::::*The main editors of Peakbagger were Edward Earl (until 2015) and Greg Slayden (after). If you look at , Kirmse wanted to adapt their code to run at Google in 2014, and started to share his data back in 2015. Peakbagger had prominence data for at least 10 years before that. | |||
| :::::In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very ] source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways. If Kirmse was a major participant in Peakbagger, then it would pass ] due to Kirmse's domain expertise. Instead, by his own web page, he was only tangentially involved starting in 2014. Hence the need for a ] argument, which I believe still stands. | |||
| :::::Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*It's well-known that the published topographic data for mountains in the Global South tends to be imprecise. See, e.g., the uncertainty expressed at ], which took ]. Or ]. The accuracy of Peakbagger is limited by the accuracy and precision of the topographic data that they use. Claiming that they are a hobbyist site based on this is not warranted. | |||
| :I'm not really sure what is meant by {{tq|classif sources based on vibes}}, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. ] says {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}, as does ] multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. ] (] • ]) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for being so thorough! — ] (]) 15:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the {{duses|bild.de}}, most of them belong to the first category. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{ping|Hike395}} And thanks to you for being so patient, especially considering that I lack much of the background knowledge etc. that others more familiar with the domain possess. I've thought about this for a few days now and have essentially two points I'd like to bring up. First, I don't believe Misplaced Pages's historical use of ''peakbagger.com'' is of significance for this discussion. Second, regarding "{{talk quote inline|having it both ways}}", my position is essentially thus: Kirmse themself appears to be a reputable author, and if they were in editorial control over ''peakbagger.com'', I'd be open to considering it an expert-produced ]. However, they are not in (sole) editorial control, and I'm not convinced the "editor-in-chief" fulfills the requirements in the same way as Kirmse does. At the same time, Kirmse ''is'' clearly affiliated with ''peakbagger.com''. While this does not wholly invalidate their judgement w/r/t it's reliability, it does cause me concern regarding their impartiality in assessing the situation. Working in a rather niche field of academia myself, I'm sympathetic that this is made more difficult by the nicheness (is that a word?) of the topic: it's hard to make a very solid ] argument if the field of relevant "others" is very small. Its clear that you and others who are well-versed in the topic truly hold ''peakbagger.com'' to be a reputable site. But demonstrating that reputability is clearly an issue in this case. In general, given that the indicia of reliablity overall is so low, I'm still hesitant about any kind of blanket statement along the lines of "all factual data on ''peakbagger.com'' is reliable". On the other hand, I'm not sure what a suitable more limited statement would be. Frankly, I'm rather annoyed by the lack of citing sources on the site; if they attributed clearly where each peace of information came from, I would find this significantly easier. -] (]) 19:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Nigerian newspapers == | |||
| *'''Reliable''' per Smallchief. That is to say, "for quantitative information: elevation, coordinates, location, prominence, isolation. Not reliable for ascent and travel accounts." The disclaimer for inaccuracy is very likely referring to ascent and travel accounts, and if not, it's a disclaimer highlighting the very very few errors in a very large dataset. Any dataset is prone to having a small percentage of errors, that doesn't make it unreliable. Being made by one person does not make it unreliable, it appears to be an authoritative resource, and wikipedia should treat it as such... except for the travel accounts, which are user provided and not reliable any more than some web forum post somewhere would be (that is to say, possibly useful as a primary source if the user commenting has some claim to notability). ] (]) 02:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' {{ping|Smallchief|Fieari|Bermicourt|hike395}} - I understand your position regarding the accuracy of statistics on this website. How do you see it's listings in terms of ], does a listing on Peakbagger count as ] in your view? ] (]) 17:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd say it's a reliable source in terms of data, but obviously the blogs/comments are not. So it counts towards general notability. But we could also, by consensus, agree notability for mountains and hills based on a set of criteria such as height, prominence, etc, and only those that fall outside of that would need to pass the GNG test. ] (]) 17:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would say that the relevant notability guideline is ], which states "''Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.''" Peakbagger can only reliably provide statistics and coordinates: nothing else. Therefore Peakbagger cannot be used to establish notability of mountains, ranges, etc. — ] (]) 00:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agree. Peakbagger does not establish notability (nor, in my opinion, does a single source ever establish notability). However, Peakbagger, as stated many times here, is a reliable source for elevation, prominence, and other statistical information.] (]) 01:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Basically this. I have nothing to add, Hike395 said it right. ] (]) 06:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] has nothing about Nigerian newspapers, but references a project-list of them which seems rather too optimistic. It seems to me that these newspapers are filled with completely unreliable promopieces. You can see ], where a completely unknown Nigerian/French person supposedly got a US-only award from President Biden. Not a single source outside Nigeria confirms this, there seems to be no reason at all why she would have received this, but it got reported by , , , , ... | |||
| ===Different kinds of data in Peakbagger=== | |||
| {{U|FOARP}} is saying that Peakbagger is not reliable, because the terms of service says so. But peakbagger has multiple kinds of information in it. It has subjective trip reports, and it has quantitative data about the prominence and isolation. AFAICT, the terms of service are warning users that the subjective trip reports are filled with errors: people who climb mountains should take care not to overly rely on other climbing reports, because climbing is a risky activity. But Misplaced Pages editors are not using peakbagger for the subjective trip reports (which are clearly unreliable). | |||
| We had similar issues with e.g. ], ], and probably many others which I can't find as easily. | |||
| The main question, I think, is whether the quantitative data is reliable and accurate. There are very few sources for mountain ] and ]. Members of ] have been using Peakbagger's prominence and isolation data for many years, and have not found serious systematic errors (unlike GNIS feature data, where I was aware of the errors back in 2010, but got shut down). That's not a guarantee of accuracy by the website, but an empirical validation. | |||
| Isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers which routinely publish such completely unreliable promo pieces as articles? ] (]) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I also think there are two different issues being mixed together here: | |||
| : The problem is that if you deprecated these newspapers, there'd be basically no usable Nigerian sources left, which hardly seems good in terms of attempting to fix Misplaced Pages's coverage biases. I do agree that it is standard practice at a lot of Nigerian newspapers to run effectively undisclosed promotional material, and it seems good to note this somewhere on RSP, but I think deprecating them outright would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ] (]) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Should peakbagger be the basis of creating new articles, and used to check ]? | |||
| :: Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says {{tq| realised that their top quality journalism or influential columnists alone weren’t going to win the battle for eyeballs. Enter “viral content” and clickbait headlines. Press releases were repackaged as news stories, fact-checking and verification became redundant. Aanu Adeoye says, “the traditional gatekeepers of journalism (newspapers) in this country don’t give a hoot about the quality of what they’re churning out daily.” In a few years, stories from Nigeria’s top newspapers looked as hurriedly written as stories from blogs. It had become a game of who could break the news the fastest and who could churn out the most news. Nigerian traditional media beat the upstarts at their own game and occupied spots at the top of Nigeria’s most visited websites. But the true cost of this pyrrhic victory was quality control.}} If even mainstream Nigerian newspapers can't be trusted as factual sources then it's not clear what Nigerian sources can be trusted. ] (]) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Should peakbagger be considered a reliable source of prominence and isolation? | |||
| ::I really don’t get arguments like this one. How does it help Misplaced Pages to use unreliable sources from countries with more limited media landscapes? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::One of Misplaced Pages and the WMF's goals is to be "diverse" and to lessen systemic bias to western nations. Limiting coverage to Western liberal democracies will obviously prevent that. ] (]) 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::How does it help the English Misplaced Pages to eliminate practically all English-language sources for about 1 billion English-speakers? There's not an easy answer, here.--] (] | ]) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Much of the editor population vastly underestimates how much of our reader base comes from these regions of the globe. | |||
| :::Formally deprecating sources is a last resort for widely misused stuff like the ''Daily Mail'' (arguably part of the issue there was the perceived credibility of a mainstream Western paper subject to strict British libel laws). Simply following and enforcing existing P&G should address the issues adequately. | |||
| :::Furthermore, if one of these Nigerian papers were to come under new and improved management or ownership, I doubt WP would take notice with any real celerity. | |||
| :::] (]) 00:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a problem with virtually every newspaper published in Nigeria and India. We cannot simply deprecate all news from two of the largest English speaking countries in the world. Or, we could, but we would get called very racist for doing so. ] (]) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which ''don't'' have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. ] (]) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. ] (]) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. ] (]) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? ] (]) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. ] (]) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It still has a disparate impact in a racially biased manner. ] (]) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No its not, it is based upon lack of truth, no one here has raised race once apart from you. ] (]) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Whatever the ''intention'' banning the entire media ecosystem of a developing country of 230 million people (plus India's 1.43 billion because we would ban them for the same reason) and making our encyclopedia irrelevant to large swathes of the non western world would have a biased ''outcome'' - doesn't matter the intention if it gets you the same result. Is that a sacrifice we are willing to accept? Because if so we need to stop pretending we have any interest in "combatting systemic bias". ] (]) 11:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, in my opinion it hasn’t been shown that reliability issues already aren’t being handled at in a nationally disparate manner. ] (]) 00:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::if these sources want to be accepted as reliable on Misplaced Pages, they should give up their practice of publishing paid news and writing puff pieces for anyone willing to pay. - ] (]) 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If we are going to be banning every single news source of a country of 230 million, then we should be very aware we are doing it. And possibly throw out all the project's virtue signaling over countering systemic bias along with it, if we decide to go that route. ] (]) 10:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::We should allow perpetuation of misinformation on Misplaced Pages because it would be racist not to? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (] or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. ] (]) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Should we do the same and ban all news from India? ] (]) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We should ban all shitty sources. If that wipes out all of India’s news (I’d sure be surprised) then yes. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can't see how it would be preferable to have our coverage of non-Western developing countries be dominated by propaganda, paid-promotion, tabloids, and un-fact-checked reports... ] (]) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No one is suggesting an either-or dichotomy. We should start by enforcing existing policies with regard to usage of these sources on a case by case basis. Mass deprecation was merely an impulsive suggestion someone made somewhere above, and would self-evidently be overkill unless all other options had been exhausted, which they haven’t. Cheers, ] (]) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this claim should be presumed true but not notable. The PVSA award is given out annually by any number of authorized NGOs to their own volunteers without any US government involvement, and it does come with a form letter in the president's name. Ononiwu apparently received hers from Innovate Africa Corp. There's no reason any US press to write up such a thing, and there doesn't seem to be a public database of honorees. Note however that Ononiwu should not have been eligible for the award because she's not a US citizen or permanent resident. I guess these newspapers went along with exaggerating the award's prestige, but I don't see it as a major problem for reliability on facts. ] (]) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it could be worth writing some guidance along the same lines as ], though I'm not sure it rises to the point of a general deprecation yet. ] report might also be helpful in developing such guidance. ] (] • ]) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As with WP:NEWSORGINDIA Nigerian news sources are full of undisclosed advertorials. It's a common practice, so editors need to be cautious with anything that uses promotional language. Their use for establishing notability needs to be seen in a similar light. | |||
| :Formally deprecating all Nigerian news media just isn't an option, in the same way deprecating all India news media with the same issue isn't an option. I would support changing the language of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it highlights the same issue in other countries not just India. I doubt this is an issue limited to those markets, and one that will likely become more of an issue everywhere with the difficulties newsedia currently face. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I recall at least one instance of them churning out AI generated puff pieces e.i and . Oddly enough Daily Times NG is listed as a "generally reliable" source for Nigerian topics at ].- ] (]) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| For the first question, we've had serious problems in creating articles based on geographic databases (FOARP has been extremely helpful in a major cleanup involving thousands of articles based on incorrect data in GNIS). I would be skeptical about creating new articles purely based on Peakbagger + ListsOfJohn + GNIS. | |||
| :There's evidence that their promotional articles aren't reliable. But I've yet to see anyone present evidence here that other kinds of news from these sources are unreliable. Does anyone here have evidence of that? If not, I don't see why we'd deprecate these Nigerian news sources in their entirety, and instead I support Hemiauchenia's having added "Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability" to RS/P, perhaps adding something like "especially for promotional news articles." ] (]) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Since the PROMO issues seem to be localized particularly to biographies, perhaps we could have guidance similar to what we use at NCORP that calls for heightened Nigerian source scrutiny re: independence when it comes to BLPs. Deprecating them just for BLPs might also be an option. ] (]) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I refuse to comment on the instances that led to this proposal because they can happen on a platform with the format adopted by Misplaced Pages. However, I oppose the proposal to deprecate all Nigerian newspapers on English Misplaced Pages. Applying a blanket judgment based on issues with a few outlets among many is unjust and undermines Misplaced Pages's inclusivity. Nigeria's media landscape, shaped by its diverse population of over 500 languages and 300 ethnic groups, plays a critical role in democracy and accountability. | |||
| :"While no media is flawless, treating all Nigerian newspapers as unreliable disregards their contributions and efforts to uphold global standards. Media reliability concerns exist worldwide, yet discussion of this nature is sensitive and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through blanket exclusions. Adopting this precedent ensures fairness and avoids marginalizing voices from the Global South. | |||
| :"I recommend individual evaluations of Nigerian newspapers, involving local expertise and ongoing monitoring, to maintain Misplaced Pages's mission of inclusivity and accuracy. A nuanced approach will preserve diversity and strengthen the platform's credibility."] (]) 02:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Yes banning falsehoods is a sacrifice I am willing to make, be they from White people black people, or yellow people. As I said about Fiox and the Daily Myth, if you do not want to be accused of telling lies, there is a simpler solution, do not tell them. This is my last response here with a firm '''not reliable'''. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind, but it has to be proof and not emotive appeals to (so-called) fairness. ] (]) 11:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I would suggest that the discussion here analyze the reliability of Peakbagger ''for prominence and isolation''. Either: | |||
| :{{tq|1=or yellow people}}<br>Uhhh.... ] (]) 18:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Peakbagger is considered a reliable source of prominence and isolation, or | |||
| ::Obviously meant as in "persons of any color, including colors in which persons don’t exist" and not a reference to the antique Western epithet for East Asians <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * We have to consider removing many of the prominence and isolation data points from WP. | |||
| :::It's not "obvious", even to those of us who have interacted with Slatersteven enough to presume he wasn't intending to use a racial epithet. ] (]) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm against this. Nigerian sources, like all sources, are entitled to be evaluated one by one. ] (]) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)=== | |||
| :We are still fundamentally discussing a ]. Where does the data, for, say come from? What is the editorial policy that ensures it is correct? How about which states "this peak was submitted to the Peakbagger.com database by <name>"? I've seen nothing in this discussion that would have made me reconsider my original assessment of '''unreliable for factual information'''. If the result is that that Misplaced Pages needs to re-reference a lot of stuff, that is unfortunate, but that amount of potential work is completely immaterial for the reliability question. -] (]) 20:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I've gone ahead and created a new section covering Nigerian news organisations at RSP ]. It's a bit stubby at the moment but it's at least a start. ] (]) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* "this peak was submitted to the Peakbagger.com database by <name>" was merely a suggestion/request by a user that the peak be added to the database, not that the user added the data. The webmaster is always the only one to add the data. The user generally wants the peak added to they can add it to their list of personal ascents.] (]) 20:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ron is correct: there is an editorial process from turning a user-submitted "provisional" peak into a peak in the full database, see . | |||
| ::::My issue here is: checked how? Checked against USGS information? And if that's the case, again, why don't we refer to the USGS directly? I'm not sure prominence and isolation really are so trivial to calculate that we can safely leave this in the hands of what appears to be an amateur website: the maths involved are relatively simple, but the choice of input data to use does not appear to be. ] (]) 09:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|FOARP}} USGS does not provide prominence or isolation, so we cannot refer to USGS. As I've said below, there's no governmental source for prominence or isolation anywhere. | |||
| :::::You're right, the computation is not trivial. I've found a peer-reviewed paper about running the computation at scale,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kirmse|first1=Andrew|first2=Jonathan |last2=de Ferranti|title=Calculating the prominence and isolation of every mountain in the world|doi=10.1177/0309133317738163|journal=Progress in Physical Geography|volume=41|issue=6|year=2017|page=788-802}}</ref> by ], previously a Distinguished Engineer at Google who managed ]. The results from the paper are provided in a . Kirmse provides more details about the computation . That detailed web page is worth reading. A few things to note: | |||
| :::::* Kirmse refers back to both Peakbagger and ListsOfJohn as tests for his computation | |||
| :::::* Kirmse's computation matches Peakbagger within 5% error 90% of the time. Kirmse seems to attribute the errors to problems in his own data. | |||
| :::::* Kirmse based his algorithm on WinProm code by Edward Earl, published in Helman's book. Earl ran Peakbagger until 2015, when he died in a mountaineering accident. Peakbagger has the original (although less scalable) WinProm code. Because Earl came up with the prominence algorithm, I would not characterize Peakbagger as a "amateur website", but as a primary source for prominence and isolation data. | |||
| :::::* Kirme's data is innately less accurate than Peakbagger. Kirmse (like GNIS) bases his computation on ]s, which are less accurate than Peakbagger, which bases the computation on the best point elevations provided by governments. In mountains where there are high spatial gradients, DEMs are definitely inferior. | |||
| :::::Here's my conclusion. Peakbagger is a ] ]. The editors of Peakbagger do not appear to pass the bar of published subject-matter experts. Kirmse's paper appears to be a ] by a ]. Kirmse is a ] for Peakbagger. | |||
| :::::I don't want to propose any major changes to 5,000+ mountain articles without having other mountain editors participate in the discussion. {{ping|Droll|RedWolf|Volcanoguy|Buaidh|Jo-Jo Eumerus}} The reliability of Peakbagger has been called into question (see above). What is the best way to reliably source prominence and isolation data? — ] (]) 15:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I entirely sympathise with not wanting to make changes to lots of articles. Indeed, I'm OK with leaving these articles generally as-is and filling them out slowly with information from e.g., newspapers to make them full notability passes. What I will say is we have a general problem with many thousands of GEO articles being written solely on not-very-reliable database data (primarily GNIS and GNS) and it is more important to make sure that we don't generate thousands more problematic articles and make the problem worse. ] (]) 09:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It strikes me as a bizarre thought that once a prominence figure has been published in a newspaper (a reliable one, I hope) we can give it a {{tq|full notability pass}}. First, surely we are not discussing notability (are we?) but verifiability. Second, where do we suppose the newspaper reporter obtained their data? Is our increased reliance because we believe that if what they publish is wrong they may be criticised, sued or forced to a retraction? ] (]) 12:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{U|FOARP}} If your goal was to prevent non-notable articles being made from geographic databases (which I heartily agree with), we didn't need to have this discussion. ] says that notability should be established by secondary sources. Geographic databases are primary sources: there is no analysis, just data. ] says that if only basic statistics about a natural feature are known (as in a database), then the subject is not notable. We should not start articles purely based on Peakbagger and/or ListsOfJohn and/or GNIS. | |||
| ::::::::By determining that Peakbagger is not a reliable source, we have to either throw out prominences and isolation on 5,000+ articles, or figure out an alternative reliable source. It's frustrating that Kirmse's prominence data is more "reliable" (according to ]), but less accurate than the curated data in Peakbagger (according to Kirmse himself). I realize that ] shouldn't apply to this large number of articles, but I believe deprecating Peakbagger will make Misplaced Pages worse. I predict other editors at WikiProject Mountains will agree with that. — ] (]) 13:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::From where does Peakbagger get its information? --]] 13:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::As far as I can tell from Kirmse: Greg Slayden (the editor at Peakbagger) uses the WinProm program to determine the ] and ] based on a digital elevation map. He then uses USGS benchmark data (if available) or topo map data (if not) to compute the prominence, verifying that any benchmark corresponds to the named feature. Slayden does not appear to be a published subject-matter expert (by WP's definition). — ] (]) 13:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::If that is the case, then his information is ''not'' reliable under ] definitions. He is not an expert, his work is not checked by experts, and there's no review or editorial process for the information he posts. The information from the website ''should not be used'' at Misplaced Pages, and ''should not have been used'' at all. The "5000+ articles" issue is a problem caused by using an obviously unreliable source to begin with; if someone had been following the rules years ago those 5000+ articles would already be in compliance. --]] 13:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::] - I agree with you that it should be possible to address the problem of the creation of large numbers of GEO articles based on dubious sourcing at AFD. This is, however, not my experience at AFD. AFD is always far too late (often by a decade+ given how many articles were created circa 2008) to actually address the problem of article-creation based on purely statistical data. The many thousands of GEO articles sourced purely to GNIS/GNS, and created at a rate of 2-3 a minute in article creation campaigns, being the most obvious example. | |||
| ::::::::::::Nobody said that these 5,000 articles would have to edited at once. We already have so much more dubiously sourced information, in such a large quantity on Misplaced Pages, that those 5,000 articles will not be a priority. What we need to stop is adding any more dubiously-sourced information. Ultimately, we do not <u>have</u> to have such data - hobbyists (who are the ones that this data is of interest to) can always just refer to Peakbagger directly. We can instead have more encyclopaedic information about the topic (e.g., it's history). | |||
| ::::::::::::As a final point, if Kirmse's calculations don't match Slayden's, that points to these calculations being non-trivial to do given that if Slayden is a subject-matter expert then so surely is Kirmse. (EDIT: also entirely second what {{no ping|Jayron32}} says - the 5,000 articles thing is an ] argument) ] (]) 13:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I agree with {{no ping|FOARP|Jayron32}} above, especially the point about hobbyists. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> ]</span> 13:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Subsection questions=== | |||
| ::Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. ] (]) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I am going to add subsection questions below. It would be helpful, I think if those 'in the know' answer them with cites or links if possible ] (]) 20:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC) : ] (]) 20:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ====Why does prominence matter?==== | |||
| ::::I'm not saying that their judgment is poor or that Nigerian editors are inferior in any way, but that there are issues with Nigerian press across the board, such as low press freedom that is very different from say, news sources in Western Europe and North America, which should be kept in mind with evaluating their content. ] (]) 21:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :] is an objective measure of the "peakiness" of a peak. Many mountains are massifs, with many subpeaks. Prominence is a measure of how far down you need to walk from a subpeak before you go back up to the next main peak. Subpeaks with low prominence (e.g., {{convert|100|ft|m|-1}} are not considered significant peaks, and don't make it onto peak lists. See — ] (]) 20:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I encourage you to engage with folks at ] as you develop guidance on Nigerian media. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Topographic prominence is related to how much climbing is required to reach a peak from a point that is higher, specifically from its ]. In ], 4352 meter ] has prominence of about 844 meters from its line parent ]. On the other hand, the only slightly lower 4349 meter ] has a prominence of only about 171 meters from its line parent which is nearby Grays Peak. ]<span style="font-size:75%;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 23:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I second this. I conversion about Nigeria WP should not be done without Nigerians editors involvement. Just because you found something wrong in some sources that doesn’t give you the right to assume all is bad. I can literally give you examples of where , in 2024! So let’s listen to these editors as they are more familiar with these sources. ] (]) 07:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Reliable sources can churn out a lot of rubbish once in a while. No matter what anyone says, the likes of Vanguard, Guardian, Daily Times, Punch, Daily Independent, The Sun, etc, would always be notable relating to general issues about Nigeria. Some weeks back, a state in Nigeria held their governorship election. These media houses in question were the source of verified information about the election. When a political appointment is made by the president, it is the same media houses that Misplaced Pages editors would use to establish the claim. If we make them unreliable, it means we are putting an end to Nigerian contents on English Misplaced Pages. These media houses will dish out promotional materials whenever they want and we can do nothing about it (it is business for them). All we can do as Wikipedians is to speedy norminate articles for deletion if they are not notable to be on the Wiki. The major issue we are having now is a result of a loophole in the notability criteria. GNG should not be used '''ALONE''' to establish notability. ] (]) 10:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ====Who does prominence matter to?==== | |||
| ::If these media houses(e.g The Daily Times) are churning out AI generated puff pieces then we should indeed add a cautionary clause in the guideline that care must be taken when using these sources to establish notability, especially at venues such as AfD. - ] (]) 12:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Readers of mountain articles may wish to know prominence, in order to tell whether the peak is a true peak, or simply a bump on a larger mountain. — ] (]) 21:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :GNG still works. The sources have to be independent. What this means is that in the case of Nigerian media, it's tricky but necessary to try and determine if a particular report is independent of the subject.--] (] | ]) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Since prominence is somewhat related to the difficulty of a climb, it often matters more than elevation itself to climbers and mountain nerds like myself. ]<span style="font-size:75%;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 00:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Judging articles on a case-by-case basis is something we (Nigerian editors) are already doing and believe it or not, we’re doing a damn good job at it. Deprecating these sources means that articles on Nigerian topics would be deleted in batches——thousands, if I might add——and this doesn’t necessarily reflect the systemic bias we are supposed to be fighting. | |||
| :There are tells that give off a sponsored/paid article and every Nigerian editor in good standing already knows this and by this, I vehemently disagree with Hemiauchenia that Nigerian editors are not able to distinguish a reliable source from an unreliable source. | |||
| :Also, I think sometimes, what we consider as “poor journalism” (in the Western standard) are just Nigerian journalist (correctly) using ] to write articles that it seems like it is promo. This does not mean that undisclosed paid journalism does not happen but sometimes, we confuse the two. So, this is me opposing any form deprecations as this will have unintended consequences. Best, ] 12:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have ] that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - ] (]) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], uhm, if Indian editors did so, someone took the liberty of doing it for us (]): ]; no one is opposing it. Best, ] 16:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It is true that Nigerian news outlet like their Western counterparts (RSBIAS?) do publish opinions, promotional and advertorials like reliable news without explicitly marking them as much. In fact, this has long history in and it is mostly associated with UPE editors who want to create contents for their gain. | |||
| ====Are there national or international organizations, who deal with it?==== | |||
| :I've been editing mountain articles for >18 years now, and I know of no governmental or international or standards bodies that compute either prominence or isolation. — ] (]) 21:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Government agencies are not concerned with ], although they provide the elevation and topographic data required to calculate topographic prominence. Most mountain climbing organizations rely on other sources (e.g, peakbagger.com and Misplaced Pages) to calculate topographic prominence for them. The ] and the ] have historically only been concerned with summit elevation, although topographic prominence has more recently become a concern. If a climber or organization finds a discrepancy with a calculated topographic prominence, hopefully they will let us know. ]<span style="font-size:75%;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 00:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Yet, deprecating Nigerian sources is not the solution. It will definitely do more harm than good to the visibility of the most populous black nation on earth. This means that we would have no reliable source to either curate or create contents. This is just an indirect way of saying that Nigerian content is no longer acceptable on English Misplaced Pages. This is because reliable sources are the backbone of contents creation. | |||
| ====Why does isolation matter?==== | |||
| Prior to this discussion, we have been sending a lot of articles with promotional sources to ]. This is what we can do from our end. We can neither stop people creating them nor stop the media from doing their business. | |||
| {{ping|Buaidh}} you have added isolation data and lists to many articles, do you wish to answer this? — ] (]) 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :] is also known as ], an apt description. Isolation is the minimum distance you would need to travel to reach a point of equal or greater elevation. In mountainous regions, isolation may be short for any but the highest summit. In relatively flat regions, the highest summit may have a very long isolation. ]<span style="font-size:75%;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 00:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Also, there is currently a section at ] tagged ] notifying reviewers and editors of caution in dealing with Nigeria sources. This alongside thorough analysis of Nigerian sources should drastically reduce the promotional articles and create a better future for Nigerian contents on the English Misplaced Pages.] (]) 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ====Who does isolation matter to?==== | |||
| :We cannot disregard Nigerian sources entirely. Yes, there are issues with some outlets, such as publishing promotional content or reworded press releases, but this isn’t unique to Nigeria. Even in countries with established media systems, there are sources that can’t always be trusted. The solution isn’t to write off all Nigerian sources but to evaluate them individually. Some articles might be biased or promotional, and we can avoid those. However, there are also credible reports and investigative pieces from Nigerian media that meet our standards. By treating each source on a case-by-case basis, we strike a balance, avoiding systemic bias while ensuring the content we use is reliable. A blanket approach would only create more gaps in coverage, which isn’t what we want for Misplaced Pages. And as {{u|Reading Beans}} mentioned, we Nigerian editors are already doing a good work judging sources on a case-by-case basis. ''''']''''' ] 17:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| High isolation summits present a wonderful challenge to climbers in regions that are not overrun with folks who try to collect as many high peaks as they can in as short a period of time as possible (e.g., the ] and the ].) ]<span style="font-size:75%;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 00:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ], the only keep argument is based on just the above "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?". This is why they should not be acceptable because content is being created (and defended) using dubious sources (on the very grounds those sources are being defended here, false allegations of racism or false balance). ] (]) 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Such a statement from a suspected UPE with limited knowledge around ] and ] shouldn't hold water let alone be used as a basis or argument for the deprecation of an sources of information. The volunteer are doing enormous tasks to ensure content that doesn't meet the English Misplaced Pages standard is nominated for deletion. ] (]) 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ====Are there national or international organizations, who deal with it?==== | |||
| :{{u|Slatersteven}}, like already stated above, every sources presented in an AfD discussion is analysed carefully. FYI, majority of !delete votes there are Nigerian editors and the only keep !vote there being the paid creator (whom I suspect of UPE). If you can get a deletion discussion where a non-notable article was kept and defend with unreliable sources, I would appreciate it. Like the examples shown, the unreliable of the published articles were always pointed out and the articles were (correctly) deleted. Best, ] 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Government agencies are not concerned with ], although they provide the elevation and horizontal position data required to calculate topographic isolation. Most mountain climbing organizations rely on other sources (e.g, peakbagger.com and Misplaced Pages) to calculate topographic isolation for them. If a climber or organization finds a discrepancy with a calculated topographic isolation, hopefully they will let us know. ]<span style="font-size:75%;vertical-align:middle;"> ] ]</span> 00:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::No. No. No. my friend, @], I have told you ever and anon that this editor is not into UPE. So STOP THE SUSPICION and even voicing it out. It is affecting the reviewing of my articles. It is a blessing in disguise that my article brought this intense discussion. My take away from here is the guide being created for Nigerian sources and the caution I will employ in future creations. ] (]) 18:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :What I'm seeing in that AfD, and in the others mentioned that all ended in deletion, is editors using their own good judgement to deal with this issue. Hopefully the new advice at NEWSORGNIGERIA will help encourage other editors to use the same caution. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :], if someone argues "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?", the response should be "no, we don't. We're rejecting notability based on these specific Nigerian articles, because (a) the articles being used to assert notability all focus on a single "event," (b) the articles are extremely similar and might have been content farmed, especially since they seem overly promotional (e.g., it's not a "prestigous" award, it's solely based on number of hours volunteered and being nominated by a relevant organization), and (c) US government info about the award makes it clear that she's not eligible for that award (as she's not a US citizen or permanent resident), which means that ''these'' articles aren't reliable for ''this'' content. But the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do ''you'' have evidence of the latter? ] (]) 23:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which is what Im did say, more than once. To me met with stonewalling "but that's racism" comments (and still am), at which point if the best argument you have is emotive, I have to assume you have no others, thus Im assume its an accepted problem with them. And as this is about "reputation for fact-checking" and the best argument is "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism"...well I have to assume they dio not have said reputation.] (]) 10:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, but I'm not sure what the referent of "them" is in "Im assume its an accepted problem with them." | |||
| :::As for the rest, my argument ''isn't'' "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism." My argument is "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable ''doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable''. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do '''you''' have evidence of the latter?" You still haven't presented any evidence that articles from Nigerian news media are ''generally'' unreliable. Either you have evidence for that or you don't. ] (]) 14:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] ]. ] (]) 11:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Did you actually read those articles? Neither one makes any mention of any of the Nigerian news outlets identified in the OP. The BBC piece is about ''new'' websites "established around the time of Nigeria's general elections in February 2023." The SSRC piece is about "the spread of disinformation and ''how social media has only furthered this spread'' by providing new, fast-moving arenas for confirming and amplifying such false information" in Nigeria, including uptake by traditional news media, while noting that "The increasing threat to democratic institutions posed by disinformation is a ''global phenomenon''." ] (]) 14:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Vangaurd and The nation ]. ] (]) 14:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::"This story is part of a series by the BBC on disinformation and fake news - ''a global problem'' challenging the way we share information and perceive the world around us," where this particular article focused on the "spread of fake news in Africa" by looking at how five false stories — one each from five African countries, including Nigeria — was picked up by some news media in those countries. Yes, "The Nation and the Vanguard, both published stories with a very similar theme" to one of those false stories, but absolutely nothing in the BBC article suggests that Nigerian news media are ''generally unreliable''. Is there any country globally where the BBC couldn't write an analogous report? For example, another BBC in this series is "How President Trump took 'fake news' into the mainstream." ] (]) 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You have it in reverse, we judge a source on its reputation for fact-checking, I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not, it down to you to show they do, We do not judge sources based upon how local editors will police pagers, but on the sources alone. ] (]) 13:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{tq|I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not ]}} No, you haven't. Nothing you cited says anything about their reputation or suggests that they're ''generally unreliable''. If you believe that something you cited provided evidence of ''general unreliability'', please quote what you have in mind. {{tq|it down to you to show they do}} I haven't claimed that they have a reputation for fact-checking, so I have no burden to prove that they do (and more generally, if you want me to show something that I've said is true, just quote it, so we're both clear about the claim in question). What I said is (again): "the fact that ''these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable'' doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are ''generally unreliable''. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter." Fram proposed "to formally deprecate these newspapers," and you responded with "a firm '''not reliable'''." Since you're claiming that they're ''generally unreliable'', you have a burden to show that they're ''generally unreliable''. ] (]) 14:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I finally dug up an old AfD comment I'd made after reading a bunch of literature on Nigerian sources:{{pb}}Nigerian newspapers in particular are well known to on paid advertising. {{tq|Professor Omenugha describes a similar trend in the print media: “In the newspapers, the so called specialised pages of the property, IT and computer businesses and finance pages are prime examples of commercialised spaces. The point is that no attempt is made to let the audience or readers know that these spaces are paid for and they end up holding them as sacred as they would news”.}} {{tq|Some journalists also work as paid consultants to politicians and businesses thus threatening professionalism. AIT’s Amarere says it is demeaning to journalism as “some of the concerned journalists now work for companies through which they obtain jobs. They cover their track by saying they are staff of this or that company and run offices outside the newsroom. In this situation it is difficult to balance profession with commercial interest”.}} "Awards" issued by media are also considered corrupt. {{tq|“The awards are not free, they are for money and anything that comes with a prize has implications”, says Olumide Adeyinka-Fusika, a lawyer. “If a newspaper names a bank as the best bank of the year and the bank is later indicted for corruption, that newspaper will not be willing to publish the story because that will be like passing a vote of no confidence on their own judgement”.}} ] (]) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Here are some other references: {{pb}}{{tq|For example, such practices as pack journalism by beat associations of journalists which operate like cartels, the payment of protection fees by reputation managers of institutions, the granting of awards of dubious credibility to non deserving individuals and organisations are some of the ways in which corruption manifests in the media.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|Even though over 64 % of those sampled believed that acceptance of any form of gratifications was unethical, over 75 % of the<br>journalists engage in corrupt practices with impunity. More than half of the 18 media outfits covered by the study are indifferent to certain identified corrupt practices in their organizations.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|Adewale (2008), in his "The Rot in Nigerian Journalism Is Much Deeper Than We Thought" cited a controversial statement by Graham Greene to back up his position thus: "A petty reason perhaps why novelists more and more try to keep a distance from journalists is that novelists are trying to write the truth and journalists are trying to write fiction". This embarrassing irony aptly describes the state of Nigerian journalism and journalists in particular.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|In its mildest form, press releases are published almost verbatim. Reporters either have an agreement with the government media men and are ‘settled’ with money, or threatened they will not be paid what is known as ‘qua”, or ‘mobilisation”. Some papers don’t pay salaries, and journalists have to make what they can on commission. In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men. Newspapers have a straight conflict of interest, they are financially reliant on political adverts, full-page colour hagiographies to governors and other political players. Last year, one paper alone took an estimated £270,000 in advertisements on one edition from supporters of former military ruler Ibrahim Babangida, celebrating his birthday.}} ] (]) 01:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think we need something similar to ] for Nigerian media as well. - ] (]) 03:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@] the "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome" is an auto-expiring link that doesn't let anyone else use it. Could you provide a better link/where you found the original link? ] (]) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Clicking the link from should work. ] (]) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::All seriousness aside, {{tq|In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men}} - those powerful men should just buy the newspaper or hell even a whole media empire to rebroadcast their personal opinions. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I was pointed to this discussion by @] after a similar discussion when I ran across ]. It does seem like much of Nigerian media simply writes whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay for. It seems like these sources should simply be banned except in cases where it is clear that the article was not purchased. ]] 00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{ctop|unhelpful ChatGPT wall of text}} | |||
| ::::::::My humble take and summary from these deep debates: | |||
| ::::::::'''Analysis of Nigerian Newspapers as Sources for Misplaced Pages Articles''' | |||
| ::::::::The reliability of Nigerian newspapers as sources for Misplaced Pages articles—particularly in Biographies of Living People (BLPs)—has ignited considerable debate within the Misplaced Pages editing community. A complex interplay of skepticism regarding the veracity of these sources and the recognition of systemic biases in coverage dynamics has led to high-stakes discussions. This report delves into the characteristics of Nigerian newspapers that contribute to their portrayal as unreliable, as well as those that underscore their potential value as information sources, and the broader implications for Misplaced Pages's commitment to inclusivity and diverse representation. | |||
| ::::::::'''Characteristics Leading to Distrust''' | |||
| ::::::::Nigerian newspapers often face criticism for their propensity to publish promotional content, undisclosed advertorials, and sensibly sensationalized reporting. This trend raises significant concerns regarding the integrity of journalism in the country. A primary issue is the commercial influence on editorial decisions, wherein advertising dollars can lead to the suppression of unfavorable stories or the propagation of misleading information to satisfy financial backers. | |||
| ::::::::High-profile examples, such as the case of a female personality—where numerous Nigerian news outlets reported unverified claims regarding an award from America—underscored the media’s failure to provide corroborative sources from outside Nigeria. Such instances not only reveal a troubling trend toward questionable journalism but also invite closer scrutiny of the claims made by various outlets. | |||
| :::::::: | |||
| ::::::::The environment fostered by these publications has seen a shift toward prioritizing clickable, viral content over factual reporting. This prioritization can obscure quality journalism and make it increasingly difficult for both editors and readers to discern credible information from misleading narratives. Such practices contribute significantly to the stigma that Nigerian newspapers face in the eyes of the Misplaced Pages community. | |||
| ::::::::'''Reliability in Context''' | |||
| ::::::::While there exists a notable trend of unreliable reporting among many Nigerian newspapers, it is critical to contextualize this within the broader media landscape of Nigeria. Not all publications succumb to dubious practices; several outlets continue to uphold high journalistic standards, successfully publishing well-researched investigative reports and reliable coverage of current events. For instance, reputable newspapers often play an essential role in reporting on significant political developments, including elections, thereby contributing positively to public discourse. | |||
| ::::::::From the perspective of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for sourcing (specifically WP:RSNP), engaging in a case-by-case assessment of sources is pivotal. This approach emphasizes the necessity for editors well-versed in the Nigerian media landscape to identify which sources maintain their integrity and contribute substantively to Misplaced Pages’s mission. A blanket rejection or deprecation of all Nigerian sources would, therefore, overlook the valuable contributions that some publications make, ultimately hampering the representation of Nigerian voices in global discourse. | |||
| ::::::::'''Recommendations for Misplaced Pages Editors''' | |||
| ::::::::1. '''Develop Specific Guidelines''': Create detailed guidelines akin to those for other regions, such as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. This document should articulate the acceptable use of Nigerian sources while pinpointing common issues like promotional materials and the nature of reporting practices. Such clarity will assist editors in evaluating sources effectively. | |||
| ::::::::2. '''Engage Local Expertise:''' Encourage the involvement of Nigerian editors in determining the reliability of local sources. Their unique insights can significantly enhance the community's understanding of the nuances of language and reporting styles prevalent in Nigeria. | |||
| ::::::::3. '''Enforce Critical Scrutiny''': Emphasize the importance of thorough evaluations of articles from Nigerian newspapers, particularly regarding BLPs. Editors and reviewers should be trained to recognize promotional language and ensure the use of independent, verifiable sources. | |||
| ::::::::4. '''Adapt to Changes in Media Landscape''': Continuously monitor and research the evolving landscape of Nigerian media, documenting improvements in journalistic integrity and the emergence of new, credible news organizations. This ongoing reassessment will allow Misplaced Pages policies regarding sourcing to adapt in line with current practices. | |||
| :::::::: 5. '''Maintain a Balance in Coverage''': While it is essential to prioritize accurate information and avoid systemic bias, it is equally crucial to reflect the diverse perspectives from non-Western countries. Dismissing all Nigerian sources could marginalize important voices, undermining Misplaced Pages's mission of being a comprehensive encyclopedia. | |||
| ::::::::Finally, the integration of Nigerian newspapers into Misplaced Pages remains a multifaceted challenge that requires a balanced approach acknowledging both their shortcomings and their capacity for delivering credible information. By applying informed scrutiny and developing nuanced guidelines, Misplaced Pages can adeptly navigate the complexities involved in sourcing from Nigerian media while committing to enhancing its inclusivity and representation in global knowledge sharing. ] (]) 18:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That's not "your humble take", that's a bloated ChatGPT-generated regurgitation of this discussion. ] (]) 21:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{cbot}} | |||
| *'''Comment''' pretty much everything has already been said; the news media in Nigeria seem to be in the habit of puffing everyone and everything. As with the Indian news sources, we almost have to evaluate each news story on a case-by-case basis. We can keep Nigerian sources, but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability. The sources in the country are in the habit of puffy reporting, we just have to learn to use them. ] (]) 01:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'd be ok if we create a policy similar to the NewsOrgIndia ... We allow the sources, but to be taken with a grain of salt. ] (]) 01:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::See ]. What did you mean by “…{{tq|but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability.}}”? Best, ] 05:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@]'s addition of ] is helpful but the link to the unvetted WikiProject list is not, in my opinion. It lists, for example, ] as "reliable" which is the publication I ] which seemed to have drawn the conclusion to disregard promo and use with caution. It also lists pretty much every newspaper which reported inaccurately sparking this thread as "reliable" | |||
| *:Beyond the issue of promo, "Nigeria is one of West Africa’s most dangerous and difficult countries for journalists, who are regularly monitored, attacked and arbitrarily arrested, as was the case during the 2023 elections." ]] 10:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@] What sort of opinionated and unstructured comment did you just make? What do you mean by "unvetted WikiProject list"? Do you, by any chance, know the efforts I and few other editors who are Nigerians have put to bring up that list? Please be careful when making comments, especially when the topic has to do with one you're not entirely familiar with. As far as I am concerned, you cannot call a list which I have put efforts in contributing to "unvetted", the comment is not only unreasonable but also incorrect. | |||
| *::I couldn't locate the thread you linked but whatever you brough up there are your opinion. I know the efforts I have been putting at AfD when it comes to Nigerian sources. Be careful, please, with all due respect. | |||
| *::In a more general note, this thread is not going anywhere, '']'' is a reliable source of information whether anyone "who is not a Nigerian" likes it or not, in fact, any source listed in the WikiProject as reliable is indeed reliable. The Herald, Guardian, New York Times, and other UK or US papers all publish nonsense piece as well, no one is permitted to call Nigerian sources unreliable because there are only a few Nigerian editors? I can't tell. I guess when this thread was initiated it was thought that there'd be no editor to oppose. SMH. ] (]) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The link they are referring to has been archived, see ].<br>In regard to {{tq|who is not a Nigerian}} There are many non-Nigerians who don't agree with the comment that started this thread. I both support and encourage projects to maintain there own sources lists, as they most likely to have knowledge of that particular area, but they are subject to ] and so from to time discussions like this will happen. The net result of this discussion has been ], which only writes down the advice that has been given in many other discussions. | |||
| *:::If any editor wants to discuss a particular source they believe has issue outside of what's already covered by ] I suggest they start a new section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::@] last time we discussed This Day, you pointed out that they . Currently, top of the advertorials is . As you noted, there is no indication on the article that this is an advertorial and it looks like a normal news item. . | |||
| *::::How can this be a reliable source when advertorials are completely indistinguishable from reporting? ]] 15:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Because otherwise it would result in the making all news organisations in multiple countries completely unusable, and it wouldn't be limited to India and Nigeria. Such undisclosed advertorials are common in a lot of countries, and will likely become more common not less due to the changes effecting news media across the globe. It wouldn't help to improve the encyclopedia by saying that such vast swathes of the news media are generally unreliable, and in many ways that isn't a fit description for the sources. They are reliable for many things, but not for the promotional nature of these advertorials. | |||
| *:::::As has been said before the AfDs show that noone is being fooled. Editors are correctly spotting when this is happening and acting accordingly. Promo content being added to Misplaced Pages is certainly not an issue limited to these countries, just look to all the reputation management companies found elsewhere. | |||
| *:::::Ultimately it's what effect should be had. We don't want those advertorials being used to add promo content to Misplaced Pages, that is achieved by ]. So do we need to class all those news media organisations as generally unreliable, will that help to improve the encyclopedia? I very much doubt it would. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Are they? How are they being spotted? For example, see ] - there are many sources here but every single one of them appears more dubious than the two advertorial examples linked above. For an active AfD, see ]. It was moved out of drafts by an editor who is now blocked and the editors voting keep simply insist that the sources are reliable without any evaluation. ]] 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::(Pinging you is difficult) Let me be blunter, you deletion rationale in that AfD {{tq|Sources all appear to be ]}} is not only unappealing but also vague. Why? you simply said that "ALL" of them are NEWSORGNIGERIA without telling us what analysis you did that made you come to that conclusion. I figured since we're not doing anything in-dept here, it would make sense to also tell you, since this area is my expertise, that the subject clear-cut passed GNG. If you did any analysis and showed it, then we'd be discussing what you analysed and not something else. ] (]) 18:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I do not get the impression that advertorials are regularly passed off as real news in countries with strong protections for journalism. What the academic papers I linked earlier were emphasizing is that Nigeria has a striking systematic problem with unethical journalism that goes beyond what is seen in respectable broadsheets (the "brown envelope syndrome" being one example) and appears to affect ''all'' major outlets. The last link talks about an egregious political advert for Babangida's birthday that ran in the ]—listed as generally reliable—and characterizes the newspapers as being ''reliant'' upon such revenue sources. Some of the other journals note that several newspapers don't even pay their journalists; surely at least those should be considered generally unreliable? ] (]) 02:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Not sure why you're responding with so much emotion. It would be better to discuss this dispassionately. Your reply doesn't actually explain why a publication like This Day, which publishes disguised promotions, should be viewed as reliable. @] also provides very compelling evidence above which has not been rebutted. ]] 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Maybe the rather emotionally charged use of "unvetted" to describe another editors work had something to do with it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::So, my reply is emotional to you, and you think I am dispassionate, lol. I'll entirely ignore this your comment. ] (]) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| People may defend ], but when I see that e.g. The Nation is considered "generally reliable" but publishes (with a byline!) e.g. pure promo drivel (used in a new article here, not something I went looking for especially), then it is hard to take that list or the defense of it seriously. It turns out to be (at least in part) a copy of a four year old article from the Vanguard, not some actual journalistic effort by the Nation, but how could one tell? ] (]) 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Is there documented custom in the relevant off wiki community for reliance on educated amateurs for this?==== | |||
| *<strike>'''Oppose blanket ban'''.</strike> The proponents of the ban have failed to actually demonstrate that ''all'' Nigerian newspapers have ''always'' been unreliable. As far as I can see, the evidence presented does not, for example, give any indication that the Lagos Daily News or the Daily Times were unreliable in 1925. In fact, they do not even appear to have been mentioned. , actually cited above, claims that the quality of Nigerian newspapers was better before the internet. , also cited above, only applies to the South-West geo-political zone, and not the other five geo-political zones (something not mentioned above). We need to take one newspaper at a time, and we need to look beyond the last five minutes. ] (]) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I think "educated amateurs" may be a biased way of describing it. As far as I can tell, there is a small community of GIS people who compute prominence. A history of the term is described here: The USGS , but does not offer its own computation. Mathworks (the company that makes Matlab) offers (and isolation, too). | |||
| **There has been no proposal to blanket ban all Nigerian Newspapers, so you are bold opposing a strawman. ] (]) 10:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***Expressions such as "isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers" do look like proposals for a blanket ban. Everyone else in this thread seems to think that this is a proposal for a blanket ban. If you are not proposing a blanket ban, perhaps you should rephrase your comments in grammatically and semantically correct plain language that other people can actually understand. Anyway, in view of the statement that there is no proposal for a blanket ban, I have struck my !vote. ] (]) 12:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *** FWIW, I too, interpreted it as a blanket ban, and it's clear from people's comments that many other people did as well. Glad to know that that's not what you meant. ] (]) 16:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would support RSNG in that I would support projects creating source lists. How specific sources are listed on RSNG is first a matter of discussion at the project level (as the list is only at the project level), and RSN if there is no agreement there. This is the same for all project level lists. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| One of the main people in the community is Alan Dawson, who published<ref>{{cite book | |||
| | last=Dawson | |||
| | first=Alan | |||
| | title=The Hewitts and Marilyns of England | |||
| | year=1997 | |||
| | publisher=TACit Press | |||
| | location=Glasgow | |||
| | isbn=0-9522680-7-8}}</ref>, and participated in creating Peaklist.com. An important book on the topic is by Adam Helman<ref>{{cite book|last=Helman|first=Adam|year=2005|title=The Finest Peaks - Prominence and Other Mountain Measures|location=United States|publisher=Trafford Publishing}}</ref> About the community, Helman states, "The community of prominence theoreticians, list builders, and climbers have reached a critical mass --- one that finally suggested the elaboration and publication of a book dedicated exclusively to the subject." | |||
| ===Brainstorming RfCs=== | |||
| As far as I can tell, here is a list of websites that actually use the software and publish the results: | |||
| It is clear that referring to the overly optimistic ] is not a good approach to determine the current reliability of some Nigerian newspapers. If we were to reconsider the status of e.g. ], to list it as e.g. "generally unreliable", what question should be posted in an RfC? Should we first try to find a cut-off date (i.e. "no longer generally reliable from year X on")? Are the above examples and reports sufficient, or is more needed? Or would it be easier to change ], correcting "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability. Wikiproject Nigeria has assembled a list of sources that they consider reliable/unreliable: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources." to "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability and verifiability", adding "verifiability" and removing the link to the project-based list? ] (]) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Peakbagger.com | |||
| * Peaklist.com | |||
| * The Database of British and Irish Hills (http://www.hills-database.co.uk/) | |||
| * ListsOfJohn | |||
| * County Highpointers Association (www.cohp.com) | |||
| :::] (Helman's publisher) is a well-known self/vanity-publishing imprint. I can't find any information that would substantiate TACit Press (Dawson's publisher) as an established imprint or not (EDIT: EDIT2: , though the book is essentially just a pamphlet for hobbyists). ] (]) 09:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| :I think correcting WP:RSNP is a good start, simply by undoing which there clearly wasn't agreement to add. ]] 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: tghat.com == | |||
| ::What to include or not include on the RSP (outside of the results of discussions at RSN) are probably best discussed at the RSP talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It was ]ly added without discussion, though, so I've removed it for now as a first step. --] (]) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would suggest that editing the section be done this way. RSP is no different from any other page, edit, discuss on talk page, then third opinion or noticeboard. Exact wording in the section doesn't immediately necessitate an RFC unless there is unresolvable differences of opinion. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would suggest against one RFC to cover all the sources, unless there is a very specific question about the sources (more specific than 'are they reliable?'), as it will likely result in a train wreck. | |||
| :If the issue is just to add 'and verifiability', or removing the project link, I would suggest ]. Consensus is first built through editing, and the RSP is no different in that matter. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whatever way the discussion goes it, I suggest an RFC should be in a completely new section. RSN gets overloaded, and this section is already very large. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Absolutely. ] (]) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have been reading old RfCs about unreliable medias to reference. Many of these discussions start with a blanket question. For example: "Is ] | |||
| :# Generally reliable | |||
| :# Additional considerations apply | |||
| :# Generally unreliable | |||
| :# Deprecated" | |||
| :From there, editors can make their own arguments so if there should be a cut-off date for reliability. I think we can start with the more egregious media with examples and those who do not view them as unreliable should make the argument for why and when they should be considered reliable. ]] 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the TechCabal article is correct, then Nigerian newspapers were better before the internet. This might not apply to ], which began publication in 2001. One of the earliest accounts of "brown envelopes" dates to the ] (1979 to 1983): . On a search of Google Books, I found no references to "brown envelopes" in Nigeria in any book published before 1983. I found no more than 8 such references in books published before 1990, and 5 of those were from 1989: . In the absence of further evidence, I think we could take 1979 as a complete cut off point. Even after that, the evidence is not unequivocal. The study from 1984 says that ] journalists may not be as corrupt as journalists are depicted: . And the claims of bribery during the Republic seem to relate more to government journalists, than to independent newspapers. The sources also suggest that ] was more reliable. ] (]) 19:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] / ] == | |||
| <!-- ] 21:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1640552475}} | |||
| {{rfc|prop|rfcid=212F60A}} | |||
| '''Question:''' Which of the following best describes the reliability of ? | |||
| * '''Option 1''': Generally reliable | |||
| * '''Option 2''': Less than generally reliable | |||
| * '''Option 3''': Generally unreliable | |||
| * '''Option 4''': Reliable for ] only | |||
| * '''Option 5''': Other, please specify | |||
| — ] (]) 20:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Option 4 added by ] (]) at 19:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Used for many claims throughout pages for CBM movies, such as ], ], ], and ], including those which are otherwise unverifiable like Victor von Doom appearing in the first or that Spider-Man was supposed to appear in ] but was cut. | |||
| ===Background (tghat.com)=== | |||
| I really do not see why his claims is so widely allowed and accepted as fact, even though he is undoubtedly more reliable than random blogs or posts on Twitter he's still a journalist making claims without evidence. I would like to establish here definitively if we continue to site theinsneider.com as a source, as we currently do in many articles. ] (he/him • ]) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The tghat.com website is being increasingly used throughout Misplaced Pages and is currently used in since it was created just one year ago. Its use has engendered edit wars with several editors removing content sourced by it (as non-RS), and a few editors reverting the removals. There was ] that discussed, though didn't resolve, the issue. As recently as five days ago, tghat.com has been and . The website's shows it as a ] titled "Chronicling the War on Tigray". The website shows no sense of ''who'' is publishing the content. There is a Misplaced Pages article for ] which seems constructed with ] rather than indications of ]. Other news media frame the website in terms of advocacy, not a news organization with an editorial staff, such as: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| :I did a Google News search and when other outlets report his stuff it is described as a rumour or "reportedly". He is also described as a "scooper". I don't think most of that should be used on Misplaced Pages because of NOTNEWS. Rumours about media that haven't been released yet aren't even news yet. Does he say that he got his info from a source? Then it should be attributed to that source. It also looks like a SPS. So everything sourced to him should be attributed, but even then it probably shouldn't be used. ] (]) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Examples of how tghat.com is being used in Misplaced Pages: | |||
| ::Right now, much of what is sourced to him is just taken as face value, for example Doom is listed in the cast for the Fantastic Four movie without clarification that it's based off a claim by him. My changes to remove such information from the pages were undone, so there seems to be some ambiguity if he is currently accepted as a RS. ] (he/him • ]) 18:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :For any stories about named people (e.g. casting), ] would probably bar use of this source, since he's self-published. His record on this is at best mixed from a quick search. For example, he reported that ] would be starring in a new Johnny Depp film, which was swiftly denied, kept posting that it was true, and then a few months later, ] was announced as the co-star. | |||
| :I did some digging and apparently he made a recent post, copied here, , in which he says {{tq|This may speak to my own reckless vanity, but I’d rather be wrong sometimes than sit on 100 accurate stories and stand idly by and watch as Nellie Andreeva breaks every single one of them. Yes, it’s nauseating to get a story wrong — seriously, it makes me sick to my stomach — but it’s an even worse feeling when you don’t report something and then get beat by the competition.}} If that's his attitude to reporting, then it would probably be best if we don't use him for non-BLP subjects as well. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've removed everything that clearly failed ] and tried to beef up non-BLP uses of this (e.g. filming dates, projects in development) with better sources that cite his work. Honestly most reputable don't really cite him and hedge by using "rumoured" or "reportedly" and cannot corroborate. Definitely not an ideal source and probably runs afoul of ], especially if not picked up by better sources citing him at all. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In the future it would be appreciated if you notified other editors of such a discussion rather than going on what I would describe as a deletion rampage, making dozens of edits to remove a source that is widely deemed to be reliable. Sneider clearly meets the SME requirement at ], he is a long time film and entertainment journalist whose work has previously been published by various reliable sources. The fact that he is now self-publishing his reporting does not now make him unreliable, which is what the wording at SELFPUB caters for. If you take issue with specific claims he has made or the wording of specific claims then the place to discuss those is at the talk pages of the articles in question, not here where the majority of editors will never see it. - ] (]) 09:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * contain "tghat.com". | |||
| :I have notified editors at ], ], ], ], and ]. I think that should cover all the articles impacted so far by this discussion. - ] (]) 09:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * contain , a database/table which has a "source" column predominantly linking to Facebook or Twitter posts, other tghat content, and personal accounts. the database is compiled by a single man and only contains deaths of ethnic ], but not ethnic ] victims. | |||
| :For a lot of these pages, the relevant policy isn't ], but ], since the InSneider is self publishing reporting about living people (e.g. A didn't role B, C got fired because of D, E might be in F). BLPSPS is a bright-line rule and while ] exists, superhero movie rumours isn't going to justify that. This is especially true when non-selfpublished exist to cover the same claims or when ] applies. | |||
| :For example, your revert at ] restored The InSneider when the material in the sentence is already fully supported by the already cited ] piece and your revert at ] restored material alleging very specific allegations of sexual misconduct with young men that is corroborated by independent sources . I've reverted the latter given the serious BLP issues there. | |||
| :It's less of an issue when the BLP-connection is less direct such as when it's talking about a film production in general (e.g. G starts filming in H, I was delayed to J, K is in development at L), but even SELFPUB recommends replacing with better sources when possible and I highlighted some reliability issues with Sneider above. | |||
| :I have also notified ] since this touches on BLPSPS. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you are forgetting that there is a very big distinction between Sneider's pieces written for Collider and other RS and those he written on his own blog. He speculates much more and gives unverified, evidence-free information on his blog than he does when working with publications, and he isn't impeded by an editor or journalistic oversight in his own website. | |||
| :If you want to see ''proof'' that Sneider has made false and provably false claims on his own website before, then there's of all the time he has made false claims thanks to the people at the subreddit for Marvel spoilers. Among the falsehoods he has promoted on his site include that the Fantastic Four movie would start filming in March, that Adam Driver was cast as Doom, that Jack Quaid was cast as Johnny Storm, and that Tom Holland was going to appear as a full role in Across the Spider-Verse. Sneider should be used in articles ''only'' when he is writing for reliable sources, otherwise we are inviting unsourced and oftentimes completely imagined speculation on our pages. ] (he/him • ]) 18:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh wow, so he's basically correct about 2/3 of the time. Not terrible, I guess for online postings, but this would seem to fall well-short for ] purposes, much less making an exception for ]. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think we should be letting some people from a Reddit community dictate what they think is true or false to determine notability on this encyclopedia. I understand Sneider gets a bad rap from some people and in the press, but he does qualify as a ] in the field of entertainment news. I am subscribed to his newsletter and Sneider does a pretty good job clarifying what he is actually reporting from what are his own opinions and beliefs. A lot of what he says in his newsletter tends to be blown out of proportion or taken out of context, and not everything pans out in the film industry. For the Sydney Sweeney thing, I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart and thus, Cruz came onboard, not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading. A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions (because they get ad revenue from major companies involved) but Sneider has a good track record of reporting on industry details, deals, and events as they are in progress, which goes for the Fantastic Four castings and Black Widow. I have been working on adding third-party sources for some of his recent newsletter issues being cited to help make verifying his reports easier, though this takes time. I do not agree with removing his published articles from Collider, Variety, or his newsletter outright as we cannot disregard a source simply because ] or you don't believe in it. We go by ], and report all the facts as presented, which is how an encyclopedia ought to be. I have not found any instances to my immediate recollection where editors cited a Sneider report only for it to be proven intentionally wrong or misleading. The Madame Web report was not disputed or debunked, and the recent reports of Superman and Beyond the Spider-Verse have since been clarified as a matter of semantics, not actually being intentional false news reporting on Sneider's part. A lot of what he says is regurgitated through aggregators and social media which tends to be less reliable or transparent than what he actually says in his newsletter or on his podcast The Hot Mic. I would not go as far as to say Sneider's newsletter reporting is "speculation", as he is an independent working journalist with 20+ years of experience in this profession. He knows his stuff but gets a lot of bad publicity from his social media activity and because some of his reporting hits a nerve with select communities. I would consider him a reliable source, but with clarification needed to specify when he is making an educated guess or providing an opinion alongside what he is reporting from his industry sources. ] (]) 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, because @] questioned what Sneider's sources are, I suppose it ought to be explained that every journalist gets their information from sources. These individuals are usually people who work within the industry they are reporting about, so they are often talent agents, managers, PR workers, producers, involved creatives in a production, etc. who have first-hand information and provide information as a tip to a journalist. Most of these sources prefer to remain anonymous, so we cannot just find who his sources are to verify their tips. That's just not how this industry works. Filming schedules and castings change all the time, so to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a ] and ] concern because no sources said these were absolutely false, and if you have any reliable sources saying Sneider specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report, that should be presented rather than just going off of some editors' opinions of a controversial figure. ] (]) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Anonymously-sourced reporting obviously can be used in RSs, but you're not really making a strong case for reliability and encyclopedic quality by defending Sneider with {{tq|to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false,}}. In respect to the Holland thing, it's not a good look to be confidently stating things about major casting at the tail end of February 2023 that then don't pan out upon release in at the end of May that year. Maybe he was right at the time, though no one else has corroborated this from what I can tell, but even then he would've published too early given he was ultimately wrong. | |||
| ::::{{tq|specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report}} would meet the standard for defamation of a public figure, but it isn't the standard for assessing if a particular source is reliable or a good indicator of if something is encyclopedic. If someone gets a lot of stuff wrong in good faith, they're still not reliable, especially in ] situations. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, using anonymous sources is common in journalism, but is not standard. The standard is to cite their sources. Sure, NYT and WaPo don't always follow their own guidelines on anonymous sources. Usually such guidelines involve mentioning that the information is from an anonymous source and giving clues as to the credibility of the source. When including information from anonymous sources, wikipedia should follow suite. If the NYT cites a "source close to the president" for a claim, the wikipedia article should also mention a "source close to the president" So how much info does Sneider give? | |||
| ::::Also, information should be verified. This might involve asking another source if they object to the publication of the information. Also, really, the studio should be asked to comment. If there is not a comment from the studio or a line saying that comment was sought, then best practices have not been followed. | |||
| ::::The idea that Sneider is a SME is questionable. The reporting in question seems to be a matter of insider knowledge not expertise. Basically, people are leaking the information to Sneider or gossiping to him about who will get the part. ] (]) 15:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::FYI, we are also not here to be ]. It is completely acceptable to note what an SME reports about an industry topic they have been covering for two decades now. The reports should be judged on a case-by-case basis to determine if Sneider has ever actually intentionally made any false or misleading statements and passed them off as a report directly by himself, and not by sheer opinion or a lack of or misunderstanding of the filmmaking process and journalistic procedures. ] (]) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even if he is 100% correct (which he isn't), none of his tweets and InSneider reports can be used per ] to verify anything about living people since they are self-published. There's presumably no issue with his work in non-self-published sources with editorial control like Collider, but for the self-published stuff in respect to living people (e.g. castings, cut scenes, staffing), Misplaced Pages has a bright line rule against it. The only stuff that is even allowed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for self-published stories would be for instances where it's being used for stuff that is general enough to not really implicate BLP (e.g. filming schedules, runtime, episode length). -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The whole sum of BLPSPS is that no self-published blogs may be used. Sneider's publishing is via a newsletter and is part of his job as a journalist. In what ways are his newsletter reports violating any core and basic BLP policies or how are they of a major concern to it beyond the X-Men '97 allegations. A lot of journalists nowadays are posting on their own outside of major trades or news organizations because those options have become more prevalent to do so. Anonymous sourcing is also how all journalists operate, so if we say journalists who post on their own cannot be cited as reliable sources for doing their job without disclosing their sources and having a company watch over them, that sets a very bad precedent for the freedom of the press and what we actually allow to be included, let alone mentioned, in this encyclopedia. If it applies to Sneider, it ought to apply to all self-published journalists and newsletters, and I don't see how that could go well. ] (]) 06:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's a misreading of BLPSPS, which says: {{tq|Never use self-published sources—'''including but not limited to''' books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—}} (emphasis added). Unless there's a clear organizational structure (e.g. ]), most newsletters are little more than self-published blogs. There's tons of great journalists with their own newsletters that I think are most likely reliable that I would love to cite (though Sneider may not be one of them), but BLPSPS is crystal clear on this front and for good reason. If you want to start a new discussion somewhere (here, ] ], etc.) on whether we should move to a case-by-case basis for journalistic SPSs, you can do that, but until then BLPSPS is policy and can't be overridden by ]. Don't really care about the anonymous sources issue, since that is an accepted norm for journalists. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Not all of the instances of Sneider's reports are about people themselves. They are primarily about the Hollywood projects which naturally involve people's jobs and castings. I fail to see how a technicality should prevent us from using a decent source at all. If the issue is of verification, find a third-party source verifying the report. This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. ] (]) 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{tq|This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that.}} The InSneider can be separately assessed for reliability for any claims not about living people, but as ] makes clear in the first sentence, it applies regardless of if the article is a biography or not, so the fact that Sneider is cited on movie articles is immaterial in respect to ]. | |||
| ::::::::There's been multiple discussions on this noticeboard about Substack and other newsletters involving much more prominent journalists than Sneider and the consensus has always been that BLPSPS bars their use in respect to living people unless the publication has editorial oversight and a reputation for reliability (e.g. ] , ] , ] , in general ) | |||
| ::::::::I don't object to the underlying facts per say if they are indeed verifiable through third-party sources. I did try to find non-self-published sources that independently corroborated what Sneider reported, and replaced InSneider with them when I did. I only removed when I was unable to do so. ] makes it clear that the onus to restore material removed for BLP issues is on those who want to restore it to do so in a policy-compliant way, which seems unlikely since nothing in this section has challenged the individually self-published nature of InSneider. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you for your lengthy examination of Sneider as a reliable source. I think a potential compromise that I hope the editors here could agree on- is to restructure all current citations to his self-published website so that it clearly states that it is journalist Jeff Sneider reporting. The example on ] that spurred me to open up this discussion in the first place, for example: | |||
| :::{{tq|Additionally, the character Mole Man is expected to appear, and Robert Downey Jr. is expected to appear as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.}} | |||
| :::could be reworded to: | |||
| :::{{tq|Journalist Jeff Sneider reported in 2024 that the character Mole Man is expected to appear, as well as Robert Downey Jr. as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.}} | |||
| :::This would be done for every single citation that uses his personal site. I see your arguments defending his inclusion as a verifiable source, but I also feel as the central issue here- that a lot of pages take him at face value as equivalent to official news from Deadline or Marvel Studios themselves, should still be rectified. We could also add him to the RS list as a source that can be used in the articles ''with attribution only.'' | |||
| :::Thoughts? @] @] @] ] (he/him • ]) 05:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For anything that involves stories about living people, this would be BLP violation, attribution or not, since The InSneider is a self-published source and that's barred by ]. If no other sources are writing about it besides a self-published report from Sneider, that's a good indicator that we shouldn't include it on Misplaced Pages. Attribution for stuff like "Mole Man" might be okay depending on Sneider's reliability and how tied that is to a specific actor in the text. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I support attribution being applied to Sneider's reports, and most of the instances where his reports are used already do this in prose while third-party refs are being added to them. The BLP violation reads to me like a bit of a stretch with semantics itself and could probably be re-evaluated when it comes to journalists reporting as part of their job. Reporting on allegations should not be a reason to be barred as a source when major news outlets do the same. ] (]) 06:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tq|Reporting on allegations a reason to be barred as a source}} is a straw man. Major news outlets have a reputation for fact checking and reliability, while Sneider has had multiple confirmed reports not pan out. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Which ones have not panned out? ] (]) 07:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sweeny, Lindelof, and Holland make at least three incorrect reports in approximately a year. If I did more spot checks from the spreadsheet, there would probably be more. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Again, not everything in Hollywood pans out. That does not mean the reports were false. Unless other independent sources confirmed they were false, you are assuming they were not true, which draws into some dangerous POV issues here on your apparent bias. I have asked you to provide sources which confirm Sneider's reports were false, and you have provided none of the sort. ] (]) 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Lots of stuff in all kinds of different fields don't pan out. However, if a source often reports things as confirmed and they don't pan out, there's a reliability/jumping the gun issue and its starts falling into unencyclopedic ] territory. The end result is that Sneider either misjudged how correct the story originally was or how likely that status quo was going to remain. If you look at the Deadline and Variety archives, they only reported on certainties in respect to the Sweeey/Holland/Lindelof stories (i.e. Cruz hiring/nothing/hiring and departure). | |||
| :::::::::Genuine question, does Sneider ever issue corrections/retractions or do retrospectives on why he got stories wrong? Obviously sometimes reliable sources get it wrong, and the proper thing to do in that case is to issue corrections/retractions. | |||
| :::::::::I think I've seen only even heard of Sneider once before (when the X-Men '97/Beau DeMayo story was happening) so to accuse me of bias is wild when you've created a position where it is functionally unfalsifiable that Sneider could ever be wrong. If it pans out, he was correct. If it doesn't, he was correct but things changed afterwards, despite in many cases no reliable sources backing up his original story. Sneider isn't important enough for something like the ] or an an actual reliable source to investigate his methods and he uses anonymous sources (which isn't an issue in and of itself) so it's essentially impossible to prove if any of his reports are false in a way that would satisfy you. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I think that is an argument for waiting until things are officially announced, before putting them in the article. The problem isn't Sneider, but the kind of reporting that he is doing. He is reporting other people's predictions. He also isn't a SME. He is a reporter that chases leads and reports what may be hearsay or leaks or outright lies by his sources. He is reporting on Hollywood, after all. ] (]) 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{reply to|HadesTTW}} I just saw that you pinged me in this message. I agree that a good resolution here would be to add Sneider to the RS list as an SME for entertainment reporting as long as he is attributed, and potentially with the caveat that his self-published sources should be replaced with non-self-published sources if available. - ] (]) 15:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You can spot check the examples used and some definitely seem to hold up as poor reporting. Besides the Holland/Across the Spider-Verse example I discussed above another one I spot checked was this comment made March 9, 2023, in which Sneider says it's 100% confirmed that ]'s Star Wars film would be coming out in December 2025 film. On March 21, 2023, Lindelof's departure is announced. | |||
| :::{{tq|I am subscribed to his newsletter}} Can you confirm if the quotation from the post I cited is correct then? It matched the title of this post from InSneider and it went unchallenged in the thread and seemed to match the style from what I've found. | |||
| :::{{tq|not everything pans out in the film industry.}}, {{tq| I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart...not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading.}} and {{tq|A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions}}. I don't think Sneider is maliciously creating false reports or anything, but if he's reporting too early on things that aren't confirmed yet while the major trade publications are reporting when it's certain, that does not bode well for his reliability nor for the encyclopedic value of his coverage (]). | |||
| :::{{tq|removing his published articles from Collider, Variety}} Pretty sure no one here is suggesting that. The main issue is ] and then reliability as a ]. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sneider's report and those quotes are correct from his newsletter. I have no idea what "thread" you are referring to, but a lot can change and happen in the 12 days between Sneider saying Lindelof's film was confirmed for that release and when Lindelof ultimately exited the film. That's just how Hollywood, and all of business, pans out. You can't seriously hold that against Sneider to say his statement is false when Disney's Star Wars films have pretty much languished with ] issues for years. Even major trades report on projects in early development and when directors or writers are in talks. That's just what the trades do. They report on the production process, which is always in flux. ] (]) 07:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you for the confirmation. I copied the quotation from a Reddit thread from a film podcast subreddit which I linked in my comment above. I dealt with how the other trades operate and the issues with using Sneider for the truth of what he's reporting above, so I won't repeat them here. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{OD}} | |||
| <br> | |||
| Alrighty, I wrote the below on ] and I'm copying this below. | |||
| '''Jeff Sneider being used as a source in Hollywood reporting'''.<br> | |||
| * contain which is a ] from published by Norway newspaper ]. This is probably a ]. | |||
| Jeff Sneider's reports, found in his ''TheInSneider'' blog and also ''Above the Line'', have been covered in several other reliable sources. | |||
| His career besides his self-published blog: He has had two notable tenures at '']'', and in between those two tenures, he had a stint at '']'' covering the film industry. This is confirmed , with information on his tenure at ''Variety''. '']'' also as Senior Film Reporter, and says he did work at '']'' before his venture into trade publications, and at one point he contributed reports for '']''. | |||
| These following perennial sources have cited his self-published blog, exemplifying ''']''': | |||
| * contain (a blog post). This doesn't appear to have a "document" in it, and it was used as a citation in order to insert Tigray War information into the articles of 9 "places/locations". | |||
| :*'']'', including and | |||
| :''Forbes'' describes him as, "Jeff Sneider, an industry insider and reporter", and covers his reporting, even providing a link to another site he contributes to, ''Above the Line''. | |||
| * contain a blog post. This was added to two "location" articles where it doesn't really belong. | |||
| :* '']'' covers his reporting | |||
| * contain (blog post). This was added to one "location" article where it was used to insert information about the Tigray conflict. | |||
| :* '']'' covers his reporting | |||
| The above is not intended to be a comprehensive list of uses in Misplaced Pages, but is a subset showing the various ways tghat.com has been used. | |||
| : and here's him reporting that ] was chosen to play ] in ] of '']'', which ended up being '''spot-on correct''', via '']'': | |||
| (As a side note, though still deserving mention here, the compiler of the civilian/non-combatant Amhara casualties is the ], which doesn't have a Misplaced Pages article, nor is their website , and yet I haven't found any Amhara 'massacre' articles in Misplaced Pages, while finding over a hundred Tigray 'massacre' articles. ] or a ]/weight issue?) | |||
| :* per a ] publication, '']''{{'}}s own '']'', covers one of his reports | |||
| — ] (]) 20:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :* '']'', (] as {{tq|considered reliable for entertainment-related topics}} but not for {{tq|controversial statements related to living persons}}, which in this case, we're sort of concerned about that stuff in relation to Sneider's reporting) '''covers Sneider in many, many instances'''. <br> | |||
| :* Update: The above counts have changed because 25 articles were ], most of which contained a link to tghat.com, and making the counts go down. ] (]) 10:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : and reported by ''Screen Rant'' an ''InSneider'' report that '']'', (a film with Austin Butler and Norman Reedus) was dropped by Disney's ]. Sneider's report '''ended up being true''', as Disney let the rights go to ]. | |||
| :* And '']'' - reporting on the ''InSneider'' report mentioned above concerning ''Bikeriders'', right . Can hardly get better than trade publications. | |||
| === Survey (tghat.com) === | |||
| :* '']'' - that Sneider was the first to get the news that ] were coming back for '']'' and '']. | |||
| :* via '']'' - Sneider that ] was playing ]'s son in '']''. | |||
| <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I also find the ''Mary Sue'' story about Johnny Depp and Sydney Sweeney to be drama mongering. Their punchline about Sneider's story amounted to "and <u>internet users</u> were pissed about the actress potentially working with the subject of the ]" - like who cares about internet people being ticked? Was there doxxing? was ] or a world government involved? '''No!''' | |||
| * '''Option 4''' reliable for their own opinion only. This implies use of ] attribution; e.g., "{{xt|..and according to a member of ],{{fake ref|17}} ''some-opinion-or-assertion-about-something''.}}" ] (]) 20:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :If Sneider gets something wrong, nobody gets mangled or tangibly harmed. The ] policy is for claims concerning living people themselves, not films and casting processes or anything of the like. and for randoms who are not, something that is not what Sneider is doing. | |||
| * '''Option 4:''' agree with {{u|Mathglot}}'s reasoning both above and in the discussion below. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> ]</span> 22:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Let's ] the concept of this policy and apply it to ]. Even though the chunk of rock is the subject of the article, there are parts of the article for the Moon which concern living people, like ] and how he walked on it. '''Holy hell!''' the very association of living people to a subject of an article clearly not about people means we '''must NEVER''' use any ] about the Moon in the article because it is ]. | |||
| * '''Option 1: Generally reliable''' ''and attribute to Tghat when in doubt'' or '''Option 2: less than generally reliable''' per ]. The RS guidelines mostly evolved for rich-country sources without tight internet and telephone blockades. Misplaced Pages has a ''fundamental problem'' in working out how to cover knowledge encyclopedically, avoiding ], while still using good sources. There is no magic solution, but pedantic interpretation of guidelines will not help in evolving reasonable solutions.{{pb}}In this particular case, as can be seen by the {{oldid|Tghat|1056631092|label=text and sources in the current version of ]}}, Tghat has been used by multiple Western mainstream media and academic sources, both preprint and fully peer-reviewed. This is not "name dropping"; it's recognition that Tghat has gained a reputation as a sufficiently reliable source.{{pb}}Side issues on neutrality (1): while there is an LATimes claim that Tghat is "pro-TPLF", this is not very credible from looking at the site itself, which includes, for example, (clearly labelling them as such).{{pb}}Side issues on neutrality (2): massacres of Amharas. This is only related in the sense of whether we want to purge Misplaced Pages of all sources that might help overcome ]. We do have ], in which several cases have victims identified as Amharas; in Oromia Region: ], ]. Having more sources for these would be good, and the site looks (based on an initial quick look) like a good source for articles such as these. In fact, it appears that among the ], the articles that exist so far, {{oldid|Amhara_Mass_Media_Agency|996324450|label=Amhara Mass Media Agency}} and {{oldid|National Movement of Amhara|996335274|label=National Movement of Amhara}}, were both created by me, based on the best sources I could find. I wasn't aware of AAA at the time. There are quite likely some sources like these that we should rate "generally unreliable" or "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated", but having a mix of sources that generally seem reliable and come from a mix of the different ethnic groups of Ethiopia is more in the ''interests of Misplaced Pages'' than refusing to use these sources. ] (]) 23:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think that Sneider should be used to state facts about casting. I certainly don't believe we need to add a person to a cast list because he says something on his podcast: while I question his nature of jumping the gun on reports, I don't believe the rationale should be that the info he reports is concerning a living person. I figured that saying ] was gonna be in ''Fantastic Four'' was bold, but it's concerning that a character is going to be in a film, not some claim about a person's life and times. Besides his casting scoops, I think he gives worthy insight into the film industry and its processes. I think that his branding is corny and I'm concerned that but hey, ] was cruel yet he was still held in high regard for his work. Same thing for Sneider. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *: Added 'or Option 2', as per ] as pointed out by {{u|Alaexis}} below, and keeping in mind that the editorship is reported on other web media rather than on the website itself. ] (]) 23:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, I started this discussion because I was bothered by the Fantastic Four page where he's used for the cast list. I hope we are able to at least agree that he shouldn't be cited without attribution, lest he gets something wrong (not maliciously, but because his sources may have been wrong, or events changed in the production process that he was not aware of). Advocating him to be deprecated for BLP violations is a massive stretch that I do not agree with- he's generally reliable, and I trust that his self-published site can be used for article content. He just shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. ] (he/him • ]) 01:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3: Generally unreliable''' Tghat is not reliable because it has ] issues. Thgat claims to be a news site reporting on current events, not on psuedoscience, the proper context should be given, and not all biased opinions belong in Misplaced Pages. It heavily relies on social media, and is not independent from the subject it reports on. Reliable sources have used language to describe Tghat as being partisan<ref>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/partisan</ref>, compromising it as independent source. As a new site it doesn't appear to have editorial oversight. ] (]) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Precisely. I agree with all of that. The Fantastic Four page's cast section is something that is being discussed at ] and would be best handled there rather than here, though I agree with the core points with the attribution and use with non-BLP content. ] (]) 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4/5''' and '''describe as being run pro-TPLF activists''' when summarizing it; the describes it as such. It is obviously ] and, beyond that, definitely not usable for facts, but it shouldn't really be used for opinion either, since it seems that would be plainly ]. I'm not seeing any evidence of a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy (or even any ''assertion'' that they do any fact-checking or have any editorial controls); and they appear to be a personal website of no significant notability. Coverage is not ] - is there any indication that any reliable sources treat this list as reputable or reliable? Without that, the only place where it is like to be due is in an article specifically about the site. I would in particular strenuously object to citing it in any context discussing casualty figures - ] is meant to be used to establish notable strands of opinion, not to introduce unverified facts to random websites that present them with no fact-checking. Demographic bias is real, but there are actual news sources, academics, and other high-quality sources that can be used for this. Simply creating a website and listing death totals on it doesn't make someone's opinion significant enough to include in an article - when it is included, it ought to be cited via secondary sources rather than cited directly. Also, dismissing the LA Times (a high-quality source) describing it as being run by activists based on "well I looked at the site and it looked neutral to me" is absurd; that is not how we evaluate sources. Unless someone can find an equal or higher-quality source disagreeing with the LA Times description, any ] entry absolutely needs to mention that specific bias. --] (]) 05:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think it's best if we formalize it here, anyways. It's my hope that we can get a consensus enough to write an entry on ], which would be helpful for everyone editing CBM articles that refer to his claims. ] (he/him • ]) 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per ]. The Associated Press checked some of their reporting and . France24 were able to they posted. The information published by Tghat has been . Not fully reliable due to concerns regarding bias and the editing processes raised earlier. ]<sub>]</sub> 08:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would prefer listing Sneider at perennial sources. The ] taskforce already has an entry for his reports at ], for reference. ] (]) 04:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3/4''' doesn't seem to be a reliable news or similar organization as much as an advocacy group. That kind of group has their place, but generally not as a reliable source outside of independent confirmation or their own opinions. ] (]) 19:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Just to note that this wouldn't meat the criteria for inclusion on the RSP. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' - For reasons of being a ], anonymously-run, and biased website. The website itself gives no indication of its ownership or editorship. Most of the blog posts are posted by the anonymous user "tghat", who posts no credentials and doesn't use any citations in their articles. Even if a blog post has a seemingly real world name on it, there is no verified-account indicator to ensure it is that person, and that they are a subject matter expert. The victim list is self-published by a single person (). Option 4 is worthless as there is nothing an anonymous source is going to say ], and everything else they would publish falls under ] and is thus unusable. Ultimately, Misplaced Pages guidelines for ] are there to make ] possible. Anonymous and self-published make verification impossible. ] (]) 10:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know, saying someone was going to get a job, and then it turns out they didn't might have a negative effect on their career. A casting director might wonder why they weren't chosen. This is just speculation, and it probably helps the actors, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. The stakes are low either way, and it makes sense to wait for an official announcement. As it has been said, things don't always pan out. Speculation on casting seems like news to me. ] (]) 15:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :All three of the listed ''Forbes'' articles are written by ] ] {{rspe|Forbes.com contributors}}, which are ] due to lack of editorial oversight. Please note that Forbes.com contributor articles do not count toward ]. As a policy, ] takes precedence over the ] guideline. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::alright, we can consider the other 97 out of 100 <small>joking exaggeration</small> sources I've laid down here. We've still got use by Hollywood trades, reliable entertainment websites, and other popular sources. My point stands still. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe that Sneider's reporting of casting is 90% of the time on point, but the margin of error warrants attribution and additional consideration. I do not believe that info about a person being cast in a film constitutes ''personal'' information, and thus I believe that BLP does not apply to that extent. I believe additional considerations and attributions should apply for the first reason, rather than depreciation for a grossly WikiLawyered reading of BLP policy. I believe he is considered reliable for general behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood, having been at it for a long-o time and that he would know about these things. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is a bright-line rule that prevents self-published sources from being used for third-party claims {{xt|"about a living person"}}. The policy is phrased with the word {{xt|"Never"}} to emphasize that routine exceptions for claims such as film castings are not appropriate. This language is repeated in the ] policy in more explicit terms: {{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."}} Like the remainder of ], this rule applies to all claims about living persons, and not just {{!xt|"''personal'' information"}}. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay. We seem to agree to not use it as a third-party source. We seem to agree to give Sneider attribution and consideration of ] in these reports he does. | |||
| ::::If there are any concerns, I suggest you turn to the great policy that is ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::What do you mean by {{tq|behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood}}? Like what a gaffer is? Or the type of camera used? Or does he know more about things like how casting directors and location scouts work? I thought he was a reporter that covered the Hollywood beat. Does he do anything besides report what industry people tell him? ] (]) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wonder if reporting what industry people tell you is, uh, what trade journalism is the definition of? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think he is a trade journalist, either. A trade journal covers an industry with people in that industry as the target audience. ] describes him as an Entertainment Journalist and describes him writing for publications aimed at the general public. His own website describes itself as {{tq|Scoops and insider analysis}}. This isn't about being an expert, it is about being in the know and chasing down leads. A lot of the articles are even labelled "Hot Rumor". He is a reporter, he reports things. The nature of what he reports means that it involves making predictions as well as discussing rumours and other gossip. A lot of it involves upcoming movies, that is, events that haven't happened yet. It also means a lot of his stuff isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. ] (]) 11:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::know what? I think his insights have merit. Glad to see you found the article about the journalist that I wrote. Did you see the part where he threatened to drive his car into a tree when he lost a Christopher Nolan scoop, then got fired from ''Variety''? Or when he said something racially insensitive and got fired from ''Mashable''? I personally enjoyed the part where he went on about getting his butt kicked by ] in a boxing match. | |||
| ::::::Anybody think that he does a self-published newsletter because he can't hold down a job? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It did strike me as surprisingly negative considering the defence he is getting here. It is basically a hit piece. The boxing thing was confusing, it is probably undue. ] (]) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Reliable sources describe Sneider the way that they do, so that should be reflected in the article. This is a rationale that is based on a concept which is probably best explained by ]. | |||
| ::::::::As for the boxing match, that is a notable event he was involved in. Fighting the director of ] is plenty notable for inclusion. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I like Paul Tassi's work, but per ], he can't be used in USEBYOTHERS analysis. However, he, like the other links in this post generally refer to Sneider's reports as in terms of rumors instead of certainties. The one exception is , where it is corroborated by THR, and they suddenly switch to writing in certainties. The last three links here from the major trades are clearly doing their own independent corroboration of Sneider's story and doing the polite thing in journalism and crediting him with being the first to break the news. | |||
| :As for accuracy, many of the links were about the Beatles casting, which Sneider was actually wrong about Charlie Rowe as George Harrison, which was immediately denied, and ultimately ended up being wrong. The many commentary pieces about the rumored casting that it sparked might justify inclusion, but the miss doesn't speak well to his reliability. So even from your own links, it seems that for content that doesn't run afoul of ] and is encyclopedic enough to include, it would have to be attributed and written as though it's a certainty. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have not kept up with this discussion over the holidays but I see a bunch of dubious arguments have taken place. Trailblazer was correct above when he said that Sneider makes it clear when he is noting rumours versus reporting on something that his sources have confirmed to him, and the high-profile instances where he "got something wrong" are not examples of him lying but clearly examples of things being true or potentially true at the time which did not pan out. Several instances have been mentioned where a potential casting was reported but did not pan out. That is not a lie or a "miss" or anything of the sort, he is reporting on people being eyed by a studio or even entering negotiations but he can't guarantee that everything will work out in the end, and his wording reflects that. The exact same can be said for any of the Hollywood trades who have reported on potential casting that ended up falling through. The level of scrutiny being put on the accuracy of his reporting here is a bit ridiculous considering the same would not be done if he was still writing for ''TheWrap'' or ''Variety'', which is what WP:SELFPUB protects. If any of these reports had come from a journalist who was still working at the trades we would not be having this conversation at all. As for WP:BLPSPS, its wording is oddly vague. "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person" -- what does that even mean? Any sentence that mentions a living person cannot be sourced to any self-published source, regardless of what that source is or what the sentence says? If an expert on the life of Donald Trump had a meeting with him and then tweeted out something Trump had said, we could not include that in any articles even if it was not a detail about Trump's personal life? I think it is crazy to say that we can't use a tweet or a blog post from a person we otherwise consider to be reliable to note when an actor is being considered for a role in a film or that they may have a scheduling conflict that could prevent them from doing a certain job. I am sure the wording at BLPSPS could not have been meant to prevent that. - ] (]) 14:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion (tghat.com) === | |||
| :In your example, if that expert's tweet contained anything of substance, a reliable source would mention it, and you would be free to cite that reliable source. Alternatively, you could wait until the ] policy no longer applies to Trump, although I highly doubt that the tweet would constitute ] in any Misplaced Pages article if no reliable source mentions the tweet by that time. In all other cases, yes, ] would prohibit that tweet from being cited on Misplaced Pages to support a claim about Trump, despite the tweet being written by an expert, because the tweet is self-published. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 22:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Starting with ], its estimation of the number of victims has been mentioned by the LA times . They describe it as "a news site run by pro-TPLF activists". ]<sub>]</sub> 20:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - ] (]) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : No it doesn't. Where do you get that? The LA Times article you cited doesn't mention Tghat's victim database or information. It mentions Tghat in the sentence following a victim count by organization Seb Hidri, but doesn't tie the two together. Neither does the Misplaced Pages article ], nor does the WP article ], nor even the website Tghat.com. Tghat.com has but even those articles don't tie the two together. ] (]) 02:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::The ] policy, {{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer"}}, is as explicit as can be. That longstanding requirement has been part of the ] since ], and part of the ] when it ]. (It was added to the latter page as a guideline requirement ].) If you would like to contest these policies, you are free to do so on their respective talk pages. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Reliability and ] are certainly issues. The appears to be a personal victim ]. I can find no editorial oversight. References to Facebook, Daily Mail, and Twitter as sources are not appropriate. The site appears to be an ] for a cause that tilts ] with a false ]. | |||
| :::I was going to mention the wording in ], as it's more explicit, but Newslinger beat me to it. I've found this annoying in the past, where the project of a living person is detailed in a otherwise reliable third party self-published source. However that exact situation is meant to be covered (and excluded) by it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Following a link such as I cannot verify who Teklai Gebremichael is, apparently a regular contributor. The link contains an unknown editor's note: "The following message is written by a graduating student", identified as K. These are not ] nor acceptable as an "External link". -- ] (]) 04:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I and others have said, the policies against self-published sources used for anything about living people is a bright line rule. And as for ] and ignoring the self-published/BLP issue, if the only source that mentions an aspect of an article subject is a self-published newsletter, then it would more likely to be undue to include based on the proportion of RS coverage. Misplaced Pages is not the great place to ] about what reliable sources should be covering. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{u|Platonk}}, you are right about the victim count. The article says "Tghat, a news site run by pro-TPLF activists, reported on the Bora killings Jan. 12, along with another massacre that reportedly took place in an area called Debre Abay." Note that the Bora killings themselves are not in doubt, the same article reports them as facts earlier. So basically they say that Tghat reported on it 4 days after it happened. ]<sub>]</sub> 06:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - ] (]) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: {{u|Alaexis}}, I think you're really stretching the imagination about what LA Times thinks about Tghat based on this single sentence. Please look again at ]: {{tq|"''How'' use a given source ... The more widespread and consistent this use is ... established views of sources..."}} LA Times' single sentence, ''in its context'', is ''not'' an endorsement of Tghat's veracity or accuracy. ] (]) 07:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::When I went through and removed most of the mainspace uses of InSneider, the overwhelming majority were reports of people being cast, people being considered for a acting/directing role, when an already cast role was going to make a secret appearance in a film, or creative decisions that can only be made by a very small number of people at a studio (i.e. director, producer, executives) that the guidance at ] leans towards applying the policy. | |||
| ::::: I'm not saying that the use is widespread but it's not zero either. Are there reliable sources which explicitly call them unreliable or found inaccuracies in their reporting? By the way the absence of reporting on Amhara casualties is irrelevant. The sources can be biased or have a limited scope and still be useful. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If something aligns with what other reliable sources have said, then it would be best to use what those sources have said instead of a SPS. But in any case, UNDUE is not an avenue to bring in content that doesn't meet our verifiability/sourcing policies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Without commenting on Tghat's reliability or lack thereof (I'll do that in a separate comment), asking whether there are reliable sources that call Tghat's reliability into question is backwards logic. There is no "presumption of reliability until disproved". There are thousands of activist groups, opinion writers, and individuals publishing their thoughts on blogs and websites, and ''The Guardian'' and ''The Times'' don't have departments paid to sit around investigating and writing evaluations of every person with an internet connection and an opinion. ] (]) 19:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Again, we are not writing a biography about James Gunn or Peter Safran and using Sneider to source claims about their person. Sneider is used to write about the particulars of film production. | |||
| ::::::: {{u|Mathglot}}, you're completely right. The reason I'm asking is that if, by any chance, they '''are''' described as unreliable by reliable sources it would be a very strong argument for classifying them as unreliable here. The opposite is not true: if they aren't described as unreliable we would still need to establish their reliability. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::One side of this discussion is looking at the forest, while the other side is focused on the trees. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Aha, thanks for that clarification. With that understanding, I fully agree with you. ] (]) 20:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::BLPGROUP doesn't seem to be relevant to this discussion, it is talking about "corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons" and specifically refers to harmful claims, neither of which apply here. - ] (]) 11:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{Re|Alaexis}} & {{Re|Mathglot}} ] is clear on biased sources, it still needs to be independent from the subject, the reliable sources descriptions of Tghat clearly tells they are not; '' a news site run by pro-TPLF activists'', ''run by activists living abroad''. A site run by activists siding(pro-TPLF) with a party to a conflict is advocacy and clearly show connection to the subject. Being called pro anything by reliable sources, already '''compromises''' Tghat as a independent/reliable news source in that context. Another concern is the reliance on social media, and after searching the site they have little or none reporting, that is not in some way related to the conflict in Ethiopia. ] (]) 21:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The subsection is about when BLP applies to "legal persons" AND "groups". It does not displace ] and in no way limits the applicability of BLP to groups to instances of potentially harmful material. | |||
| :::::::::: You are misreading that. It's true that it needs to independent from the subject in order to be considered ] (one of the attributes of fully reliable sources), but it does not need to be independent from the subject or unbiased in order to be used in ] at Misplaced Pages in certain contexts. See ]: "{{xt|Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context}}"; and: "{{xt|Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate}}". If the specific context is "the opinions of Tghat activists", then the ] source Tghat *is* reliable for that, and may be cited for their own opinions, per the ] guideline previously cited. ] (]) 21:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The first part of the paragraph is a clarification about how ] existing as a term of art in law doesn't mean that they are always covered by BLP, which is meant to protect natural persons. The second half of the paragraph applies to all groups and tells us to look at each group on a case by case basis to see where it fits on the spectrum between groups that are small enough that BLP should apply and ones where they are too large. The part about harm is simply noting it is part of the analysis. For creative decisions on films, the people actually making that decision would be very small, so it should attract BLP protections, which means BLPSPS applies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: {{Re|Mathglot}} Nope, not misreading that and it's again mentioned in ]: ''{{xt|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.}}'' Does Tghat as a source meets the normal requirements? Independence from the topic is '''very''' shaky, what about the rest? ] (]) 21:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - ] (]) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: ]ers are ] sources that are citable at Misplaced Pages articles on what Flat-earthers believe; ]ers are reliable for what moon-hoaxers believe, and Tghat is reliable for what Tghat believes, and needs no independence, editorial control, or fact-checking for that. The fact that they may be unreliable for all basic assertions of fact does not negate that, and that's what the rest of the guideline you quoted is about. ] (]) 22:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Besides the stories involving named people where BLP would obviously apply, the level of creative decisions that InSneider reports on and that Misplaced Pages uses him for are those that would clearly be attributable to a very small number of people (5-10 max). They're typically stuff such as what projects a studio is considering, what characters will be cast, and what the plot of film will be about. | |||
| ::::::::::::: {{Re|Mathglot}} Incomparable contexts and ], editorial oversight matters for a news site claiming to report on current events, level of independence matters. There is a long list of ''opinions'' from news sites marked as unreliable in ], biased sources can still be invalid through other aspects, such as ], also see ]. Tghat is also ] for it's reliance on ]. There's are serieus reliability issues with this news site, comparison with ] does not fit this context. ] (]) 23:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::We're not using InSneider for lower-level stuff like what belt buckle was used on a particular costume, what brand of communication devices the PAs use, or what shade of a color was used in a particular CGI shot. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::: You continue to misconstrue. Even articles marked "]" or even as bad as "]" at ] may *still* be cited nevertheless, as the guideline supplement you quoted very clearly states, and which agrees with all the others regarding ]. I have no wish to debate you anymore; !vote your opinion based on your best interpretation of policies and guidelines, and hopefully everyone else will do the same. Have a nice day! ] (]) 23:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of ], we are fine. #2: ]. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see ] on this very page. '']'' censored CEO killer ]'s face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If ''general association'', not even ''direct'', with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::: We disagree and that's fine, have a nice day. ] (]) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The one policy that ] does not bypass is ]. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the ] and the ] policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like ] {{ndash}} which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per ], {{xt|"Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful"}}, particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::A few editors here are trying to stretch the BLPSPS and SPS policies to prevent Sneider from being used at all, which shouldn't override the existing community consensus and clear evidence that he is a reliable source for film-related reporting. HadesTTW suggested wording that is a good start towards a common-sense solution where Sneider is used, with attribution, for reports on film-related coverage where better sources do not exist. This should lead to a compromise, with Sneider being used in situations where his reports are improving articles while editors become more aware of whether he should be used (and not using him in situations where his reports genuinely fall into BLPSPS territory, could be replaced by a better source, or some other issue such as DUEWEIGHT). All that is preventing us from moving on to that conclusion and ending this discussion is the idea that BLPSPS and SPS apply to every little mention of a living person in a source, which I maintain is ridiculous and inappropriate. - ] (]) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * If the argument is that RS use tghat means tghat is RS, I don't see why one couldn't use forgo including tghat altogether and just cite the reputable sources covering the content. Tghat does not seem to be reliable. Additionally, this conflict is quite recent so we should be patient and remember that if tghat is the only site covering a massacre, it will be covered later in news and even later in academia if it is notable (]). But back to the reliability topic, no I don't believe tghat is reliable based on how their content is created. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">]<span style="color:#fff"> ⁂ </span> ]</span> 21:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::If you do not agree with excluding self-published sources from being used for claims about living persons, you may propose a change to the relevant policies at ] and ]. What you believe is {{!xt|"ridiculous and inappropriate"}} is actually how these policies have been applied on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, per community consensus. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I never said I was against the central ideas of BLPSPS, I completely understand why we want to have a higher standard of verifiability when it comes to exceptional/controversial claims about real people who may take issue with said claims. That makes sense from multiple angles. What I take issue with is using the same standard for non-exceptional claims that happen to involve people. In my opinion, there is a very big difference between (which I accept) and . - ] (]) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::exactly! If I actually paid any attention to X-Men 97, I would have rm'd that in a hot second. Sneider making claims that ] was doing heinous stuff to his staffers is some outrageous content that I would insist we wait on reports by '']'' or '']'' or '']'', any particular source of merit to include those claims in the article. Outrageous claims require usage of especially reliable sources like ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::In the 18 years since that BLPSPS policy was enacted, the industry of journalism has changed drastically with a variety of seasoned journalists and subject-matter experts publishing their reports on their own accord, and I believe it is about time that the policies are updated to compliment such changes to update with the times. I do not think Sneider's status as a self-published source should discount his reliability with his actual reporting in his newsletter, and am more than happy to raise concerns for the policy to be updated elsewhere, but that is not the central issue to determine reliability in {{em|this}} discussion. ] (]) 02:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Most people on this board are aware of the poor state of traditional journalism and the rise of indie outlets. I myself noted in a ] that ], who has a track record of good journalist work and whose stories I think are accurate, should nonetheless not be used without corroboration and/or discussion by non-SPS RSs because he's a BLPSPS. If any of you think there's appetite in moving from the current bright-line rule to another system for BLPSPSs (e.g. limited carve out where RSN endorses use with attribution), that might be a worthwhile discussion to have. As its stands though, BLPSPS is quite clear and the overwhelming majority of the uses of InSneider are in such cases. | |||
| :::::::::::::::If we do want to go back to discussing the reliability of InSneider for non-BLP claims, I would start with something I asked earlier, are you as a subscriber to InSneider, able to provide examples of if he retracted, corrected, and/or explained why he missed on the Sweeney/Day Drinker, Holland/Spider-verse, Lindeloff/Star Wars stories? Getting a story wrong isn't fatal to use as a reliable source since even the best sources aren't 100%. However, for assessing new sources, correcting mistakes is an indicator of reliability (as long as the miss rate is not too high), but not addressing them is a sign of unreliability. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::The language in ] and ] does not provide an exemption for self-published content about other living persons that is deemed to be uncontroversial. The "central idea" of this requirement is to ensure that any claim (not just controversial claims) about a living person passes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing special about Sneider or his self-published newsletter that would warrant an exception to this requirement, which applies to every other individual who meets the ] criterion. If anyone wants to amend this requirement, which has been applied on Misplaced Pages for more than 18 years, a discussion at ], ], or ] would be the first step to enact the change you are looking for. Such a change, if it gains community consensus, would apply to all sources of this kind and not just Sneider's content. Until then, the use of Sneider's self-published claims about other living persons remains a violation of core content policies. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Once again, that is your ''interpretation'' of the policies which is clearly not shared by all editors. I fear a discussion at one of those other places will have similar luck due to a few editors that like things the way they are, but I am happy to give it a go. As for wrapping up this discussion, I still think we should return to the wording that I suggested above in response to HadesTTW. I am not concerned about these apparent "misses" that Patar knight keeps harping on about. Some of these may have been genuinely wrong, but not many of them (which is the case with almost all reliable trade sources as well). Most would have been accurate at the time but then things changed due to the developing nature of films (i.e. Lindelof leaving his SW film, Driver being considered for FF but not getting the part). The Sweeney instance seems to be a blatant case of him getting it wrong and being called out immediately, but that one time isn't enough to make him an unreliable source especially when nearly everything else he has reported aligns with other sources. - ] (]) 10:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::I've started a policy talk page discussion at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Self-published claims about other living persons}}. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I don't have a particular problem with using Sneider as a source, as long as we attribute his speculations properly. He has a generally good track record and is used by reliable sources. But I have come across situations where we report his speculations as fact. When he has an expectation that is not attributed to an official or at least genuinely connected source, if we choose to report that expectation at all, it needs to be attributed as "Sneider's expectation that such and such will occur", not as a Wikivoice statement that "such and such will occur." ] (]) 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| * '''Comment''' - (Re the argument about a scarcity of "rich country" media coverage and how we must ''bend'' our Misplaced Pages rules in order to allow Tghat as a source to reasonably cover the Tigray conflict.) A brief look in the Reference sections of ] and ], finds such usual reliable sources as: | |||
| :* Reuters, Al Jazeera, BBC News, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, The Guardian | |||
| :There are also numerous Africa-centric and Ethiopia-centric organizations mentioned in the citations, including: | |||
| :* ]: Belgian-based NGOs "involved in human rights issues particularly in the Horn of Africa and North Africa." | |||
| :* New Business Ethiopia: "Founded by an award-winning journalist, Andualem Sisay Gessesse" (since 2009) | |||
| :* ]: "American news publication, founded in 1970 and focused on global affairs" | |||
| :* ]: "a state-owned mass media company operating in Ethiopia" | |||
| :* African Arguments: "a pan-African platform for news, investigation and opinion." Editor and deputy editor named. Editor is an experienced journalist and editor. | |||
| :* Ipi Global Observatory: "provides timely analysis on peace and security issues by experts, journalists, and policymakers. It is published by the ]." Personnel are named. | |||
| :* ]: "an Ethiopian monthly social, economic and political news magazine." registered, info given | |||
| :There are also seemingly lesser-reliable websites used for citations, including: | |||
| :* Ezega News: "the premier Ethiopian portal that provides the Ethiopian community at home and abroad information and data". (no names given) | |||
| :* Eritrea Hub: Blog format, no about-us page. "Information about Eritrea and the Horn of Africa." | |||
| :* Ethiopia Insight: "coverage of Ethiopian political and economic issues". No names. | |||
| : There are dozens of other sources I didn't recognize and didn't click on. And this list is from just looking at less than 5% of the citations. My point being that we have a plethora of sources available to us that we ''can'' denote as reliable sources, and renders moot the argument that we ''need'' tghat.com and ''need'' to bend the reliable source rules because of alleged "demographic bias". | |||
| — ] (]) 03:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: A lot of your sources are located in Addis-Abeba and some are government-affiliated so we should expect to get only one side of the story from them ("media coverage has become a “very sensitive” topic for the government, said Befeqadu Hailu, an Ethiopian journalist imprisoned for 18 months by the previous regime."). It is well known that journalists are not welcome in the zone of conflict now ("Within hours, the internet in Tigray was shut down and journalists were blocked from entering the region."). It doesn't follow from this that we need to bend our rules but the argument that there are plenty of RS coverage is spurious. ]<sub>]</sub> 06:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{Reply|Alaexis}} You cannot infer anything based on "Platonk's tiny sample". I did not select a sampling based on ''their'' physical location, but on the presence of citations in the references sections of the two main Misplaced Pages articles for the Tigray conflict. I just scrolled and picked the top few, then grabbed a couple others. When I had looked at enough to make a small list, I quit looking further. Go look at the references section yourself. I'm sure not going to spend hours combing through the over 600 references just to convince ''you'' of anything. My original point still stands: we have numerous international, American, European, African, and Ethiopian sources already being cited. I remind you that Misplaced Pages ''is not a newspaper'', we are not journalists, and Misplaced Pages does not need to cover every little aspect of the Tigray conflict as it unfolds. No one is going to die because we don't use tghat.com here in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: You prepared this list as a response to the comment about the scarcity of data sources. My point is that this list in no way proves there is no scarcity, for the reasons listed in the NYT article I linked. ]<sub>]</sub> 07:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: That wasn't its purpose. My point was that with over 500 editors having edited the two main articles , that they have already found ''and cited'' sufficient RS sources without needing tghat.com. There are 784 citations in the Tigray war article and the timeline articles. Only 13 citations point to tghat-hosted articles and 15 to the tghat victim list. Comparing that to the other 756 citations — yes, I can confidently say there is no shortage of reliable sources such that Misplaced Pages editors would need to resort to using an anonymously-published website. Scarcity of reporters on the ground in the region is irrelevant to this specific RfC, unless one is trying to make the argument that somehow tghat.com writers are filling that role while no other reliable sources are. ] (]) 11:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: The do not name themselves on the website itself, but and are both named publicly on a website that publishes a variety of views by Ethiopian intellectuals. So the adjective "anonymously-published" is inaccurate. The lack of knowledge on how to make a website "look professional" with a "Who we are" page of key people does not make it anonymous.{{pb}}As for Ethiopian sources of information, the number ''is'' small. Looking at two main articles alone does not seriously cover the topic; ] has about 425 articles for a civil conflict in a country of 18 million people. This case risks extending across a country of 110 or so million people, in which federal government control of the and national media is getting tighter and tighter in the areas ''outside'' of the TDF-OLA controlled regions. The internet/telephone blockade and control of communication devices at border controls makes reporting from inside the Tigray extended region difficult. Reports on the Axum massacre with victim counts ranging from 100 (]) to "thousands" (]) ]. ] lecturer Getu Mak's early February testimony, about 70 days after the event, , was one of the first reliable reports that was consistent with later reports (e.g. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch).{{pb}}So yes, there is a scarcity of sources for this field of knowledge as a whole, and the ] of ''Tghat'' information shows that generally, though not always, ''Tghat'' provides reliable information. Saying that the source is not needed because it's confirmed by others is reversing ]. ] (]) 23:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Just a small comment on the "40 days" issue: there is no rush to add content to this encyclopaedia (]), especially about contentious topics. Yes, it is important to have up-to-date information. But if major news outlets with long histories of reputable reporting are delaying their news items about certain events, it is probable that those events are highly complex and hard to get accurate information for. Therefore, WP should not jump the gun and use less reputable sources just because major reputable ones haven't published yet. Additionally, saying that because Tghat is RS because its report was then consistent with reputable reports is a ]. Finally, the idea that +600 sources is too few sources such that the use of tghat is necessary is almost ] as the burden of proof for {{u|Platonk}} to provide even more than that or analyze all those 600 sources just to show tghat isn't absolutely necessary is an inordinate requirement when it is much simpler to prove or disprove whether tghat is RS period. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> ]</span> 00:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We don't have to jump the gun and there's no deadline, but we have had en.Misplaced Pages coverage of recent news become generally accepted since the ] that affected the south-east Asian economic tigers. We do have to make reasonable efforts to balance against ] and the dominance of Western rich-country mainstream media. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia about the world, not an encyclopedia about how the West sees the world. Given that we do have ''generally'' reliable sources such as ''Tghat'', there's no reason to restrict ourselves to a circular argument about the Western mainstream media being reputable because what they do is reputable. ] is not an argument against ]; there's no claim that ''Tghat'' had a causal effect on later reports; the question is whether later reports agreed with ''Tghat'''s information. See ] for the details.{{pb}}The 600+ argument is mostly an ] argument. ] (]) 02:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: {{Reply|Boud}} Even if Tghat.com incorporated as an NGO, published bios of their main personnel and leadership, and was older than its current one year age, they would still be an advocacy organization and we would be limited in how we could use what they publish. The man who runs the website ( or or however he spells his name today) presents himself as the manager of a website, a researcher and an activist — no credentials mentioned of being a reporter or an editor, or even an academic. And he isn't even located in Africa so one can't give him points for "boots on the ground and eyes front". A dozen brief mentions by reputable sources do not make tghat.com a "reliable source by proxy". ] (]) 10:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{Hatnote|Once Telegram gets mentioned on ], its shortcuts would be ] and ].}} | |||
| Telegram is unreliable because: | |||
| *Telegram is an ] platform, which means that it is highly unreliable as a source because it is used by the alt-right to evade censorship and publish far-right opinions and pseudoscientific conspiracy theories. | |||
| *Telegram is a ] because it is a social networking service. | |||
| *Most far-right things (such as ], ], and ]) have escaped to Telegram after getting suspended on several mainstream social networking services. | |||
| *Telegram has been described as a "safe haven for spammers and crypto scams" because of how most Telegram groups are flooded with cryptocurrency scammers and other types of spammers. However, t.me links are barely seen on Misplaced Pages (or i just don't see them often). | |||
| *]. | |||
| Telegram would either be ] (like all other self-published sources) or ] (because it is alt-tech). However, if t.me links are commonly used to violate ], it would be ]. | |||
| ] (]) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!----------Place comments above this line------------> | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| :I wasn't aware there was anyone suggesting that it might be reliable. ] (] • ]) 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == GEOnet Names Server (GNS) == | |||
| :Telegram doesn't need to be on the RSP, it's obviously unreliable and I don't see anyone arguing that it is reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :''Unarchived from archive 359 for further feedback/proper close'' | |||
| ::Agreed, it's just a user-generated source (]). Reliable for ] claims and posts by respectable experts/journalists/reliable sources, unreliable generally. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 11:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1640689288}} | |||
| :Aside from the fact that the ] i.e. '''''literal''' neo-Nazis'' use it (which is ]), Telegram, as a platform where ] with no clear editorial oversight, is a ] and unreliable, except in cases such as ]. I thought this was pretty obvious. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfc|hist|rfcid=F3365B8}} | |||
| == Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson == | |||
| Which of the following best describes the ] of the US's ] (GNS) database? | |||
| ] is cited in the''' Media outlets''' section of ]. He's an independent journalist who self-publishes and doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist. Reliable or not? I say no. Some other editors from that article might come here with more context. ] (]) 02:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1:''' The source is recognized as being ]. | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' There is ]. | |||
| *'''Option 3:''' The source is recognized as being ] in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances. | |||
| *'''Option 4:''' The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be ]. | |||
| *'''Option 5:''' The source is: | |||
| **'''Generally reliable''' for Locations/Coordinates | |||
| **'''Generally unreliable''' for Feature Classes, particularly "Populated place" | |||
| **Does not satisfy the "Legal recognition" requirement of ]. | |||
| *'''Option 6:''' Same as Option 5 but including Toponyms in GNS as generally reliable. | |||
| ] (]) 15:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :. Mr. Klippenstein is being used to cite: | |||
| ===Background (GNS)=== | |||
| :# {{tqq|Klippenstein also alleged that '']'' directed their staff to "dial back" on showing photographs containing Mangione's face.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Klippenstein |first1=Ken |date=December 11, 2024 |title=NY Times Doesn't Want You to See Shooter's Face |url=https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/ny-times-doesnt-want-you-to-see-mangiones |access-date=December 15, 2024 |website=kenklippenstein.com |language=en}}</ref>}} | |||
| Ten or more years ago, thousands of geographic articles have been created on English Misplaced Pages by importing database entries directly from the GEOnet Names Server (GNS). For example, a search for the phrases "by opening the Advanced Search box, entering" and "can be found at GEOnet Names Server" (i.e., instructions telling the reader to search the GEONet Names server for the ID code for the location the article is about) on Misplaced Pages . These largely refer to populated locations. Some of these articles have been expanded using other sources into full articles, others remain as stubs for which GNS is the only source. GNS's location classifications are assembled using substantially the same methodology . Its classification of locations, especially as "populated places", therefore suffers from the same issues.<br/> | |||
| :# {{tqq|A report on the killing by the ] was obtained by independent journalist Dan Boguslaw, and published by Klippenstein on December 26. The report focused on Mangione's motive and people who express sympathy for him, whom they labeled as "extremists". Klippenstein alleged that multiple media outlets had access to the report, but selectively quoted it in a way that focused on Mangione. He said that "By withholding documents and unilaterally deciding which portions merit public disclosure, the media is playing god."<ref>{{cite web |title=Read the NYPD’s Mangione report the media won't publish |url=https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/post-luigi-the-extremist-threat-is |publisher=Ken Klippenstein |access-date=28 December 2024}}</ref>}} {{reflist}} | |||
| Additionally, a 2008 study of 26,500 South Korea toponyms uncovered around 200 Japanese names (), apparently as a result of using 1946 US military maps as a source (the Japanese-pronunciation names had apparently never been used on Japanese maps going back to 1910, so the US military - likely due to use of Japanese assistants in compiling their maps - are ultimately the source of these errors). The same study also noted that "There are many spelling errors and simple mis-understanding of the place names with similar characters" (see page 198), and also uncovered some very random English toponyms still present on the database but never commonly used. Therefore, at the very least, it appears that place names on GNS should ideally be confirmed in other sources, as it may for some countries have imported systematic errors from the old military maps that GNS is typically based on.<br/> | |||
| :] (]) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's crap. "Media reactions" or "in the media" sections in Misplaced Pages articles too often, like this article, become dumpsters where Wikipedians simply like to show off how good they are at finding random sources and shoehorning them into an article, for reasons. ] (]) 04:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. ] (]) 04:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Right, but the focus here is on the reliability of Ken Klippenstein and whether or not his statements (sourced to his own website and attributed) are usable in the article. ] (]) 12:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist}} That's not accurate, as you could have confirmed by checking out the references in the Klippenstein WP article that note that he's been a journalist for outlets like The Nation and The Intercept. Both of those are generally reliable on the RSP. He's also seen as serious by other journalists (e.g., in Columbia Journalism Review interview, which describes him "as one of the most fearless reporters of the Trump era"). | |||
| :His self-published work cannot be used as a source for WP content about living or recently dead people (e.g., about Mangione's letter), per ]. He could be used as a source on a BLP if the WP text sourced to him is not itself about a person (e.g., if it's about mainstream media). But in this case, I don't see how to disentangle his statements about the press from content about Mangione. Some other news outlets have reported a bit about the content currently sourced to Klippenstein, such as this , noting Klippenstein's apparent publication of Mangione's letter. ] (]) 15:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was just going to say something similar - it's definitely inaccurate to say he hasn't written for other reliable sources in the past. It's true that his own stuff would fall foul of ], but his stuff picked up by other reliable sources is usable, conceptually, with proper context and attribution. ] ] ] ] 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Hell no, get rid of this Kenny guy now. ]: this content directly involves a living person (Luigi), and to make self-published claims about info regarding these living persons is against policy. And, Kenny boy over here is using his blog to write ] things about an American newspaper of record. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{U|BarntToust}} - Dial it back a bit. ] applies to all BLP is all Misplaced Pages spaces. You calling him weird names like "Kenny Boy" probably doesn't constitute "written with the greatest care and attention". ] ] 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If this was like '']'' or '']'' writing this about ''NYT'' then yes I would support inclusion. This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here. "Ken" should be more concerned that he is writing damning blog posts accusing a reputable newspaper of compromised journalistic integrity. Who else will pick this up? Who else will corroborate this bold as all hell claim with trusted journalistic process? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here" is false, as is "he is writing damning blog posts." More than one person here has noted that he's a reliable journalist. Unbandito explained why he chose to start his own journalism Substack (not a blog). There are a number of established writers using Substack to host their reporting; here's ]. It's bizarre that you put his name in quotation marks, especially after calling him "this Kenny guy" and "Kenny boy." Nothing is stopping you from answering your own questions. I already noted a couple of sources that had picked it up; here's . ] (]) 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I personally believe that bold claims against these news organisations need other comparable news organisations to corroborate them, to establish ]. the spreading of claims by sources who are especially biased and opinionated means nothing. "Ken" can make a bombshell accusation against NYT for spineless reporting but can we get ''The Guardian'' or some other prestigious institutions to back these claims? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A reminder that WP:RS states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject," so I don't agree that his reporting "means nothing." This thread started off with the false claim that he "doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist" and the question "Reliable or not?" The false claim has been addressed. The question shows that people have different opinions. Whether some mention of Klippenstein is DUE is not a matter of reliability and belongs on the Talk page. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Having been employed by two ultra-partisan outlets for some short period, and then by "The Young Turks" which is marginally better than InfoWars, does not indicate this individual's self-published works meet the encyclopedia's reliability standards. And it has not been shown that I made a false claim, only if you think these ultra-partisan sources are "mainstream". Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent, which is laughable. ] (]) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::He was employed by The Young Turks ''before'' he worked for The Nation and The Intercept, not ''after'', and those aren't the only other media for which he's written. Partisanship doesn't determine whether a given media outlet is/isn't mainstream media. They're both listed on Harvard's . {{tq|Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent}} Please quote whomever you're referring to, because I don't see any comment suggesting that. I'd be happy to be corrected, but otherwise, it's counterproductive to characterize people's comments as more extreme than they actually are. Again: people clearly have different opinions about whether he's "Reliable or not?" You have your opinion, and I have mine. Personally, I consider the ] interview as evidence of his reliability; if they happen to focus on someone who's unreliable, I think they say so, as . ] (]) 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Funny, Misplaced Pages lists The Federalist as "generally unreliable due to its partisan nature" yet they're listed as mainstream on Harvard's index. Seems like some kinds of partisanship are more acceptable than others. ] (]) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I didn't claim or imply that all MSM on Harvard's list are ''reliable''. Reliability, partisanship, and mainstream media status are all distinct dimensions. A source can fall into any one of their 8 combinations. The full RSP sentence is "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature''' and its promotion of conspiracy theories'''." Maybe you think a source that promotes conspiracy theories is reliable, but I don't. ] (]) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't think a source promoting conspiracies is reliable, and I'm not disputing the decision against The Federalist. I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview, and I disagree. Even the content in question isn't just a professional critique of editorial decisions, but it's couched in nefarious undertones, even going so far as to accuse MSM of "playing god." ] (]) 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::{{tq|I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here.}} That's a very general claim for which you've provided no evidence and that also seems way beyond the scope of this particular thread. {{tq|Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview...}} Another very general claim, though this one at least touches on the thread's topic. Focusing just on Klippenstein, if you have evidence that he "''frequently'' write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a ] worldview" and not reliable, you should present it. If you do have that evidence, then you really should have presented it when you first asked "Reliable or not?" ] (]) 00:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I would just refer you over to the article's talk page where discussion of this issue has continued, and a resolution has been reached. As to Klipp's conspiratorial worldview, see his latest media rant which I also submitted in talk.. ] (]) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I don't see how anything on the talk page provides evidence for your claim that he "'''frequently''' write of large corporations as dark plotters," and either you have evidence of that or you don't. So far, it looks like you don't. The only thing I see in your link relative to a "conspiratorial worldview" is his claim that "every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is," which hardly rises to the level of "frequently." ] (]) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a ]? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::It's a BLP violation to keep calling him a conspiracy theorist is what it is. One that Jonathan f1 seems quite committed to. ] (]) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Like I explained to you on the talk page, I'm using his own words. He's alleging that politicians and major media outlets "conspired" against the public. ] (]) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Him using a turn of phrase one time doesn't give us cause to start throwing insults at him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Please provide a couple of reliable sources calling Klippenstein a conspiracy theorist or desist immediately. ] (]) 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::], do we need reliable sources? I don't think we should explicitly be throwing around the ]-word, but rather ]. Keeps BLP vio away. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::I'm not putting him in the same bucket with Alex Jones, but his repeated attacks on major media followed by a remark about them "conspiring" with each other is what it is. But okay, to move past all this pointless tone policing, I'll find a new phrase. ] (]) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I'm not going to rehash his entire career as a journalist here, and particularly his time with The Young Turks which will certainly provide you with ample evidence of this. It isn't even relevant here -the articles in question are attack pieces where he is either implicating major media outlets in a plot or calling their journalistic ethics into question. That we are even debating inclusion with no corroboration from high-grade sources is remarkable. ] (]) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Again, I said {{tq|if you have evidence that he "'''frequently''' write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it.}} You're the one who made the claim, and you're the one with the burden of proof for it. Don't try to shift the burden onto me. I'm not "debating inclusion" of any specific edit right now. I'm telling you that if you can't or won't substantiate your claim, then you should retract it, as it's an unsubstantiated contentious claim and a BLP violation. The BLP policy applies to any statements about living persons on all WP pages, including this one. ] (]) 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::I'll retract it just to move on from this. My objection to Klippenstein in this particular case does not hinge on this little side issue. ] (]) 23:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why did you put his real name in quotes like that? ] ] 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As an indicator that I generally distrust Substack reporters and their methods. I can't believe that anything will pass as qualified journalism nowadays 😐 <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :In this case, I'd say keep it. Klippenstein obtained and published the manifesto, which mainstream sources begrudgingly admitted was the same one they refused to publish. It appears that the citations in this article are of secondary coverage of his work, which makes them even more admissible. Klip is not just some guy, he has journalistic credentials and a past of reliable reporting for multiple reliable orgs. He's one of a number of journalists who was laid off from major outlets in the last year or so as part of a broader trend of restructuring in media that is ongoing. He and others like Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill have moved on to independent work, but despite the loss of their association with an established organization, their reporting remains influential and they've made a number of valuable contributions to our knowledge of and discourse on current events. I worry that Misplaced Pages policy, which assumes that mainstream media has a static financial and ethical position in perpetuity, is not adequately nuanced to accommodate major shake-ups in the press such as what we're seeing today. I think it's also worth noting that while Ken publishes on substack, at least in some other articles he's written (such as his publication of a US intelligence report on Israeli preparations to strike Iran) he employs an editor to review his work. This is the same sort of self-publishing that mainstream RS do, and another argument in favor of his reliability. ] (]) 16:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::"multiple reliable orgs." | |||
| ::Really, like what? The Young Turks? I'm aware that Nation and Intercept are considered generally reliable, but there's also consensus that they're opinionated, biased and partisan, and should be used with caution. Klipp doesn't work for any of these publications anymore; he self-publishes on substack and has made a career for himself publishing MSM polemic. That's what this section includes currently -Klipp's self-published polemic directed at NY Times, CNN etc. Even if this appeared in The Nation, there'd be weight issues. ] (]) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, The Nation and The Intercept. All media has bias, and any media-literate person should understand this. I think weight arguments are a lot stronger regarding content that is more than a few sentences or a short paragraph long. I don't think the due weight for this content is zero, and therefore I think the material is appropriate. If there is a significant view in opposition to Klippenstein, I think the page would be better improved by expanding it. ] (]) 17:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course all media, and all humans, are biased, but when a consensus on here comes with that caveat, you know you're not dealing with a gold standard RS. And this is only relevant here if you think his past employment with these outlets, however brief, in some way lends credibility to his self-published substacks. ] (]) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think what his past employment in media shows is that he has the training and follows the same standards of verifiability as prestige media organizations. I think it's worth noting that when a fake version of the manifesto was making the rounds, Klippenstein declined to publish it and called it out as misleading because he couldn't verify its authenticity. Regardless of where he's publishing them, I think his publication of several leaked documents ahead of the mainstream press as well as his history as a FOIA journalist shows that he is well connected to valuable sources of information and is engaged in "real" investigative journalism of the sort that prestige outlets are increasingly unwilling to pay for when opinion pieces get them just as many clicks. | |||
| :::::His perspective on the unwillingness of the media to publish a document which they had verified is true is granted some additional relevance by the fact that he is the one who published the document and inquired to these organizations as to why they hadn't, as well as by the fact that journalists from those legacy organizations leaked internal communications to him which showed the decision those organizations had made. | |||
| :::::I think that this is frankly a strong example of the way that Misplaced Pages's current RS policies are inadequate to handle the reality that with the traditional media in financial and organizational crisis, sometimes breaking news is going to be published by small independent outlets or individuals. Any conception of reliability that uniformly dismisses sources like Klippenstein as if they're some random blog post by John Q. Public while reifying legacy media despite the history of its errors and shortcomings and the media studies scholarship that problematizes a simplistic conception of source reliability, is sure to exclude some valuable material and include a lot of junk. Without getting too far off topic, I think the solution to this is to emphasize verifiability and source consensus over things like editorial process and organizational prestige, and to attribute wherever there is controversy or disagreement. ] (]) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Anyone using phrases like "MSM polemic" ought to be stepping well away from deciding the reliability of ''any'' sources, to be honest. ] 19:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::NY Times and CNN are mainstream media, a polemic is "a piece of writing expressing a strongly critical view of someone or something." Thus, Klippenstein's hit pieces on MSM are polemics. I don't see why me knowing what these words mean implies I need to "step well away" from assessing reliability. ] (]) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::if someone else reports on it, its not sps, its secondary coverage of SPS, which should be admissible in BLP, right? I think we can't directly use any details in his blog that aren't vetted and cited by another non-SPS news source ] (]) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, secondary sources can be used for a BLP, if they are RSs. For example, this article confirms that Klippenstein published Mangione full "manifesto." And this article could be used re: his criticism of other media for not releasing the whole thing, though RSP says "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." Perhaps there are other reliable non-SPSs that are better sources for the content about Klippenstein's criticism of other media; I'm not going to take time right now to search further. There may still be questions about due weight, whether a claim needs to be attributed, etc., but those are distinct from the question of reliability and what can be used for BLP material. ] (]) 17:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See, this is the thing, we've got LA Times, a high quality RS for news, so there's no reason to cite Klippenstein. But that covers the manifesto issue, which I wouldn't object to including. But the hit piece on those MSMs? Yeah, that's not found in LA Times or any other source on that level, only a "marginally reliable" source. I do not think Klipp is any position to critique editorial decisions at these publications, and do not see how that's due weight anyway. ] (]) 18:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this: | |||
| :::::* I don't object to the bit about media not publishing the manifesto, and this could be sourced to the LA Times (the secondary source referencing Klippenstein). | |||
| :::::* The next line about the NY Times not showing the suspect's face -no RS is talking about this and I personally find it irrelevant. | |||
| :::::*The last part about media outlets selectively quoting from the NYPD report -this exceeds weight limits and makes the section read like a hit piece against MSM, all sourced to one man. Klippenstein objects to the NYPD using the term "extremists" to describe the suspect's supporters, and cites a report by security firm Dragonfly to argue that the risk of violent attacks on corporate leaders will likely remain low. If you read his source, they, too, use the word "extremists" to describe people who support the killing. | |||
| :::::] (]) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I read his work and personally trust Klippenstein. However, his substack is clearly a self-published source. Unbandito's comments on broader issues with Misplaced Pages, while interesting, don't address the ] issue. Ultimately, Klippenstein is the person with final approval on what he wrote. | |||
| :I would consider Klippenstein's views ] if they are reported on by reliable sources. Based on what I know and see here, I can't consider him to meet the ] criteria in this topic area. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 07:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with Chess here - ] is appropriate here. Klippenstein is a respected journalist. He's also self-publishing. But, in this case, he's an expert who is self-publishing. ] (]) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::See talk page (article linked up top). ] (]) 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll endorse this as position as well. Klippenstein has a good track record with reputable outlets and hasn't had issues so far on his own, but is ultimately a ] that should only be included when corroborated and/or discussed by non-SPS RSs. That appears to be the case with the manifesto itself, but not the other reports. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Pretty much yes. There's no issue with the manifesto content, but the other reports are not mentioned in any secondary RS of any quality (ignoring Washington Times and the art website). There's also the fact that he's mentioned 3 separate times in a section of only 8 lines, which is hard to defend. ] (]) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I merged the 'Media outlets' section with the 'Other' section. An editor made a ] on the talk page that according to Klippenstein's article, he's a FOIA document expert, and that {{tq|much of his journalism draws on information he has uncovered from records requested at state and national levels of the US government}}, which {{tq|also frequently include information from leaked documents}}. ] (]) 02:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Regardless of expert status, BLPSPS applies and would bar the use when it's not corroborated. It seems the new combined section has some sources that discussion Klippenstein's work in and of itself, which partially solves that issue. The issue then is if the amount of coverage is DUE. Klippenstein is an established journalist and some inclusion is probably due given the coverage, but a lot of the paragraph is repetitive, so I would probably cut it down by half. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Could you comment in the ], because despite what is being said here in this thread, certain editors still think he's a ], ], and unreliable ], ], ]. ] (]) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :From what I can tell, a consensus has not yet been achieved here. I don't wish to step on anybody's toes, but I have reverted ]'s blanking of a large portion of the disputed section . ] (]) 10:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please see ]: {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} You should self-revert your reversion until consensus has been reached in one way or another. ] (]) 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::But ] is also relevant: {{tq|When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.}} ] (]) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. ] (]) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The material that User:Toa Nidhiki05 removed had been in the article since December 13 without any dispute (until now). ] (]) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Ken Klippenstein is a bit of a weird special case because he's an experienced reporter whose Substack is nevertheless still clearly an ] but because he has very different views on the direct publication of source documents (like manifestos) than much of the rest of the media, he is reasonably often the main source of the full text of a document that the rest of the media acknowledges exists, is real, and that Klippenstein's version of the text is correct, but refuses to actually publish the text themselves. A sort of one-man Wikileaks situation. | |||
| :I honestly think that since he is clearly reliable in these situations he is actually a fine source for these sorts of documents, presuming we bear in mind that: | |||
| :a) Documents published by him should be clearly acknowledged in the text to be sourced to him alone. | |||
| :b) Just because Klippenstein is reliable for the text of the documents he publishes doesn't mean that the documents themselves are reliable for facts or that Klippenstein is endorsing or even has checked their factual claims. | |||
| :c) Klippenstein doesn't have to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and so it's very possible that documents he publishes don't follow BLP guidelines for some reason. AFAICT usually what he publishes is about public figures but that doesn't ''have'' to be the case, and in cases where a document has private information about a private figure we shouldn't repeat it. ] (]) 21:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfC: NewsNation== | |||
| I have therefore adapted ] to exclude toponyms from Option 5, but also added an Option 6 including GNS toponyms as generally reliable. ] (]) 15:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}} | |||
| What is the reliability of ]? | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| ===Survey (GNS)=== | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| *'''Option 5''' as Nom (EDIT: and also '''Option 2''' for locations / coordinates per ]). The classification of locations in GNS is essentially ] and as such the same analysis applies - it is inaccurate as to whether a place was ever populated and cannot anyway be used to justify claiming that a place has legal recognition, not least because it does not come from an authority in the country concerned because this is a US database for places outside the US. As for topnyms, the reported error-rate (~1% Japanese names in South Korea, and a unknown number of additional erroneous names from misunderstandings etc.) is hard to balance so I'd prefer just to leave it as an open question. At the very least, with toponyms, people should be aware that these were compiled mainly from old US military maps and in some cases systematic errors may have been introduced. As far as I've ever been able to determine the location data on GNS is accurate (EDIT: but is a primary source). ] (]) 16:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| *I'm going to say the same thing I said last time for GNIS: "generally reliable for information about place names of any kind, but cannot be used to determine notability for stand-alone articles in any way, even if it calls a place a "populated place"" In determining if a place is a valid topic for a stand-alone article, we need ]. The fact that a place ''exists'' is not sufficiently indepth. We can generally trust the GNS (as much as any source), since it is a simple database of places and names, but we should not be creating articles that cannot be expanded if sufficiently in-depth sources don't exist. --]] 19:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| *'''Option 5''' disagree with the above comment because if a populated place the size of a village or larger can be verified through reliable sources such as an official census then it should be included to fulfill Misplaced Pages's role as a gazeteer regardless of the lack of indepth sources. This is particularly the case for villages in countries with limited internet coverage, imv ] (]) 03:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:If that is the case, from where do you get the information necessary to write a sufficient article about said place? --]] 13:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] - I think it is important to remember that Misplaced Pages is an ''encyclopaedia'' and the ultimate goal here is to write encyclopaedia articles. There has never, ever been a consensus that Misplaced Pages should suddenly become something other than an encyclopaedia when covering geographical features. At most, it has been described as having "features of ... gazetteers" in ], which is ], a phrase that and has never been substantially endorsed since as far as I've been able to determine. ] refers to this section of WP:5P, but this is odd because WP:5P is supposed to be summary of the guidelines/policies, not a basis for them, meaning that this is essentially a circular reference. Having "features...of gazetteers" is anyway met by including the typical infobox information alongside encyclopaedic content - it does not require that we turn WP into a gazetteer. Anyway this is me getting a long way OT so I'll stop here. ] (]) 14:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Having features of a gazetteer can mean "naming a populated place on a list of populated places". I've never said, and I will never say, that ''information'' about such populated places needs to be stricken from Misplaced Pages entirely, but having a stand-alone article should be reserved for topics ''that can support a stand-alone article''. If all we can say about a place is ''that it exists'' and nothing more, it is sufficient to mention that it exists elsewhere. We don't have to give it a stand-alone article. --]] 14:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Agree 100%. ] (]) 15:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Oh, and one thing I would also add to my response to ] is that census's are not generally reliable sources for whether a place is legally recognised unless they plainly state that a place is legally recognised by, e.g., stating that a location is a kind of legally-recognised location (e.g., that it is a type of location with e.g., a town council or mayor). We have had far too many situations in which someone has assumed that every location mentioned in a census was a legally recognised populated place when they were instead e.g., farms, pumps, factories, neighbourhoods, railway sidings, marshalling yards, railway stations, bridges, fords, wells, springs etc. etc. etc.. And even with that evidence, the goal is still to write an encyclopaedia article, because WP is an encyclopaedia and does not suddenly become something else when the topic is geography. ] (]) 08:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Unfortunately you ignored the part of my comment that referred to the size and designation of the place as being at least a village. From most government census' there are at least two paragraphs of information available regarding population, education, occupations, number of families, local government and so on. Also, I believe you are out of step with current practice that is to include stubs on villages and towns regardless of depth of coverage providing they are reliably verified however disappointing that might be for deletionists, imv ] (]) 00:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: I've just read your essay ] which is interesting but I don't think that all census' should be dismissed because of some poor ones, rather a case by case evaluation would be more accurate. Also i've seen senior editors and admin making the case that Misplaced Pages does have a role as a gazeteer, imv ] (]) 00:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] - I agree that gazetteers and census data should always be evaluated case-by-case. There's a continuum in both cases from single-line statistical data about a location to 1-200 word or more descriptive coverage, and there's things they're good for and things they're not good for. Most GNIS and GNS data is from the lower end of that spectrum. I think a very basic but passing article can be written based on data from the high end of that spectrum, but that many, many articles on Misplaced Pages at present are from the lower end of that spectrum. The reason they are kept is because of the idea that Misplaced Pages ''is'' a gazetteer and that any geographic location should get an article, which is something no consensus on here has ever determined. . Anyway, I'm going OT again so I'll stop. ] (]) 19:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' for locations / coordinates, '''Option 5''' otherwise. The most important thing to recognize about this source is that it is essentially always going to be ], which is the reason it can't be used for anything that would imply interpretation or analysis. This is also something that needs to be taken into consideration even when using it for locations or coordinates; they can't be used in any way that would carry unsourced implications or which involve interpretation or analysis. It can be used to fill out simple uncontroversial coordinates on articles, of course, but there needs to be caution about using it for anything else. --] (]) 10:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''option 6''' as its primary purpose is to record toponyms. That said, my experience with it has not been positive. It seems to have a habit of copying from whatever maps might be available, and for instance when we were going through Somali villages, we found numerous cases where there was nothing at all at the spot given. Any use of GNS has to be checked against other sources. ] (]) 02:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::] - Probably imported from some 1960's or earlier US military map. At least with GNIS the locals are more likely to try to get obviously-wrong information fixed, but who's going to complain in Somalia? ] (]) 09:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I am absolutely with ] here. Geonet should never be a sole source for a standalone article. We recently had a disaster with Iranian localities imported from GeoNet which had in the end to be mass-deleted since there were serious doubts as whether those exist or ever existed. Geonet can be used for coordinate (and to be honest it is not better than Google Maprs, and certainly not better than the OpenStreet Map - yes, sure I am aware of how the OpenStreetMap is organized and that it is not a reliable source by any means). However, there is no way it can justify creation of a standalone article.--] (]) 09:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''', and ''this'' is a demonstration of exactly why we should not have permastubs on "populated places" when there is not a substantial quantity of reliable, independent reference material about them. The "gazetteer" function could be fulfilled by ''lists'' when all we have is some basic database information about a place (coordinates, population, etc.), such as "List of populated places in Example County, Somestate" in the US, or by similar administrative divisions elsewhere. We can say "Yes, we should include gazetteer information about such places when we have it", and do so, without these masses of permastub pseudo-"articles". ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::It should be noted that nowhere presently on Misplaced Pages is it said that Misplaced Pages necessarily has a gazetteer function, nor has there ever been any consensus of any kind expressed anywhere that I've been able to identify saying it should. The term "gazetteer" was added to ] in an and has recently been replaced with "reference works" after a talk-page discussion there. We include elements of reference works (a term that includes gazetteers) within encyclopaedic articles, and this includes lists of smaller communities within a larger community, but we are an encyclopaedia and do not simply become something else when writing about geographical locations. Even ]#1 doesn't necessarily require that bare gazetteer listings be included as articles - instead it is assumed that a legally-recognised populated place will have enough sourcing for an encyclopaedic article to be written about it. ] (]) 09:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, certainly, only the ] ones should be standalone articles, and we've always made a mistake trying to make the non-notable ones into individual permastubs. But I don't have any objection to a list for a particular administrative region, with the non-notable ones being simple list entries—population, coordinates, area, whatever data it is that is always provided in a census or the like. But I think people confuse "We should include this information" and "We should include this information ''in a standalone article''." This is a case where I agree with the first, but not the second. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Absolutely. The problem is that there are a lot of users trying to inflate their created article count, so the articles get created anyway, and then it is vertually impossible to redirect them to lists, every discussion would at best end up as no consensus.--] (]) 12:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, people thought the fiction cleanup was hopeless for ever getting done, too—until it happened. So don't give up just yet. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' with the caveat that GNS sometimes was pulled from old, problematic sources, such as old war maps made by people not familiar with the area. GNS should be ignored if there are no sources from the area in question actually verifying that the places exist. ] <sub> '']''</sub> 17:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' per all above, and emphasizing that it is a primary source, and should never be the sole source for a stand-alone page. ] 19:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' whether it is RS depends on context; or option 5. So it seems official, and reflecting maps... but the map is not the territory (nor notability) and perhaps the United States spelling is Connaught while Britain spells it Connacht. Cheers ] (]) 13:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' - Misplaced Pages is not a gazetteer. Databases in general are primary sources which can be used as sources for population, coordinates, etc, but significant coverage in secondary sources is needed in order to establish notability. –] ] 20:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Would be happy to see any mass-produced articles sourced solely to GNS deleted. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''', just a bad database with frequently incorrect coordinates. Users will point to it in disputes as if it was the last word. I wouldn't even mind if '''Option 4''' was the consensus. <span style="font-family: Cambria;">] (])</span> 03:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| === |
===Survey (NewsNation)=== | ||
| *'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light). | |||
| {{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: ]]]. ] (]) 10:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified --> | |||
| **NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism. | |||
| ***In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the ], Coulthart said {{xt|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including ] and ], all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects. | |||
| ***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}} | |||
| ***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}. | |||
| ***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}} | |||
| ***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former. | |||
| ***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}. | |||
| ***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians. | |||
| **Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs: | |||
| ***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}. | |||
| ***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 . | |||
| :] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (NewsNation)=== | |||
| == gotquestions.org and tektonics.org == | |||
| *For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 18:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1640973684}} | |||
| {{rfc|prop|rfcid=4B6BCD8}} | |||
| I seek the deprecation of gotquestions.org and tektonics.org. See ]. ] (]) 17:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Is this article declaring the ] a 12th c. baptistry a reliable source for the tower?? == | |||
| Reason: they're ]. What we won't do is quote amateur theologians who play hide and seek with their religious affiliations. ] (]) 23:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The autho rhas emailed me demanding it be added to the Newport Tower article as it has been peer reviewed.] press.... Other non-peer reviewed papers of his can be found here. ] ] 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Kino-teatr and AlloCine == | |||
| :For reference the tower is ] The answer is no. The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming. Even academic presses slip up sometimes and Istanbul University Press is frankly quite a bit distant from Rhode Island such that I would be cautious about the level of rigour of its fact checking (if any) on the topic. ] (]) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, | |||
| ::In addition to this, the author is retired from the U.S. Navy and a student of aeronautics, while this paper involves a great deal of cartography, religious history, etc. In other worlds, far outside of the author's field, even if there was some question about its reliability. Looking at the non-peer reviewed papers, I see that the author also believes the ] is legit. ] (]) 15:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to find out if the website https://www.kino-teatr.ru/ is considered a reliable source? As well as https://www.allocine.fr/, | |||
| ::], that WP article has an entire section on ], so it's not clear to me that "The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming" is a reason to exclude this hypothesis. Given that context, what does it means to be a RS for a fringe theory? A source may be reliable for the existence of the fringe theory but unreliable otherwise. | |||
| Thank you | |||
| ::It's unclear to me whether this chapter is truly peer-reviewed. It appears in an , and the editors are on the faculty of Istanbul University, but it's not clear to me that they have expertise in this area, whether they reviewed all of the chapters for accuracy or only for things like pertinence and organization, or if they sought any outside review for any of the chapters. Their Google Scholar info: , . The book was just published, and I couldn't find any reviews for it. What the author of the chapter "demands" is irrelevant. ] (]) 20:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The question is, does this source add anything to the "Norse hypothesis" such that it is worth adding the article to include it? I think the answer is no. There's no evidence that this paper has had any impact on the wider discourse surrounding the tower. ] (]) 20:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I haven't read the paper, but the abstract says "Two Turkish cartographers, the earliest being Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-1310), and later, Piri Reis (c. 1465-1553), illustrated the North American Baptistery on their respective cartographic works." I know nothing about the "Norse hypothesis" and so cannot judge whether this is something new; the current WP text makes no mention of Turks, but perhaps that's just a matter of what was judged to be DUE. The book link above says that the book was only published last week, so at this point the chapter cannot possibly have had any impact on wider discourse. ] (]) 22:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It seems the text is mostly taken up by attempting to divine meaning from certain blotches on an old map. This is not a particularly convincing hypothesis for what it's worth. ] (]) 14:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Peer review is only as good as the peers in question... Istanbul University and history have a rather fraught history when it comes to Turkish nationalist historiography (which I would fit this under given the elements of Turkish exceptionalism). We have a long history of disregarding those views because academics outside of Turkey do (especially as it concerns claims of Ottoman voyages of discovery, the Kurds, and the Armenian Genocide). ] (]) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :No, obvious crank. I would take it as evidence that Istanbul University Press is not reliable. I imagine he was stationed at the base in Newport and got interested, but he should seek professional training in history and learn to read some relevant languages before leaning in on a claim this unlikely. There's really nothing in his article except some maps so extremely magnified that they don't resemble anything in particular. ] (]) 01:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Pinkvilla == | |||
| == About La voce Delle Voci, again == | |||
| ] has been flagged as an unreliable source, and there is growing consensus around its exclusion from the list of acceptable sources on ]. Previously dicusssed (see ], ]). Due to concerns about the site's editorial standards, accuracy, and potential biases, I propose to dicussss the credibility of Pinkvilla. The aim is to ensure that Misplaced Pages articles are supported by sources that meet higher standards of reliability and credibility. Pinkvilla itself states that the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data. However, it asserts that the numbers are generally reflective of the box-office performance of the films in question ().] (]) 09:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 16:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1641312085}} | |||
| {{rfc|prop|rfcid=40E03EE}} This Italian-language news website (), although sells conspiracy theories ( {{In lang|zh}}), and I had asked that it be deprecated (cf. ]), no other Wikipedians responded, meaning this website is still not deprecated, despite some articles use it as a "credible" source (e.g. ] & ]). In here I made the same proposal again. Hope that Wikipedians who are proficient at both Italian and Chinese can verify my claim that it is unreliable thus should be deprecated and discuss whether or not to deprecate it. Thanks!😁--] (]) 15:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC) fixed capitalization a bit and added the URL of the official website of La voce Delle Voci 15:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you think there's a difference between the box-office numbers in Pinkvilla and their general articles? Could one be considered reliable and the other not, or is this looking at the site as a whole? ''']''' (]) 20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Middle East Monitor, Electronic Intifada, Palestine Chronicle and Twitter as sources in a BLP == | |||
| :{{tq|the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data}} it probably shouldn't be cited then. ] (]) 23:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Reliability discussion took place previously ] putting it as one of the best sources for movie related news and box office collections. ] (]) 07:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu == | |||
| Extra eyes would be helpful in the at ], with the above sources being used. If I am reading the archives correctly, we have no consensus on reliability of ] and have not discussed the reliability of ]. ] (]) 15:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I read MEMO as "attribute". Jewish Voice for Labour has a download link for the report so there's that as well.] (]) 22:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. Re MEMO: ]; is somewhere between attribute and unreliable; and concluded unreliable but had few participants. | |||
| ::Views on the reliability of ] as a source also welcomed. Other sources currently used in the article include ], ], ], and the ] YouTube channel. ] (]) 12:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::This has turned into a bit of a laundry list, editors here can't be expected to write commentary on all of these. The most recent kerfuffle at the article has been about a leaked QC report and the sources currently being used, with attribution, for that are MEMO and the Jewish Voice for Labour, which I have reported to BLP board so perhaps raise RSN discussion about these two sources specifically/what they are being cited for, if that's what you want to do? Raising the same points at two different boards is likely to cause confusion.] (]) 12:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To clarify, I am not asking for commentary here on all of these sources. I am mainly asking for additional eyes on the article in question, from editors with familiarity with RS issues and/or familiarity with these sources, as it seems a large number of potentially questionable sources are being used in it. (In addition, for those sources which ''haven't'' been discussed here already, I wouldn't mind views on whether they are usable or not.) ] (]) 13:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C): | |||
| None of those are suitable for controversial BLP content and some aren't suitable for anything. You don't need an rsn thread if only one editor is advocating for inclusion though. Journalism and scholarship, not advocacy orgs. ] 13:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''A: Geni.com''' | |||
| :Currently, it is two editors but as can be seen from the talk page there are potentially others. Is the ] suitable?] (]) 13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley''' | |||
| ::Yes. When I answered this same question at BLPN earlier today, I hadn't yet checked RSN and RSP. But now I see that it's listed as Green (with caveat about bias) at RSP, based on a March 2021 RFC at RSN. So, yes, it is what RSP says it is: reliable, but biased, use with attribution for certain topics. Anyone wanting to challenge that would need to start a new RFC and show that something changed since the last RFC. ] 15:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav''' | |||
| :::Things actually have changed considerably for the JC since 2020. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles. | |||
| :::And actually, that RFC appears to have suffered the defect of being overrun by socks of banned users. All on one side of the issue. Huh. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :They should be: | |||
| ::::"Overrun" is an exaggeration; plenty of editors in good standing participated in that discussion with a variety of views; socks don't make discussions defective (we can handle it, it's nothing new). But anyway, rerun the RfC if there is new info for the community to consider. Until then, RSP documents our current global consensus. ] 16:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such) | |||
| :::::There are 2 Icewhiz socks (with them voting per the other), a Yaniv sock, and a NoCal100 sock in there lol. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ]) | |||
| ::::::...and like 30 editors in good standing, so no, not "overrun". Lol. ] 18:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2) | |||
| :::::::And if you take out the socks of banned users, the balance of the discussion changes. Changes from 17 in support of option 1 to 13. Pretending like 30 editors supported the finding of the RFC is asinine. Would expect a more intellectually honest argument tbh. Especially given the finding on consensus on the topic under discussion here was already "weak" per the close. Lol. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Agree with Levivich but as Selfstudier already pointed out this thread is not a good place for extensive commentary and re-litigation of sources where there is already consensus; better to use it to get views on sources not previously discussed such as Palestine Chronicle, TrueRepublica and Jewish Voice for Labour, and clarifying unclear consensus re Middle East Monitor. ] (]) 19:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::<s>Shocking development, user whose view prevailed in a discussion disrupted by banned user does not want that view re-examined.</s> <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::::::Why do some always have to make it personal? We can't just have a disagreement without resorting to ad hominems on this website. ] 19:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Somebody makes an argument that a discussion where the consensus very much shifts if you remove the ARBPIA violating contributions (2 at the time, both for option 1), and the socks of banned users (4, all for option 1) and the majority on just a raw count shows at the very least no consensus for the position they advocated, and says we should not discuss or relitigate because of that tainted "consensus". I find that to be an incorrect view, and would like to revisit that issue. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::::But youre right, have struck the personal bit of this, and down below youll find why I feel that argument to be problematic. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::As I said in the other discussion, the extensive use of JC the article is definitely problematic but its been like that for a good while now and addressing the JC issue formally in due course is on the agenda. I don't think anyone is seriously pushing the Palestine Chronicle source so I wouldn't worry about that one. seems quite OK on the face of it but it is neither here nor there at the moment. Views about JVL which some would consider the polar opposite of JC and MEMO as well, those two would seem the most pertinent to the immediate situation, specifically any evidence of hoax or falsehood, failure to fact correct, that sort of thing, we can stipulate that they are biased.] (]) 19:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| '''Not Reliable''' The EJ already have an RSP entry so that one clear while reading our article about MEMO especially descriptions by BBC as "pro-Hamas" organization gives us clear view that the source cannot be trusted ] (]) 10:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, Shrike, if you are right about MEMO (and the BBC chap writing in 2011), then since the outfit is based in London and the UK has designated both Hamas wings as terrorist, there should have been some arrests by now.] (]) 15:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :We dont disqualify sources for being "pro-Israel" do we? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::We now have ], . Anyone who wants a summary of what all this has been about can read it.] (]) 12:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| === Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) === | |||
| == Black Book of Communism == | |||
| * A: See "Geni.com" at ]. | |||
| The Black Book of Communism which is an unreliable source. For instance, the book pens the total death toll in the gulags to be around three million while an analysis by J Arch Getty, Gabor T Rittersporn and Viktor N Zemskov of slightly over a third of that amount and of the Cultural Revolution. Thus it should be deprecated. ] (]) 01:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * B: See ], in particular ], where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @]. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC. | |||
| :Oh good. We were missing out on more ] drama. ] (]) 02:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree with SFR - we don't need this garbage. ] is a key source in the Mass killings article (but there are half a dozen others). It's been brought here about 9 times (as far as I can tell without any success in getting it deleted). It's a fundamental study in its academic area. Various editions published by top notch publishers (Harvard University Press, and ] in the original French). Top scholars. The argument against it seems to be that the authors of the chapters don't completely agree (what else is new?) Elishop just decided to delete all the text in the Mass killings article related to this book. I reverted him and told him he should take his criticisms here. (Sorry) ]<sub>(])</sub> 02:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Without any opinion on the book, it seems slightly misleading to not note the ], with the study you linked being superseded by more recent sources that posit a higher death toll, with three million being around the top end of what is consider reasonable when deaths among those released early on medical grounds is included. ] (]) 02:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::The book is almost 25 years old now, but the basic framework has not been refuted. Exact numbers in this situation are impossible. But the case you cite is not the reason people want to get rid of it on Misplaced Pages. You want to say that a subset of the data should be bigger than recognized in the book. The folks who want to get rid of the book dislike it because they think the overall numbers are too high. This is really not the question here though. The real question is:Is this a respected academic source. Look at the authors and the publishers, the extensive reviews. It obviously is a reliable source. ]<sub>(])</sub> 04:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * It was always a terrible source (regardless of the recent article drama). It is extremely biased and has a clear POV that the authorship isn't even trying to hide in that regard. It is certainly not a high quality source for historical article encyclopedia writing. I don't know if outright deprecation is needed, but it should absolutely be removed anywhere it is being used on-wiki and replaced with actual high quality historiography. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not reliable''' to give my actual vote, as the chapters of the book are almost never cited on-wiki. It is always just the Introduction, which is a known biased and unreliable part of the book written by someone with an agenda to cherrypick other sources to suit a claim they want to meet. And that person doing that is the reason why so many of the academics who wrote chapters in the book have disavowed their involvement and relation to that person. Since they care about their neutrality and in the scientific/historical research process and nothing about what that person wrote is actual academic writing in the slightest. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * It is plainly a ] source which always requires attribution; it also doesn't have a particularly great reputation, so it might be best to cite it via secondary sources rather than directly. But it does have secondary coverage, so I feel mentioning it once in the article to represent Courtois' opinions is fine, with attribution and a characterization of the position it was written from sourced to the best secondary sources discussing it - that is to say, provided we also mention the extensive criticism the book has received. Citing it repeatedly with no real indication of what sort of book it is is giving it inappropriately undue weight and misusing it as a source. Even putting aside the criticisms over its accuracy for the moment, sources with strident bias like that can be used, but they have to be used with extreme caution, especially when it comes to due weight and proper attribution (which includes making the perspective a biased source is written from clear.) The current citations make it sound like Courtois is an impartial academic stating things that are generally uncontested, all of which is glaringly untrue to the point of misusing it as a source. --] (]) 02:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *The 1993 Getty et al source is certainly superior to those pre-1991 sources that estimated deaths in the Gulag that were far too high (e.g., Solzhenitsyn, Conquest, Rummel, etc), however it is a bit outdated. More recent sources there note the tentative historical consensus is that around 1.7 million perished there, out of a population of 18 million who passed through the system, with some saying the death toll could be "somewhat higher". In a 1999 paper, historian S.G. Wheatcroft put it at about 1.6 million. So the BBoC estimate might be a little high, but not by much. The much ballyhooed Alexopoulos source, which elevates the death toll to something like 6 million and is thus widely cited by those who would like to see the pre-1991 higher death tolls restored, has been roundly criticized by other scholars and I would not consider it a real challenge to the emerging consensus. That being said, the biggest problem with the BBoC is the introduction, which was denounced by the main contributors to the book for the most significant chapters on the USSR and China. Although there is better scholarship out there, those two chapters are probably the strongest part of the BBoC. The smaller chapters on Cuba and other countries are pretty bad, and pull large numbers of executions out of thin air (I think it was like 20,000 for Cuba if memory serves) with no sourcing to back them up. Bottom line: '''I'm not in favor of deprecation, but the controversial introduction should ''never'' be cited without proper attribution to the author Courtois.'''--] (]) 03:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sure everybody would appreciate it if you all address "What makes a book a ]. It's not your opinion of the authors' bias. ]<sub>(])</sub> 04:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per ], what makes something a reliable source is a {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. So if many well-established scholars say that the book's research and conclusions are dated or otherwise seriously flawed, that reduces its reliability; a source whose scholarship is heavily contested should be used with caution, which its current heavy use in the article certainly doesn't reflect. --] (]) 05:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| === Preliminaries === | |||
| May I ask you two questions? What exactly each of you mean under "The Black Book of Communism"? What exact statement do you want to support using this source? These are not rhetoric question. I am asking because the Book is considered a very reliable sources mostly due to the Werth's chapter about Russia, but the part that is being cited in Misplaced Pages is an introduction by Courtois, the most controversial, most criticized, most politicized, and most provocative part of the book. A talk page of the about the BB. They fully confirm my words. In other words, Courtois's introduction and the chapter are '''unreliable''' for figures. It is also '''unreliable''' for his generalizations, and, especially, for his attempts to link all crimes to some generic Communism. In contrast, the Werth's part, is a reliable source, as on author wrote, ''"a rock the whole book rests upon''".--] (]) 04:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think that his attempts to link crimes to the totalitarian ideology that undergirded communism as implemented by 20th century regimes is considered to be generally unreliable (], who is well-respected, agrees with this sort of analysis). It's certainly provocative, but to say that this is generally unreliable is something that requires a good deal of evidence. — ] (]) 08:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Frankly, the question is not what you ''think'', but what arguments you have. I saw Rummel, who else? Did you see ''my'' list of sources? ] (]) 15:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it had been agreed before that while chapters of the book had been written by experts that the introduction was unreliable. In fact, the main contributor to the book, Nicolas Werth, denounced the introduction as factually inxorrect. If this were any other topic, that would be enough to discredit it. ] (]) 04:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No longer reliable''' - I wouldn't go so far as to say it's been discredited, but I think scholarly opinion of it has moved in that direction in recent years: | |||
| ** ] (2019), ''The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War''. ]. {{DOI|10.4324/9781351141765}}. Page 5: {{tqq|In this context, a publication aiming to record all the ‘victims of communism’ worldwide, The Black Book of Communism: crimes, terror, repression (Courtois et al., 1999), contributed directly to the rise of the totalitarian paradigm. This best-selling publication was the subject of violent controversy among historians specialising in communism, to the point that some of its co-authors distanced themselves from the introduction written by the French historian Stéphane Courtois. Its detractors criticised its lack of methodological rigour, its conception of historical work as ‘work of justice and memory’ and the ideological dimension of its approach (Dreyfus et al., 2000; Traverso, 2001; Morgan, 2010). In any event, by making criminality the very essence of communism, by explicitly equating the ‘race genocide’ of Nazism with the ‘class genocide’ of Communism in connection with the Ukrainian Great Famine of 1932–1933, the Black Book of Communism contributed to legitimating the equivalence of Nazi and Communist crimes.}} | |||
| **'']'' reviewing ''The Cambridge History of Communism'' (2017) {{DOI|10.1093/ahr/rhz214}}: {{tqq|Unlike the cardboard cutouts of Communist leadership presented in ideologically charged studies like The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (1997), these essays are both nuanced and balanced, presenting Lenin and Stalin as human leaders driven as much by realpolitik and personal histories and events as by Communist ideology.}} | |||
| **Engel-Di Mauro, Salvatore; et al. (4 May 2021). "Anti-Communism and the Hundreds of Millions of Victims of Capitalism". '']''. 32 (1): 1–17. {{DOI|10.1080/10455752.2021.1875603}}: {{tqq|A petulant upsurge in anti-communism is permeating the United States (US) and Canada, as well as countries in the European Union (EU). Its main truncheon is the simultaneously fictitious and slanderous claim that communism caused 100 million victims, a catchy slogan sensationalised through a 1997 propaganda volume titled The Black Book of Communism (henceforth BBC).}} | |||
| **More at ]. There is also a support section, and plenty of positive reviews as well. | |||
| :Given the ''mixed'' reviews, I'd say it's too controversial (and frankly, for this subject, too old) to support statements in Wikivoice and should not be considered an RS. It should be '''listed yellow at RSP''' (use with caution, always attribute, not in wikivoice). ] 05:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{re|Levivich}} The piece in ] is written by a trained... ''''. The journal has an avowedly ecosocialist bent. I'm seriously doubtful of the peer review process there for that paper; the editor-in-chief is as "Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro", who appears to be the author of the piece you're citing. The managing editor is "Adi Forkasiewicz", whom the journal lists as an "independent scholar" and for whom a google scholar search doesn't actually appear to return anything published and whose name returns ''zero'' results in a search using ]. The stretch to include Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro's piece in your analysis really should be struck; I'd almost rather cite Medieval English literature professor ]'s on Katyn than give the Capitalism Nature Socialism source weight in any analysis. — ] (]) 08:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :**Any assessment should look deeper than just his job title (his CV makes his qualifications clear), and being the eic of a journal doesn't make him less credible. Even if it's self-published, it'd be an ]. ] 14:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Attribute when a claim is disputed''' There is a significant problem of accuracy. Two reviews I have looked, they claim: | |||
| :*Weiner, Amir. ''Review of The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression''. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 32, no. 3 (2002): 450-452. muse.jhu.edu/article/16325.: ''Although it adds little data that is new, the list is long, informative, and, for most part, indisputable. Even when the numbers of victims are questionable or obviously inflated, the brutality of communism in power is well established. Moreover, the fact that the atrocities consistently commenced with the seizure of power lends support to the argument for intentionality, particularly in the section on the Soviet Union by Werth, the most subtle and best-documented in the book. That said, this thick volume is seriously flawed, incoherent, and often prone to mere provocation. Although the authors argue that the logic of communism entails the above atrocities, they go out of their way to salvage Marxist ideology.'' | |||
| :*Dallin, A. (2000). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. By Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartošek, and Jean-Louis Margolin. Trans. Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999. xx, 858 pp. Notes. Index. Photographs. Maps. $37.50, hard bound. Slavic Review, 59(4), 882-883. doi:10.2307/2697429 "The chapters vary greatly in quality and reliability. Though often debatable, much the best ones are those by Nicolas Werth on the Soviet Union. Some of the others suffer from rather shrill rhetoric, and the whole enterprise of course leaves vast stretches of uncertainty; thus the attempt to establish the number of victims of communism (a futile effort that would depend greatly on definitions even if the statistics were more reliable) comes up with strikingly vast variations and vague totals (e.g., 65 million deaths for China, 20 million deaths for the USSR, and so forth). But then the moral, legal, or political judgment hardly depends on the number of victims. The authors make no attempt to differentiate between intended crimes-a la Auschwitz or the Moscow show trials-and policy choices that had (intended or unintended) consequences that were terrible..." | |||
| :So, best way is to attribute when needed. Surely there is a reliability issue but I fell it does not deserves being deprecated. ]] 05:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::* '''Keep as a ]''' | |||
| ::* The book was a collaborative effort and not all contributors agreed with each other, which is normal with these sort of academic efforts (what would you say if all contributors marched in step-lock?). Werth was and remains free to disagree with his fellow contributors and with the editor, but his scholarly opinion... well, it is his scholarly opinion. It is absurd to say a scholarly book is not a reliable source because one scholar, or for that matter, a range of scholars, object to it. | |||
| ::* The fact the book was translated and published by the world's top publishing houses, including<br> ] in Spain (1998),<br> ] in Italy (1998),<br> ] in France (1997),<br>Bertrand (]) in Brazil (1999),<br> Harvard University Press in the U.S. (1999).<br>Perhaps the German publisher arrived late and is not as prominent, ] (2004), but the mere fact a German version was deemed necessary seven years after the French original goes to show the book is far from irrelevant and unserious. It is as solid a ] as they come. As such, were Misplaced Pages to deprecate it, it would say more about current Misplaced Pages editors than about the book! ] (]) 05:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::**Why do some always have to make it personal? We can't just have a disagreement without resorting to ad hominems on this website. Anyway, the 1990s were a long time ago, what about ''recently''? Any positive reviews from the last few years by RS? If so, please link and quote. ] 05:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Books generally get reviews when new or revised editions come out. Whether positive or negative, reviews for the Brazilian edition, issued by Latin America's largest editorial, for example, came out in 1999. I hope this comment is informative for those unfamiliar with the nature of book reviews. ] (]) 05:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And yet Levivich gives examples of statements about the book in reviews (admittedly of other works) from the past few years. And they're all rather negative toward the long-term viability of the book and its relevance to modern history research. ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And yet that's not what L asked for, is it? And what does ] have to say about drive-by comments? Ahh, yes: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." ] (]) 06:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Translation of a book to other languages is not an indicator of reliability. Also, red tagging is not a valid argument. ]] 06:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Translation per se, obviously not. Edition by the world's most prominent editorial houses in their own languages, however, indicates the editorials are willing to stand behind the publication. ] (]) 06:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Probably need to add the website to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be ]. --] 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Werth's chapter stands on its own merit and his other works, largely, as always with historians, for specific claims rather than the general vibe people all too often read into a historian's engagement. Courtois, as I have explicated in detail previously, hangs his chapters on "non-catholicism" as a causative category of communism and therefore murderousness. This is widely recognised to not be social science. It depends, as the ***great big header at the top of the page explains*** on which bit, is cited in what article, for which claims. ] (]) 06:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a ]. But it could be a good follow-up. ] (]) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Use with attribution'''. It would be silly and glaringly lacking to cover this topic without reference to it. While it does have critics for sure (some but not all of which comes from blatantly ideological sources like '']''), it also received positive reception, as noted at the article on the book. So, we simply in-text attribute the book's claims to the book, and then reliable sources that disagree can be presented as well. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 07:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. ] (]) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''It depends but generally green–yellowish, and use with attribution''' — most chapters are reliable, some of them more than other ({{tq|Werth}}),'''2''' but may be outdated'''1''' — introduction and foreword are too controversial and disputed to be reliable but can be relied on for secondary coverage, such as the reactions of ''Le Monde'' and ''Le Figaro'', and as primary sources for quotes. I do not understand this dismissal of '']'' as if it negates the criticism and controversy also reported by Neumayer and more centrist sources — that article is good as a tertiary source (to quote TFD, {{tq|"Engel-De Mauro is merely reciting facts: that the 100 million figure has no support in reliable sources and was chosen for its propaganda value. He is not providing his own opinion. The advantage of a recent source is that the author would be aware of any changes in the academic literature."}}), and is absurd to compare it to Grover Furr when it was written in an academic journal published by the academic press (Routledge). And to quote from , {{tq|"n academic journal that serves a particular community and thus embodies its biases '''does not sound very different from a news website with an editorial slant, as far as WP:BIASEDSOURCES is concerned. I'd take a journal that wears its editorial mission on its sleeve''' ... over those that try to look staid while having no standards inside."}} Centrism is also an ideology, and left-wing books and articles published within the academic press remain reliable, whether we like it or not. | |||
| ::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :; Notes | |||
| Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''1.''' ''The Cambridge History of Communism'' seems to be a better, more recent, balanced, and nuanced picture of Communism than the ''Black Book''. | |||
| :'''2.''' Even Werth was not free from criticism, e.g. see . | |||
| : ] (]) 11:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC) ] (]) 03:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''In this context, attribute ''everything''.''' As was made clear at the AfD discussion, the fundamental issue with the article, as far as many contributors are concerned, is that it presents the opinions and assessments of particular writers as objective fact, while discussing complex subject matter inherently requiring subjective judgement. Any move towards an article that actually satisfies Misplaced Pages's requirements for neutrality ''must'' begin by moving away from the idea that there are abstract 'reliable sources' involved, and instead present the debate as to whether 'mass killing' (however defined) and 'communist regimes' (ditto) are inherently linked in some manner as what it is - a debate. One with opinions that should be presented as such, rather than sorted into 'reliable' and 'unreliable' by Misplaced Pages contributors. The Black Book is clearly a part of this discourse, and must obviously be used. Appropriately, citing specific authors for what they add to the debate, and noting later critiques of such material, as and when it is pertinent. ] (]) 11:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Use with attribution''': As per Aquillon and others above, it is a biased, controversial source that is has been cited by some scholars and contested by others, so should only be used with clear attribution, and alongside contesting scholarly views where its claims are disputed by experts. Shouldn't be deprecated. ] (]) 12:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Never reliable''' well known trash-tier propaganda. It's inclusion on Misplaced Pages in articles surrounding socialism is a stain upon the integrity of the encyclopedia. ] (]) 13:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Use with attribution and caution''' It seems even its supporters agree it is controversial and even its detractors agree that it is mostly reliable. If we exclude a source simply because it is imperfect, we would have none at all and in the topic areas where this book is relevant, all sources are going to have problems. ] (]) 14:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No longer reliable'''. Certainly ideologically motivated, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is propaganda but the editor has been somewhat liberal with drawing conclusions and manipulating statistics. So much so that major contributors have distanced themselves from the conclusions drawn in the book as well as the deaths count, and that when a communist organisation allegedly contacted Harvard University Press, Harvard admitted that it contained "remedial maths error" (this is sourced from a communist organisation, so it may not be true). More recently, many of the statistics cited have been revised following the release of previously classified information, such as the death toll of Holodomor, now estimated to be around 3-3.5 million rather than the 7 million asserted in the book. Whether this was intentional or simply a higher end estimate based on available data at the time, its clear that many sections of the book have become unreliable, and I would advise against using it. ] (]) 15:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Let me clarify it one more time''' | |||
| :1. The Black book is normally used in Misplaced Pages as a source for a figure of 85+ or 100 million victims, and for the claim that they are linked to Communism and Marxism. For this claim, the BB is unreliable: it was criticized specifically for that, including the criticism by Nicolas Werth, a major contributor to the BB. '''The BB cannot be used as a source for that, unless that statement is supplemented with a due criticism and comments''' | |||
| :2. With regard to other parts of this huge and non-homogeneous volume, each of them have different reliability, and some of them, especially the Werth's chapter, are '''pretty reliable'''. Unfortunatelly, main conclusions and observations made by him are rarely used in Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :Does anybody has anything to add to this conclusion?--] (]) 16:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Generally reliable''', and '''use attribution''' for its introduction. There seems to be a scholarly consensus that it’s individual sections (particularly that in the Soviet Union) are legitimate scholarly works. The introduction is much more controversial among academics, which means that WikiVoice statements should be avoided when directly sourcing from it. But it’s certainly a work that carries weight in these sorts discussions given that so much has been written about it and that it has been historically influential. — ] (]) 17:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Also, to respond to others saying that the source is ''unreliable'' because they find it biased; ] might be worth a good read. — ] (]) 17:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::That is correct. Many reliable sources are biased. However, the BB's figures in the introduction, which is the most frequently cited information, are not only biased, they are '''unreliable'''. ] (]) 17:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *A spin on notability is not inherited, just because some scholars in the book can (and should) be cited, does not make the whole book reliable. Werth can stand on his own and the book is the source of his findings, but doesn't mean the rest of the book should be used freely as wiki voice fact. ] (]) 21:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Definitely a reliable source''', would need attribute anyway since a number authors have contributed to the book and so we need to distinguish who is saying what. Also in regard to numbers, one will never get an truly accurate estimate, even the total death toll of Nazi mass killings is not clear despite it being highly documented by Nazi bureaucrats. --] (]) 00:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:You would deem the additions by the editor, which has been renounced by two of the book's contributors, to be reliable? Certain chapters are pretty reliable but the overall conclusion? Hardly. ] (]) 14:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Mostly Unreliable''' Has been subject to scathing criticism by other scholars. However, certain chapters are more liable than others and can go in, with attribution. ] (]) 05:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reliable, ] applies'''. It's a book written by scholars and published by a reputable academic press. If there are contradictory sources that exist, integrate them in the content of the article per ]. In any case, the way the proposal is worded is borderline disruptive, as if specifically crafted to stir up more drama. ] ] 05:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :* The issue, {{ping|JBchrch}}, is that the section of the book almost exclusively used on Misplaced Pages is not any of the chapters written by said scholars, but the Introduction written by a known biased source trying to SYNTH together cherrypicked data to fit a desired claim and said author of the Introduction makes no attempt to hide that fact. To the point that many of those scholars that wrote chapters in the book have disavowed their involvement and any connection to the person who wrote the Introduction. So, in all regards, the part of the book that is actually cited on Misplaced Pages is not reliable. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::*User Silver seren !voted near the top of this thread to make the entire book an "unreliable source" but here says: "the part of the book that is actually cited on Misplaced Pages is not reliable." ] (]) 17:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*-->So, is this against the article ] of last week's AfD or is this against the Cortouis book? ] (]) 12:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Sorry {{u|Silver seren}} but Stéphane Courtois is a professional historian who has held the highest academic rank at one of the most prestigious research institutions in Europe and whose text is published by Harvard University Press. Definitely a reliable source, 100%. As a matter of DUE, once again, we can confront him with his critics. And SYNTH doesn't apply to sources. ] ] 04:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Generally reliable''', but '''subject to ]''' as we must accurately represent the prevalent perspectives in the topic area. But I would say generally reliable, given that the research chapters are still largely accepted in the field, reprinted, and cited often. However I would agree with some here including @] that the '''Introduction should be considered an ]''' and attributed as such. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 18:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::To clarify, my reason for attributing the lead was not because it was a ] (it isn’t), but because of ]. — ] (]) 14:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Use cautiously with attribution''' Academic disputes with the book are well documented and go beyond well beyond the introduction. What is presented in the book however was influential and, in many ways, represents a certain (and resurgent) interpretation of 20thC history in the West. So of course the book should not be fully deprecated. ] (]) 03:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I suggest adding an RFC tag to this discussion. We do it for other sources, let's get broader input. ] 14:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not reliable''' - no 25-year-old book counts as a ''recent'' ], ''even if'' it has not been refuted by more recent scholarship (as many parts of this have, notably the Introduction) and ''even when'' the publication was not intended as an intervention in an ideological debate (as this one was). Simply not reliable. ] (]) 14:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just as novelty does not impart reliability, age does not impart lack thereof.] (]) 14:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Of course it does. A history book written 100 years ago is less reliable than one written last year (controlling for other variables). That's part of WP:RS at ]. ] 14:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Is it possible you missed the ''may'' qualifier at ]? I will grant you that Communist regimes have continued the killing of people since 1997, (e.g. China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.), but unless the current ] in western China is currently being minimized as much as the Holomodor was by ] and his associates at the time, then hopefully the numbers since are not yet large enough to render obsolete the previous research, which therefore remains valid.] (]) 14:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Eh, actually, the policy says {{tq|With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing.}} However, I don't think ''BBoC'' is so much closer to the events that it should be considered less likely to have errors, but on the other hand, it should not be penalized for age unless new documents have come to light. --''''']'''''] 14:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The very next sentence is {{tqq|However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt.}}, and later is says {{tqq|Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years.}} This is such a case, with new developments in this field in the past ~25 years, plus we're further away from the events and thus newer sources are better at "remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt" which is why I and others have quoted from newer sources above. This situation is square-on what RSAGE is about: the 1990s is too close to the fall of Soviet communism; 21st-century scholarship is better. ] 17:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That is very subjective. It is just as easy to argue that 21st-century scholarship has become worse to increasingly polarized political environments. Has the fall of the iron curtain led to previously unknown documentation to become available to scholars is a more objective standard. My main point with my above comment was that age is '''not''' the important factor for evaluating ''BBoC''. --''''']'''''] 18:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Generally reliable''', but '''use attribution for introduction''' - most of the dispute concerning the book is about the introduction which should be used only with attribution, the rest should be regarded as any other generally reliable academic work.--] (]) 16:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Intro generally unreliable, rest requires attribution''' The BBoC is a ''very'' contentious book, you could likely make an article that is just dedicated to "Responses to the Black Book of Communism". The intro is easily the most criticized portion, and it should be considered to be Courtois' opinion and only used for conveying such. As for the rest of the book comprised of actual analysis, it has widely been considered to be a biased or partisan piece of scholarship, and should be attributed in all cases per ]. Doesn't mean it can't be used, but it should never be used as the sole source on a wikivoice statement. Also, this should really be given a neutral opening statement and be tagged as an RfC, we should really have some proper community consensus on the BBoC. Perhaps {{ping|Robert McClenon}} could facilitate. ] (]) 02:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I think, may be relevant. I collected scholarly sources as they appeared in the google.scholar results, without any cherry-picking, and analyzed one by one. Most authors who discuss Courtois (and his introduction) criticize him. In reality, the question about reliability of the Black Book is a question of reliability of Courtous/Malia statement that Communism killed 100 million. This is the most notable, the most controversial and most criticized statement. The rest is less controversial, but other parts of this huge volume are far less popular among Wikipedians. Therefore, I reiterate that the Black Book is unreliable as a source for its most famous claim, and is more reliable (or pretty reliable) as a source for events in separate Communist states. | |||
| :Keeping in mind that this discussion is not the first (and, if I remember correctly, even not the second) RSN discussion of this source, I propose to include the BB into ].--] (]) 03:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC?  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: '']'' update? == | |||
| ::These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::<strike>I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.</strike> --] (]) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey A: Geni.com === | |||
| <!-- ] 07:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1641452487}} | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfc|media|pol|rfcid=09FCFC8}} | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''.<strike>'''Question'''. Isn't it already deprecated?</strike>--] (]) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''' A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Unsure'''. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) ] (]) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley === | |||
| Due to the complexity related to ], should there be there be changes to the ] listing of ''Politico'' similar to ] and ]? | |||
| :'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment'''. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--] (]) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''' Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "'''the source is generally prohibited'''". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) ] (]) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation. | |||
| :::Deprecation of this source will ''reduce'' the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again. | |||
| :::::::Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Generally unreliable'''. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) ''Generally unreliable'' is the one which says this: {{tq|"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"}} I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would ''only'' allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be ''prohibited''. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at ] shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he ''knows'' {{xt!|may be of little factual significance}} at face value just because he finds them "]" ({{xt!|but is reproduced by way of interest}}), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't ]. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. ] (]) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the '''Generally unreliable''' category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then ''only as far as we have to''. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Generally reliable''', in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav === | |||
| Below are a few proposals: | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. ] (]) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--] (]) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as {{xt|genealogy.eu}} and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :'''Comment'''. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the ], Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate'''. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; . --] 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site . And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)=== | |||
| *'''Proposal 1:''' Create a note of a potential bias with current listing | |||
| {{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--] (]) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Proposal 2:''' Create a listing similar to the ] specifically for Israel-Palestine topics, e.g. {{highlight|] ''Politico'' (American politics)|#ddffdd}} and {{highlight|] ''Politico'' (Israel-Palestine topics)|#ffffdd}} | |||
| *'''Proposal 3:''' Create a listing similar to the ] for the overall reliability of ''Politico'', e.g. {{highlight|] ''Politico'' (pre-2021)|#ddffdd}} and {{highlight|] ''Politico'' (2021–present)|#ffffdd}} | |||
| :Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for any support or comments ahead of time!--] (]) 06:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Franklin Open == | |||
| ===Discussion (''Politico'')=== | |||
| '''Comment:''' Opening an RfC as recent changes could pose potential issues for '''] related articles''' that have been subject to ''']''', requiring the community to take a look at updating an existing ] listing. | |||
| I would like to know what is known about "Franklin Open" (). It claims to be peer-reviewed but charges $1900 to publish an article. Should we count this as an RS, or should its articles be treated as self-published? (Apologies if it's already dealt with somewhere — I searched and couldn't find it.) --] (]) 22:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Knowing how controversial WP:PIA articles are, I do not even participate in them. However, the recent acquisition of '']'' by ] has raised concerns about the company's ]. '']'' has while ] wrote that . | |||
| :It's published by Elsevier on behalf of the Franklin Institute. So not self-published.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 04:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Currently, {{diff|WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources|prev|1058222113|I made an edit recognizing this new distinction}} of a possible pro-Israel bias.--] (]) 06:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::But the question is, is the stuff peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? --] (]) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Like any other Elsevier/Franklin Institute journals. Reliable in its area of expertise, which is mostly engineering and applied mathematics.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 05:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Well, here's the thing. They published a paper with no meaningfully new content on the so-called ], . This thing should never have gotten past peer review, not because anything in it is ''wrong'' per se, but because it's not a novel contribution (and is also not a survey). It's a bunch of trivial calculations, put together well with nice illustrations, but with an overall conclusion that is not remotely new. | |||
| :::: So this makes me wonder about their standards, and whether they should be treated as a predatory journal or something similar. --] (]) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]s are completely standard, expected, uncontroversial aspects of nearly all ]s, including ''Franklin Open''. If a journal can't charge for subscriptions or article access, it needs to make at least some money through APCs. Does this discussion concern the journal itself and every article it publishes, or rather a single article regarding monkeys and typewriters? If the latter, then the qualifications of the authors and which salient points of the paper merit mention should be discussed on article talk pages per ], ] & ]. Not all articles ever published warrant stuffing into every Misplaced Pages article about a topic, no matter how much individual Wikipedians may slobber over the authors, and thousands of perfectly reliable and decent-quality articles should not be cited per ] and ]. But I'd almost always place more importance on published academic journal articles, even if I dislike the methods or conclusion, over the quibbles and beard-strokings of Wikipedians. ] (]) 23:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Per the scope of the journal "Original manuscripts and special topic issue are welcome as well as multidisciplinary topics or application-oriented articles, reviews, surveys, and '''educational articles'''." (emphasis mine) There's zero issue with a journal publishing an educational article with routine calculations and no new conclusions. You said yourself the illustrations were nice. What's the reliability concern here?  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 08:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What? reliable journals publish educational articles all the time and they're preferable to novel hypotheses and research. ] (]) 08:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It doesn't seem to be an educational article. The authors seem to ''think'' they're making a novel contribution. --] (]) 04:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Even if that is the case why would this have any bearing on the reliability of the journal? ] (]) 04:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Well, it might not, or at least not very much. In my opinion they should not have published this particular article, and I think that reflects badly on them, but of course that is going to happen from time to time. I was trying to find out what was known about the journal, specifically whether it was predatory or predatory-adjacent, and I did that because I didn't think a reputable research journal would publish this. But it seems that that was not the issue. --] (]) 04:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Twitter == | |||
| *These are concerns about possible bias rather than reporting on actual biased material, so I think it's too early to add such clarifications. ], being a media bias watchdog, criticise everyone which does not mean we should add their every comment to the WP:RSP. As an example, should we say that the NYT is biased towards billionaires based on ? ]<sub>]</sub> 06:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I want to raise a concern about ] or known now as '''X'''. I'm planning to nominate a list to ] and some awards are cited as a tweet from a Philippine Record Label, ], and some cited on YouTube but originally from a significant subscribers (1 Million plus subscribers) and have a Official Artist Channel and can be treated as a reliable source per ]. So, is it okay to cite a tweet directly from record label because some awards aren't covered on a news article, which is only acknowledged on their social media. | |||
| :*{{re|Alaexis}} You are missing the point. The alleged support is not only sourced by FAIR and is more than a simple bias, it is now company policy. As '']'' notes, ] says that ] "are like a constitution, they apply to every employee of our company" and that workers who do not comply "should not work for Axel Springer, very clearly"].--] (]) 22:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| P.S: I added a discussion just in case some reviewers have a disagreement on citing a tweet. ] ] 01:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Worth noting that Haaretz's source, the WSJ, phrases it in a slightly more nuanced manner, as "support for ... Israel's right to exist", rather than "support for Israel", with the former appearing to be much more limited than the latter. On the EU and free market economics, though two match, although the WSJ phrases the later as "support for ... a free-market economy". ] (]) 09:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :From your description alone, it sounds like you're asking if Star Music's tweets about (themselves or their bands) winning awards can be cited as sources? If that's the case, the tweet would be a self-published, primary source, and inherently self-serving. So no, I wouldn't consider that appropriate. Reliable, independent, secondary sources reporting on the awards are what makes them important. | |||
| *If there are RS stating that politico is biased in one field, then it should be mentioned at "perennial sources". ]] 07:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :If I've misunderstood your question, can you give us some examples of the tweets and how they would be used? ] (]) 01:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] one of their post is here , they recognized the awards for the Best Inspirational Secular Song at the 46th Catholic Mass Media Awards, and this is only the piece of sources i searched. ] ] 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::the ] a Featured list was cited from a Facebook too cause they considered it. and ] cited this on ref 28. So, I think needed to be considered to since it was awarded. ] ] 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The problem isn't really Twitter/X or Facebook, it's that you want to use a post by the record label about an award they received. That's inherently self-serving, which means we should avoid using it. | |||
| ::::The Facebook sources at ] were posted by Awit Awards (still a primary source, but not the recipient) and the Philippine Movie Press Club (a secondary source, though I wonder how reliable they are), so I'm assuming that's why they were included. Personally, I think both of those should be removed until they can be supported by better sources, but that's just me. ] (]) 02:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Woodroar}} I think it can be considered? because {{tq|The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.}} The claim made in the post is specifically about ] under the record label Star Music, which is not considered a third party in this context. | |||
| :::::{{tq|The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim}} | |||
| :::::The award mentioned is neither excessively self-serving nor extraordinary (such as a prestigious recognition like the Grammys). Instead, it is a straightforward of Bini achievements. ] ] 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Of course it's self-serving, it's about an award that one of their bands received. As far as the claim about third parties, I hadn't considered that. But Star Music's tweet ''does'' involve claims about third parties, both the group Bini ''and'' the organization Catholic Mass Media Awards. | |||
| ::::::As others have pointed out, there are also NPOV concerns. Alongside reports from reliable, secondary, independent sources, it's ] to include an award sourced only to a self-published, primary tweet from the record label. ] (]) 15:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*I would say that coverage of winning an award is obviously {{tq|unduly self-serving}}. As I said below, we're not just relying on the source for the statement that the award was given but for the implication that it is worth noting; we can't rely on the recipient for that! --] (]) 21:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If an award isn't covered by secondary independent sources, how is it BALASP on the page? ] (]) 02:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::exactly. Had it recieved media coverage, it would've been notable and due for inclusion. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with the sentiment overall for due weight in articles, but this is a list after all. Per ], a high-quality list would; {{tq|"comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items"}}, suggesting that all items would ideally be included in the list, even if not a requirement. I'm inclined to agree with opinions above that documenting an award you have received is not ''unduly'' self-serving, even if publishing such information is entirely self-serving. I otherwise don't agree with the argument that publishing an award won is effectively unwarranted. The question should be more about the awards themselves, for example if the awards were meaningless or irrelevant then sure it would be unwarranted. Give the awards referenced above, the ''Catholic Mass Media Award'' by the ], I'd say it's questionable, but otherwise there are enough secondary sources reporting on them even if not widespread, even if not those in question it seems. ] (]) 13:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Twitter, when cited that way, is ], which carries several restrictions; it's also obviously ]. One key thing is to avoid such about-self cites for anything self-serving - things companies post on Twitter are often promotional in nature and therefore potentially self-serving. "We intend to release this at date XYZ" would be something we could cite to Twitter. Winning an award, unfortunately, is almost certainly self-serving and therefore is probably something we can't. Note that even if you're absolutely certain they're not making it up, you're still relying on them for the implicit statement that this award is ''worth noting'', which they are obviously not a good source for. And similarly, even beyond that, it raises ] issues - if there is no coverage of the award anywhere except by the recipient (who is obviously not a neutral party and could therefore be expected to highlight even exceptionally marginal things, providing little weight to them), this makes it hard to justify as worth including. --] (]) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Far Out Magazine == | |||
| :*{{re|Cinadon36}} Well, '']'', currently recognized as ], has described ''Politico'' as "pro-Israel", which is why it is currently mentioned. Are you agreeing with proposal 1?--] (]) 07:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Yes {{re|WMrapids}} I am for '''proposal 1'''. Apologies for not making that clear in my previous comment. ]] 07:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Haaretz itself marked as biased regarding the conflict ] (]) 10:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Would ] be considered a reliable source for music and the arts? ] (]) 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *The Haaretz source references an interview in the Wall Street Journal, where Springer CEO stated that he expects "Politico staffers to adhere to Axel Springer-wide guiding principles include support for a united Europe, Israel’s right to exist and a free-market economy, among others." If we are to consider them biased on any one of these topics on this basis then we must consider them biased on all - but I don't believe that this is sufficient evidence for doing so. I would also note that FAIR (] ]) was a controversial source a decade ago; I don't know if things have changed since then? ] (]) 07:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Only RSN-comment I could find on it here: ]. I can't find an "about"-page. Currently it's used on WP quite a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be. ] (]) 08:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Comments at ] indicate caution is called for. ] (]) 08:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I make it a point to remove this source whenever I see it because of the fact that, beyond the ] concerns noted on the talk page linked above, many of their articles seem to republish content from years ago, while titling them to make it sound as if new insight has come out recently. For a few examples as of late, see , , and are all examples of this website recycling content from other, more reliable sources that can (and should) be cited instead. For all I know, there may be minor instances where this site can be used, but I'm familiar enough with Far Out Magazine to say that, for the most part, their content is clickbait churnalism, and in particular, should not be used for information about ]. ] (]) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Credit to ] for explaining the unreliability of this source ]. ] (]) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{re|BilledMammal}} Thanks for bringing up the background on FAIR. It looks like one of those discussions was regarding a ''singular'' opinion on FAIR's website? Since there are multiple sources involved with the description of ''Politico'' and we are not using ], should there be less issues with this? Again, this discussion was created as a collective effort to make decisions on how to describe ''Politico'' as a source (especially in the context of ]), with this decision being based on descriptions from reliable sources.--] (]) 22:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :TL;DR, no, ''Far Out'' is unreliable; it's a website that engages in churnalism. See ] at ]. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 14:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Bad RfC'''. What is your brief and '''neutral''' statement? Make the case for the change in the discussion, not in the same section that you're introducing the RfC question. This should be procedurally closed if the RfC prompt isn't cleaned up. — ] (]) 08:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Minimally reliable, there may be some use but in general I don't think they're reliable for the reasons that have been mentioned (especially the churnalism/CIRCULAR concerns). I don't think that this is suprising, they are what it says on the label... "Far Out" ] (]) 23:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*I would think the discussion should also ask whether a note should be added to the RSP entry, rather than starting with a note added and asking if we should go further - particularly as the note says "recognized as", rather than the softer terminology used in the RFC statement of "possible". ] (]) 08:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*{{re|BilledMammal}} I can agree with the softer terminology and thank you for noting this. {{re|Mhawk10}}, not too familiar with RfCs and this was my best attempt of bringing up the issue at hand while trying to remain neutral, but I can move the details to this discussion section.--] (]) 22:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''News Sources should not be used by encyclopedias''' I'm going to keep harping on this but I don't think news sources, like Politico, are relevant to an encyclopedia project. As such, on the basis of it being a news source, I'd recommend against its use on Misplaced Pages. Period. ] (]) 13:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Bad RfC''' as above. RfC isn't for general discussion. As for not using news sources, that makes no sense to me. A large number of our articles are of necessity heavily based on news sources. ] ] 16:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{re|Doug Weller}} This is not just for general discussion, this is about changing a WP:RSP listing that was already determined through a previous RfC. --] (]) 22:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*{{re|Doug Weller}} I am very consistent in my opinion that any article that ''depends'' on newsmedia to have "reliably" sourced entries is probably subject to far too much ] to be treated as encyclopedic in scope. I am sure you will recall this is far from the first time I've decried the use of newsmedia to bulk up Misplaced Pages's vain attempts to be a news aggregator. ] (]) 14:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Elaborate on how it is ] but otherwise wait and see'''. While the current version says a "small number" of editors consider it biased, this obviously changes that and we ought to discuss it and elaborate a bit on, more specifically, the ways that the new policy biases it - it seems hard to interpret an outright policy setting rigid ideological expectations any other way. But beyond a note about potential bias, that alone isn't enough to affect a source's reliability. We should come back later once there has been time for secondary sources to discuss the actual impact that this policy had on the accuracy of their reporting before we do anything beyond elaborating on their bias. --] (]) 05:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{re|Aquillion}} Not trying to put words in your mouth, but are you implying that you support Option 1? And did you mean "reliability" instead of "notability"?--] (]) 20:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oops, yes, reliability. And the current version ''already'' notes bias concerns, but I suppose I'd say ''''option 1''' in terms of expanding that note, since clearly this makes the bias concerns more significant; it just needs a few additional words per mentioning that they have potential bias stemming from a controversial statement of guiding principles that requires {{tq|support for a united Europe, Israel’s right to exist and a free-market economy}}. It's important to note that the ideological requirements to work at Politico under the new management go beyond just stuff about Israel. I'd also note that while some people say we should wait and see to even note the bias, we ''do'' have coverage indicating that the policy changes introduce bias - we need to wait and see for more information about their reliability, definitely, but when a source openly declares their bias and says that people who don't share those views shouldn't work there, there isn't really anything left to debate or to wait and see on. --] (]) 21:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Bad RfC''' As per others. Also "Israel right to exist" is shared by every respectable newspaper on the right and on the left so I don't see any real bias issues --] (]) 17:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Bad RfC'''. Provide a statement that describes the situation in as neutral tone as is possible. This isn't optional, it's part of the RfC process. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 18:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment:''' {{re|Shrike}} {{re|Shibbolethink}} Can you explain how the updated proposal is not neutral? This is easy to change without dismissing the proposals entirely. How else would you make a proposal more neutral when you have to raise an issue like this? {{u|Shrike}}, no one is arguing about Israel's "right to exist", this is about reliable sources discussing a possible pro-Israel bias, with one RS writing that "". So let's not ] on this. Notes of bias are present throughout the ] listings; an example of this would be the the ] ("Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all").--] (]) 20:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:I would want to see an overall landscape of how different sources view Politico, not just the negative criticism. That is one way I think it could be improved if it were reopened. At this point, I agree it is A) likely premature and B) not likely to achieve a lasting consensus on this issue. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 20:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:The point is the premise of "Israel right to exist" is not sign of any bias as it supported by almost by everyone ] (]) 05:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *This RFC is premature at this point and I believe it should be closed. If actual problems arise in the future we can revisit the issue then. ] 20:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*Just to be clear, while I can understand waiting and seeing in terms of reliability (which is more about their long-term reputation), when it comes to ], we already have several pieces (like the WSJ) describing the statement of principles requiring {{tq|support for a united Europe, Israel’s right to exist and a free-market economy}}. If that isn't sufficient to consider a source biased, what sort of coverage are you waiting on? (ie. what would convince you, in terms of what we should wait for before running a second RFC?) Because AFAIK we have normally taken overt statements of intent from a company to cover particular topics in particular ways, coupled with secondary sourcing covering those statements, as sufficient to describe them as ] in those areas. --] (]) 21:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I suppose it will come down to the question of whether these positions are "extraordinary" and indicate bias. Their full "Principles and Values" as of are as follows: | |||
| :::#We stand up for freedom, the rule of law, democracy and a united Europe. | |||
| :::#We support the Jewish people and the right of existence of the State of Israel. | |||
| :::#We advocate the transatlantic alliance between the United States of America and Europe. | |||
| :::#We uphold the principles of a free market economy and its social responsibility. | |||
| :::#We reject political and religious extremism and all forms of racism and sexual discrimination. | |||
| :::To me, none of these come across as "extraordinary", and many of them align with editorial guidelines issued by other organizations, such as the ; it comes close in a few areas ("united Europe" and "transatlantic alliance"), but even there I don't feel the principles themselves cross the line, and so I would want to see the implications of that in practice before we rule on whether it is biased in such areas. ] (]) 22:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::While it seems unusual to me to have an explicit editorial line like that at the level of the parent company, it is not really all that much different from a newspaper stating its editorial line outright. The Guardian its parent as a safeguard to its “liberal values”, for example, while the opinion pages of the WSJ are run under the banner of for “democratic self-government and the freedom of individuals to make their own economic choices.” If Politico’s ''news'' content is shifted in after its acquisition by Axel Springer; then there might be ample concerns about ]. But, such bias to be showing up thus far. — ] (]) 14:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Yes, we usually want RfC's to have more specific bullet points than this, but stepping back from the procedural nitty-gritty, I'd say it's pretty clear that we should note the owner's stated intent to push an ideological line. ] (]) 17:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Do they plan to do this mainly through opinion pieces, or will this affect news coverage? If it is the former, then is it really unlike the British ]? — ] (]) 23:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary? == | |||
| == The Diplomat == | |||
| Are the sources in these two articles primary or secondary? ] and ]. The book provided is just a collection of parliamentary records, elections, terms served etc. an example is here: ] (]) 08:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Currently, ''''']''''' () is listed at ] as "{{maroon|generally reliable}}" with the summary: "{{small|{{tq|There is consensus that The Diplomat is generally reliable. Opinion pieces should be evaluated by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Some editors have expressed concern on their reliability for North Korea-related topics.}}}}" | |||
| : Those articles are sourced to contemporary newspapers, which would be secondary sources; one of which, the ''New Zealand Herald'', is included in the "perennial sources" page and categorised as "Generally reliable". ] (]) 10:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **Newspapers are interesting to discuss because their classification evolves with time. Historians usually classify recent newspaper reports as being secondary, but ''old'' reports are classified as primary (this is because the sources used by the newspaper have been lost, and so the newspaper becomes the earliest available record of the events… with more modern sources based on that old newspaper). ] (]) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Reliability isn't the issue here. It is if the sources are primary or secondary. Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, and Berkeley considers contemporary newspaper articles as primary sources: ] (]) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == AdWeek == | |||
| However, I'm wondering if this should perhaps be reevaluated, with an added disclaimer similar to '''''Forbes''''', which not only distinguishes between it's print magazine and it's website, but especially (in this case) makes a further distinction regarding its various authors (Staff writers vs. Contributors): | |||
| {{Coltop|RSP entry for ''Forbes'' magazine}} | |||
| Forbes magazine is listed at RSP as "{{maroon|generally reliable}}" with the summary: "{{tq|Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. See also: Forbes.com contributors.}}" | |||
| {{Colbot}} | |||
| {{Coltop|RSP entry for Forbes.com website}} | |||
| Meanwhile, Forbes.com, the website, is listed as "{{maroon|generally unreliable}}" with the summary: "{{tq|Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor", and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites". See also: Forbes.}} | |||
| {{Colbot}} | |||
| As for the Diplomat, I've noted there can be a difference among contributing authors. Here are two examples; | |||
| # : "{{fuchsia|Franz-Stefan Gady is a ] at the ] (IISS) focused on future conflict and the future of war. Follow him on Twitter.<p>Franz-Stefan Gady is a Fellow with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London and a columnist for The Diplomat. He is the author of a number of ]s and book chapters on Asian and European security issues.<p>Franz-Stefan was a Senior Editor with The Diplomat. He has also reported from a wide range of countries and conflict zones including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. His writing and photos have appeared in ''], ], ], ], ]'', and '']'' among other publications.<p>His analysis has been featured in '']'' and '']'' {{black|{{small|}}}}, and on '']'' and '']'', among others.<p>Follow him on Twitter.}}" | |||
| #: "{{lime|Rick Joe is a longtime follower of Chinese military developments, with a focus on air and naval platforms.<p>His content and write ups are derived from cross examination of open source rumors and information. He is active on Reddit and can be found on Twitter.}}" | |||
| Would ] be considered a reliable source in terms of advertising campaigns? ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Example #1 is likely to be a reliable author, whereas example #2... maybe not so much. I'm thinking that if something to the effect of: "{{maroon|Each contributing author should be evaluated not only on their content, but the information provided about them in their individual bios.}}" was added to the summary for '''''The Diplomat''''' at RSP, this could be beneficial. Thoughts? - '']'' 14:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * AdWeek is a perfectly reliable advertising trade magazine. ] (]) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I am in support of ]'s cogent proposal. In general the source is reliable but please check the author creds. I have seen everything in the Diplomat from outright gems to trash, typically correlating with the credentials of author. ] (]) 05:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:The thing is public relations notices aren’t usually considered reliable for companies. ] (]) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''That's already how it's supposed to work'''. ] makes clear that you should evaluate each "source" AKA news article in this case, not only by the outlet but also by the author. A reliable outlet can ''occasionally'' publish an article by the guy who builds antigravity lawnmowers in his garage down the street, and it would be an unreliable source. Unless this happens so often that we are forced to reevaluate the editorial judgment of the publisher, it doesn't really affect the reliability of the outlet. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 18:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::As an established trade magazine, I consider ''AdWeek'' ] for topics related to the ]. ''AdWeek''{{'s}} , which consist of a small number of articles published under {{code|adweek.com/press}} between 2017 and 2022, are ] ] that are ], and should not be considered the same as ''AdWeek''{{'s}} standard content. Are these press releases the public relations notices that you are referring to? — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 05:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Langweiledich.net == | ||
| I came across being used in the ] article to support this claim: | |||
| I'm concerned that '']'' does not clearly distinguish fact from opinion. For example, opens and closes with an opinionated statement about ] from the author's perspective (including the headline), although it presents attributed opinions from others. There are other examples, but I don't have the time to seek them out. The main page of this website also does not segregate op-eds, as other mainstream news sites like '']'' do. –] (]]) 16:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{tq|In 2023, users of the ''Touhou Project'', '']'' and ] subreddits collaborated to recreate "Bad Apple!!" on ] ] canvas, during its 2023 event.}} It's in German, so I can't really judge the reliability of this site myself - would it be considered a reliable source? ]] 22:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :That is correct. Vox should be treated as analysis or opinion source, which means that generally it should be attributed. It does not even pretend to be news, rather than "explanatory journalism".{{pb}}In your example the author uses first person singular: {{tq|"I posed this question to ..."}} The author is not introduced in their profile and does not seem to have any other articles under their belt for Vox.{{pb}}Another random example, from the front page: {{tq|"I will conclude by reiterating a point I've made several times before; that the most important question in Dobbs is not whether the Court writes the magic words "Roe v. Wade is overruled."}} Millhiser does not seem to have strong journalistic credentials: before joining Vox, they wrote columns for Thinkprogress. And so on. ] (]) 22:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::My concern is that this is not mentioned in the website's ] entry. –] (]]) 06:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, this a problem and should be reflected in the RSP entry and color. ] is toothless if people can just get around it by using outlets like Vox to recycle opinions as fact. Right-wing outlets that mix fact and opinion like this are considered unreliable, as are some left-wing ones, and that should be applied here too. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 08:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :What specific text in which specific Misplaced Pages articles is that Vox piece being used as a citation? --]] 14:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :While I enjoy reading Vox, it is, by its own admission (see its about us and ethics pages), "explanatory journalism", which I like and value, but I also recognize is something different than straight news journalism. It's opinion/analysis. I'm not sure they do any actual news reporting or even real investigative journalism. I could be wrong about that, I haven't read everything they've published of course. But we shouldn't be citing to Vox analysis for statements in wikivoice. I agree it shouldn't be green at RSP, and the RSN threads linked there are old (2014, 2017, 2020) and/or don't really grapple with general reliability (especially the 2020 one). I don't think those linked RSN threads support a green listing as it stands now, but would support an RfC and would probably !vote to mark it yellow (use with attribution only). ] 14:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree Vox tends to wear its opinions on its sleeves, but when you distill out the facts, they are still reliable and engage in proper editorial practices. As more and more sources take this type of accountability journalism approach, I think we can't rule out their reliability, just know when the writer is speaking in a subjective voice versus an objective voice (eg per ]). We need editors to be fully aware of how to use such articles, not only from Vox but other sources in the future. --] (]) 15:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you think it should be yellow to alert editors to this? I fear if it's green, editors will just adopt it in wikivoice without question, and any editor who questions that will be told it's green at RSP, end of discussion. ] 15:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given that what's happening with Vox is indicative of many other nominally reliable sources, I don't think it should change as the source is still good, but one just has to be more careful of what's included in wikivoice. --] (]) 16:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Vox is exceptional in mixing opinion and fact, and does not even purport to do otherwise. Many editors are of the mindset that an opinion in a green-listed source becomes a fact that we can state in wikivoice, and this leads to laundering of POV into fact. I support Levivich's proposal. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Masem (and others), not always proper. Vox has edited analysis several times. It has issued maybe four editor's notes, but hasn't actually corrected the article, except for some details; a poor journalistic practice that is sadly becoming a norm. reported on this (calls Vox "explanatory news site"). The Vox analysis was cited in ]. Has the piece ever been used in mainspace? No idea, but it could have caused a major blunder. Some editors in the discussion argued that Vox is a reliable source specifically because RSP says so.{{pb}}I wish people would stop citing RSP like it's some kind of kind of religious document. I cite Vox sometimes, but rarely for stating some in Misplaced Pages's voice and never before careful consideration. Mainstream papers like ''The Washington Post'' publish pieces that are ] or ]. We consider them less reliable for facts than news articles even though the publisher is the same. ] (]) 16:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Unless I am misreading, those updates reflect changes to the scientific consensus ''that happened after the article was published.'' Updates and corrections like that are laudable and are signs of a ], but it's especially absurd to blame them for not being able to see the future. --] (]) 21:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :It's the self-published blog of Maik Zehrfeld. There's some advice about self-published sources here ]. I don't think it would be considered reliable, best to find a better source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] has us well-covered here. Once you're past the headline, I don't see any issue with this one article. "Explanatory journalism" is not a reason to say a source is less reliable. ] 15:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Vox is more of an opinion magazine that also publishes news, rather than a news magazine that also publishes opinions. ] (powera, ], ]) 17:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * The headline is just covered by ]. I don't agree with the argument that Vox largely publishes opinion, and ''especially'' with the argument that it leans more towards publishing opinion than most other online news sites today, which is simply wrong. See eg. the discussion of their data-driven explanatory news approach . Nothing there, in their mission statement or articles indicates that they are primarily about ''opinion'', and they have significant use by others that treats them as factual, nor has anyone actually presented any reason to think that beyond "it just reads to me that way", which isn't grounded in anything and which I certainly disagree with. Having a ''bias'' is insufficient to treat a source as opinion (though they are not ''unusually'' biased; eg. puts them in the same category as the Washington Post, the New Yorker, NBC News, and so on). And in the absence of any other real evidence, some of the arguments above, by saying "it reads as opinion to me", are basically saying "I disagree with their analysis and the conclusions they make, therefore it is mere opinion and not staid factual analysis." That isn't how it works - their articles go through a rigorous fact-checking and editorial process comparable to those at other high-quality news sources, and are therefore appropriate to cite for facts in the article voice. It's also factually incorrect to say that they do not segregate opinion - they have a section for that. In terms of ], see . The New York Times describes Vox as a . The Washington Post describes it as a . I'm not seeing any particularly compelling arguments above to question these usages and assessments. --] (]) 21:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Like {{u|Aquillion}}, I'm not seeing particularly compelling arguments to change the status quo in a significant way. On a case-by-case basis, it might be appropriate to cite a ''Vox'' item as attributed opinion, but that's really just business as usual. Concerns that "it's green at RSP" could end a discussion seem disconnected with how discussions actually happen around here. ] (]) 21:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Concur. Vox is fine. Attribute if you're particularly concerned. A few editors here think that if they can claim "bias" then factual reliability doesn't hold, and that's not how anything has ever worked here - ] (]) 02:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Status Quo.''' Agree with @] here. All news is biased. What matters is their reputation for reporting facts accurately. And nothing about that has changed wrt Vox. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 19:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Encyclopedias shouldn't be news aggregators''' while I concur with @] that Vox is no more or less reliable than any other journalistic source I also am of the opinion that journalistic sources are inappropriate for an encyclopedia per my usual complaint regarding newsmedia and the proliferation of ] - however I would make sure it's understood that I would say the same thing about the Guardian, the CBC, CNN or China Daily as sources. ] (]) 17:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree with {{u|Aquillion}}'s reasoning above. Don't see any compelling reason to reassess Vox. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">] <span style="color:#fff">⁂</span> ]</span> 23:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] == | |||
| == Jewish Chronicle == | |||
| This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article. | |||
| The RFC at ] found "a weak consensus that it's generally reliable" for material related to "content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians". A look at raw vote, and yes I know ] but it is useful to examine the situation, counts find of the 30 participants, 18 of them voted option 1 , though one of those only for its pre-2010 content, 9 voted option 3 for at least this topic, and 2 more voted option 4. Of the 18 votes for option 1, three of them came from non-EC accounts, which may not participate in the topic area, and one came from a sock of ] (Kenosha Forever, though that was discovered prior to the close), two came from socks of ] (Hippeus and 11Fox11), and one came from a sock of ] (SoaringLL). If you remove the participation of the users disallowed from commenting by either ARBPIA or by being banned editors, and the user who expressed no opinion on material post-2010, the 18/30 in favor of being generally reliable becomes 11/23, with 11/23 saying generally unreliable or outright publishes false material and should never be used, and one user saying "additional considerations apply". I feel that the close of the RFC is tainted by the participation of banned editors, and as such ask that the post in ] finding that the Jewish Chronicle to be "generally reliable" be rescinded and a new RFC be run if any user feels it necessary. But the current consensus simply does not reflect the discussion with the participation of banned users removed. Pinging ] who closed that RFC (and even if I quibble with the close at the time, I dont think it was an unreasonable reading of the discussion as it stood then, but knowing now that banned users make up over 20% of the support makes me think the close should be rescinded). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:<br> | |||
| :@] '''Yes''', it should rescinded - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 20:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| 1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and<br> | |||
| :'''No''' Even if rescind those <s>two</s> votes I don't think its matter as we going by strength of arguments and those who argued that the source in unreliable their arguments were refuted. ] (]) 21:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| 2. {{tq|1=Yemeni state-controlled media outlets}} wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets") | |||
| ::@] - remember that !votes and comments might have influenced judgements of other editors who !voted after (besides the closing person). All results affected by heavy participation of sock-puppets should always be rescinded. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 21:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::It isnt two votes, it is seven. When a third of the support for a position was disallowed from participating entirely that calls in to question the integrity of the result. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::@] Yeah. Regularly rescinding such results might also discourage sock-puppetry in that topic area a little. I think that's the correct approach. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 21:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : You can initiate a new RfC anyway - there is no formal 'rescinding' or a waiting period to do it. Having said that, the closure noted weak evidence against the reliability which remains the case no matter how many sockpuppets !voted in that RfC. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, but the current status quo is an issue here. We have an RFC which declares a consensus for a position that the majority of eligible voters argued against. And that supposed consensus is used as a basis now in a number of disputes. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::: My point is simply that gauging the current consensus would require a new RfC irrespective of the validity of the previous discussion. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, but claiming a current consensus requires that previous discussion. My view is we have no consensus now, and RSP should not declare one exists. And users are claiming that an RFC that quite literally had 38% of the participants in favor of option 1 banned from participating is however the current consensus and that the source is reliable full stop. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::@] - starting a new one indicating that the last one was affected by heavy sock-puppetry is an alternative, but I like rescinding option because that might discourage future participation of sock-puppets a little. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 21:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I still fail to see meaningful difference. You also need a consensus for rescinding. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The meaningful difference is that this would return to a status quo ante in which there is no current consensus on the reliability and RSP may not be used to claim that there is one. Do you think the RFC linked, with the banned comments removed, can reasonably be found to contain a consensus? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Do we have any new evidence for/against reliability of the source since March 2021 that we should look at? If so, maybe re-run the RfC. If not, maybe strike the sock votes and then ask the closer to re-close it. ] 22:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Unaware on the former, fine with the latter. Or just vacating it and letting any interested party take up a new RFC if they are so inclined. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :Will https://bylinetimes.com/2021/09/24/the-ipso-jewish-chronicle-car-crash-just-gets-worse/ this do to be going on with? In case I did not made it clear before, there have been informal discussions (on wiki) about going back to RSN and those involved had agreed to wait but since Nableezy is contesting the "consensus" now, then we may as well get on with it.] (]) 22:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|three of them came from non-EC accounts}}; even under the "broadly defined" I consider it too "broadly defined" to prevent non-EC related accounts from commenting on the reliability of sources because those sources also cover matters related to the protected area, as it means that articles that are entirely unrelated to the protected area start to be impacted by the restrictions. As such, their comments should be allowed regarding the reliability of "content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam", and dismissed only for comments regarding the reliability of "content involving Palestine/Palestinians". ] (]) 22:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the Labour antisemitism dispute is inextricably linked with the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, and indeed ] is listed as being covered by ARBPIA. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::Assuming that the three non-extended confirmed users are the difference between "reliable" and "no consensus" or "unreliable", perhaps it should read "reliable for x, y, and z in general, no consensus or unreliable for x, y, and z that fall under restricted area" - while a tiny percentage of articles on the British left are covered by the restrictions, the vast majority is not, and I would be hesitant to forbid editors who may otherwise be involved in that area from commenting on sources that they may use because of the tiny percentage, and because of restrictions that aren't related to the work they are doing. ] (]) 05:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sure, but I dont think there are many disputed cases of use outside of that area anyway. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 05:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *Thanks for the ping. Only skimming, but I don't imagine I placed much value in the comment of SoaringLL, and not exceptionally much in 11Fox11's. Hippeus's maybe would've been more influential (on participants too), since it actually contained an argument, but only two other editors voted "per" that editor, and both of those comments also cited two other editors' arguments. Nobody cited Hippeus's arguments individually (as opposed to, eg, BobFromBrockley, who was cited individually by another participant). With three socks blocked since the close I don't think it changes the strength of arguments too much, esp as two of the comments were just straight votes and only one sock made a novel argument. I don't think I discounted comments by non-ECP editors, one because I don't usually check the ECP status of participants unless struck/marked, but also because I'm not sure this RfC is covered by the ARBPIA prohibition (ideally a consensus of admins should decide if it is, at ]; I can see the relation but I wouldn't have thought it necessarily applies).{{pb}}I think if I were closing it again I'd have the same finding about general reliability, although probably no consensus for "content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians", in part because it was rather weak in the first place and depends too much on how you read certain comments (comes back to paragraph 1 of the close), and so slight changes in participation probably does affect my reading in that part of the issue. ] (]) 01:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you think it appropriate to update WP:RSP to reflect no consensus on the latter? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 01:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *If one feels that the prior RFC was tainted by inappropriate participation, the best way forward is to start a fresh RFC to gauge community consensus anew. Consensus can change, and there's no fault with checking in once-in-a-while, especially in 1) a close call and 2) where there are questions about inappropriate votes in the first case. Rather than declaring the prior discussion invalid by decree (especially since the majority of the participation was valid), just start a new RFC. --]] 12:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I dont just feel that, I think I demonstrated that, and thats fine for determining a new consensus, but right now, as a status quo, users are pointing to a supposed consensus that even the closer says he would not have closed as a consensus knowing what he does now about the participants, and using that supposed consensus to say that the reliability of the JC is settled and it is reliable full stop. Requiring a new RFC to overturn an invalid one does not rectify that issue. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 14:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::] seems to be relevant here. If it takes a few days to conduct a new RFC so we can be ''sure'' we have a clean and clear RFC to point to for consensus purposes, that is preferable to rushing ahead without any clear direction from the community one way or the other. I would rather have a clear consensus we can actually use than having one person unilaterally deciding to overturn a prior discussion and pressing ahead as though the opposite consensus were true. The solution to "no existing consensus" is to do nothing, and if we have no consensus, we're bound to do nothing one way or the other, so it behooves us to start that new consensus. --]] 15:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, its not relevant here. I am not asking for the opposite consensus to be adopted. I am however saying that we should not be saying there is a consensus when the discussion it is based on does not contain any such consensus with ineligible accounts excluded. I am not asking for a consensus that it is unreliable, I am asking that the entry in RSP be updated to reflect that the RFC does not contain a consensus for this issue. You can pretend like there is not a first movers advantage here, in which a consensus is required to overcome an existing one, but there is, and that existing one is invalid and should not be treated as though it were not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::Fair enough. That's reasonable. As long as your only claiming that there is no consensus, and have no plans to start overhauling Misplaced Pages massively until there ''is'' a consensus, that seems reasonable. --]] 15:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That is indeed my only claim. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article. | |||
| * Obviously '''Yes'''. The JC will need to be reopened at some point, given the new evidence against it, several more cases of defamation have emerged and an IPSO standards investigation has been requested by the JC's victims. This request is being considered and would be the first ever by IPSO, despite it also regulating several deprecated titles (E.g. The Sun, The Star, The Mail group). There have also been two articles on the JC written by a professor of journalism stating it is unreliable since the last RfC. | |||
| ]: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used. <br> | |||
| :The last RfC involved large numbers of users who should have been disqualified. It also featured entirely erroneous arguments based on the fact that the JC had been reliable in the past which had no bearing on the case at hand and that it was reliable for other topics than Labour and Muslims, which nobody disputes. It was also widely argued that IPSO regulation and the occasional publication of corrections made the JC reliable, despite the fact the same applies to many deprecated publications. These arguments were seemingly taken as valid by the closer, when they should probably not have been. ] (]) 10:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ]: This is the version that Jav wants to keep | |||
| ::{{tqq|The last RfC involved large numbers of users who should have been disqualified.}} Four out of thirty is not a large number. ] 14:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Noisy minorities can have an impact beyond their numbers, probably the whole idea of socking.] (]) 14:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I make it 7, and also what Selfstudier said. ] (]) 14:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You can't just make up a number; the number of blocked users is 4. Everyone else is in good standing and is qualified to participate in that discussion. (And seven out of thirty is also not a large number.) ] 14:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Define large number for future reference. 50%?] (]) 14:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, users not extended confirmed are not qualified to participate in project discussions in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. You can't just make up a number. The number is 7, all supporting one side of the debate. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::Yes, the other 3 absolutely were in good standing, but (per Nableezy) they were contributing in an area which forms part of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and did not have the 30 days required for this. The contribution of the socks was constant and sustained, and designed to create the impression that the arguments in favour of reliability were self-evident, and seem much stronger than they actually were. | |||
| Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand): | |||
| ::::::7 users in this case is the difference between "generally reliable but biased" and "no consensus on reliability", I would suggest this is a very large number in this case.] (]) 14:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| :::::::Please don't argue that the Jewish Chronicle is part of the IP conflict. "Jewish" does not mean the same thing as "Israeli." 30/500 doesn't apply to an RSN about the Jewish Chronicle (or other Jewish media). ] 14:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| :::::::::Thats a clever trick, changing the framing of the discussion. The Jewish Chronicle's reliability with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area is indeed part of the conflict topic area. And the truly offensive insinuation is something you should be ashamed of. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * | |||
| ::::::::::Why do some always have to make it personal? We can't just have a disagreement without resorting to ad hominems on this website. ] 16:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome) | |||
| :::::::::::Yes, I am the one who intimated that their interlocutors were opposed to a source because it is "Jewish". I am the one making it personal, silly me. If not for not wanting to violate the same policy as you have, Id tell you where you can shove that insinuation right along with your faux outrage. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * | |||
| ::::::::The JC's disagreement with the Corbyn Labour party was intimately linked to Corbyn's policy on Palestine, and to the JC's proudly declared zionism. Several of the false stories which the JC published were linked directly to the Israel/Palestine conflict. ] (]) 14:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| :::::::::Zionism isn't the same thing as Israel either, and neither is British/Palestinian politics. You are painting with too broad a brush and I find it a bit offensive. The Jewish Chronicle, Zionism, and British/Palestinian politics all go back to long before Israel was founded. These are older than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. JC's reliability is not part of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. ] 15:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved: | |||
| ::::::::::::Youve lost that argument before, try not to make us run it back again. Th articles under discussion here are all listed as being in the topic area. If youd like to challenge that you can do so, but pretending that your view is the current consensus one is nonsense. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * | |||
| ::::::::::::Oh look, ] has a shiny notice showing it to be in the topic area. Huh. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I am sorry that my post has upset you, but I think we will have to agree to disagree here. While I recognise that British involvement in Palestine and its relationship to zionism predate the current conflict, the disagreement that the JC had with Labour is entirely attributable to the current situation in I/P and frequently referred to specific current differences on the rights and wrongs of the actually existing I/P situation. Therefore I concur with Nableezy that this falls within the scope of the 500/30 rule. ] (]) 15:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Your post has not upset me. Finding something a bit offensive isn't upsetting. Similarly, I find "I am sorry that my post has upset you" condescending, but that still doesn't upset me. Don't worry about my emotions; just focus on the arguments please. ] 15:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Fair enough, fyi, in my dialect of English "upset" is a possible synonym of "offended", perhaps that is not the case for you. The Labour-Antisemitism article forms part of ARBPIA, this topic should also a subset of the Labour-Antisemitism article as the JC's relationship to the British left and Muslims was a significant factor in that situation. The JC's negative attitude to Labour and Muslims is entirely conditioned by that scandal, so the same measures should be in place. ] (]) 15:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Strictly speaking, you are correct, however, that distinction is increasingly being blurred and not just by the JC whose version of this is to associate the British left (as well as other targets) with support for the Palestinian position and define that as an axis of evil.] (]) 15:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Anyway, this is simply a distraction from the main issue, the socked RFC and what to do about it.] (]) 15:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I probably agree with that as well, the sock contribution was extremely significant whether or not we allow the 3 500/30 contributors. ] (]) 15:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The user who closed the RFC above says that removing the participation of users disqualified from participating, and I don't know if he is even including the non-ec users either, would likely result in the a finding of no consensus on the matter at issue here. ], can you update the close and ]? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Unsure, since (given the disagreement above on the best way forward) I don't want to unilaterally plough ahead, doubly so as I'm not familiar with RSP practices in situations like this. I don't usually apply the result of my closes in general, or add entries to RSP in cases where I'm the closer (and didn't add this one); I generally prefer RSP regulars/others to turn the reading of consensus into an appropriate RSP format. I think {{ping|Newslinger|p=}} added the entry and is uninvolved & experienced with RSP/RSN, so maybe their take on the way forward might be helpful. ] (]) 18:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in ''The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast'' (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. also seems to be a relevant document. ] (]) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], any suggestions here? I think it fairly clear that no consensus on this topic exists in that RFC, but even with the closer saying that he does not think there was consensus anymore users involved in disputes about this source are continuing to claim a consensus (see immediately below). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::{{tq|1=There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle}}<br>]?<br>{{tq|1=citing Portuguese records}}<br>That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above ''']]''' 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Or ]? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. ] (]) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Nableezy}}, Newslinger hasn't been active for over half a year now. I have updated the section header with the two socks (if I haven't missed anyone else) that were found after the close (one was found before it) but I think the cleanest way for an attempt at overturning the previous RfC will be to start a new one. Seeing as there is a new development (the latest IPSO investigation/development), it would be justified on that ground as well. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 01:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). ''The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama''. pp. 290-291. () ] (]) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Its three (Hippeus, 11Fox11, and SoaringLL), but Im mostly concerned with the editors claiming a current consensus than with establishing a new one. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 03:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--] (]) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Right, I had missed one. I took a brief glance at that discussion as well and even after disregarding the sock comments, I don't think it is that clear whether this is no consensus. The statement in the entry at least still appears to reflect the discussion, though there is a stronger case for no consensus since the sock comments were ardently pushing for generally reliable, while some of the others are more qualified. For the time being, I have edited the RSP entry to indicate that the entry is disputed but this is ''not'' a long term solution and I would strongly recommend a new RfC. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 05:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?''']]''' 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I dont think thats enough honestly, and that still includes the non-extended confirmed editors for at least whats covered by ARBPIA. Even the closer says he doesnt think the close reflects the discussion absent the unqualified comments. Im fine starting a new RFC, what I am not fine with is having the basis as a current consensus being what is not a valid consensus. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. ''The Independent'' is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. ] (]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The last RfC or the entry can't be used as a basis anymore if you were to start a new RfC. I can remove the statement in the entry as well and just add a line that an RfC is ongoing when it's opened. Though, if you want to just overturn/discard the previous RfC or remove the entry, I don't think I can do much about it nor do I think it would be very productive, anyways ] would be the way to go. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 18:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the ] was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended).{{efn|Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)<br>High School Flags<br>Tuesday, September 17, 2024<br>After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.<br>May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.<br>The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.}} He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023 {{pb}}{{talkreflist|group=lower-alpha}} ''']]''' 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We routinely default to the prior consensus in the case of no consensus. And as far as WP:CLOSEREVIEW, thats what I'm trying to do here. And the closing editor has said he doesn't find a consensus anymore. I'm just looking for somebody to update the RSP entry to that effect. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.] (]) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Looking at prior discussions, they mostly focus on a specific incident and would be summarised as "generally reliable" anyways. They are also from 2010 and 2011 so quite outdated especially considering some of the arguements made by the non-sock extended confirmed users in the RfC, who state that its reliability fell after 2010/2016. So defaulting to that would probably end up being counter-productive, but if you really want to go that way then ask for a close review or alternatively a re-close at ] where RSN close challenges usually occur and since there is no clear consensus on what to do with the previous RfC over here (most people are just saying that a new RfC would be the way to go). <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the ] ] and ] sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) ''']]''' 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * ''' Edit - Neutral''' As always the same characters are here, at least giving the impression of trying to stack the deck. But to quote from the AFD notice: ''".. consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes"''. For now I'm completely opposed to opening up a new RFC on a Jewish Paper which has been in existence for 180 years. Someone above mentioned that "new info" has come to light. If that info is from RS, I'm open to changing my mind, but I haven't seen it. -- ] (]) 18:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Up above, here, I'll bring it down for you https://bylinetimes.com/2021/09/24/the-ipso-jewish-chronicle-car-crash-just-gets-worse/ . Anyone wishing to start an RFC on JC can do so, this a discussion about amending a previous close. ] (]) 18:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. ] (]) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Based on that, I withdraw my objections. However, as for the 2020 report they seem to be a member of IPSO in good standing with a well-documented editorial process. And scrolling through some of the incidents, they seem to mostly make quick retractions for any inaccuracies. -- ] (]) 19:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in , which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! ] (]) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Hi ], unfortunately IPSO regulates several deprecated titles, Daily Mail, Sunday Mail, The Sun, The Star. All of them publish retractions and are members in good standing. Even so, IPSO is currently considering whether or not to start a standards investigation against JC, which would be the first in its history. It probably won't have one, because IPSO is not a very good regulator and the big papers who pay its bills would vehemently oppose such an investigation, but even so, the JC is in unprecedented territory due to its consistent inaccuracy. ] (]) 19:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hi, @]. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this: | |||
| *Three comments: (a) If I understand correctly, the objection to the RfC closure seems to include !votes by a couple of non-confirmed editors? ("{{tq|If you remove the participation of the users disallowed from commenting by either ARBPIA or by being banned editors, and the user who expressed no opinion on material post-2010, the 18/30 in favor of being generally reliable becomes 11/23}}") But ARBPIA says "{{tq|Editors who don't meet the qualifications may however use the talkpage to "post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.}}" Thus even if this reliability discussion falls under ARBPIA, these users are perfectly entitled to contribute here. (Of the two non-confirmed users, one has 344 edits since 2014 so not exactly a newbie.) I count 26 !votes from users in good standing, of whom between 11 confirmed clearly argue for GR (14 including newer users and those who !voted for GR but didn't express a view on post-2010 period), 10 argue for GU, 2 for attribute, so the removal of socks makes no substantial difference. (b) If we junk the RfC, wouldn't that mean a return to status quo ante, i.e. general reliability? (c) The "new evidence" against is an opinion piece (it's filed under "Argument" in BylineTimes - RSN discussions and come to no consensus on reliability) which refers to "33 breaches" of IPSO's code, which sounds serious, but the breaches relate to a much smaller number of articles. According to the Telegraph earlier in 2021: {{tq|The letter claimed there had been 28 breaches of the Editors’ Code in three years, and that there would be “more victims” if nothing was done. In fact, IPSO says there were eight complaints upheld in the past three years, with two not upheld and two resolved through mediation.}} (See for extended discussion]) Most of these breaches were prior to the RfC under discussion and were referred to in the discussion. I do not oppose a new RfC but the argument of new evidence does not seem that strong. ] (]) 12:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." ] (]) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bob, we've talked about the opinion quote you cite at length so your use of it here borders on the sophistic. There is no contradiction between 8 upheld complaints and 28 breaches. Both numbers are true, the JC published false information about 8 individuals who made complaints, across various articles in some cases, and IPSO found that the paper had violated their rules in 28 separate instances across articles relating to those complainants. The Telegraph is an exceptionally biased source as it has a declared anti-labour bias and a vested interest in weak press regulations. It is therefore hard to say whether the article you cite is ill-informed or deliberately deceptive. ] (]) 14:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|1=capturing Al-Shihr}}<br>hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? ''']]''' 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree that 8 complaints and 28 breaches don't contradict each other, but one without the other is misleading - specifically mentioning 28 breaches without clarifying how many articles it refers to makes it sounds like 28 articles which were found to have been in breach. I also agree the Telegraph is biased, but clearly so is Brian Cathcart and Byline (a large number of are attacks on IPSO and/or in praise of its rival Impress; in fact, if we rendered unreliable all the media sources Cathcart attacks there we'd throw out e.g. the BBC and Times along with the bathwater). ] (]) 18:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder. | |||
| ::Bob, the objection is that three of the users in the closed RFC were socks of banned users, and you are very much misreading the extended confirmed issue. Users may participate on talk pages, but not in project discussions such as RFCs or RSN threads. See ]: ''Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.'' Seeing as you quoted the first part of that from ARBPIA, I am a bit confused as to why you neglected the latter part, you know, the part that matters here and turns your argument on its head. As such, almost 40% of the users supporting generally reliable were disqualified from participating. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. ] (]) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't get it. The RFC question was {{tqq|Which of the following options should apply to the Jewish Chronicle with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam.}} with the usual 4 options. How is that covered by ARBPIA? Are JC, "left-wing organizations", Muslims, and Islam, covered by ARBPIA? I don't think so! ARBIA is not about Jews and Muslims. ] 16:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city ''']]''' 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As was pointed out above, I would say British political left as well as other individuals and orgs identifiable as being supportive of Palestinian rights, might as well be, as far as JC is concerned, not just a little bit but hopelessly biased.] (]) 16:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. ] (]) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The material related to Palestine and the Palestinians as well as the British Labour party antisemitism dispute are all listed as being in the ARBPIA topic area. Kindly stop misrepresenting your interlocutors arguments, nobody has said anything about it being ARBPIA because of anything about Jews, Judiasm, or Jewishness; the RFC close very clearly references topics in the ARBPIA topic area and for those topics EC is required to participate in a noticeboard discussion. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::{{outdent|8}} {{tq|1="Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, '''capturing Al-Shihr''',}} (Never happened btw) {{tq|1= and how important it would be to conquer Diu."}}<br> ''']]''' 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(Again with the ad hominems. You just won't give it a rest with that. It's like every single reply you make ''must'' contain an accusation of wrongdoing against me personally. Take me to a noticeboard or shut up already.) So the British left is covered by ARBPIA is what you're saying? You want to exclude non-EC editors from an RFC about "Jewish Chronicle with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam" (not specific to Britain) because some !voters mentioned the British left in their !votes? I don't the British left is part of ARBPIA (''everyone'' has an opinion about Israel/Palestine, that doesn't make everyone part of ARBPIA), and even if it was, the RfC wasn't asking about that specifically. ] 17:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: |
:::"Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? ''']]''' 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You have a curious understanding of the term ''ad hominem''. I made no accusation about you, I remarked about your repeated attempt to frame this as though is has to do with "Jews". The implication youve made several times here is outrageous. That is not an attack on your person, but on what youve written here, and what youve implied about others. And yes, the RFC was very much about those topics. The entirety of the dispute of the reliability was centered on the coverage of the Labour party antisemitism dispute. That, as ]]] shows, is in the ARBPIA topic area. The close also references those topics, when it says ''As for content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians: the consensus is weaker and it's somewhere between a weak consensus that it's generally reliable and no consensus.'' You can keep pretending that the discussion does not include material that very much is in the ARBPIA topic area, but anybody can see on the respective talk pages for those topics that they are included and your position is baseless. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned ''']]''' 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I find it weird that you don't think those statements count as ad hominems. Anyway, I don't think that non-EC editors should be excluded from an RfC about the reliability of "Jewish Chronicle with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam" (which is what the RfC asked) just because there are content disputes about JC and the British left, even if those content disputes were raised by participants in the RfC, and even if the closer addressed them as part of the closing statement. I don't think that a general, not-specific-to-ARBPIA RfC should exclude non-EC editors just because someone brings up ARBPIA issues in the discussion or because there is a related discussion on some other page. ] 18:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The dispute was centered around its coverage of ] (in ARBPIA per talk page notice), and one of the non-EC users specifically discussed JVL (saying '' passes off a JVL complaint as having weight ...''). So no, it is not just that the disputes were raised, even the non-EC accounts discussed them specifically. And in noticeboard discussions that is disallowed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::capturing a city != sacking it <br>your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here ''']]''' 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Oh, and by the way, you're the one that suggested asking the closer to look at it again without the sock comments. And the closer said he would find it having no consensus for the topic under discussion here. And it isnt even clear if he left out the non-EC accounts in that finding anyway. Im curious as to why your own suggested course of action is no longer acceptable to you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::::Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't see where I said my suggested course of action is no longer acceptable to me, whatever that course was. I don't see where the closer weighed in on the ECP issue. I still think you should have a new RfC, which would be half done by now had you just done that. And if it's about ARBPIA then obvi ECP editors should be excluded. But if it's more general, like the original RfC question about JC and the Left and Muslims and Islam, then ECP editors should not be excluded. And more generally, what I'm saying here is not crazy, hypocritical, against policy, misrepresenting anything, or in any other way disruptive or immoral or anything like that. I don't mind if you disagree with me of course, but I really am asking you to stop constantly attacking me whenever I happen to disagree with you, and I mean like in every damn edit, in every response to me, you try to catch me in some kind of wrongdoing. You're constantly throwing crap at me. I'm tired of it and I'm not going to keep putting up with it. ] 19:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Now show me where in your sources does it say that ''']]''' 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::When you write ''30/500 doesn't apply to an RSN about the Jewish Chronicle (or other Jewish media)'' as though it being "Jewish media" was raised as a reason for why it applies at all you are indeed making an outrageous insinuation. One that you have yet to retract. When you say that '''others''' are being ''offensive'' for making an argument that they never made, that "Jewish" is a synonym for "Israeli", you are indeed making an outrageous insinuation. One that you have yet to retract. '''Nobody''' said that ''the British left is covered by ARBPIA''. And claiming that anybody did, as when you write ''the British left is covered by ARBPIA is what you're saying?'', is indeed misrepresenting your interlocutors argument. Since you seem to appreciate calling arguments logical fallacies even when they are not, maybe look at ]. Im kind of tired of that myself. I dont really care what you want to put up with, Im more concerned with removing the claim in RSP based on an RFC that was indeed overrun with ineligible accounts, so much so that nearly 40% of the supporters for the finding listed were ineligible to participate. It would be great that if, instead of seeing bs about ''"Jewish" does not mean the same thing as "Israeli."'' when nobody said that it did, you could redirect your comments to the issue at hand, that being the RFC not having any consensus when ineligible accounts are discounted. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::::::You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::If it doesn't have to do with "Jewish", "Israel", or "British left", or a content dispute on another article, then why would the Jewish Chronicle RSN RFC be covered by ARBPIA? Every time I think I understand the connection is, you attack me for thinking it. In what world is asking for clarification ("is what you're saying?") a "misrepresentation"? You ABF in literally every comment directed to me (for example, my comments make no insinuations at all, I am explicit in my communications), including your last one. This is the last time I'm going to post about your comments here but I want to be clear that I'm asking you to be less hostile if you choose to communicate with me in the future. If what I'm doing is really as bad as what you say, take me to a noticeboard, but if you keep making constant accusations against me, I may take you to a noticeboard. ] 19:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{outdent|7}} What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? ''']]''' 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Pretty sure Ive explained why the line ''30/500 doesn't apply to an RSN about the Jewish Chronicle (or other Jewish media)'' does indeed make an insinuation that editors are raising objections due to the source being "Jewish media", and it is an implication that I find incredibly offensive. I want to be clear I am asking you to not make implications of racism against others, it is very much ABF. As Ive seen said before, ''Take me to a noticeboard or shut up already.'' As far as the piece of substance in this, the British Labour antisemitism article is listed as being in ARBPIA. the JVL article is listed as being in ARBPIA. This discussion was focused on those topics. As such, it was in ARBPIA, insofar that the close is related to those topics. And that is the only part of the close I am challenging here. It would be great if you could discuss that part, and not bring up irrelevant crap like "Jewish" is not synonymous with "Israeli", a claim that quite literally nobody made. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::::::::There is no hurry to do the RFC.] (]) 19:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::To me it's an obvious thing but apparently not. Maybe we could somehow include the ecp question in the RFC ie allow non ecp subject to a determination on that by ecps. Just a thought.] (]) 18:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Such matters should be probably determined at ] or ] --18:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitrary break for ease of editing=== | |||
| With {{u|Nyx86}} now blocked as an Icewhiz sock (), that changes the numbers even further here, with an absolute majority now in favor of generally unreliable or wholly unreliable for the topic under discussion here. And there may be one more Icewhiz sock in that list to be blocked. But with just Nyx86 removed, that changes the math even further. Can we discard that RFC now? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 03:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :It is incredible how much sock interest there is in keeping this awful source reliable. Could you possibly link to the page where this block is stated? There is nothing on the user page. ] (]) 08:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] (]) 10:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Another one indeffed, so per Nableezy above, it's safe to say that that RFC was well socked and the result unsafe,] (]) 14:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::You mean another one in addition to Nyx? Also has Nyx been confirmed, or still suspected, as the link above seems to say? I believe removing Nyx means there were 10 non-sock confirmed users arguing for general reliability (plus two editors whose contributions are valid if this is not covered by ARBPIA) and 10 arguing for general unreliability. ] (]) 15:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, see the link I put just above. Says Nyx blocked and DroidIam indeffed.] (]) 15:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Bossip == | |||
| == Can a Bhaktivedanta cult site be used to source praises about books related to Bhaktivedanta cult founder == | |||
| Hello. I am debating on improving the "]" article for a possible ] nomination. I have a question about a potentials source. Would '']'' be considered reliable and high-quality enough for the FAC process (or for Misplaced Pages in general)? I would be using the following source: . The page says that the site has earned awards in the past and has been mentioned in various reliable sources. I am hesitant about it as ''Bossip'' is a "gossip" website. Apologies if this site was already discussed before, and thank you for any help and insight on this. ] (]) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{la|A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada}} | |||
| {{cquote|For their authority, depth and clarity, his books have won praise from professors at colleges and universities like Harvard, Oxford, Cornell, Columbia, Syracuse, Oberlin, and Edinburgh.<ref name="bbt">{{cite web| url=http://www.krishna.com/node/275| title=Summary, Academic reviews of Srimad-Bhagavatam| publisher=www.krishna.com| access-date=31 May 2008}}</ref>}} | |||
| {{reflist talk}} | |||
| Bhaktivedanta cult is also known as "Hare Krishna" group aka ]. | |||
| :Looks marginally reliable to me. Like it's not great. But by the standards of pop culture media it's not as bad as it might be. ] (]) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In this edit ] has | |||
| ::Thank you for the response. That is fair. I had a similar opinion about to be honest. If I do decide to work on this article in the future, I may use other sources first and then see if this one would even be necessary in the end or not. For the purposes of a FAC, which has stricter requirements for sources, it may not be the best option for that context. ] (]) 19:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| praises about books by the subject. (The above quoted content was removed by me) | |||
| :What exactly would 'Before she was the illest female in her Dillard’s department, Amil was the illest in all of Hip-Hop, making $40K/guest verse as the Roc’s first lady? Riiiiiiiight.' be used to source? ] (]) 20:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Can a Bhaktivedanta site be used to source praises about books related to ]? Can such a source be used to add such ] violating content? | |||
| :: It would be used as a negative review for the song as it is criticizing Amil's lyrics. ] (]) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah. The use of slang isn't the issue here. Reliability isn't a register of specific vocabulary. I suppose the question would be whether, Amil was, in fact, making $40,000 per guest verse previously. Should they be reporting that factual statement accurately and should they have a decent history of accuracy in reporting and clarity in corrections when they make an error then the rest is just aesthetics. ] (]) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It wouldn't be reported in the article as a factual statement. The "$40,000 per guest verse" bit is part of the song's lyrics and would be addressed in that context, not as an absolute fact. ] (]) 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems pretty odd if not outright illogical to use a gossip website if you're going to bring this to FAC. The typical reviewer there expects the '''''cream of the crop''''' of sources, not tabloid gossip. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Read some of the articles on the site and it's overly unserious and pretentious BS; my advice is to not use this source. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Okay. Thank you for the response. I agree with your assessment. I have removed it from the article. I am honestly not sure why I used it in the first place. I just thought that it would be beneficial to open a discussion about it here to get further feedback. I believe my question has been answered, and hopefully this can be used to help any other editors in the future. ] (]) 02:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Science-fiction fanzines == | |||
| In my view, this is obvious promotion, and my removal was justified but I have been reverted repeatedly. If I remove again, I am sure I will be reverted again. The user had been . I have a suspicion that people/ supporters from the Bhaktivedanta/ ISKCON cult are active on this page and reverting improvements on this page. ] (]) 10:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I see the question of science fiction fanzines has come up many times in the archives. My question is fairly simple. Writer and translator Philippe Hupp, the founder of the Metz science fiction festival, sent a letter to ''PKD Otaku'', a sercon fanzine that is notable in the PKD community and is often referred to by PKD scholars, but is admittedly obscure in the grander scheme of things when it comes to reliable sources. (pp. 4-6), Hupp goes into some historical detail of his relationship with ] and how he was able to get him to speak at the festival in 1977, and provides important historical documents (correspondence, photos) that is reprinted with permission by ''PKD Otaku''. Currently, I'm citing this letter in an article about the festival to say some basic facts about the history. While Hupp and Metz have been covered by numerous reliable sources in France and elsewhere, I believe this kind of exclusive historical detail has only been revealed in ''PKD Otaku''. Is it acceptable for me to carefully cite this info from Hupp (it is, after all, about him and his relationship with PKD) and point to ''PKD Otaku'' as the source? The article I am working on, ], is currently on GAR, and it has been pointed out that this fanzine may not meet the criteria for a RS. It does have two editors, however, but I think it is safe to say it is self-published like most fanzines. It would be a shame for this historical information to be ignored. What is the best course of action? If it isn't acceptable to use as a primary source, I've thought that a brief mention of it in a footnote might be okay. Please let me know your thoughts. ] (]) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I removed the sentence, source is not RS and does verify the sentence. . Krisna.com is not a secondary RS, imo. ]] 11:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Well as they are not third party no.] (]) 11:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Absolutely not'''. These are not third party independent reliable sources. They are, so to speak, "in-universe." They should not be used for reporting anything that is disputed outside of the cult's sources, and should be attributed. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 19:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :If it's the only source available, and the facts are not controversial, and cited as being from Hupp's account of things, it seems fine to me. ] (]) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe it meets that criteria, however, I will revise it further to make sure that it does. ] (]) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Beebom.com == | ||
| Beebom has been in a few discussions previously about reliability but they've had few responses. I'm asking about their reliability after in ] where their opinion is being used as fact ]. Issues below also make it difficult to establish reliability via ]. | |||
| Is a reliable source for ]? Note that the source is used to support the claim that "Over the years of her creative activity, H. Abdullayeva has also created a number of major works, including the sculpture of Maxim Gorky, installed on the pediment of the National Library named after M. F. Akhundov, the bronze sculptures of the famous actor Huseyngulu Sarabsky, of the statesman and poet Shah Ismail Khatai, the monument-busts of Khurshidbanu Natavan and the one of the poet Vagif in the city of Shusha", none of which is mentioned in the source. ] (]) 12:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not familiar enough with Beebom to know their overall reporting but I've come across issues. | |||
| :It looks reasonably reliable for what it says, although I believe it is unreliable for words not contained in the source, as are most sources. ] (]) 12:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * They don't have a masthead so I don't know who their writers are or what their expertise is. The most they have is an with a few higher roles not in editorial and then two editors without any information. This makes it difficult to establish their level of independence and editorial control. A previous RS discussion pointed out some of their content being written by "Beebom Staff" which is still the case but not often. | |||
| :If the source does not mention the text that it is supposed to be citing, you should remove the text from Misplaced Pages. This is not a reliability issue, this is a ] issue. Sources have to ''actually'' contain the information that is being used to write Misplaced Pages article. --]] 12:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * Their are limited and don't disclose important information. For example, they don't state a separation of ads from editorial. They don't mention here the affiliate programs they're in or the sponsorship deals they do. They don't mention their Beebom Gadgets storefront where they sell phones and make videos on them. However, they disclose having an Amazon affiliate program in their . But they don't disclose the other "affiliate partners" they use. These issues brings into question conflicts of interest which they don't have a policy on. Alongside other basic guidelines like a corrections policy or how they handle accepting samples (if they do). | |||
| ::There are two issues; a) can it be used to support a specific claim (obviously not) and b) can it be used to say anything at all about the subject of the article? (Context: It is a press release from the office of a dictator.) ] (]) 21:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **A 2016 interview explains that they make money from sponsored posts and partnerships. This isn't included in their editorial guidelines. I bring it up since they feature this interview on their About Us page, but Misplaced Pages blocks links to the interviewer's site, YourStory. | |||
| **They as "#sponsored" 5 years ago but stopped. It seems they now use a byline named "Partner Content" for those articles. But they don't mention anything about a sponsorship or partnership in their latest article under this byline. Nor is there anything about this in their policies. So I can't confirm if they do this for all paid content or not. | |||
| *I tried looking into their gaming coverage after seeing them on the ] page and found a where they deliberately lie. The headline is, "Black Myth: Wukong Is Now the Most Played Steam Game of All Time", which they almost immediately state isn't true. While also stating "Yes, Black Myth Wukong is now the most-played Steam game of all time!" This makes me question their overall fact checking and reliability when they lie in a news headline. | |||
| I can't find much mention of Beebom aside from their own social media on google. Even after removing their social media, I can't find anything. ] (]) 02:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == SSCD == | |||
| :It should probably be removed as a source for the example you brought, since an "opinion" piece is not "reporting." As for the site as a whole, it seems to fit more the model of YouTube gadget reviewer, and could probably be used as a source for certain product reviews where appropriate. But they haven't shown that they have much editorial oversight. The two editors I see listed do not have bios. ] (]) 15:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Four sources I found refer to ] as by the abbreviation "garad of SSCD", namely , , , . Are those sources sufficient to place this abbreviation in the body of the article? ] (]) 23:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::So I did a bit of digging and they haven't really been keeping their website up to date. One of the two editors has now moved into the position of "content strategist". This looks like a very marginal source. I've definitely seen worse in the video game space but I'd personally hesitate to use it for anything controversial. I would also suggest that opinion from this source is likely undue unless there is a named author on the byline with some sort of expertise independent of the outlet. ] (]) 16:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Jacobin == | |||
| ==Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone 2021 book == | |||
| On page 90 of the 2021 book ''Consequences of Capitalism'', Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone claim that the US has an "unusually violent labor history, going well into the 20th century." I used this as the primary source for to the lead of the article ]. It was with the claim that "the chomsky is not a reliable source" (nothing said about the other author, a , and nevermind that Chomsky is considered by many to be one of the top public intellectuals in the US). To my knowledge, that the US has a labor history more violent than other Western nations is widely understood and hardly controversial, like the sky being blue and grass being green. In fact, on the page ], the second paragraph of the lead says "According to a study in 1969, the United States has had the bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrial nation in the world". So I (unfortunately, no page number was provided). I think the material and sources are ] for this article. I can add attribution if necessary so it's not in Misplaced Pages's voice, if that would help.--] (]) 15:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :The Chomsky quote should be attributed, I think. It's one person's view on a big topic. If it is the general consensus, then find a couple of other sources and put them all on the page and then you can use wikivoice. ] (]) 15:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Not Reliable''' Noam Chomsky is not specialist on the topic he is linguist and Marv Waterstone is Marxist geographer. The book is not academy publisher so its not ] and clearly ]. And if its so clear there is no problem to find an academic source to source such facts ] (]) 15:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Not generally reliable'''. In general, Chomsky's political writings are ] and not scholarly (as opposed to his work on linguistics). They can at best be used as RSes for Chomsky's opinions, but not for factual claims. This specific book is not published by an academic press (per Shrike), and I don't see that the co-author—who speaks of himself as Marxist geographer (BIASED, once again)—has any expertise in labour history. So ''at best'' reliable for the author's opinions, provided that they are ]. ] ] 17:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::While I probably agree that this should only be used for attributed opinion, suggesting a Marxist academic is biased merely because they are Marxist is entirely incorrect. All writers have political biases, right, left or centre. ] (]) 20:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's not what I suggested at all. I do not think that Waterstone's writings were unreliable ''because'' he was a Marxist. What I said is that his scholarly work has an ''admitted'' Marxist perspective, per his own self-description. That is enough to designate it as ]. And for the record, I would say the same of an economist who claims to be associated with the ], for example. ] ] 20:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Is that opinion based on reading Chomsky? ~ ] 23:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Reply|Cygnis insignis}} Not sure what you're saying but Manufacturing Consent, A Companion to Chomsky, the Minimalist Program and Knowledge of Language are all within 10 feet of this keyboard. ] ] 01:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is a question inquiring what that personal opinion of Chomsky was based on, which so far is proximity to some titles. ~ ] 02:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Let me know how many words and the deadline, professor. ] ] 02:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Fifty, short answer form, but excluding the extraordinary amount of citations needed to support the assertion "'''Not generally reliable'''. In general, Chomsky's political writings are ] and not scholarly". No deadline, there would be a lot of careful reading involved. ~ ] 02:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Lol. ] ] 02:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : Just a note that ] is different from being a Marxist per se, and for all that not uncommon in the field. ] ] 20:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : '''OK if attributed'''. Chomsky is one of the most cited authors in the world. The definition of an unreliable source is not "I don't agree with what it says". ] 20:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::...which no one is arguing. ] ] 21:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Of ''course'' they aren't. ] 01:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{Reply|Black Kite}} Please clarify what exactly you are implying here. ] ] 01:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''' It's important to note that Chomsky is simply stating what has been: a) widely repeated in RS since it was reported by the presidential commission on the cause and prevention of violence in America, and b) since then. Here's a to page 221 of the second source. ] (]) 21:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::All the more reason to circumvent ''Consequences of Capitalism''. At least ] was a labor historian. --''''']'''''] 22:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Attribute''' According to it consists mainly of lectures they gave to their students in a course called "What Is Politics? () so there is a standard of a sort there.] (]) 01:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::What is interesting is that the language is far stronger in the Philip Taft source (thanks for the link, M.Bitton) than the Chomsky/Waterstone source, which some here consider more biased. Nevertheless, so far it looks like a consensus is forming around attribute. I'm thinking something like this might work: | |||
| :: <blockquote><ref>{{cite book |last1=Chomsky |first1=Noam |last2=Waterstone |first2=Marv |author-link1=Noam Chomsky |date=2021 |title=Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance |location= |publisher= ]|page=90 |isbn=978-1642592634}}</ref><ref>Philip Taft and Philip Ross, "," The History of Violence in America: A Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, ed. Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, 1969. p. 221</ref></blockquote> | |||
| ::This is reasonable, no?--] (]) 04:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Works for me. Just noting—for the ideological profilers at home—that I would support a more assertive language if the Taft text was more recent. ] ] 05:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| The Chomsky and Waterstone book is not a reliable source. This is an empirical claim which has presumably been assessed by scholars across relevant disciplines (e.g. history, political science, sociology, economics), so there's no need to use low-quality sources. Here is a better source: Adding quotes by Chomsky to the first paragraph in the lead of ] is not OK. It makes Misplaced Pages look bad when a partisan non-expert is flagged at the top of Misplaced Pages articles as if he were the main authority on the subject (imagine if ] or ] were cited like this in the lead on articles unrelated to their expertise). ] (]) 13:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :That is a strong source. I would not object to swapping the Chomsky source for this one, and modify the language a bit to something like this: "According to labor historians, the U.S. has the most violent labor history of any industrialized nation". I think the Taft source should remain.--] (]) 14:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Reliable'''. It is standard to challenge Chomsky almost automatically because of his dour reading of history. No one doubts that in his works and interviews he customarily commands at his fingertips a detailed familiarity with the relevant historical literature. This particular remark is not an unusual claim, in any case. | |||
| Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under ]. ] (]) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::<blockquote>‘From approximately 1873, the date which marks the peak of the post-Civil War revival of the American labor movement, until 1937, when the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Wagner Act, American labor suffered government repression that was probably as severe or more severe than that suffered by any labor movement in any other Western industrialized democracy. According to the foremost historians of American labor violence, the U.S. has had the “bloodiest and most violent labor history of any industrial nation in the world.” An admittedly grossly underestimated tabulation of the number of casualties in labor disputes indicates over seven hundred deaths and thousands of serious injuries, almost all of which occurred in the 1973-1937 period.’(Robert Justin Goldstein Shenkman (1978) ] 2001 {{isbn|978-0-252-06964-2}} p.3 and for details pp.6-104, 195-208.(there’s a wiki stub on this, I see. ]).</blockquote> | |||
| :There are definitely issues with Jacobin, and a reevaluation of its reliability is probably going to come sooner or later. I don't think a Reddit page full of amateur pundits, who are in turn discussing another social media discussion, is going to give us anything meaningful to work with. ] (]) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Labor violence consisted predominantly of attacks on property; business and government violence consisted mostly of assaults on (striking) individuals by local police, state militia and federal troops. In comparative terms globally , the American labor movement figures as one of the least ‘ideologically militant’ in the developed world. So the ‘unusually ‘is fair in global perspective: | |||
| :Not a good look, but I will note that the says at the bottom: {{tpq|q=y|Correction: An earlier version of this article overstated the amount of US housing stock that Blackstone owns.}} So far as I can tell, the sentence in question is removed from the current version of the article entirely. --] (]) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: <blockquote>‘according to a leading historian of the American federation of Labor, with the possible exception of the metal and machines trades in France, employees '''in no other country''' “have so persistently, vigorously, at such costs and with such conviction of serving a cause, fought trade unions as the American employing class” and in no other Western democracy “have employees been so much aided in their opposition to unions by the civil authorities, the armed forces of government and their courts.’ (Goldstein p.4)</blockquote> | |||
| ::That would indicate, notwithstanding snark on Twitter, the website for snark, Jacobin actually did the thing we expect of a reliable source and made a correction to an article with a factual error, identifying with a correction notice that a correction had been made. ] (]) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed ], in volume 2 of his magisterial ''The Sources of Social Power'', ] 1993 p.407 (not linked. I have the work), citing the work of Goldstein and several others, states that, after repressing Indians on the frontier, and winning the Civil War, the United States army thereafter focused on ‘breaking up strikes and urban riots’. | |||
| :I think this justifies a significant increase in caution towards the author at the very least. In general, an in-depth look at it's reliability is probably due, even though a Reddit discussion isn't evidence. ] (]) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is rather annoying to see constantly how, every time Chomsky's work is cited, objections are raised as if he were a pariah, and, if a source is found saying identical things, that is promoted as a substitute. He writes history, in an analytical framework, and respectably so since, for example his ''Peace in the Middle East?,'' 1974. He like anyone else in the field, can make mistakes, but generally he writes with a thorough familiarity with the relevant historical literature. It's just that he is not a starry-eyed optimistic reader of the historical record. One should therefore cite a source like Goldstein, with Chomsky, and even Mann. 'According to' is not appropriate if the remark is, itself, not unique to that writer but relatively commonplace.] (]) 15:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :It's strange that it was closed as 'generally reliable' in the first place, when most respondents voted either 'no consensus' or 'generally unreliable' in the last RFC. ] (]) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the sources. I will add the Goldstein source to the article and then will remove "according to labor historians", as three citations should be sufficient enough for it to be presented as a statement of fact. I concur with your statements on the Chomsky/Waterstone source, but given that the consensus here is forming around attribution, I can see future edit conflicts arise with name-dropping Chomsky in the lead paragraph. I think it could be a good source for future additions to the body, however.--] (]) 16:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Had a quick perusal of the r/neoliberal subreddit. It appears to be discussing one sentence in one (possibly opinion) article in Jacobin. Are you asking whether that particular article is a reliable source for that one sentence? ] (]) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Because of how the above is worded, I feel compelled to point out that these sources involve authors writing in their credentialed field of expertise and with academic presses. ] ] 19:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just as an aside, RFCs are ] (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well strictly speaking, Mann is a sociologist, who history, just as Chomsky is a linguist who writes historical analyses.] (]) 20:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Sources making corrections, as has happened in this case, is a sign of reliability. Things that happen on social media, and reactions on social media, are mostly irrelevant. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Strictly strickly speaking, Mann does ]. This is touched upon in the preface to Vol. 1 (2012 ed.), especially at pages viii-xii. There are some secondary sources on this as well. Again, the comparison does not hold. ] ] 21:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :The ] that supposedly found ''Jacobin'' to be reliable really is a bit of a tenuous close. A simple beancount in that RfC would lean against treating it as ], and I'm not really able to discern ''why'' the arguments for reliability were so much stronger than those in opposition that an affirmative Option 1 consensus was declared instead of a no-consensus close (at minimum). I do think that it's ripe for re-evaluation. — ] <sub>]</sub> 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Chomsky is a smart guy and an expert in his field. Just being smart does not make one an expert on all issues. ] (]) 21:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :The author's behavior would be annoying if we were chatting at lunch and I personally dislike the smugness, but reliability isn't a personality contest, and as Simonm223 points out the article itself was corrected and the erroneous information removed. That's basically what we expect a reliable source to do—fix itself when an error gets pointed out. So long as the actual content produced is dependable or gets fixed to become dependable, that's reliability. Anonymous Reddit complaints trying to score Internet points aren't a compelling reason for overturning the prior RfC. Evidence of a pattern of unreliable reporting and ''failures'' to make corrections would be more persuasive. ] (] | ] | ]) 03:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Not reliable''' If professional historians support a statement by a pop-historian then we should cite the professionals, if professional historians don't support a statement by a pop-historian then it shouldn't be included. --] (]) 05:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. ] (]) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I think it is time for a review of the past discussion and time to bring up Jacobin for a reliability check. ] (]) 03:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*Similarly, this comment displays a remarkable failure to understand the arguments made above. ] ] 20:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? ] (]) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I understand the arguments perfectly. But they're very tedious and basically boil down to "commies can't be trusted" so I'm treating them with an appropriate level of disdain. ] (]) 13:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *::What does "NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus" mean? ] (]) 21:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*{{tq|boil down to "commies can't be trusted"}} Proving the point. ] ] 17:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * It looks like they handled this appropriately, can you explain what the issue would be? Your comment is a little light on details, its basically just spamming a reddit discussion... Maybe tell us what you think? ] (]) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reliable with attribution''' Chomsky is enough of a polarizing figure that his conclusions should be attributed, but he is also generally high profile enough that his conclusions are worth mentioning. --]] 19:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| A new discussion on Jacobin is long overdue, particularly per ]. It's clear that Jacobin is not reliable on all topics, and at the very least additional considerations should apply in these cases. --] (]) 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Crunchbase Research Report == | |||
| :Agreed. ] (]) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I know Crunchbase is not a valid source but I thought a report from them would be different. What do people think of https://about.crunchbase.com/cybersecurity-research-report-2021/ as a source? ] (]) 15:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::An RfC next would be worthwhile. ] (]) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It comes up with a chatbox asking if I need any help, in the manner of a consultancy attempting to sell its services. This would at absolute best only be as trustworthy a source as any such report from a consultancy attempting to sell its services - as the front page of about.crunchbase.com says, "Search Less. Close More. Grow your team with all-in-one prospecting solutions powered by the leader in private-company data." So not very suitable as a source. What was the article you were hoping to use it on? - ] (]) 18:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{replyto|David Gerard}} Thanks for getting back to me. I'm not quite sure what one has got to do with the other. For instance, one of the key report insights at the top of the report is ''The U.S. recorded 76% of all global cybersecurity funding in 2020, at $5.9 billion''. You're saying this couldn't be added to Misplaced Pages with this report as a source because the chatbox wants to sell its services? It taints the facts cited in the report? I'm not trying to argue with you - just understand. ] (]) 23:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I thought my reply was quite clear as to the trustworthiness of a piece of marketing copy. You have also conspicuously failed to state which article you were thinking in terms of using this in. | |||
| :::More broadly, approximately 100% of usages of Crunchbase are commercial spam, and so far you're not giving any evidence this is any exception - ] (]) 01:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{replyto|David Gerard}} I thought you knew which article I was talking about. It was the one where you went and removed the deprecated source mentioning a Crunchbase report...] (]) 05:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Playing coy like this is unlikely to convince anyone of your bona fides. Did the company suggest that link to you? - ] (]) 11:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{replyto|David Gerard}} Me coy? I would have answered you except you very clearly knew the page in question. When you asked again I wasn't sure if you were serious or not. I knew the page in question, I knew you knew the page in question and you probably knew I knew so what was there to gain by asking again? As for your question about the company suggesting I link to it - I'm not going to dignify that with a response. You're a much more established editor by a power of a million and I respect that, but this doesn't give you the right to be obnoxious. I found the link by doing research. Research I was doing when working out if there was enough material for a page. I was looking at ] - made a list of companies that don't have a page which I was going to create and I started with this one. The goal wasn't to be an all-encompassing definitive page. I just wanted to do enough to get accepted and then let anyone out there edit it as they saw fit. There needs to be a Misplaced Pages version of ] where I deliberately didn't want the page to read as advertising/promotional and so this is what I was accused of. All I wanted was enough sources to establish its notability writing as little as possible. I have no problem with the review process for new pages being strict and for people being skeptical of my intentions. This is what every page should go through and if it's notable enough and the page is written well enough it should get by. FWIW, this Crunchbase reference doesn't matter one way or another. I've researched more and found other sources for the page but for the future, if you're going to be a source-czar try to keep an open-mind especially when the ban pertains to user-generated content and the source in question is not user generated content. ] (]) 14:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors == | |||
| == Discogs -- material backed by photos (typically discographies, track listings, and some credits) == | |||
| {{Archive top|status=|result=The discussion is partially non-topical for this forum. The discussion about the issues that belong here continues below in {{slink||The Heritage Foundation}}.—] 19:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Taking this here based on a recommendation from {{U|Aquillion}}. The conversation began where a report from forward was shared . According to this report, the Heritage Foundation {{tq|plan to use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia}}. A copy of the Heritage Foundation proposal deck is available . This Heritage Foundation plan to dox wikipedia editors also {{tq|would include creating fake Misplaced Pages user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them. It is unclear whether this has begun.}} | |||
| Clearly this situation is alarming in the extreme and the discussion at the arbitration case brought forward the very reasonable suggestion of a project-wide block of all Heritage Foundation domains. So why here? Well Aquillion suggested a reasonable first-step toward this would be to get the site deprecated and blacklisted via RS/N. So that's what I'm here to do. ] (]) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Executive summary''': the listing for ] at ] is way off base and needs a serious update, regarding material backed by photos. | |||
| :I am unsure about a retalitory deprecation (or whatever). ] (]) 14:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ------------------------- | |||
| ::No this would be a preventative deprecation. The idea, to my understanding, is to remove the ability of Heritage Foundation domains to interact with en.wp as much as possible. ] (]) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is that not best done with range blocks, to prevent them from setting up accounts? ] (]) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think this is a discussion to be had at the Village Pump, as it's not a matter of reliability. Deprecation wouldn't have the effect that your looking for, you would need blacklisting and I don't think this would fall within the normal process of blacklisting. So a discussion at VP seems more appropriate as it's something outside of prior policy or guidelines. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A village pump discussion was created and the suggestion to bring the conversation here actually arose from discussion of that conversation at the arbitration page. Honestly I'm pretty nervous about a pseudo-governmental organization trying to interfere with individual Misplaced Pages editors in this way so I'll happily take the conversation to whatever board we think is most appropriate. But right now we've got a whole lot of conversations pointing to different places as a precis to discussing the actual problem. ] (]) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hostile actions by a third party against Misplaced Pages or it's editors isn't a reliability issue, and this isn't a forum for anything but reliability issues. If anything it sounds more like safe guarding, a much bigger issue that should probably involve the WMF. However if editors want to start a discussion about it's reliability, per the sources below, that would be a seperate matter. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I will point out that part of what I said there was that they're already used on some , and are probably ''already'' depracable for publishing obvious disinformation (especially since the 2020 election.) I wouldn't have suggested going through RSN to deprecate them if I didn't think they were ''also'' worthy of deprecating on their own merits, entirely separately from the threats to use their websites to dox Misplaced Pages editors; but deprecating them would make it easier to add them to the spam blacklist and would help avoid situations where editors are forced into a situation where they have to consider whether to click a link to an obviously Heritage Foundation-controlled site in order to verify a presented source. I suppose we could just move ahead with trying to get those sites added to the spam blacklist ''without'' deprecation, but for a site that also publishes disinformation, it seems easier to get it deprecated first, since it ought to be an easy call. --] (]) 14:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Apologies if I misinterpreted. I'll admit that reading the thread at the arbitration case upset me rather considerably. ] (]) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is a more valid reason, there do seem to be issues with the recent work. ] (]) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This discussion should be closed and a proper thread should be opened with substantiated concrete claims about problems with this source. —] 15:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The thread itself is the precursor to an RFC. That said, they've published misinformation or disinformation about climate change,<ref name="Washington_2011">{{Cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |location=London |page=75,77 |oclc=682903020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Michael |title=Heritage Foundation |url=https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808183550/https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |archive-date=August 8, 2021 |access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Ruth E.|last1=McKie|title=The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|publisher=Springer International Publishing|date=2023 |location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-33592-1|pages=19–50|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|quote=Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...}}</ref> the FDA<ref>{{cite book|first1=Zane C.|last1=Wubbena|first2=Derek R.|last2=Ford|first3=Brad J.|last3=Porfilio|title=News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAcoDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|date=1 March 2016|isbn=978-1-68123-401-4|via=Google Books|pp=49|quote=For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.’s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...}}</ref> elections and politics,<ref name="Kessler_2021">{{Cite web |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=March 31, 2021 |title=The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511214334/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |archive-date=May 11, 2021 |access-date=April 2, 2021 |newspaper=]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-GAvideo-2024-09-07">{{Cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Ken |last2=Fausset |first2=Richard |date=September 7, 2024 |title=Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907203454/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |last2=Swenson |first2=Ali |title=Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force |url=https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |publisher=Associated Press |date=July 12, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713110730/https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |url-status=live }}</ref> and more. --] (]) 16:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's enough to open an RFC. ] (]) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Can I suggest closing this section and starting another, to afford accusations that questions of reliability are based on animosity to the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{+1}} I think it's time we started a RfC (perhaps in a new section, as suggested by AD). ] (]) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, new section. —] 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::An RFC is in a new section already? You mean a new RFCbefore section? Titled Heritage Foundation? (ie without the dox part) ] (]) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::New level 2 section. —] 19:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I certainly have no objection to closing this discussion and opening a new one to host an RfC / RfC Before.] (]) 19:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| So, Discogs is listed at "Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources" as "Generally unreliable" ("Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used... Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate"), and the blurb is "The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate." | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Could someone who can read Bengali take a look at ]? == | |||
| This is entirely accurate and correct as far as it goes. | |||
| Hello, I started the title AfD in response to some users recreating a rejected draft in mainspace and they responded by filling the discussion with sources that don't pass ]. I'm unable to read some of the sources, though, in particular one that the users claim has a whole chapter on the subject of the article. Could someone who can read the Bengali sources take a look at the discussion and see if the article passes ]? --] (]) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ;HOWEVER | |||
| :You may have more luck asking at ] or ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The discographies and track listings, when backed up by photos (which is usual), are extremely reliable. The photos are 100% legit and what could be more reliable than a photo. Of course the labels could be wrong, but so could title pages of books etc. -- vanishingly rare. And track listing etc. are the primary, or anyway a major, use of the source. | |||
| ::Thanks, will repost there (West Bengal, since it's the Wikiproject whose scope covers the article's subject). --] (]) 22:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == The Heritage Foundation == | |||
| For instance, is the track listing for The Who Sell Out. I don't know who writes those, but they could be made up or just sloppy I suppose. However, if you click on the "more images" link, you'll come to a photo of the labels on the vinyl disc, which backs up the written track listing (essentially 100% of the time) and also gives, usually, songwriting and producing credits and the catalog number etc. (There isn't a separate URL for the photos.) I haven't yet seen any record which ''doesn{{'}}'' have photos like this. | |||
| ] has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change,<ref name="Washington_2011">{{Cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |location=London |page=75,77 |oclc=682903020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Michael |title=Heritage Foundation |url=https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808183550/https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |archive-date=August 8, 2021 |access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Ruth E.|last1=McKie|title=The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|publisher=Springer International Publishing|date=2023 |location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-33592-1|pages=19–50|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|quote=Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...}}</ref> the FDA<ref>{{cite book|first1=Zane C.|last1=Wubbena|first2=Derek R.|last2=Ford|first3=Brad J.|last3=Porfilio|title=News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAcoDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|date=1 March 2016|isbn=978-1-68123-401-4|via=Google Books|pp=49|quote=For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.’s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...}}</ref> elections and politics,<ref name="Kessler_2021">{{Cite web |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=March 31, 2021 |title=The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511214334/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |archive-date=May 11, 2021 |access-date=April 2, 2021 |newspaper=]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-GAvideo-2024-09-07">{{Cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Ken |last2=Fausset |first2=Richard |date=September 7, 2024 |title=Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907203454/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |last2=Swenson |first2=Ali |title=Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force |url=https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |publisher=Associated Press |date=July 12, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713110730/https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |url-status=live }}</ref> and more. It has been publishing obvious disinformation especially since the 2020 election. Its website heritage.org is used as a source on some <s></s> (<u>correction</u>: I copied "5000" with this search link from another editor uncritically. "heritage.org" includes all of "english-heritage.org" links; the real count is —00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—] 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. ] (]) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The back cover is sometimes shown too, which back covers are 100% reliable for their contents ("According to the liner notes, it was recorded at sea") and >99% for their statements ("It was recorded at sea") which is plenty reliable. | |||
| ::What about the ]? —] 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. ] (]) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. ] (]) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation? | |||
| ::What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in ]? —] 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods. | |||
| :On a quick search, I only found in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. ] (]) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's ]. Not sure if we want this used or not. ] ] 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index {{tq|The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations}} suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. ] (]) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. ] (]) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes. | |||
| ::::Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --] (]) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh do stop. I've heard that particular ] violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a ] ] perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. ] (]) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --] (]) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? ] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --] (]) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::That's a bold claim. Evidence? --] (]) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. ] (]) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —] 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by ], replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting ]. ] (]) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. ] (]) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would consider it ] since it’s self published and openly partisan. ] (]) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. ] (]) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether ] applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. ] (]) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There was an ] as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against ''always'' considering them to be self-published. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Please review reference no. 6 in ] ({{tq|Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state}}). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —] 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. ] (]) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in ], supported by the Project 2025 publication, ''with attribution'': {{tqq|], a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their ''2025 Mandate for Leadership'', they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|title=Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise|first=Heritage|last=Foundation|date=1 February 2023|website=]|access-date=1 September 2023|archive-date=16 November 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231116113522/https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>}} Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —] 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. ] (]) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. ] (]) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It might be 'reliable' that the HF said what they said they said, but is it relevant? This is getting into questions about whether the content is even ]. Lots of people say lots of things about lots of stuff, but Misplaced Pages doesn't quote it all. ] (] | ] | ]) 07:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There's the reputed ], for one. ] (]) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. ] (]) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —] 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. ] (]) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is ''directly'' relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. ] (]) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support ''' blacklisting ''']]''' 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Minor point but it's used on not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. ] (]) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' blacklisting. I don't wanna get doxxed.. ] ] 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually ''prevent'' and/or ''stop ''any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? ] (]) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They have threatened to start doxxing people on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 22:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And also have said they will do it with links. ] ] 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's unlikely that any professional phishing campaign by HF would use heritage.org, and if their home website were blacklisted, they would proceed to ''use other websites'' ] (]) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. ] (]) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| So, the rating and blurb is not true. '''We need to update the listing at ]'' I would say. | |||
| As with ALL think-tanks, I think they should be considered ]; though if some of their reports see ] than those could be used with attribution.---''']]''' 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Exactly how I'm not sure. Since half of Discogs is essentially useless and half is really reliable, I'd split it into two lines. Not likely as we're hidebound here, so let's assume one line. We'd want to rewrite the blub ("...except for material, such as discographies, track listings, and credits, when backed by photographs") or whatever. Then the icon... probably should be changed to, I don't know, "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise", it' "areas of expertise" being record labels and jackets. There isn't an icon for "Half the material is essentially useless, and half is very reliable", so that's closest I guess. | |||
| Could we see some evidence of doxing please? If this is something they do to people it is a safety concern and we probably need to deprecate. As for the rest, I think they are an over-used fringe source, but there are probably times when their attributed opinion is due. The Economic Freedom Index was something you used to see quoted a lot in newspapers and on TV in the UK, not so much now. It shouldn't be mentioned in our ] or ] type articles.--] (]) 06:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Yes? ] (]) 19:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : expose in ], a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. ] (]) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :So I agree there's an issue here. Discogs is (1) a wiki made of user-generated content; (2) near-infallible in my experience, and a vastly more useful and trustworthy discography source than almost any edited redigestion. I'm not sure how to resolve this - ] (]) 19:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Isn’t this kinda how Misplaced Pages is, though? I don’t see an exemption for us citing our own good (or even featured) articles, for example, even though they have gone under peer review. Likewise, I don’t see a way around the problem of the reliability of sites that are user-generated with limited editorial oversight. — ] (]) 19:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::well, precisely. OTOH, citing listings from photos on Discogs is basically citing the sleeves as sources, which we do - ] (]) 20:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|However, if you click on the "more images" link, you'll come to a photo of the labels on the vinyl disc, which backs up the written track listing}} Ok, so the ] here is the labels on the disc and other information present on the album cover (the "]"), and Discogs happens to host a picture of this source. Even though liner notes are a ] source, I guess they are the most reliable source for information about an album. IMO a rough proposed amendment could be "Although the information on Discogs is user-generated content, Discogs often hosts pictures of an album's liner notes, which can be used as a source". ] ] 20:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sounds not-bad to me. "as a ] source" - ] (]) 01:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Heh. The division of sources into primary-secondary-tertiary was lifted partly from academic practice; we're a serious publication but not an academic one, and a pretty unique one, and it's not especially useful to us, and counterproductive to the extent that it's hammered into editors' heads that primary sources are bad. ] (]) 03:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::If Discogs gets its content from its images of the album covers, labels, and liner notes, why cite Discogs as the source? The info may be cited directly from the albums using {{tl|Cite AV media}}. Discogs is just being used as an image provider, and the image may linked directly with {{para|url}} (Discogs includes a "Permalink" for the actual image) and identified with {{para|via|Discogs}} for those needing proof. —] (]) 15:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is pretty much the argument I'm making. What do you think of adding these instructions in a footnote to the proposed text? ] ] 19:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh dang I didn't see the permalink thing. So yeah that would be OK. Whatever works best. For my part I'd rather link to the Discogs page, because for one thing who is going to know about the photos (I didn't), and for another the Discogs page is formatted to be pleasing to humans (in theory anyway), while the photos aren't as easy to read. And the human-readable text is backed up by the photos. | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting. I don’t know if it’s “spam” per se but an organization that has stated an intent to dox editors is obviously just a simple threat to user safety. And I don’t think there’s any debate their content is all garbage, disinfo, and propaganda. Even ] content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. ] (]) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But ''As long as we fix it'' that's all I care, I'll go along with anything. If you all want to recommend citing the photos directly, fine, whatever we can get agreed to and written up at ] under the Discogs entry. I'm tired of people being like "You can't ref stuff to Discogs". ] (]) 03:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting. ] am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? ] ] 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In my experience, Discogs is very good for primary information: the stuff which can be lifted from a label or sleeve. For want of anything better, I imagine it's OK for details of parallel releases; though as I've never seen the need to use those, I've never checked. My concern is about Discogs hyperlinks, e.g. for songwriters and personnel (which, as a DABfixer, is what I usually find myself looking at). They generally seem good; but there's no guarantee that, say, the John Smith credited on a recording is actually the John Smith (57) or whoever at the other end of a hyperlink, and I prefer to have confirmatory evidence if I can get it. I treat biographical information as pure UGC, and never touch it (though it can be useful as confirmatory evidence). ] (]) 06:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Heritage.org is marked as unreliable, yes.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 11:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| No, just cite the album jacket directly. Don't cite user generated photos/uploads. ] ] 14:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Per Sergecross73, the citation is the ''album jacket itself''. Discogs is a nice resource to find pictures of album jackets, but it should not be cited anymore than you would cite "Google Books" for a scan of a book, you ''cite the original work''. --]] 14:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Yes (yes!), but that means we also need a sea change in perception of discographical information. I can't tell you how many times I have seen people tag or blank discography sections for being "unsourced" - because people do not think of albums as published works (which they are) or things that act as sources of their own existence and content (just like a bibliography section). It is absolutely silly for us to have a line in a discography that reads "''Foo Album'' (Foo Records, 1800)", and then an in-line citation to "Liner notes, ''Foo Album'', Foo Records, 1800." But novice users find it absolutely irresistible to cite Discogs when this information is (typically frivolously) challenged in that way. | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting. The Heritage Foundation produces two things: disinformation and opinion. I don't think the opinion of a disinformation vendor is particularly noteworthy except in ] contexts. With such minimal value to use of this group as a source let's just show them the door. ] (]) 13:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Another note, sort of following on David Gerard's comment above: all of this puts us in the unenviable position of telling people to look at Discogs all the time for basic discographical information (just as they would look at Google Books or a library catalog for bibliographic information), while also telling them they can never use it as a reference. That's a bit of Misplaced Pages pretzel-logic, but I suppose it will be consensus. ] (]) 14:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support blacklisting'''. The site is published by an ideologically-motivated group which is well-documented for making false claims of fact, using dubious methodologies in their work, and is now engaged in efforts to damage this very project. There's absolutely no use, and much potential harm to come from using them. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would argue Discogs is a means to ] any claims whenever liner notes are mentioned as a source. Users are providing scans/shots of published works. It's a ] in a way where caution is stressed on its reliability. – ] (]) 02:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| === RFC: The Heritage Foundation === | |||
| Discogs is very useful, and where I always begin when I start album articles, but I agree with the previous discussion, consensus, etc. I generally cut and paste the song titles, for example, and then confirm via the images, and so often--or often enough--things are misspelled, out of order (even when accounting for specific releases/countries), missing symbols, etc. Or the song lengths don't match up to the images, so there's the discrepancy of the images being "correct", and the linked page being "wrong". Minor stuff, but I don't think it's any kind of burden to continue to cite the AV way, if necessary, or for Discogs to be under the external links, but am open to the discussion. To add a somewhat related wrinkle, I've come across a few times where the Discogs images are quite poor, or not there, and yet the eBay ones are great, ha... ] (]) 14:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}} | |||
| :R to {{u|JBchrch}}: Yes, it's basically the same point. I use Discogs and several other sites for their images and don't find them difficult to read. I believe it's preferable to cite the actual album notes as the source and remove any doubt about the accuracy of an unknown user gleaning the details themselves. As long as Discogs allows other info to be included along with the basic album note material without any idea of where it comes from, it cannot be considered a RS. There is also the problem of the large amount of advertising and unofficial video links that are potentially copyvio. | |||
| {{rfc|pol|rfcid=08190DC}} | |||
| What is the reliability of ] and should it be blacklisted? ] (]) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| :Maybe clarify your proposed amendment with something like "Discogs images of album covers, liner notes, etc., may be used for details about the release, but Discogs itself should not be cited as the source, since it includes other user-generated material". This may seem like nitpicking, but some editors feel that ''any'' use of UGC sites should be strongly discouraged. | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| :—] (]) 14:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 5: ]''' | |||
| ==== Poll: The Heritage Foundation ==== | |||
| * <s>'''Option 5: Blacklist'''</s>: Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. ] (]) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Pinging @]@]@]@]@], they voted above before I made this RFC. ] (]) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in. | |||
| *:is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5] (]) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. ] (]) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@]: There is a way to warn users attempting to ''add these links'' (filter {{edit filter|869}}), but warning users who click on them would likely require some JavaScript magic that's above my pay grade. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support option 5''' - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP ''']]''' 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —] 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. ''']]''' 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source}}; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —] 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? ] (]) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said: {{tqq|We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization}}—] 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig ''']]''' 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::They don't. ] (]) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::What is the status of (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —] 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. ] (]) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —] 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. ] (]) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —] 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. ] (]) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::If ''Daily Mail'' is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):{{blist| | |||
| <nowiki>{{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}} | |||
| </nowiki>}}...?{{br}}I'll help you: ''Daily Mail'' is not blacklisted.—] 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::]. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —] 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? ] (]) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see ] below. ] (]) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment: {{tqq|Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing).}} Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise. {{tqq|But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal?}} Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.{{pb}}Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question of {{tqq|Do paperbacks get special dispensation ...}}. That original question, mildly rephrased, is:{{pb}}''How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with ], which is how this RfC's question is also formulated ({{tqq|'''What is the reliability of <u>The Heritage Foundation</u> ...'''}})''?{{pb}}Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is ''possible'', but it is not what, say, ] thinks. He wrote: {{tqq|... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question ...}}. —] 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing ''']]''' 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —] 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. ] (]) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. ] (]) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —] 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support option 5 and option 4''' per my statements above. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. ] (]) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3,''' with '''Option 5''' post 2016 and '''Option 4''' for any hard copy after 2016. ] (]) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. ] (]) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@] You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at ]; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —] 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] Interesting, it looks like it's possible ]. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". ] (]) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Yeah, that is interesting. In the present case, if blacklisting for ostensible security reasons, the date isn't a factor. —] 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: generally unreliable'''. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as by ] which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. ] (]) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Alright then, in the interest of a unified front, count me in too with instruction to cite only to the photos. It already warns about Discogs so the second sentence isn't necessary. We want to be both succinct and comprehensive, so I'll suggest that we just add something short like "...except for photographs" in the main body, then a Cnote link to a note at the bottom of the page where it lays out the details... how we are mostly talking about pics of covers and labels, how to use the the permalink button in Discogs, a recommendation of using the CiteAV template, a link to this discussion, and anything else needed. This is done often enough on rules pages. | |||
| *'''Option 5''' and '''Option 4'''. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. ] ] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2 for pre-2016''' (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "]" think tanks) and '''Option 4 for 2016 and later'''. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., ''']''' (])), not from value judgements.—] 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. ] (]) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—] 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —] 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --] 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. ] (]) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Blacklist -- ''but this does not mean removing the reference''. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- ] (]) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable ('''option 3''') as they are into ] conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.] (]) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "]." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. ] (]) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? ] (]) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. ] (]) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? ] (]) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{re|JoJo Anthrax|Bluethricecreamman|Abo Yemen|Dronebogus|Doug Weller|MjolnirPants|SarekOfVulcan|Vanamonde93|NatGertler|Boynamedsue|Gnomingstuff|Patar knight|1AmNobody24|Tryptofish|Chaotic Enby|Horse Eye's Back}} | |||
| *:::While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. ] (]) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. ] (]) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! ] (] · ]) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. ] (]) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --] 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If it wasn’t security related I wouldn’t have voted. But I would still allow older cites under a 3 ''if and only if'' they were replaced by wayback machine links. ] (]) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. ] (]) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 6''', ]. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you ''give out your IP when you visit any website'' and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, ''this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing''.{{pb}}The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a ''very specific link'', and they have to be fairly certain that ''only you'' could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that ''outwardly looks like'' something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.{{pb}}If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be ''more effective'' by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.{{pb}}The is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/] source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.{{pb}}What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-anonymize and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.{{pb}}The technical solutions offered at ] are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions ''would'' do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:We can do both. We can remove a ] source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of ] interference.] (]) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is ''very'' relevant. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing ] above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting. | |||
| *:::Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --] (]) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. ] (]) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. ] (]) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. ] (]) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: Blacklist''' (along with '''4: Deprecate'''). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --] (]) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the ''Forward'' piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --] (]) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{+1}} ] (]) 23:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've been continuing to think about this, and I've also been reading the subsequent RfC comments by editors who argue that we should still consider that it's a think tank that can provide citable source material. Some editors have also said that we should not let our emotional reaction against the doxing issue influence how we evaluate Heritage as a reliable or unreliable source. In some ways, I agree that we should not make sourcing decisions based upon emotion. However, we should also not be naive about what a ''legitimate'' think tank does. Think tanks take advocacy positions, but they also are populated by ''thinkers'', people with expertise who think carefully about issues, and seek to publish well-reasoned analyses of issues. But it's frankly laughable to characterize Heritage that way. An organization that says, publicly, that they are going to go after Misplaced Pages editors, as persons, in order to enforce their preferred view of what information Misplaced Pages readers will find, is not an organization that is producing scholarly analyses of information that Misplaced Pages might want to cite. If it's a legitimate think tank, then ] is a think tank, too. Even if they also purport to produce thoughtful position papers, those publications simply ''have'' to be recognized by us as tainted by intellectual dishonesty. There is no passing that off as reliable sourcing. --] (]) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? ] (]) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::There's a wide range, in both directions, of how much valuable information a source can offer. On WP:RSP the only sources deprecated with antisemitism as part of the justification are Press TV, an Iranian propaganda outlet; The Unz Review, with justification mentioning "racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content" and "many apparent copyright violations"; and Veterans Today, which was blacklisted for abuse and deprecated for "unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories." Unz Review is the only deprecation citing racism. Searching for a few other "horrible things" keywords, I don't immediately see anything else. | |||
| *::::With Press TV and Veterans Today it seems there are, I would say, much clearer underlying problems with the sources than is the case with HF. Unz Review seems to have been a clear-cut case — the only such case I see — of cancelling an outlet primarily for being unusably (i.e questionably) rabid, and it being an outlet that no one would miss because it doesn't seem (per its RfC) to provide useful info. HF may be unhelpful to an extent, but not ''that'' unhelpful. Apart from that, sources are flagged for their information being inappropriate for the encyclopedia, not for saying horrible things. | |||
| *::::It's also worth looking at Asian News International. They're another organization hostile to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's mission, but despite ''that whole situation'', they're only MREL, and the description of why gives no mention to ''that situation.'' That's the most important precedent in this comment. | |||
| *::::If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those ] (]) 02:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Well said @], "{{tq|If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those...}}" ] (]) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself. If they do that, then I seriously doubt their informational integrity, and that's just in addition to the opening statement above. Deprecation means there's a warning when you try to add a new usage, and that is appropriate here. ] (]) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: Blacklist''', primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, '''generally unreliable''' at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. ] (] · ]) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. ] (]) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense: | |||
| === Implementation === | |||
| :*In general, '''Option 5''' for editor security reasons, as per all above. | |||
| It seems like there is consensus that pictures hosted on Discogs may be used as primary sources, using the appropriate templates. I've boldly edited <s>WP:DISCOGS</s> the RSP entry for Discogs to reflect this: . Feedback is welcome. (I have not added a link to this discussion since, as I understand it, this will have to be done once this discussion is archived.) ] ] 19:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, '''Option 4''' as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve ] theories. | |||
| :Is Discogs in the "auto-reject" bucket of any of the spam-fighting bots? We should change that if so. ] (]) 19:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, '''somewhere between option 2 and option 3''' - ] would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It might even be possible to have most of the existing citations "repaired" (e.g., to use {{tl|Cite AV media}} with a {{para|via}} to Discogs) by bot or AWB. ] (]) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Before making such changes, there's another issue to consider: ]. Does Discogs have the right to host these images? ] (]) 03:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::. ] ] 03:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::It may well. But there appear to be a significant number of images that are potentially still covered by copyright yet still posted there. ] (]) 03:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's entirely possible, but I would argue that if a website takes a commitment of this kind and , we may assume that it's not hosting copyrighted material, and that LINKVIO is respected. Otherwise, links to Twitter, Facebook and Youtube—any UGC, really—would have to be nuked as well. ] ] 04:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Er, no, we really can't assume that. See YouTube's entry at RSP - it would make sense to add something similar to its third sentence for Discogs. ] (]) 11:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, yes, ''of course'' Discogs is hosting copyrighted images - tons and tons of them. But they are not doing so ''in violation of copyright'', and the dedicated channel noted above is part of their obvious good-faith effort to respect copyright law. ] (]) 12:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::On what basis do you believe they are hosting tons and tons of copyrighted images but are not in violation of copyright? ] (]) 14:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *See, you don't link, or even need to mention Discogs at ''all''. If you're looking at a picture of the liner notes or track listing on Discogs, you cite ''the original liner notes''. We don't cite "Google Books" if we're looking at a Google Books scan of a book, we cite the book itself. Same deal here. --]] 13:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Right. Anyone who has UGC or potential copyvio concerns doesn't need to add the permalink link to Discogs nor mention it in via= (books are cited all the time without links/mentions of google). —] (]) 14:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- ]] 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == In the news (itnshow)? == | |||
| *'''Option 5''' on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. ] (]) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. ] (]) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. ] (]) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. ''']''' - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s ], which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. ] (]) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yes. Their is no reason not to place fingerprint gathering html5 snippets as widely as possible if you want as much tracking as possible. ] (]) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::And consider, Misplaced Pages editors will only be one target. A large tracking network can be a used to doxx other people they dislike (advocates of racial equality, LGBT people, non-capitalists). Its pretty safe to assume they will have middleware somewhere in their webstack to affect fingerprinting. I'd be mad at my cyberattack consultant if they missed the obvious. ] (]) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites''' as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --] (]) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. ] (]) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. ] (]) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. ] (]) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. ] (]) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Fingerprinting everyone is useless for purposes of following and tracking Wikipedians. ] (]) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. ] (]) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:"This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. ] (]) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per {{u|PARAKANYAA}}. Well said. - ] (]) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. ] 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. ] (]) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' and in case it's considered seperate '''Option 4''' as well. THF are not only publishers of ] but are posing an active threat to ] ] (]) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5:''' While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. ] (]) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2-3''' There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? ] (]) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources ] (]) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] makes the most well articulated point of anyone in this RfC. This would indeed be "very bad precedent" and we should not also retaliate based on the claims of a single source in such bad form. ] (]) 21:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''', at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (, '''' and academica ( and ) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from '''', a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. ] (] | ] | ]) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''', per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least ''some'' things. ] (] - ] - ]) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. ] (] - ] - ]) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1''', though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. ] (]) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? ] (]) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the ''Forward'' source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So '''Option 1: Generally reliable'''. ] (]) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Could you point me to where you answered that? ] (]) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. ] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. ] (]) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' as their own communications indicate that they are a security risk, that they intend of publishing malicious web content in order to identify people who click on their links.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rosenfeld |first=Arno |date=2025-01-07 |title=Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors |url=https://forward.com/news/686797/heritage-foundation-wikipedia-antisemitism/ |access-date=2025-01-10 |website=The Forward |language=en}}</ref> '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4 and maybe 5'''. Based on their (lack of) quality as a source this is an ''extremely'' obvious 4 but their recent outrageous threats were making me think that 5 was also justified, comparable to how we would treat a terrorist organisation. After seeing Red-tailed hawk's comment, among others, I am now less sure about that. What I am sure of is that they publish deliberate ] in intentional bad faith and that makes them utterly untrustworthy and unreliable (with both an upper and lower case "u") as a source for anything at all except for their own claims. Literally nothing that they say can be relied upon unless independently corroborated by actual Reliable Sources, in which case we should just use those Reliable Sources instead. If they say that the sky is blue then a Reliable Source needs to open a window and check before we can say that it is. I see people saying that they may have been more reliable in the past. I have my doubts about that. Sure, they are probably ''even worse'' now than they were before but were they ''ever'' really anything better than a 3 or 4? That said, if that does turn out to be true, and we do decide to blacklist, then I guess we could use Archive.org to refer to contemporaneous copies of their content which we know not to have been subsequently tampered with. --] (]) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' because they have announced they are a security risk, and '''Option 4''' because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors. ] (]) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4''' as they routinely publish material chock full of conspiracy theories and outright fabrications.--] (]) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5, regrettably'''. I would normally have suggested '''option 2'''. But given they are actively trying to dox editors on Misplaced Pages and contributors to other internet sources, that is absurd and is not something that can result in them being tolerated as a source on Misplaced Pages. They do good work - they produce things that, while biased, are reliable, generally speaking. But their efforts have extended to doxxing contributors, and that is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages has an obligation to make ''reasonable attempts to protect'' its users - whether editors or readers - from having their information harvested through links. And since the Heritage Foundation has admitted they intend to engage in information harvesting based on links... nope. Not permissible. '''To clarify''' - my !vote here is '''not''' a comment on their reliability overall. If they cease their information harvesting, I support a further discussion on this topic. But if they intend to (and per reliable sources, may have already begun) use their links to harvest editor/reader information, '''absolutely not acceptable''', and they should be blacklisted until they cease engaging in such behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be ''at minimum'' a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say ]. ] (]) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.] (]) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I counted two ] (]) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. ] (]) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''option 2/3''' - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them. | |||
| :That said, what they publish is ''opinion'' and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE. | |||
| :If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to ''Mein Kamph'' as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ])</small> 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable ] and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --] (]) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. ] (]) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC''' per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. ] (]) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. ] (]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree with the '''BADRFC''' !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. ] (]) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Very poor option 2 or option 3''' gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. ] (]) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, ''if accurately recounted in the media,'' to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. ] (]) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —] 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. {{pb}}For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. {{pb}} For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. {{pb}} For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the ] because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. ] (]) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{Tq|This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular.}} {{+1}} 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) ] (] | ] | ]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::What about the democracy indices from ], or ], or ]? Or the ]? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL ] (]) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. ] (]) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC ] (]) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::] is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the ] outmoded. ] (]) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't ''current'' and ''reliable'' scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for ''Principia''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s estimate. I'm going to read ''current'' scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.{{pb}}The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. ''Wealth of Nations'' lies in the social sciences while ''Principia'' deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's ''Wealth of Nations'' in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the , not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly ''because'' it is ''inspired by'' The Wealth of Nations. | |||
| *::::The IEF is not a problem with this organization ] (]) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference}}: No, it wouldn't make sense to reference the Heritage Foundation directly. If what we want to cover is the criticism, we want secondary source coverage ''of'' such criticism; citing such criticisms ''directly'' and just deciding to put them in an article is ] in the pursuit of a ]. Criticism of vaccination is an influential element of American culture, but we don't go out of our way to cite anti-vaxxers; we instead cite reliable sources that independently document and analyze such. The Confederate secession was a major part of American history, but we ought not write Civil War articles by citing 1860s South Carolina newspapers for information about anti-abolitionism; we cite historians and how they have documented and analyzed what's relevant, what's meaningful, what was disinformation, etc. Likewise, if what we want is coverage of the Heritage Foundation and its role as an agitation engine against certain kinds of policies (in your example, education), then we cite journalists, historians, sociologists, education professors, etc. who study and write about organizations like the HF. ] (] | ] | ]) 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::This is entirely correct. ] (]) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The difference between anti-vaxxers and Heritage Foundation is that anti-vaxxers are a fringe perspective in the medical field, even if one of them is going to lead the NHS, and that Heritage Foundation is, like Cato, a well-established but POV/advocacy think tank. As for Civil War newspapers, the difference is timeliness: of course historical events have many better sources that are third-party analysis, but we do cite think tanks all over the place. I don't see why HF is substantially different from any other MREL <u>POV, advocacy</u> think tank whose work should be attributed. | |||
| *:::To source HF's ''own role'' in policy, of course it wouldn't be used as a source for itself. The same holds for any source, MREL or not ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. ] (]) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::{{Strikethrough|What are you suggesting out of this, what we delete the ] page?}} ] (]) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::If you mean to say that HF is GUNREL because the IEF is pseudoscientific, then I'd ask for RS that say the IEF is ''pseudoscientific'' (not that it's just ''flawed'', because of course any index is flawed) ] (]) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in ], which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org): {{tqqi|] is an ] (3rd on the ]),<ref>{{Cite web|title=Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom|url=https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|access-date=2022-11-12|website=www.heritage.org|language=en|archive-date=21 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200521231822/https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|url-status=live}}</ref> ...}} —] 23:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a ''non-scientific'' source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —] 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::To restate my own point, I don't think the IEF can at all be taken as a reason to call HF a GUNREL source. | |||
| *:::::::::I actually think Economy of Ireland is a great example of an article where the IEF (<u>and by extension HF work</u>) can be brought up, since Ireland's corporate economy is based around being a regulatory/tax haven, though I do think the current phrasing especially with parenthesis is weird so early in the article ] (]) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —] 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican}}: Reliable sources and the neutral point of view aren't determined by what is politically mainstream, whether Republican or Democrat in the United States, or Labour or Tory in the United Kingdom, or LDP in Japan, etc. The Taliban is a mainstream political faction in Afghanistan, insofar as it's the faction in power, but I don't think we would consider some kind of Taliban-aligned think tank to be a reliable source for Afghani society and politics. Mainstream reliability is determined not by the ideologies of politics but by the rigors and standards of academia and journalism. A , but that belief being 'mainstream' doesn't make it reliable, and we wouldn't treat a source attesting such as one that's reliable for biology or evolutionary anthropology. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::To clarify, I don't mean to assert that HF is reliable because of being mainstream Republican. I mean to say that WP:FRINGE, specifically, doesn't make much sense to use against what is, in the US, a political and academic giant. They might have some specific views that are fringe, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the source — The Economist has called for the legalization of cocaine, which is a fringe position, but The Economist is (rightfully) a well-respected source. | |||
| *::TLDR I complain about specifically WP:FRINGE being invoked against HF as reason to deprecate ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. Other sanctions may be appropriate for the privacy issues, but RSN is not an appropriate forum to pursue them. We cannot retaliate against sources for conduct which is not restricted by wiki accuracy and notability guidelines. And I'm leery of taking such wide action against an organization with a long and complicated history, comprising some intentional lying (especially the last 4 years) but also real and valuable research. Ideally we would give Heritage up to 2020 similar treatment to Cato {{tq|The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.}} (which I think is the only thinktank with an RSP listing) and minimally GUR it for 2020+, but with the RFC as-listed I think we have to err on the side of trusting editors to use their own judgement. This RFC did not arise from an editing dispute and I don't think Heritage is being regularly used inappropriately on wiki. If a dispute does arise, Option 2 will be enough to prefer other sources. ] (]) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. It's a widely used source, not just on Misplaced Pages but also in other RS, including scholarly articles (, ), so ] applies. I'd support every effort to combat their scheme to influence Misplaced Pages but blacklisting them ''as a source'' is not going to help. Blacklisting them would make us look like vindictive amateurs rather than a serious encyclopedia. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If its relevant would not other RS report it anyway? ] (]) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The Heritage Foundation is most cited through their ], which is a lot of data that's documented on that article in tables refreshed each year; no secondary source includes all the data included on that article. We could start a discussion on that article's talk page about removing the data under WP:Indiscriminate if we wish, but there does seem to be precedent with global indices to include all countries' rankings, indices, and historical rankings. ] (]) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. ] (]) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's exactly what I just meant with the ] part of my reply. ] (]) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. ] (]) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah. It would be a bit hard, though, since other indices also list everything. I would support such rampant restructuring if I had a clear picture of where the removed data would go. I'd say Wikidata, but that doesn't seem to have such facilities/pages. And no, I don't think it's reputation is that much worse to warrant deletion. Alaexis lists two sources that cite IEF: one source from the unreliable MDPI, but also one source from Nature, which is like top-tier iirc. ] (]) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor. ] (]) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:"{{tq|An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor.}}" How does this in any way comment on the RfC, "{{tq|What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted?}}" | |||
| *:This is exactly the sort of comment that is not actually addressing the RfC, but is purely retaliatory and very angry (perhaps understandably, but that is besides the point). Nothing about this sort of comment is rooted in policy, and I hope any closer views such !votes with the correct and proper disregard that they deserve. ] (]) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. ] (]) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? ] (]) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If they are unreliable on specific grounds, so be it, but so far mere retaliation is neither valid nor constructive. ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Nope. Their hostility is the icing on ]. ] (]) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''', or at the very least options starting from 3, due to its publication of fabricated and/or misleading information and its widespread use in the project. --] (]) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or 2'''. As far as I can tell, their internal memoranda are a wishlist and aspirational, and so far they haven't been successful in any of their reprehensible ideas. As far as the source itself, I tend to see it as verging into pretty unreliable territory similar to Fox News, but it's a think tank, so sometimes they might have some well-researched reports or attributable opinions, and they're one of the largest right-wing think tanks so they have a large body of usable attributed information, similar to other think tanks or advocacy groups, biased, but occasionally useful with real academics working there, so I think full deprecation or blacklisting seems excessive. The reality is, their desire to dox editors is easier wished for than done, and it doesn't expressly impugn the reliability of their past material. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *After some thinking, I'm leaning towards '''option 4''' per Tryptofish above. Besides the extensively documented lying, I (unfortunately?) don't trust a source that aspires to covertly attack and burn down us and our library, and there should be a pretty good reason for someone to click twice on the "publish" button. This won't stop any "link injection", and it shouldn't: Thinking blacklisting would diminish security problems is pure security theater, per RedTailedHawk; it is not something we should do. Deprecating informs newer editors of the situation, and that's something we should do. ] (]) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). ] (]) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. ] (]) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. ] (]) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. ] (]) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::So you said. ] (]) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —] 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::How about you stop asking me to read what I read and disagree with? ] (]) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::M.Bitton, you're wrong to insist on blacklisting based on this discussion. The real discussion about what to do technically, and blacklisting is a technical and not an editorial measure is had at ]. It is also had at other places, where discussions aren't public. —] 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' The sites are not reliable and the new information showing recently shows clear and obivous issues brought up by most here so far. ] (]) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4''' - Are there any indications at all that their statements are a reliable source about anything that is not embarrassing to themselves? ] (]) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4+5''' per the sources above. They routinely publish misinformation, and make no particular claim that I can see towards doing any fact-checking or having any editorial controls in the first place, so they shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with; but the fact that they somehow ended up used in so many articles shows that deprecation is necessary. In the rare case where someone there says something significant, it will be reported in secondary sources and can be cited via those; there is no exception to ] for "they're really important, tho", precisely because unreliable-but-important sources can be cited via secondary coverage. Their threats to use domains they control to dox and out Misplaced Pages editors is just an additional reason on top of this and a reason to take the step of a formal blacklist. While blacklisting obviously won't ''solve'' the problem, it will avoid situations where editors feel they have to click their links in order to evaluate a potentially-viable source, and force them to use lesser-known (and, for most editors, more intrinsically suspicious) domains in order to do any sort of spear-phishing attack. Some editors seem to be saying "well let them use their own domain for those attacks, that'll make it more obvious" - but if we don't blacklist it then it ''won't'', because allowing it means it could also be used in good faith. --] (]) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Routinely publishing misinformation would be a concern, but I haven't been convinced from the discussion so far that they do that. Could you elaborate? ] (]) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Option 5:''' +1 (what Aquillion said) + Think tanks are rarely anything but a source of last resort on Misplaced Pages. We mostly use them when they have useful insight into niche security topics. If any primary research or opinion from the HF is particularly notable and due, it will be covered by reliable, secondary sources, and we can still cover it. We don't need to send users to a website with potentially malicious activity. ] (]) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' This seems like a drastic overreaction. ] (]) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''5, and 3/4'''. If this had been asked a month ago, I'd've said '''3''' because, as Alalch and others laid out in the RFCBEFORE, they have a reputation for letting politics trump accuracy, leading to mis- and dis-information; in any situation in which their views are DUE, those will (by ]!) have been covered by other, reliable sources; and any ABOUTSELF statements needed on their own article can be handled as exceptions/whitelisted. But '''5''' is also in order: for a source to operate in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, is not only additional evidence that they do dishonest/untrustworthy things and are unreliable, the misuse of their domains in particular merits blacklisting. ''Pace'' those who think blacklisting their main domain is "security theater" because they'll also use other domains, I think it's necessary, as I (a) see no reason to doubt they're using their main domain for the same thing, and (b) view blacklisting them (under their main domain) as a necessary first part of blacklisting them (under any other domains they're caught using). ] (]) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' given the explicit details of the threat they pose to editors here. (same reason that a site like Conservipedia should be blacklisted too). The content they produce would already make them generally unreliable (and I don't know if we ever considered them reliable before so deprecation doesn't sound possible), but we should go the step further to protect WP editors here. I can see limited exemptions to use them as a primary source only on a page about the Herigate Foundation itself if that absolutely needed, but likely not. --] (]) 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' This feels cut-and-dry. They're a propaganda wing for a specific hardline ideology and have a long and storied history of simply disregarding factuality. Ignoring all the concerns with them outing editors, I'm amazed it wasn't already considered unreliable. | |||
| *'''Option 4, and blacklist''': clearly unreliable. The blacklisting decision should ideally not be here but a matter for the Spam Blacklist discussion pages, but as it ''is'' here, I support blacklisting for security purposes too. If the HF changes course and presents no further security considerations, the blacklisting can and should be revisited without prejudice to a RSN discussion. ''']''' (]) 14:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion: The Heritage Foundation === | |||
| I really tried searching for prior discussion but "in the news" is a hopeless search term. | |||
| What exactly happens to the 5000 links if we blacklist them? Does a bot go through and remove the https:// from them so they are unclickable? (Seems reasonable.) Or are the citations deleted? (Seems a bit damaging.) Or something else? This will affect how I opine in the above RFC. –] <small>(])</small> 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I'm just noting that it isn't 5000 but cca 1750, please see ]. Sorry for propagating the incorrect number. —] 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| My question is: everything about the site suggests it is untrustworthy, but I wanted a second opinion - it is not listed at RS/P. | |||
| :It could either of those two options or it could be that the bot goes through and replaces the references with a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki>. I guess that should be discussed. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] says "Ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting." —] 23:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the ] list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. ] (]) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to ]. The page ] (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. ] is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of ]. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see ]) only explains ''what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon''. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an ''additional outcome'' may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.{{pb}}The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —] 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think a malware website can not be used as a reliable source. The intent is to misinform and endanger. Nothing reliable about that. ] (]) 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I see arguments above that the Heritage Foundations declared hostility to Misplaced Pages's neutrality means we should treat them as a hostile organization. There are other entities hostile to our neutrality; Donald Trump and the Chinese government are two that come to mind. Neither is what I would call a reliable source, but we don't ban all links to them; they're treated as reliable for a very limited set of cases. What's the difference between these cases? There are governments who have imprisoned Misplaced Pages editors (so I gather; I don't have a reference but I've seen it said). Can those governments be cited for anything at all -- e.g. the names of their ministers? Option 5 seems inconsistent with the way we treat these other hostile entities. ] (] - ] - ]) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Looking to potentially update the ] article (which has no information more recent than 2019) I came across . | |||
| :Donald Trump doesn't have a detailed cyberattack plan to doxx editors here. The heritage foundation does plan on using web technologies to harm editors. ] (]) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| So what is this site? Is it worth sitting through the video for information re de Sousa's recent activities (obvs her opinions on Gen Hayden are irrelevant)? | |||
| ::Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. ] (]) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, but that vector doesn't seem as hostile as imprisonment to me. Why does the fact that this attack is digital mean option 5 is appropriate (instead of e.g. just using archive.org to avoid direct links)? ] (] - ] - ]) 12:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''', a great many comments !voted purely out of retaliation to try and stop Heritage foundation from taking a certain action that some perceive to be "doxxing". I have a serious question though, "Does deprecating and removing any links to Heritage Foundation, IF the blacklist/deprecation retaliatory measure passes... does this actually stop them from initiating their plan, or parts of it? I am not familiar with all of the details, but with A.I. and other tools these days, couldn't they still try and do things to identify some editors with certain editing patterns or behavior completely independent of whatever happens with this discussion and then do the "doxxing" anyway? This seems to have larger legal implications, unless I misunderstand it, and if that is the case then this seems silly to try and solve with a angry RfC which might not have any real defensive benefit for the community. Has anyone taken this into consideration? Is anything being done about that? If not, why not? ] (]) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Reference Subsection === | |||
| Feel free to link to prior discussion if there's nothing new to say. I just couldn't find anything and I would appreciate the simplicity of a RS/P red entry. Regards ] (]) 08:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| == Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) == | |||
| :I would say you can quote her with attribution (as long as you cite the video with time stamps). If you are too lazy to even watch the video to find out if she did talk about her own 'recent activities', I don't think it is fair to ask other people to do so on your behalf. If she did, that would be ] and that would have to be attributed, too. --''''']'''''] 09:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Why assume bad faith on my part?! I wasn't asking you to watch the video for me. I am asking for general opinions on the itnshow.com web site's reliability. ] (]) 14:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is not reliable as a source for facts, but as with all interviews, it is reliable for the opinions of the person being interviewed. We can hear and see them speak in their own words. --''''']'''''] 19:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Okay so we have one user (Cobra) who feels the site is '''Generally Unreliable''' (to use the RS/P) categories. ] (]) 14:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *] (PCORI) | |||
| ==RfC is the Bristolian a reliable source for Misplaced Pages?== | |||
| slogan is “Smiter of the high and mighty”. It’s about page describes them as, “The Bristolian is a scandal sheet covering all sorts of shenanigans in the fine British city of Bristol.” | |||
| Are PCORI statements a ] for medical claims? Do PCORI statements pass ] as coming from a ]? | |||
| Our entry about the paper portrays a radical publication with strong left-wing partisanship. While I admire their commitment to free speech and holding the rich and powerful accountable, I have doubts over its general reliability as a source, particularly for contentious material in BLP articles. | |||
| I say yes. The organization is non-governmental, but was established by the United States government, and they have awarded about US$2 billion in grants over the past 10 years. They are a large research organization which takes care in making conventional statements. Also, they have good alignment with wiki community organizations, and have hosted and joined wiki editing events in the United States and with Wikimedia Medicine for almost 10 years. That alignment is because of PCORI's patient advocacy, and because typical people find this organization's statements to be more relevant than those from more industry-oriented medical organizations. While PCORI does drive a lot of research through peer reviewed journals, they also make expert consensus statements in the name of PCORI which are not peer reviewed. | |||
| Here’s my request for comment. | |||
| {{ping|Zefr}} said that some PCORI statements are "neither vetted by peer-review nor is it mainstream clinical practice", which is correct, but I feel that they still meet MEDRS by being a statement from an authoritative organization. Similarly, {{ping|Whywhenwhohow}} reverted saying the sources were not MEDRS compliant. {{u|FULBERT}} made the statements as Wikimedian in Residence at PCORI, and I collaborate with FULBERT through United States Wikimedia groups and through the University of Virginia, where I also am a Wikimedian in Residence. | |||
| Is the current incarnation of ] a reliable source? | |||
| Here are the talk notices about reversion. The statements are | |||
| I have come up with the following options starting with what I think is the unlikeliest option. | |||
| *] | |||
| *We grant the source full reliable source status at ] meaning editors can use it to satisfy notability, verifyability and contentious material. | |||
| *] | |||
| *Full deprecation. | |||
| *] | |||
| *We reach no consensus. We evaluate each use of the source on a case by case basis i.e the source might be ok for some Bristol related content but editors should use it with caution and find a better source for contentious material. The source cannot be used to demonstrate notability. | |||
| *Like similar publications such as '']'' we treat the source as generally unreliable due to it’s hyperpartisanship. | |||
| Here is an actual PCORI statement from the ] article. The reverted claim from this statement was that 40% of patients using a drug have adverse effects. | |||
| I think the latter is the most sensible option but I look forward hearing everyone’s views.] (]) 12:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *https://www.pcori.org/evidence-updates/comparing-treatments-multiple-sclerosis-related-fatigue | |||
| :Do you have any concrete examples of how it has been used, is currently being used, or someone wants to use it in articles? Has it been previously discussed on ]? As the name implies, ] is for sources that keep being brought up in discussions, so there's very little point in listing something there "preemptively". –] (]) 13:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I support using this source for this claim. | |||
| Thoughts from others about PCORI generally? Thanks. ]] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] is not that pro-government as mentioned ? == | |||
| :{{u|Bluerasberry}} - in the case of my , the was just a summary of preliminary results (n=33, i.e., primary research) from the "Treatment of Fatigue with Methylphenidate, Modafinil and Amantadine in MS" (TRIUMPHANT-MS) trial, which had been funded by PCORI. | |||
| There are many articles printed and created by TOI which are not pro-government., as: | |||
| :At this early stage,TRIUMPHANT-MS was actually just a ] reported . That study is not a MEDRS source for the article statement, "modafinil has been shown to be effective in managing fatigue in people with MS" when other more substantial sources, including a meta-analysis, are used. | |||
| :Further, the PCORI statement is that ''"These findings <u>can contribute to clinician and patient discussions</u> about treatments to reduce MS-related fatigue."'' In other words, the PCORI article is a) a progress report, and b) an advice source for a physician-patient discussion. | |||
| :In this case, such a brief update on funding for preliminary research is not an appropriate reference, and does not comment on the wider issue of PCORI as an organization. ] (]) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Reviewing the PCORI website leads to the conclusion that their strength is the cross-sectional diversity in how they evaluate, monitor, then disseminate summaries of research projects, described They are <u>not</u> the publication venue for completed research - the ] sources of journals, books or clinical organizations - but rather their reports are summaries of the research project. For this reason, I would ask why would we cite a PCORI summary when a peer-reviewed publication is the main source? Is there an example of a PCORI final report that you feel is a good MEDRS example? | |||
| ::There was concern that funded research groups submitting final reports to PCORI had which was caught and adjusted by PCORI before publication. | |||
| ::As of 2023, the with PCORI to improve the review process for evaluating research funding candidates. | |||
| ::The ] article needs updating. There are fewer than 30 watchers/editors of the article. ] (]) 03:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Zefr}} Two issues here: The extent to which PCORI publications meet MEDRS, and then presuming that PCORI is reliable, ] that Misplaced Pages reflects PCORI's claim in an appropriate context. Originally I think you were challenging PCORI, but here, I think you are challenging the claim. Do you agree with that distinction and separation, and if so, can you (or I) move your text discussing the claim to ]? | |||
| :::This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, so this is the place to discuss your comments about the organization and your question about why to cite PCORI's summaries instead of the original source. Briefly, there can be multiple approaches to healthcare. Most approaches originate in the ], and it is challenging to escape that. PCORI speaks for itself, but I would describe it as remaining in the healthcare industry (as opposed to exiting it to seek ]), and within that context, recommending ] which prioritizes ]. So for example, many medical recommendations from industry seek to maximize curing disease, but a patient-centered approach could emphasize managing side effects and planning the financial cost of treatment. Regardless of what kind of recommendations PCORI is making, I sustain the notion that per ], Misplaced Pages includes expert institutional claims which may not go through the peer review process of a journal. | |||
| :::I think the report we have been discussing is a good MEDRS example. It comes in different forms - | |||
| :::* (we were discussing citing this one) | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::Misplaced Pages typically does not cite trials, but here, PCORI is elevating the results of this case study into a special report and expert recommendation. We can attribute this to the organization following ]/] guidelines, which was . | |||
| :::PCORI gets into cases like this which are fairly unusual. The situation is that there is an ] for a drug (so it is not indicated or approved, but there is evidence for it) and then PCORI is giving an alert about that off-label use. I am not a physician, and I do not know how to untangle expert institutional critiques of off-label drug use, but in general, I just trust PCORI's process and think Misplaced Pages can include PCORI recommendations attributed to them. I do not see this as the same as citing a case study without the backing of an expert org. | |||
| :::Base question back to you - how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence? ]] 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If PCORI published a summary of results from a multinational Phase III trial or a systematic review that it had helped to fund, then perhaps that would meet ] (although still not a national clinical guideline that would better meet MEDASSESS). In the case of the reference for modafinil, PCORI is giving an update on a pilot study, which clearly isn't MEDRS. | |||
| ::::''"how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence?"'' Defined on the PCORI website under ''Evidence Updates'': {{tq|''PCORI presents findings from systematic reviews and some of our funded research studies in concise, accessible formats called Evidence Updates. Most Evidence Updates are available in two versions: one for patients and caregivers and one for clinicians and other professionals. These updates, which capture the highlights and context for these new findings, are created and disseminated in collaboration with patients, health professionals, and other organizations."''}} | |||
| ::::Likely, the PCORI update for a systematic review would be more digestible for the common Misplaced Pages reader, but having the original journal publication would have to go with it as the more complete source. If there was a conflict with another source and both were MEDRS-qualified, ] would say discuss them both. | |||
| ::::It's ok to copy any of this to the modafinil talk page. ] (]) 03:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Horse Eye's Back}} I do not think there is a term for nonprofit organizations which have strong government ties, but yes, I understand what you mean. PCORI is a ] which receives government grants through the ]. | |||
| :I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Law&Crime Network == | |||
| Hello! I would like to know your opinion about youtube channel and their news site . Are they reliable source for information about murders/trials? ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Youtube channels are generally not reliable sources. Please see ] for additional context. ] (]) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't speak to their YouTube channel at all. Re: their website, ] used to be their managing editor (he's now a with ]), and I found him to be a very reliable reporter on legal issues. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Their website is RS. However many of the sources there, you have to deal with BLPCRIME, for which you must be cautious anyway. But I have found them to be fine. ] (]) 01:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Catholic-Hierarchy.org == | |||
| '']'' is a self-published source that has been featured in two prior discussions (2016 and 2020). Multiple editors appear to consider it a reliable source specifically because it is used in other independent publications. This is a noted exception for self-published sources that can be found in WP:RS/SPS. However, users also acknowledge that it should never be used in biographies of living people. | |||
| Is there more discussion that should be had? Should these details be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? This source is used several thousand times on the English WP, so centralized standards for it might be desirable. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has ] and can be discussed on ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply|OldPolandUpdates}} Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? ] (]) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mid-paragraph ]. ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" ] (]) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to ]. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles. | |||
| ::::] seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: ]. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used ''enough'' by external publications. | |||
| ::::If you consider ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? ] (]) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The standard is mid-paragraph ] "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which does not appear to be the case here. ] (]) 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would also note that there appears to be a consensus from 2020 that this is a SPS, see ] ] (]) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. ] (]) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a ] in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. ] (]) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? ] (]) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, '''whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications'''." ] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? ] (]) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::No, there has to be works other than the self published ones and they have to predate the self published one. Generally only academics and journalists satisfy our requirements. ] (]) 01:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have modified the WP:RSPSOURCES entry to better reflect this comment. ] (]) 04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It still feels off, you're giving wayyyyyy too much weight to the group that thinks its reliable when that view isn't supported by policy and guideline. You also make the consenus that it isn't an expert SPS look like just an opinion, but we clearly have consensus that the author isn't a subject matter expert by our standards. It also isn't a general opinion that SPS can't be used for BLP, thats solid policy. This comes off more as apologism than what consenus actually is. ] (]) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * This is a non-expert self published source. We have established that no such "noted exception" exists. ] (]) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *If it is used by reliable secondary sources then it shouldn't be difficult to find the information from the reliable source itself. ] (]) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: The '']'' == | |||
| {{Closed rfc top|'''Withdrawn''' by JJPMaster --] (], ], ]) 21:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| The ''London Standard'', formerly known as the '']'', has 18,703 links on the English Misplaced Pages. Its reliability has not been discussed since 2018, and there is currently no consensus on its reliability. Therefore, '''what is the reliability of the ''London Standard''?''' | |||
| * Option 1: ] | |||
| * Option 2: ] | |||
| * Option 3: ] | |||
| * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ] | |||
| ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I think you should also post some examples of the articles from this publication. People would then know why this outlet is now up for discussion. ] (]) 01:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Can we stop doing RfCs with no background? That is not what this is for. ] (]) 01:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: I brought it here (a) because of its recent change in format and (b) because it hasn't been discussed in seven years. I figured that the previous discussions would have been sufficient for ], so I didn't think to start a regular discussion beforehand. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You don’t start off with the RfCs, for which you provided 0 context. ] (]) 02:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{summoned by bot}} I'm with Parakanyaa here. That it hasn't been discussed since 2018 is not sufficient reason for an RFC, in fact it's reason against one. I would have expected some recent discussion prior to an RFC, so that we have some context. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Bad RFC''' because of lack of ]. I have no context whatsoever here. Presumably if it's being brought up here, JJPMaster thinks there's some kind of problem with it, but if so it's not clear at all what problem(s) they think there is. ] (]) 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Bad RFC''' due to complete lack of ]. No discussion in any capacity since 2018. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 04:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Procedural Close'''. There is no mandatory periodical process for the reliability of specific sources. A source is brought here for discussion ''only'' after what the instructions demand, in large fonts, right at the header: {{tq|Please supply the article is used in, and the claim it supports. RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions .}} This is a bad RfC and should not be entertained nor continued. -] (]) 12:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Unless there's some new context in regard to it's reliability, disagreement between editors or discussion of London Standard's reliability in secondary sources, then there's no need for a new discussion let alone an RFC. Maybe the wording in header and edit warning needs to be stronger. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{Withdrawn}} per above. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 12:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable per ]. Since this newspaper is listed in RSP, we are within our rights to !vote on it. ] (]) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{closed rfc bottom}} | |||
| == Checking a wikipedia source == | |||
| I'm curious as to whether in general I can copy an already existing citation from one Misplaced Pages article to another which says the same thing without having to check that citation. For example, on the page ] there's a citation which I haven't checked, but I'm assuming the person who added it did: <ref>Jacques Downs, ''The Golden Ghetto'' (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1997), 191.</ref>, and I want to use it to link his name on ]'s page. ''This example is the specific one and a little complicated (and I apologize for that), but the question also applies for other cases.'' Can Do I have to check the citation myself first to do this? ] (]) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] You ''should''. Noone can force you, but sadly often, WP-sourcing is not what it should be. Gbooks and archive.org is sometimes helpful. Note also that you are close to have access to the ]. ] is sometimes useful. ] (]) 09:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You should be able to access page 190–191 via Google books here -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The advantage of checking sources yourself is that you're much less likely to see your edits reverted with a comment of ''failed verification, not in source'' later. ] (]) 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you guys very much, I added it. ] (]) 21:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| They have dedicated cartoon series printed on their newspapers which mocks all parties, politicians, celebrities, situations. | |||
| https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1465871969614581761 | |||
| https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1464425829425815555 | |||
| https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1463698407772491785 | |||
| https://twitter.com/CartoonistSan/status/1461524450352922626 | |||
| I have read the past discussions linked at ]. | |||
| Times Of India tries to cover almost every state, and not all of their work is done by their best journalists. There are some articles, news which appear only in TOI, so it might seem they publish non-notable news. But when they give coverage to some crime in a small unknown village, some interview by some local MLA, new upcoming actor, regional film producer, they are trying to cover maximum areas. | |||
| Those who have some experience reading TOI, they know which are reliable and which are not that important articles. | |||
| The articles where the '''name of the journalist is present''' and mentioned '''TNN''' are always created properly with verification. | |||
| Some of their sub-sections are not that reliable. Like regional non-Bollywood entertainment sections of Assamese, Odiya, Bengali, Punjabi, regional TV gossips, city sections like Agra, Ahmedabad, Bhubaneswar, and many other small cities. Even in these cases, all can't be termed as non-RS, as if the article is detailed along with the name of the journalist or interviewer being mentioned. | |||
| However, if it's related to serious crime, then they don't copy-paste from vernacular media but do their own investigation. TOI is not responsible for police', the witness' and victim's family statements, if they are found wrong due to fake complaints, wrong arrests by police. ] (]) 12:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Knight Skywalker}}, if you want to change the entry at ] you will have to start a new RfC. Though, I am fairly certain that it's not going to end up much different and could possibly get it downgraded further. I'll point out some things about the examples though, as they are not representative of TOI's usual coverage; most of these are from TOI Plus which tends to have relatively better editorial quality, a significant number of them are just op-eds from guest author, some of these aren't even "not pro-government" and one of them is from the '']'' which is not covered by the entry. It doesn't appear too pro-government compared to some of the more blatant news outlet which have gone off the far end, but you'll still find it occasionally reproducing what the government says, without attribution and accepting it as fact, even when they might include verifiable falsehoods. Personally, I think more than its pro-government tilt, its propensity towards sensationalism and ] is much more problematic. The ] on it highlighted a case where they copied from Misplaced Pages without fact checking, which is a ] concern. That said, at present it can still be used, though largely for uncontentious information, I would not recommend it for things like serious crimes. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 18:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == SFGate and Blake Treinen: Cause for concern? == | |||
| I hope that I am in the right place, and I am '''not''' brewing a ] over this edit made a few months ago, but… | |||
| In October, an editor <s>({{u|Muboshgu}}, whom I have pinged)</s> briefly added (]) claims that Blake Treinen (the Dodgers pitcher) "has promoted the views of a far-right crank who claims to be a "prophet of God," that Obama was secretly removed as President in 2010, that Trump is the true President, and that Jesus Christ has woken him up at night to tell him things - that he cannot share at this time, due to national security reasons", citing (not an opinion piece) as their source. The edit was quickly reverted by the editor themselves, who discussed the matter in the article's ]. | |||
| While the talk page discussion has long subsided, '''I am wondering whether we can count this incident against SFGate's reliability as a Misplaced Pages source'''. In my opinion, the piece sounds like a smear campaign against Treinen, with him only mentioned marginally, and I only found some of its content true (although it could simply be because I don't want to go into political pages like the ones SFGate linked). | |||
| If this matter wasted your time, I apologise. Otherwise, thank you. | |||
| ] (]) 01:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. The reason why I did not raise the issue immediately is because I was on Wikibreak at that time. | |||
| : I did not add that content. {{u|Ac94133}} did, an IP deleted it, and I reflexively reverted the IP. After the revert, I decided that the IP wasn't necessarily engaging in blanking/deletion of content, but challenging BLP content, so I self-reverted. There is nothing about SFGate that isn't reliable. Discussion at ] petered out without any conclusion. – ] (]) 01:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :*Thank you. While I have already noted the fact that "Discussion at ] petered out without any conclusion" before your reply, I am sorry to not have had a more thorough understanding of the situation. Sorry for wasting your time. --] (]) 01:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *SFGate is the online outlet for the ]. An old newspaper and an old online news source. You will need some pretty strong evidence to suggest this is not reliable. ] (]) 04:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Do you have a specific reason to think that they're wrong / unreliable in this case? These are plainly ]-sensitive claims and would require high-quality sourcing. And while SFGate is reasonably high-quality, you could argue that if only one source has covered it then it is ]. But that wouldn't change the underlying reliability of SFGate, it would just affect our decision about whether to include or exclude this specific material - a source making the decision to cover something that other sources don't doesn't inherently make them less reliable as long as what they're covering is true and accurate. --] (]) 17:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:Exactly. And just adding that being woken up by figures ], but can be misinterpreted as something else, or just be a false claim... —]] – 13:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Reliability of '']'' == | |||
| <!-- ] 13:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1641819673}} | |||
| {{rfc|prop|rfcid=2AAFD03}} | |||
| How should protothema.gr be classified? | |||
| * '''Option 1''': Generally reliable | |||
| * '''Option 2''': Unclear or additional considerations apply | |||
| * '''Option 3''': Generally unreliable | |||
| Currently, protothema.gr is being used 201 times through en.WP ]] 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey (protothema)=== | |||
| * '''Close/withdraw'''. RSP-itis again. This noticeboard is for discussing reliability in context, and these RfCs should only be for "perennial" sources. If there are specific content questions, then just raise them. ] (]) 13:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (protothema)=== | |||
| I am re-posting what I have posted earlier in this noticeboard, but got not replies. | |||
| '']'' is not a reliable source in my opinion. It can be found 205 times across en.WP There is sensationalism, lack of accuracy and their fact are not regularly checked. | |||
| *A report for European Commission, posted by prof ] () is devastating for ProtoThema. You can download the report from | |||
| *Media Bias Fact Check has a small essay on protothema.gr that supports the above view. | |||
| *Fact checking site ''Ellinika hoaxes'' has 188 entries on protothema.gr. ''Ellinika Hoaxes'' is the sole Greek fact-checking org listed on ]'s | |||
| *Another report (on greek media coverage of covid pandemic) shows the inadequate verifiability of protothema articles (see page 9 and esp page 14 use of links ) | |||
| == RE: Lambgoat == | |||
| Worth noting that Protothema ranks among the biggest news portals in Greece in terms of articles posted per day and traffic. (see discussion here ) | |||
| just got ], but I have a useage that hasn't come up yet in discussions that I want to get clarity on. Is an , about heavy metal genres, acceptable for use on the relevant Misplaced Pages genre articles, with the exclusion of any BLP claims or controversial statements? I'm pinging the other editors who were involved in that discussion. {{u|JeffSpaceman}}, {{u|Sergecross73}}, {{u|MFTP Dan}}.--] (] | ]) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Poor fact checking plus sensationalism means does not stand against WP criteria for RS. I think it should be included at ] with the indication "Generally unreliable" ]] 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to say, I have ''never'' seen LG do something like this and would not be personally inclined to use it. It's only just over a year old, so maybe it's a new thing they're doing and I didn't keep up. ] <sup> ] </sup> 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Having reviewed all of the material you present, I am unable to get a grip on what they do wrong. The report from Triandafyllidou doesn't demonstrate a lack of fact checking and accuracy. Specifically, it is only about immigration, and while it makes it clear the paper is biased, and does not " reflect migration related diversity and | |||
| ::I found from 2024, so it looks like this might be a new addition to the type of coverage that they do.--] (] | ]) 02:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| promote migrant integration," that's not relevant. Media Bias Fact Check is terrible and I have not reviewed it, because it is worthless. I cannot read greek - if there is a specific hoax they are accused of hoaxing, that would be relevant data. Reviewing pages 6 and 14 of that subreport, the mentions of Protothema include them not taking the Coronavirus seriously... In January of 2020, and that they used... hyperlinks in Feb of 2020. ] (]) 14:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I suspected. I would be loath to use this, I always treated LG as a last resort for routine coverage of bands. To me, it's the lowest tier of source that's still acceptable for use especially on, you know, ] where there isn't surviving online coverage otherwise. They are impressive for cataloguing that far back. ] <sup> ] </sup> 14:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Per the above, MBFC is not a reliable or well-respected fact-checking service in the journalism world. Legitimate journalism organizations don't think too highly of it, and we should not either. See ]. --]] 17:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :I would recommend verifying with other, more established reliable sources, and potentially citing those instead per ]. I think routine coverage (as you state, barring exceptional claims or third-party information about living people) is probably viable, but I'm not confident this source should be cited for what you are looking into it being used for. But I'll see what others think and where consensus goes. ] (]) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Jayron32}} exclude MBFC, other citations indicate poor fact checking, and there is no indication pointing that it is reliable or accurate. {{re|Hipocrite}} regarding fact checking, Triandafillidou marks the site as "medium". It relies on official reports and does not regularly cross check data. Is that enough for WP? I think not. Moreover, rest of the report shows that professionalism is lacking. Anyway, fact checking site ellinika hoaxes has many entries on protothema.gr. There are 188 articles/hoaxes regarding protothema.gr. Report on Covid pandemic, I think it could be ok not taken seriously back in very early 2020, but misinforming on vaccines indicates lack of accuracy. ]] 08:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :They don't mention editorial staff or fact checking on their about us. ] (]) 21:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Having looked twice now, I am not seeing any actual claim of fake news. Could well be an issue but unless OP can provide specific links to specific instances, not really sure there is anything actionable here. ] (]) 17:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::They do have an editor, per the , but the role is not explained.--] (] | ]) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **{{re|Slywriter}} I thought I provided a link but I now see it does not really works, so here: | |||
| :::To be fair, you don't see that explanation a lot these days. Especially in the content area LG serves. It's surprisingly slim pickens out there. ] <sup> ] </sup> 14:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| **There are ~261 fake news spotted at Ellinikahoaxes. Should I post more? ]] 20:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ***For at least one of those, volleyball, a look at the live page of the website shows they corrected the record and stated were mistaken ]. Corrections are a good thing, so I am not sure they merit such drastic action as being deemed unreliable. A second look, vaccinations, shows the live article does not contain the one million vaccinated language ]. Honestly, I find the source of these concerns, Elinnikahoaxes, to be a troubling as their claims seem to be snapshots that do not reflect if corrections are made. ] (]) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ****Regarding the death of the volleyball player Mahjabin Hakimi, notice that protothema does not admit that it published an article containing fault facts. Yes, Ellinikahoaxes uses snapshot to prove the validity of their claim. I do not think that they shouldn't be doing so.. The overall argument is that protothema.gr does not fact check the claims/facts it publishes. Ellinikahoaxes has many examples, and Triantafillidou makes a similar case. I think the case for considering protothema as unreliable, stands strong. ]] 22:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *****But it does, twice. Once in the body saying previous reports of beheading were wrong and italicized text at the bottom that says "this article has been corrected...". ] (]) 22:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ******It doesnt say "previous reports". It says "Ενώ αρχικά είχε μεταδοθεί ότι αποκεφαλίστηκε, αυτό δεν ισχύει." meaning "While it was initially announced that she was beheaded, that is wrong" It doesn't clarify by whom it was initially announced. Last line is "Το άρθρο έχει διορθωθεί σύμφωνα με τι πολιτικές του Facebook" meaning "the article has been corrected according to Facebook policies". Doesn't clarify which article. And what Facebook has to do with it? Strange wording. Nowhere does it says "our article was wrong" ]] 22:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *******Let's try a different approach, can you point to an article on wikipedia where the site is being used to support a false statement? ] (]) 13:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:56, 11 January 2025
Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 910, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463
Additional notes:
Shortcuts- RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
- While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
- This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.
RFC Science-Based Medicine
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- There is a general consensus that at least some articles on this site can be considered self-published, and substantial disagreement over whether the site's editorial control is adequate, with even some partial supports acknowledging that material on the site may not be substantially reviewed if reviewed at all. As such, material from this site should be used with caution, probably with attribution, and should not on its own be used to support negative or controversial content in BLPs. Particular articles from the site may still be reliable on the basis of self-published sources by experts; those should be considered on an individual basis. Seraphimblade 10:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Is the blog Science-Based Medicine in whole or in part, a self-published source? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment for context: Note that a prior RfC has found a previous consensus has found that Science-Based Medicine is considered WP:GREL and not considered WP:SPS. See WP:SBM for more details at WP:RSN. Raladic (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Iljhgtn, is there a reason that you chose not to list this RfC on the Maths, science, and technology list? If not, would you mind adding that topic area to the RfC template? Thanks,FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)- Never mind, Raladic added it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Responses (Science-Based Medicine)
- Not SPS - Per the previous RfC, there seems to be no reason to rehash this. The editorial practices of SBM show that they do not act like an SPS and that has not changed since the prior RfC. So there appears to be no reason to deviate it from it now. What is the rationale for this repeat RfC other than to try to discredit it? SBM is one of the watchdog media that help keep WP:FRINGE science out of Misplaced Pages. Raladic (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment (Summoned by bot), @Iljhgtn has there been in discussion of this on this noticeboard since the last RFC? TarnishedPath 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- OP created different RFC here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Science-Based_Medicine"_blog which was closed as a bad RFC as it was not neutral and editors pointed out the lack of RFCBEFORE on a reasoning of why this needs to be rehashed. Given that that one was just closed and now this new one was immediately opened again without any RFCBEFORE discussion, it similarly appears to be looking for a problem without information as to why this RfC is here without any new evidence that should change the established consensus of the community. Raladic (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- There was a discussion from a few years ago listed on RSP that seemed very mixed as to whether SBM is a SPS Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS. Per what they wrote on their site: "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" If people are able to publish directly, by themselves, without being reviewed, then that meets the definition of SPS and we need to treat it that way for BLPs. Noting that this only means that it can't be used for direct statements about living people, but can still be used for statements about the truth (or, more often, otherwise) of views held by living people, the views of the authors about living people, and statements about fringe theories themselves. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight -
After careful review, the editors of SBM decided to retract this book review. Because we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness, occasionally corrections need to be made post-publication. In this case we felt there were too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science, and leaving the article up would not be appropriate given the standards of SBM.
, so this looks like exactly what you'd expect from a non-SPS. You basically just made the case why they are not an SPS. Raladic (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)- In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- "As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as WP:SKYISBLUE. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- This just seems like sealioning but here you go... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You have linked to several articles by Steven Novella. Where does it claim on those articles they are self-published? David H. Gorski obviously reviewed those articles, he is listed in the link you cited below as the other editor. There are two editors so this isn't self-publishing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The website says "SBM is entirely owned and operated by the New England Skeptical Society" . So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella . This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology . My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. The dude looks young for his age, fooled me. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- So between Jay, Steve, and Robert Novella it seems that we have a lot of relatives here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is your source for the organization having 25 employees? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: you've claimed three times that the organization currently has exactly 25 employees... It is the core of your argument, but I don't think its true and I can't find it anywhere online... So how are you getting that number? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology . My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The website says "SBM is entirely owned and operated by the New England Skeptical Society" . So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella . This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as WP:SKYISBLUE. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- "As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight -
- It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have contacted someone who should know about this; hopefully they get back to me and I can let you know what the current figure of their employees is with documentation if possible. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: it has been a week, did you find out anything useful? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have contacted someone who should know about this; hopefully they get back to me and I can let you know what the current figure of their employees is with documentation if possible. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not SPS This isn't a self-published source, the articles are reviewed before being published by an editorial board. The four current editors are: Steven P. Novella, David H. Gorski, Kimball C. Atwood, Mark Crislip. Guest editors can submit articles to the website, all of which are reviewed before publication. Critics of SBM are jumping a single retracted article that this is an SPS. Seems like a bad case of cherry-picking. There is no good evidence this is an SPS. Update There are two editors not four my mistake. The publisher is the New England Skeptical Society. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't match what is currently on their website, they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by New England Skeptical Society, it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The New England Skeptical Society, of which Novella is founder and president. Void if removed (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by New England Skeptical Society, it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Their own statement was "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" Given that, it is clear that in at least some cases, people can publish directly on SBM without being reviewed before publication. - Bilby (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't match what is currently on their website, they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS, seems to be pretty cut and dried at least when it comes to Novella's pieces (remember SBM claims to be a blog, its generally presenting personal opinions... When its two expert editors want to publish their actual work they do not publish it there but in real journals). I would also note that this discussion should include the sister blog NeuroLogicaBlog. If anyone wants to disagree with me they can lay out what editorial checks and balances would apply to Novella. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own Respectful Insolence. There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is it two or several? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own Respectful Insolence. There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- (How) does the following factor into your assessment that it's an SPS? In their discussion of "Why Dr. Harriet Hall’s review of Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage was retracted," they note that "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing," and that they "have mechanisms of quality control" for articles that are posted without prior review, including "clarification in the comments" and "corrections to the original text of the article." Their page about outside submissions says in part "The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using an informal peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a 'rough and ready' peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission." FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. Void if removed (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was asking Horse Eye's Back, in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for Bilby as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- With Quackwatch we came to a similar position - articles published by the editor are self published, but articles on the site by other authors are not. I'm ok with something similar here. The only problem is that all they say is "trusted authors" can post directly. I would read that as safe to assume people who do not regularly have articles posted on the site would not be trusted, but it doesn't say only the editors are trusted to publish without prior review. Thus there may be some gray area between the two. - Bilby (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The others are more a grey area for me, most of what we are currently using on wiki is pieces by Gorski and Novella... And we have discussions elsewhere about some guest authors like Harriet Hall not producing work of the same quality/rigor as Gorski and Novella. Its a bit of an odd situation, normally the editors are not also the authors and even when they are they're normally not the primary and most reliable authors. Its made extra odd because most of the editors/authors are subject matter experts so usable under EXPERTSPS no matter where we come down on general reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was asking Horse Eye's Back, in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for Bilby as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. Void if removed (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS. It's a group blog with some guest authors. Having multiple contributors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Having guest authors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Retracting a post does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. This language in WP:SPS is particularly relevant: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". As a pro-SBM editor argued in the aborted RfC, the need for SBM in Misplaced Pages is to enable wikivoice accusations of "grift, fraud and quackery" that cannot be sourced otherwise. In other words, the reason this group blog has been elevated to a reliable source is to work around NPOV. - Palpable (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is a direct quote from WP:SPS. - Palpable (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with WP:SPS the appropriate venue is WT:V - Palpable (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is a direct quote from WP:SPS. - Palpable (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Do some people !voting here have a connection to the source? I see one editor referring to Steven Novella as "Steve" and another who may be affiliated with the New England Skeptical Society. I have seen some surprising interpretations of WP:COI in the past so I'm not sure if this is important, but thought it was worth noting. - Palpable (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is also a great point and worth investigating as part of any close here. Looks sus at the very least... Iljhgtn (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS. I personally think this source is fine to use on BLPs, but there is no way to honestly read our (convoluted, strange) SPS guidelines and not come to the conclusion that it is one. It is a small group of people most of whom publish without prior review on a blog. That they make arguments we like does not make it not a blog. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS. It's a group blog, but still a blog. Group blogs are specifically called out on WP:SPS. As noted above, SBM "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness". The fact that they later retracted one article doesn't negate that the norm for "trusted authors" (probably including regulars, and definitely including the owners of the site such as Gorski and Novella) is to publish without any editorial review of the author's work. Hence, it is clearly by and large an SPS.
- The claim that we need this to not be an SPS to effectively fight fringe and quackery is often made but I've never seen it backed up with an example of a fringe topic whose Misplaced Pages article would become credulous to pseudoscience without it. There are plenty of published and even academic sources that stuff like homeopathy is pseudoscientific, quackery, etc.; we are perfectly capable of sourcing something like "John Smith is an advocate of homeopathy, a pseudoscientific practice" in just about any case it is needed. SBM being an SPS also doesn't preclude its use in cases of WP:PARITY, as pro-fringe sources themselves are often SPS or otherwise poor. Crossroads 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The germ theory denialism article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's no shortage of reliable sources establishing that the germ theory was a huge advance in medicine and that we have basically incontrovertible proof of it for maybe thousands of diseases.
- - Palpable (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- But using any of those sources to draw conclusions about the specific claims of a particular germ theory denialist would be against policy. XOR'easter (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The germ theory denialism article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Reliable SPS- can be used to describe fringe theories proposed by people as discredited or as quackery, including on a bio... should not be used to describe people themselves as quacks. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)- Partial SPS - saw some of the info of arguments below from CoffeeCrumbs, and FactOrOpinon. I think the partial peer-review for some articles is... frustrating for a direct answer, but if there is peer-review on an article, it should stand as non-SPS material. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS - We see at WP:SPS that an SPS has clear rules and restrictions, such as not being used ever for a WP:BLP, absolutely never. Some seem to be arguing that this obvious SPS should for some reason be granted an exception to the clear language of "never" and should be allowed on biographies of living persons in some cases (or in many). There are many reasons why that is not allowed generally, but we have now learned that this source is essentially the soapbox of primarily only two individuals, and most importantly, is not part of a media outlet or organization or inclusive of any external (or even further internal vetting). No, rather, it is a blog. An SPS blog. One perhaps run by scientists, two scientists, but a blog, nonetheless. Again, quoting directly from WP:SPS, "
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
" So here we have this source, which is obviously beyond WP:SKYISBLUE a blog and a self-published source, we must then at the very least clarify that it absolutely must not be used in any circumstances for BLPs going forward, by the fact that it is so clearly a SPS.Iljhgtn (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC) - Partly SPS and partly non-SPS - The site makes it clear that some authors can publish without prior review. I consider their articles to be self-published; for example, I put Steven Novella's articles in this category. The site also says that other articles undergo prior review (e.g., "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing"). I consider the latter to be non-self-published. Examples of authors who clearly aren't regular article authors there and whose articles presumably underwent prior review: Nikolas Dietis and Kiarash Aramesh. For some articles/authors, it's not clear to me whether they fall in the SPS category or instead in the non-SPS category. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that posts by some established contributors are self-published (as shown by links above), while guest contributors are not. So the answer to whether SBM is an SPS or not is 'yes'. SPS and not SPS. Certainly the idea that it's fully SPS has no basis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS: As noted by other contributors, SBM openly acknowledges that it often publishes content without prior peer review. Consequently, this makes it a self-published source (SPS), with the opinions expressed representing those of individual authors. Like any other SPS, its use requires caution, especially in articles about living people or controversial topics, where ensuring accuracy and neutrality is critical. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not SPS for reviewed articles They directly state they have editorial peer review for a number, if not most, of their articles. And only a select few don't go through that process (though appear to have after the fact review, considering the retraction, so even that seems to be in question). I will note that this appears to be yet another attempt by WP:FRINGE pushing editors to try and remove skeptical debunking media from negatively covering their fringe topics. Par for the course attempt, honestly. Silverseren 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a day that ends in -Y.... XOR'easter (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we can't tell what is and isn't peer-reviewed and what is SPS material, is that not a problem? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- And how we will determine which articles have been reviewed? Also note that editorial review and peer review are different things and they do not appear to make a claim of peer review. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a blog, they are a trusted blog." Iljhgtn (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Poor editorial control is a matter of reliability, but all matters of reliability don't have to be decided by classifying a source as self-published. It's accepted that other sources follow their stated editorial practices, and noone has shown why that shouldn't be the case here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a blog, they are a trusted blog." Iljhgtn (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not SPS for reviewed articles They've got editors, which sets it apart from a standard SPS. Those articles that could be self published are still reliable for most purposes anyway, since they are from subject matter experts. It is also worth noting that while it should not be used for biographical details in general, even if this were to be considered a SPS that would not rule it out for comments on science, medicine, or the reception of fringe ideas, even when those ideas happen to appear on an article with a person's name at the top. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not SPS by virtue of having either pre-publication review or the possibility of editorially imposed retraction. A source that is truly self-published wouldn't have either of those. XOR'easter (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Partial SPS It's a bit awkward since they do so much good work, but "our own editors, however, have earned the privilege of publishing articles without prior review, since they have a proven track record," is extremely concerning. What they describe as an editorial process for these articles, saying that "if any concerns about accuracy, fairness, or completeness come to our attention, we deal with them in a number of ways," is just not enough. The job of an editor is checking before, not just maybe cleaning up after "if," so I would have to say that the articles by their own editors have to be considered SPS until they revise this. Things they actually do vet before putting up, I consider as being subjected to an editorial process, however. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Generally not SPS, though additional scrutiny for articles by Gorski and Novella may be appropriate. Essentially per my previous comment. I'm also frankly not impressed with this RFC, and the manner the proposer starts these discussions in general. Said discussions are not quite up to the point of disruption, but I would nonetheless heavily suggest that they seek advice as to the drafting of their statements and formatting of their proposals and whether adequate prior discussion has taken place, from one of the other editors supporting their point of view. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS A group blog posting guest postings is still a group blog, and still self-published. Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella, whose blog it is), previous claims to having a robust editorial process seem unconvincing. There is no consistently documented publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and this source is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. Void if removed (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as here, and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am responding to suggestions that some sort of allegedly robust editorial and accountability process makes it not an SPS, which I think is a nonsense.
- My favoured definition of SPS is: if it isn't traditionally published (book, newspaper, journal) or something directly comparable structurally, it is an SPS. That is in line with USESPS since it considers virtually all websites to be self-published. It is narrow, yes, but it is also consistent across media. It is also not a reflection on reliability in other ways, as SPS vs GREL are two different concerns.
- I think the "self" in "self-published" causes much confusion, as does the consideration that "publishing" is the mere act of putting information online. A publishing company is more than a person who vets content and presses a button to place material on a website. If we consider something not self published simply because the person who writes it has to go through another person before it is published, that means celebrity social media accounts where an intern reports to a manager aren't self published, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing (ie, virtually nothing is self-published by that standard).
- I consider "science based medicine" to be a publication as a whole rather than something that can be approached article-by-article. There is no distinct, separate, traditional publishing entity, as with a newspaper, a book, or an academic journal. The owners and editors are all the same, and that they solicit other people's content to add to their own publication which they entirely control still makes it their own self-published publication, in exactly the same way as any blog with guest posts.
- I know there are difficult edge cases to the whole "what is a traditional publisher" model, but I don't think a group blog like SBM is even close to that, and considering it to be one (because editors want to use it to make BLP claims about quacks) has turned into a slippery slope IMO. Void if removed (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources is policy, not an essay. It is clear policy that blogs like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs at a bare minimum. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I said "USESPS is an essay, not a policy" (emphasis added). It seems that you're confusing WP:USESPS (which as I noted is an essay) with WP:SPS (which is a policy). People clearly have different opinions about whether SBM is wholly SPS or only partially SPS, and if the consensus of this RfC is that it is only partially SPS, then the part that isn't SPS can be used for statements about living persons despite identifying itself as a blog. Also, the BLP policy is for statements about living persons, wherever they occur, but AFAIK, RS expert blogs can be used for DUE statements about non-persons, even if that statement appears in a biographical article. BLPSELFPUB is also an exception. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware. We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them. When I raised this weeks ago I asked what I was missing, and it turned out I wasn't missing anything except a massive intractable tarpit. I think none of it is obvious. Your objection here is understandable depends very much how you interpret "author", "publisher" and the work being published, and a narrow definition restricted to natural persons means any source with two people can be argued to be not self published. But to me it remains obvious that for a self published book in which my friend writes the foreword, their content is still self published even though I acted as "editor", and I don't see a difference between a self published book with multiple contributors and a group blog with multiple contributors. And the trouble is a lot of the discussions about how we classify X or Y revolve not around what they are, but about how we want to use them, which makes it ever more messy. Personally I would like to see clarity on *why* BLPSPS exists, and define the standard clearly there, because that would inform what sort of sources are acceptable in BLPs, which is really the nub of the matter. BLPSPS feels like it might once have been shorthand for "a source who's probably had the lawyers look it over before publishing it", but that's just my impression/speculation. Absent BLPSPS, the question of whether sources like grey literature or SBM are SPS or not is largely moot. Void if removed (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Void if removed makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, most local and hyper local news outlets are in fact self-published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Void if removed makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources is policy, not an essay. It is clear policy that blogs like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs at a bare minimum. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as here, and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not SPS for reviewed content. Where content is clearly reviewed, definitely not SPS. Where we’re not certain, treat it with extra caution. By the way “blog” and “SPS” are not synonyms. Blog is a format that can be edited and published by reputable organisations, as with eg The Conversation or perhaps the SPLC’s Hatewatch. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree with you that your two examples are not SPS, however I have seen people argue the contrary in both cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Everything in The Conversation (website) is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per WP:NEWSOPED. I also don't believe that any of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this blog are considered reviewed, and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- That argument is directly supported by Misplaced Pages policy. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone needs to make, but policy overrides guidelines. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. XOR'easter (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling WP:V a guideline). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of WP:V that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using
self-published sources as third-party sources about living people
, but that fails to apply in two different ways. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)- How does "fail to apply in two different ways"? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- There seems to be a lot more than that which is pertinent, that whole section for example is pertinent not just that one sentence. Many of the "not SPS" arguments also seem to be based on WP:NEWSBLOG. As for it somehow not applying you've lost me, gonna have to explain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of WP:V that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using
- Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling WP:V a guideline). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- That argument is directly supported by Misplaced Pages policy. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone needs to make, but policy overrides guidelines. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. XOR'easter (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this blog are considered reviewed, and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Everything in The Conversation (website) is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per WP:NEWSOPED. I also don't believe that any of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, several editors seem to claim something along the lines of "since Science-Based Medicine is 'reviewed' it cannot be a SPS". This claim would benefit from some proof, ideally other secondary sources validating this claim, and not just the very same source saying that it does so. Alex Jones might claim that he is reviewed and reliable etc. That claim by itself does not make it so. Also, I am not saying that Science-Based Medicine is anything like AJ in terms of reliability etc., and to be clear, this RfC is not about reliability, it is just on whether or not the SBM source is an SPS, which I think it pretty obviously is. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models:
- Book publisher: External authors submit book outlines and sample chapters; if selected, the publisher contributes substantially towards editing (including developmental editing if necessary), designing, and marketing the book. The author pays for none of this and expects to get paid (at least if sales exceed a minimum threshold). If the publisher rejects the book, then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher.
- Newspaper: The publisher/publication hires editors and journalists. The editor assigns stories (to internal staff) or commissions them (among freelancers; alternatively, editors may accept external pitches, in the book-publisher model). The journalists write the stories; the editor and publisher/publication representatives decide whether to publish what the journalists wrote. If an employee instead of a freelancer, the journalist expects to get paid the same even if the article is canned (not published). If a freelancer, and the piece doesn't run, the freelancer is free to sell it to a different publication.
- Peer-reviewed journal: The (usually for-profit) publisher or (usually academic) sponsoring body creates the publication and hire editors. External authors submit whole papers; editors send the papers for external review and use that information to decide which ones to publish. The authors usually pay for publication, but this is understood to be akin to volunteer work on all sides, with the money usually coming from a third-party grant rather than the author's own funds. If the journal rejects the article, the author is free to submit it to another journal.
- I wonder if any of these models feel similar to how you imagine SBM to work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have expanded on this concept in a sandbox. I wonder whether people would find that comparison useful in, say, Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using self-published works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do not think any of the above apply to SBM, but I'd like to see you perhaps write up a few methods for what clearly SPS look like, and then we could compare to the above, and determine which SBM most closely resembles. Again, if you write stuff, then you are the publisher, that is by definition "self-published", which is very often the case even if not always for Science-Based Medicine...even by their own admission! Iljhgtn (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think defining none self-published sources are the ones we give a free pass because of our social-culture background is a good way to define them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models:
- SPS. The website describes itself as a blog. According to WP:SPS blogs are considered SPS. In addition, SBM publishes unknown proportions of articles without prior editorial review. Therefore, SBM could only be used with attribution, because it is impossible to tell which articles passed editorial review and which did not. JonJ937 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @JonJ937, WP:SPS says "...self-published material such as...personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above)...are largely not acceptable as sources". Are you sure that this isn't a WP:NEWSBLOG? They have an Executive editor and a Managing editor, which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with WP:NEWSBLOGS, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "
These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.
" Iljhgtn (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)- I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want Science-Based Medicine to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per WP:NEWSBLOG we are advised to use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. JonJ937 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Use with caution and statements of opinion are covered by other parts of the guidelines, separate from SPS. Whether a source is self-published or not doesn't mean it's reliable or unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per WP:NEWSBLOG we are advised to use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. JonJ937 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want Science-Based Medicine to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "
- @JonJ937, WP:SPS says "...self-published material such as...personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above)...are largely not acceptable as sources". Are you sure that this isn't a WP:NEWSBLOG? They have an Executive editor and a Managing editor, which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with WP:NEWSBLOGS, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Mostly SPS. It seems to be the Novella and Gorski show. That doesn’t make it unreliable for topics in which they are recognised experts - neurology for Novella and oncology for Gorski, apparently. That would make them reliable reviewers of any guest content on those topics too. But outside their domains of expertise, they are just blogging. Expertise in one domain does not imply expertise in another - and sometimes it’s quite the opposite, in that smart people who are accomplished in their niche start to think their opinions on everything else are equally robust (looking at you, Elon). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS. Editorial oversight is insufficiently verifiable nor independent enough to call this something other than self-published. SmolBrane (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS It seems their peer-review is only for new contributers, the staff is volunteer and they explicitly say that they like to avoid as much editing as possible. There also doesn't seem to be much of editorial indepencence from the owner (New England Skeptical Society) which is an advocacy group. Especially troubling is that the Executive Editor is also the President of NESS. NESS also has two other members of the Novella family on the board. That makes three of the five board members from the same family. This is no what oversight should look like. The group of writers is also small and probably know each other well and are of course, ideologically similar. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Partial SPSPartly unclear, partly not SPS As discussed above, it isn't clear which articles by Gorski and Novella have been reviewed and we should probably lean towards treating those ones like WP:EXPERTSPS just to be safe. They do, however, have a very clear review policy on guest articles (see ) which statesvolunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission
(emphasis added). That's pretty obviously not self-publishing. I do want to note though that this type of discussion would really benefit from more consensus on what an SPS is. Maybe some more experienced editors should consider drafting a big RfC to revise SPS with more detail on what it means in practice (probably after ARBPIA5 is over so admins have more time to focus on it)? CambrianCrab (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CambrianCrab:The main problem is that they currently only have two editors (one being the managing editor), so we can be relatively sure that they do not follow that policy becuase it requires a minimum of four editors to follow (the managing editor and at least three others). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good catch on the number of editors, I missed that the other ones had retired/passed, but I don't really think that makes it SPS since articles are still getting reviewed. Imo, it's a red flag in terms of reliability that either the list of editors and/or review policy is out of date, but no impact towards whether or not it's SPS. CambrianCrab (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- See and that is interesting because I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I think that it could be reasonably argued that SBM is reliable, but that there is no case at all that it is somehow not SPS. When there is one person in most cases writing something and then just directly launching it to the internet on a blog, that is self-published. Which we have no way of knowing if these two editors even check one another, so it is very possible that frequently this is exactly what is happening. However, how different is it really when there are only two editors from one checking on anything. That is practically and definitionally a self-published source by every possible measure for evaluating whether or not a source as SPS or not. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? And again, even if that is true, if there are only two editors doing the "reviewing", that is not due diligence, that is back scratching and rubber stamping. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't think SBM is unreliable, just that outdated pages would be a red mark towards reliability. Whether or not pages or up-to-date has nothing to do with if something is self-published.
- I don't really follow the rest of your argument.
We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed?
Yeah we generally take sources at their word on their own policies unless we have reason to question it. SBM is a relatively long-running and well-known outlet run by experts in the topic area. I don't see any reason we should think they're lying about their policy. CambrianCrab (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Those are fair point, review is review and it seems that at least some are seemingly getting reviewed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- See and that is interesting because I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I think that it could be reasonably argued that SBM is reliable, but that there is no case at all that it is somehow not SPS. When there is one person in most cases writing something and then just directly launching it to the internet on a blog, that is self-published. Which we have no way of knowing if these two editors even check one another, so it is very possible that frequently this is exactly what is happening. However, how different is it really when there are only two editors from one checking on anything. That is practically and definitionally a self-published source by every possible measure for evaluating whether or not a source as SPS or not. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? And again, even if that is true, if there are only two editors doing the "reviewing", that is not due diligence, that is back scratching and rubber stamping. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CambrianCrab:The main problem is that they currently only have two editors (one being the managing editor), so we can be relatively sure that they do not follow that policy becuase it requires a minimum of four editors to follow (the managing editor and at least three others). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not SPS. What someone means by "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" is "these writers aren't dumbasses and we trust them" with an implied "if an issue is found after the piece is out, we'll put out a correction", not "these people are infallible and we will never correct them because reasons". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- So they are essentially "Not SPS" because they claim to sometimes not be SPS. Got it. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of oversight is due diligence, not dumbass detection. SmolBrane (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Partly SPS and generally unsuitable for contentious topics on Misplaced Pages. While SBM is valuable for some scientic topics, it self-described as blog with inconsistent editorial oversight, allowing authors like Novella and Gorski to pubish without review. Gorski, who often takes strong positions, is a polarizing figure, and his articles often reflect a bias and lack of nuance. For controversial topics or biographies, more neutral and independently vetted sources would better meet Misplaced Pages standards. IntrepidContributor (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- SPS As I've said before on previous RfCs, this is explicitly a self-published source. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not SPS unless Gorski and Novella wrote the piece: SBM is one of the best sources for coveraging WP:FRINGE and WP:FRINGE activism we have and I'll note some, certainly not all, wanting to make it a SPS tend to have, at best, a WP:PROFRINGE attitude . Simply put, there is editorial oversight of contributors. We don't know if there is for Gorski and Novella, and should act accordingly and treat them as subject matter experts outside BLPs, but we do know that there is for other contributors. I'm somewhat concerned with the shape of this RFC - we have longstanding consensus that SBM is a reliable source and not an SPS. Instead of challenging that, this RFC was opened to challenge specifically the SPS designation in a seemingly roundabout way to question it's reliability.
- I also want to note that per WP:PARITY
In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed.
- so while I still maintain it's not an SPS, the standards for WP:FRINGE allow non-peer reviewed sources on fringe topics as long as they're reliable, so an SPS designation should not, unless we also agree it's not reliable, be used to go a purge of its use. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- No due to editorial oversight. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that the editors have stated that they do not provide oversight on all contributers prior to publication, this does not seem to be universally true. - Bilby (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- SPS I think it's important that the arguments about whether Science Based Medicine is SPS or not are removed from our own assessment of the topics they’ve covered, otherwise we infuse topic bias on a process matter and risk floating away from the core question of this RfC. SBM is SPS simply because of the lack of editorial oversight and independence needed for subject matter of medicine.--Evathedutch (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not SPS when it's "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" it means that you have to become a trusted author first before you can publish without prior review, i.e., the editorial oversight comes from becoming a trusted author. Banedon (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editorial oversight means reviewing content prior to publishing to ensure the content being published is factual, etc. It's not about who the author is, it's about the substance of the content. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that if I write a letter to the editor of some local newspaper, and it is published, then the newspaper is a SPS? Banedon (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Banedon If it was published without review? Yes. A website that published unreviewed content is not a publisher, it's a self-publishing platform. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the editors of the local newspaper basically do nothing? Banedon (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you are using the wrong analogy. If you can publish directly, based on your own decision to publish, without anyone else reading or vetting your writing before it appears, you are self publishing. If an editor checks the material and approves it before publication, it is not self publishing. SBM allow some editors to publish without checking or vetting the material before it is published, as you akcnowledged, so in those cases it is an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- At the very least anything written by Gorski and Novella there seems to be strong consensus that at minimum those articles are very clearly SPS. In other cases, I think it is dubious at best, since Gorski and Novella run the show and whether or not any real "editorial review" is happening on this blog appears to be very, very much in doubt. The analogy of a "local newspaper" and a blog is not actually analogous, and it is weird that an exception was ever carved out for this blog for it to somehow not be considered SPS. Thankfully it appears as if a new consensus has emerged as a result of this RfC in favor of SBM now being considered SPS, or at minimum, anything published by Gorski or Novella absolutely is without a shadow of a doubt SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bilby: That's where we disagree. By letting you publish directly, the editor is saying they trust you to write content that doesn't need to be edited - and that means it's not SPS. In fact, one could argue it's a higher bar than having to read and vet the writing. Banedon (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- By publishing directly, it is by definition self publishing. By being trusted to publish directly, it means you are seen as reliable. The two are not mutally exclusive. - Bilby (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you are using the wrong analogy. If you can publish directly, based on your own decision to publish, without anyone else reading or vetting your writing before it appears, you are self publishing. If an editor checks the material and approves it before publication, it is not self publishing. SBM allow some editors to publish without checking or vetting the material before it is published, as you akcnowledged, so in those cases it is an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the editors of the local newspaper basically do nothing? Banedon (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Banedon If it was published without review? Yes. A website that published unreviewed content is not a publisher, it's a self-publishing platform. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that if I write a letter to the editor of some local newspaper, and it is published, then the newspaper is a SPS? Banedon (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- We are all making assumptions about "what it means" because SBM is not transparent enough about its editorial policies. It pales in comparison to journals that tackle many of the same topics. This is precisely why it's SPS. Evathedutch (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thats right. This "Not SPS" argument is without merit. SBM is not a journal, it is a blog and is 100% SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind. Banedon (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that they post "bogus content"? If not, how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Bogus content" is related to an argument about reliability. Which some contributors to this RfC have mistakenly believed is part of this discussion, it is not. This RfC is on the question of whether or not SBM is SPS, which it so obviously is. Therefore, my response was simply reframing that we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all, instead, we are simply discussing whether or not the "editorial review" which some allege occurs at SBM (with scant evidence), is done by the very same people who publish content (Gorski and Novella).
- Given the self-publication by Gorski/Novella, which evidently is what happens, then the source is a self-published source, and "bogus" doesn't even enter into the conversation. Or at the very minimum, any article published by SBM by Gorski/Novella ought to 100% be considered SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Banedon wrote: "If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind," and you responded "If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks."
- As best I can tell, you did not respond to my second question, so I'll ask it again: If , how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote?
- Just so you're clear, the current WP:SPS characterization "self-published" explicitly refers to reliability. When you say "we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all," that's not entirely true. It's relevant to whether some of the content on the site is not self-published. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've moved the goal posts, Banedon is arguing that none of the content on the site is self-published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know that Banedon's !vote was "Not SPS," but I interpreted Banedon's comment to Iljhgtn (who claimed that SBM is "100% SPS") as a point about outside contributors to SBM (outdated description here). Maybe I misinterpreted. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think in the case of Gorski and Novella there is absolutely no question that it is SPS, but I am more and more wondering how much "editorial review" actually happens even in other cases. From the link you provided if we review, "
How to submit a guest article: Anyone is welcome to submit content to ScienceBasedMedicine.org, regardless of credentials. We’ll publish anything we think is interesting, relevant, well-written, and, above all, scientifically sound. (The less editing we need to do, the better.) The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission. Please embed citations as weblinks rather than footnotes or endnotes, it saves us a lot of time. How to submit a guest article for publication on SBM Submit your article by email directly to Dr. Gorski (SBMeditor@icloud.com), the managing editor . If he thinks it has potential, he will distribute it to the editorial staff for further consideration. Please note that none of the editors are paid for our work on SBM, and most of us have demanding day jobs. That means that, more frequently than we would like, the process is less than optimal and not as fast as writers (or we) would like. (For instance, if Dr. Gorski is working against a grant application deadline, you might not hear for a while, because trying to keep his lab afloat trumps his extracurricular activities on SBM.)
" There are claims that "at least three of our editors evaluate the submission", but again, I don't trust this, but beyond that, this only applies (if they even do it) to guest submissions, which can be Gorski may post even if he just thinks its "interesting" and "The less editing we need to do, the better" (all well and good, but again, doesn't sound like much "editorial review" is happening even in the case of guest submissions... But again, that is only part of the discussion. The other part that has overwhelming consensus at this point is that anything from SBM authored by Gorski or Novella is SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- No offense, but you just posted a bunch of text that once again didn't answer my question. Here it is again: If , how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote?
- I'm not looking for your personal opinion about SBM, as you've already made that clear in your many comments. I'm not looking for your opinion about the RfC consensus. I'm trying to understand your response to Banedon. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- His comment was, "
If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind.
". I was not in any way focused at all on the "bogus content" aspect that you are laser focused on, I was refuting the fact that obviously I, Iljhgtn, cannot get stuff published on their page, but that if I could sure, it would not be a self-published source perhaps. Though it is a ridiculous point he made and that is why I am citing the direct text, instead of offering opinion. If that does not answer your query then I am exasperated and we can both just move on from this odd reading comprehension and/or semantics confused discourse we've been having. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- Yes, I think we're talking past each other, and it's fine with me for both of us to step away from it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- His comment was, "
- I think in the case of Gorski and Novella there is absolutely no question that it is SPS, but I am more and more wondering how much "editorial review" actually happens even in other cases. From the link you provided if we review, "
- I know that Banedon's !vote was "Not SPS," but I interpreted Banedon's comment to Iljhgtn (who claimed that SBM is "100% SPS") as a point about outside contributors to SBM (outdated description here). Maybe I misinterpreted. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've moved the goal posts, Banedon is arguing that none of the content on the site is self-published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- But you're not Gorski or Novella, are you? That kind of renders the entire point moot. Obviously you can't publish bogus content, because you're not trusted, ergo, there is editorial control and it is not SPS. Banedon (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that they post "bogus content"? If not, how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind. Banedon (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thats right. This "Not SPS" argument is without merit. SBM is not a journal, it is a blog and is 100% SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editorial oversight means reviewing content prior to publishing to ensure the content being published is factual, etc. It's not about who the author is, it's about the substance of the content. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Contributions by the editors are SPS. Definitely contributions by Gorkski, Novella, and the other listed editors are clearly WP:SPS by both the letter and spirit of WP:SPS. By the letter of WP:SPS I don't think contributions by other people are SPS but I do have serious doubts about the editorial policy, and thus the overall reliability, of SBM if they're allowing the editors to regularly publish articles without fact-checking. Loki (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not SPS. This is a web publication of the New England Skeptical Society, not the personal vlog of Randy from Boise. Just because it's called a blog doesn't mean it's a personal, self-published blog. The premise that organizations publishing stuff written by members of their organizations amounts to self-publishing seems like it can't help but lead to something like, "the LA Times publishes stuff written and reviewed by members of the LA Times so the LA Times self publishes itself". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society whose leadership overlaps with that of the blog and is largely restricted to a single family, the Novellas. The same man, Steven Novella, is in charge of both so there is no independence here that would make it not self published. I would also note that if the Washington Post ever fired all its professional staff and started hosting stuff by Jeff Bezos and his buddies we would treat it as a SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did you consider the editorial that Bezos wrote in the Post (re: his decision to block the Post's endorsement of Harris) to be SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but note that we already treat editorials and opinion pieces as SPS so its a bit of a moot point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's news to me. Are you saying that an editorial or opinion piece cannot be used unless it either falls under EXPERTSPS or BLPSELFPUB? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its a bit (some would say a lot) wider than that because WP:ABOUTSELF also applies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't understand how ABOUTSELF comes into play, since an editorial / opinion piece is typically representing the view of a single person, though I guess it's occasionally written by more than one, as with something from an editorial board. But even assuming that ABOUTSELF is in play, that says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we cannot use an opinion piece or editorial in the NYT to make a statement —attributed to the author(s) — about a living person whose relationship to the author(s) is third-party. If that's the case, I think there's a lot of WP content that's in breach of this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There might be some (wikipedia is full of violations of any rule you care to name), but most of those uses are as primary (under aboutself) not as third-party sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whether it's primary is distinct from whether it's self-published. Many opinion pieces are used as third-party sources for attributed opinions about living people. Here's an example: in the Trump and fascism article, the text "Following the January 6 Capitol attack, Robert Paxton, who had initially resisted calling Trump a fascist, announced that the label now seemed necessary," sourced to this opinion piece by Paxton, which is a third-party source for a statement about Trump. Are you saying that you think that text must be removed because the source is SPS? WP:RSEDITORIAL certainly doesn't say that all opinion pieces should be treated as SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There might be some (wikipedia is full of violations of any rule you care to name), but most of those uses are as primary (under aboutself) not as third-party sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't understand how ABOUTSELF comes into play, since an editorial / opinion piece is typically representing the view of a single person, though I guess it's occasionally written by more than one, as with something from an editorial board. But even assuming that ABOUTSELF is in play, that says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we cannot use an opinion piece or editorial in the NYT to make a statement —attributed to the author(s) — about a living person whose relationship to the author(s) is third-party. If that's the case, I think there's a lot of WP content that's in breach of this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its a bit (some would say a lot) wider than that because WP:ABOUTSELF also applies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's news to me. Are you saying that an editorial or opinion piece cannot be used unless it either falls under EXPERTSPS or BLPSELFPUB? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but note that we already treat editorials and opinion pieces as SPS so its a bit of a moot point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You argue they're amateurs and unqualified to write the coverage that they do; that doesn't on its own bear on whether they're self-published or not. I've limited the scope of my !vote here to concluding they aren't self-published. Whether they are a reliable publication that isn't self-published or an unreliable publication that isn't self-published is a different question. As for Novella heading NESS and Science-based Medicine—um, well, yeah, duh. The latter is an organ of the former. I'm not aghast that the editor in chief of the LA times runs the LA Times, or that Alfred A. Knopf ran Alfred A. Knopf. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society. The LA Times is owned by Patrick Soon-Shiong, the editor in chief of the LA times is Terry Tang. A book by Alfred A. Knopf Sr. or Blanche Knopf published by Alfred A. Knopf would be considered SPS for wikipedia purposes, that isn't groundbreaking thats totally normal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To add to this, being an editor and running an interest organization are (and should be) two very different roles. I can't imagine the director of the National Association for People that Can't Edit and Hate Editorial Integrity (NAPCEHEI) would make a good editor in chief for the org's publication. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I said,
You argue they're amateurs
; you said,No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society
(emphasis added). I'm not seeing how I've mischaracterized what you believe about their qualifications when you immediately repeated it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society. The LA Times is owned by Patrick Soon-Shiong, the editor in chief of the LA times is Terry Tang. A book by Alfred A. Knopf Sr. or Blanche Knopf published by Alfred A. Knopf would be considered SPS for wikipedia purposes, that isn't groundbreaking thats totally normal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did you consider the editorial that Bezos wrote in the Post (re: his decision to block the Post's endorsement of Harris) to be SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is a distinct difference between the LA Times and SBM in that it would appear as if at SBM just Gorski can write something or just Novella and then publish it. That is different that the LA Times or other non-SPS in that those have editorial review by other staff. These staff are known and are publicly verifiable as they have publicly findable jobs as seen here.
- At minimum, it must be acknowledged that material written by Gorski and Novella is SPS. For the record, that is also not saying it is not reliable (as several commenters above continue to be confusing), just that Gorski and Novella work from SBM is SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Forbes.com is owned by Forbes Media LLC. Because it is owned by a company, does that mean we should not regard it as self published? In the case of Forbes.com it is not the ownership that matters, but the ability of people to publish directly as contributors without editorial review. With SBM, I would argue that it is also not the ownership that matters, but whether or not people can publish directly without editorial review. - Bilby (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Forbes.com includes content both from Forbes staff and from Forbes contributors. So some of the Forbes.com content is SPS and some isn't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Presumably, that is because the Forbes staff material is published under editorial control. It is not the ownership that decides if something is an SPS, but the process by which material becomes available after it has been written. - Bilby (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That was my point, as it seemed you were claiming that we should regard all of Forbes.com as self-published. Why did you conclude that the subset of SBM material that does undergo prepublication editorial review is nonetheless SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've never assumed that material on SBM that undergoes editorial review is SPS. My only concern is that the argument that the publication belongs to the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not SPS, is not sound. I think you can reasonably argue that some material published by SBM does not under go editorial review prior to publication, and that some material is therefore self published, or you can argue that all material undergoes pre-publication editorial review, and therefore SBM is not an SPS at all. But I don't think you can argue that SBM is owned by the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should have been clearer. I was asking because in your Dec.6 !vote, you said that you consider SBM to be wholly SPS (or at least, you didn't qualify your SPS response). FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think I have been fairly consistent, but to explain my reasoning: it is clear that trusted authors are allowed to self publish on the site, but what is not clear is who these authors are. We khave been assuming that this means the editors can publish directly, and we have assumed that guest contributors probably can not, but we do not know if all guest editors are not trusted enough, nor do we know where the authors that sit between those two come. Given that, rather than say "partial SPS" but not know who is self publishing, I think it is safer to say "SPS" but realise that there may be exceptions. From a BLP perspective I prefer to errr on the side of caution. - Bilby (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should have been clearer. I was asking because in your Dec.6 !vote, you said that you consider SBM to be wholly SPS (or at least, you didn't qualify your SPS response). FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've never assumed that material on SBM that undergoes editorial review is SPS. My only concern is that the argument that the publication belongs to the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not SPS, is not sound. I think you can reasonably argue that some material published by SBM does not under go editorial review prior to publication, and that some material is therefore self published, or you can argue that all material undergoes pre-publication editorial review, and therefore SBM is not an SPS at all. But I don't think you can argue that SBM is owned by the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That was my point, as it seemed you were claiming that we should regard all of Forbes.com as self-published. Why did you conclude that the subset of SBM material that does undergo prepublication editorial review is nonetheless SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Presumably, that is because the Forbes staff material is published under editorial control. It is not the ownership that decides if something is an SPS, but the process by which material becomes available after it has been written. - Bilby (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Forbes.com includes content both from Forbes staff and from Forbes contributors. So some of the Forbes.com content is SPS and some isn't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society whose leadership overlaps with that of the blog and is largely restricted to a single family, the Novellas. The same man, Steven Novella, is in charge of both so there is no independence here that would make it not self published. I would also note that if the Washington Post ever fired all its professional staff and started hosting stuff by Jeff Bezos and his buddies we would treat it as a SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- SPS A group blog where the participants can publish without review is a SPS, even if it calls certain people editors and sometimes deletes things (if that were the standard, even much of social media wouldn't be a SPS, because sometimes those sites have deleted stuff like COVID misinformation). I also do not think accepting occasional outside submissions consistutes "review" to the degree those posts become not-SPS. Nor do I think being "published" by an organization the blog authors *also* control consititutes sufficient independence, as some have claimed. I think sometimes the authors can be cited under the WP:SPS subject-mattere expert exception, but only in the specific area of their academic speciality (e.g. neurology, surgery and oncology, family practice medicine) but not in other areas. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: Bild
What is the reliability of the German tabloid Bild, including its website Bild.de?
- Generally reliable
- Additional considerations apply
- Generally unreliable
- Deprecated
Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Responses (Bild)
- Option 3/4 Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, archived link, routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation)
Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers.
...The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary
... EDIT: another quoteBILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.
} Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)- As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 , as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that an acclaimed book presenting a lightly-fictionalized denunciation of its practices is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. signed, Rosguill 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3 at least, and I wouldn't say no to 4. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for WP:ABOUTSELF material; if they claimed something as simple as X number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3 I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3/4 Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. Magisch 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and allegedly breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable FortunateSons (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2, provisionally, since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. Alaexis¿question? 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3, I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Misplaced Pages project. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3, there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – Bildblog. But see my comment in the discussion section below. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 per ActivelyDisinterested. The Kip 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per WP:ABOUTSELF would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4 per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's snowing 3 Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4: Tabloids usually fail reliability. It seems this one is no different. ToThAc (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3/4 (depending on whether anyone can make a case that there's some e.g. ABOUTSELF use we would still want them for — but I doubt we should be using them 1,800 times, as Hemiauchenia says we are at present) per Aquillion and Hemiauchenia; as RSP says, a reliable source "has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction"; BILD has the opposite reputation. -sche (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (Bild)
Bild is currently used over 1,800 times on the English Misplaced Pages per bild.de 
. It is already currently listed on RSP as "generally unreliable". This RfC was prompted by a discussion at WT:RSP, where a user questioned the lack of participation in previous discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I asked the initial question at WT:RSP since I don't like when we classify sources based on vibes. So I'll play the role of the devil's advocate. I have very little knowledge of the German media landscape and I'm open to arguments in both directions. The sources provided by u:Hemiauchenia make two claims:
articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary"
- this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities- In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes . Alaexis¿question? 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated):
From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.
- If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. signed, Rosguill 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. Alaexis¿question? 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia, I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks!
- These are the key points from the foreword
- articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers
- BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples
- is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze
- A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer
- A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable.
- I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed?
- In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very WP:BIASED source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. Alaexis¿question? 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. Alaexis¿question? 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. Alaexis¿question? 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated):
- I'm not really sure what is meant by
classif sources based on vibes
, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. WP:SOURCE saysreputation for fact-checking and accuracy
, as does WP:RS multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the bild.de , most of them belong to the first category. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Nigerian newspapers
WP:RSNP has nothing about Nigerian newspapers, but references a project-list of them which seems rather too optimistic. It seems to me that these newspapers are filled with completely unreliable promopieces. You can see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Martina Ononiwu, where a completely unknown Nigerian/French person supposedly got a US-only award from President Biden. Not a single source outside Nigeria confirms this, there seems to be no reason at all why she would have received this, but it got reported by Vanguard, Guardian, Nation, Roving Naija, The Sun...
We had similar issues with e.g. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Musa Muhammed (entrepreneur), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Omogboye Saheed Ayodeji, and probably many others which I can't find as easily.
Isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers which routinely publish such completely unreliable promo pieces as articles? Fram (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that if you deprecated these newspapers, there'd be basically no usable Nigerian sources left, which hardly seems good in terms of attempting to fix Misplaced Pages's coverage biases. I do agree that it is standard practice at a lot of Nigerian newspapers to run effectively undisclosed promotional material, and it seems good to note this somewhere on RSP, but I think deprecating them outright would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says
realised that their top quality journalism or influential columnists alone weren’t going to win the battle for eyeballs. Enter “viral content” and clickbait headlines. Press releases were repackaged as news stories, fact-checking and verification became redundant. Aanu Adeoye says, “the traditional gatekeepers of journalism (newspapers) in this country don’t give a hoot about the quality of what they’re churning out daily.” In a few years, stories from Nigeria’s top newspapers looked as hurriedly written as stories from blogs. It had become a game of who could break the news the fastest and who could churn out the most news. Nigerian traditional media beat the upstarts at their own game and occupied spots at the top of Nigeria’s most visited websites. But the true cost of this pyrrhic victory was quality control.
If even mainstream Nigerian newspapers can't be trusted as factual sources then it's not clear what Nigerian sources can be trusted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) - I really don’t get arguments like this one. How does it help Misplaced Pages to use unreliable sources from countries with more limited media landscapes? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- One of Misplaced Pages and the WMF's goals is to be "diverse" and to lessen systemic bias to western nations. Limiting coverage to Western liberal democracies will obviously prevent that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- How does it help the English Misplaced Pages to eliminate practically all English-language sources for about 1 billion English-speakers? There's not an easy answer, here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Much of the editor population vastly underestimates how much of our reader base comes from these regions of the globe.
- Formally deprecating sources is a last resort for widely misused stuff like the Daily Mail (arguably part of the issue there was the perceived credibility of a mainstream Western paper subject to strict British libel laws). Simply following and enforcing existing P&G should address the issues adequately.
- Furthermore, if one of these Nigerian papers were to come under new and improved management or ownership, I doubt WP would take notice with any real celerity.
- RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says
- This is a problem with virtually every newspaper published in Nigeria and India. We cannot simply deprecate all news from two of the largest English speaking countries in the world. Or, we could, but we would get called very racist for doing so. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which don't have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. Fram (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It still has a disparate impact in a racially biased manner. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No its not, it is based upon lack of truth, no one here has raised race once apart from you. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever the intention banning the entire media ecosystem of a developing country of 230 million people (plus India's 1.43 billion because we would ban them for the same reason) and making our encyclopedia irrelevant to large swathes of the non western world would have a biased outcome - doesn't matter the intention if it gets you the same result. Is that a sacrifice we are willing to accept? Because if so we need to stop pretending we have any interest in "combatting systemic bias". PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, in my opinion it hasn’t been shown that reliability issues already aren’t being handled at in a nationally disparate manner. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- if these sources want to be accepted as reliable on Misplaced Pages, they should give up their practice of publishing paid news and writing puff pieces for anyone willing to pay. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we are going to be banning every single news source of a country of 230 million, then we should be very aware we are doing it. And possibly throw out all the project's virtue signaling over countering systemic bias along with it, if we decide to go that route. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- We should allow perpetuation of misinformation on Misplaced Pages because it would be racist not to? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (disparate impact or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should we do the same and ban all news from India? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- We should ban all shitty sources. If that wipes out all of India’s news (I’d sure be surprised) then yes. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should we do the same and ban all news from India? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see how it would be preferable to have our coverage of non-Western developing countries be dominated by propaganda, paid-promotion, tabloids, and un-fact-checked reports... JoelleJay (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- No one is suggesting an either-or dichotomy. We should start by enforcing existing policies with regard to usage of these sources on a case by case basis. Mass deprecation was merely an impulsive suggestion someone made somewhere above, and would self-evidently be overkill unless all other options had been exhausted, which they haven’t. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (disparate impact or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which don't have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. Fram (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think this claim should be presumed true but not notable. The PVSA award is given out annually by any number of authorized NGOs to their own volunteers without any US government involvement, and it does come with a form letter in the president's name. Ononiwu apparently received hers from Innovate Africa Corp. There's no reason any US press to write up such a thing, and there doesn't seem to be a public database of honorees. Note however that Ononiwu should not have been eligible for the award because she's not a US citizen or permanent resident. I guess these newspapers went along with exaggerating the award's prestige, but I don't see it as a major problem for reliability on facts. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it could be worth writing some guidance along the same lines as WP:NEWSORGINDIA, though I'm not sure it rises to the point of a general deprecation yet. Reuters Institute report here might also be helpful in developing such guidance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- As with WP:NEWSORGINDIA Nigerian news sources are full of undisclosed advertorials. It's a common practice, so editors need to be cautious with anything that uses promotional language. Their use for establishing notability needs to be seen in a similar light.
- Formally deprecating all Nigerian news media just isn't an option, in the same way deprecating all India news media with the same issue isn't an option. I would support changing the language of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it highlights the same issue in other countries not just India. I doubt this is an issue limited to those markets, and one that will likely become more of an issue everywhere with the difficulties newsedia currently face. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I recall at least one instance of them churning out AI generated puff pieces e.i daily times ng puff piece about Pranav Adani and GPTzero analysis of first 5000 words of it. Oddly enough Daily Times NG is listed as a "generally reliable" source for Nigerian topics at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources.- Ratnahastin (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's evidence that their promotional articles aren't reliable. But I've yet to see anyone present evidence here that other kinds of news from these sources are unreliable. Does anyone here have evidence of that? If not, I don't see why we'd deprecate these Nigerian news sources in their entirety, and instead I support Hemiauchenia's having added "Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability" to RS/P, perhaps adding something like "especially for promotional news articles." FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since the PROMO issues seem to be localized particularly to biographies, perhaps we could have guidance similar to what we use at NCORP that calls for heightened Nigerian source scrutiny re: independence when it comes to BLPs. Deprecating them just for BLPs might also be an option. JoelleJay (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I refuse to comment on the instances that led to this proposal because they can happen on a platform with the format adopted by Misplaced Pages. However, I oppose the proposal to deprecate all Nigerian newspapers on English Misplaced Pages. Applying a blanket judgment based on issues with a few outlets among many is unjust and undermines Misplaced Pages's inclusivity. Nigeria's media landscape, shaped by its diverse population of over 500 languages and 300 ethnic groups, plays a critical role in democracy and accountability.
- "While no media is flawless, treating all Nigerian newspapers as unreliable disregards their contributions and efforts to uphold global standards. Media reliability concerns exist worldwide, yet discussion of this nature is sensitive and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through blanket exclusions. Adopting this precedent ensures fairness and avoids marginalizing voices from the Global South.
- "I recommend individual evaluations of Nigerian newspapers, involving local expertise and ongoing monitoring, to maintain Misplaced Pages's mission of inclusivity and accuracy. A nuanced approach will preserve diversity and strengthen the platform's credibility."Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes banning falsehoods is a sacrifice I am willing to make, be they from White people black people, or yellow people. As I said about Fiox and the Daily Myth, if you do not want to be accused of telling lies, there is a simpler solution, do not tell them. This is my last response here with a firm not reliable. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind, but it has to be proof and not emotive appeals to (so-called) fairness. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
or yellow people
Uhhh.... JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- Obviously meant as in "persons of any color, including colors in which persons don’t exist" and not a reference to the antique Western epithet for East Asians ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not "obvious", even to those of us who have interacted with Slatersteven enough to presume he wasn't intending to use a racial epithet. JoelleJay (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously meant as in "persons of any color, including colors in which persons don’t exist" and not a reference to the antique Western epithet for East Asians ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm against this. Nigerian sources, like all sources, are entitled to be evaluated one by one. EEpic (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)
I've gone ahead and created a new section covering Nigerian news organisations at RSP Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Nigerian_news_organisations. It's a bit stubby at the moment but it's at least a start. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources. —A. B. 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —A. B. 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that their judgment is poor or that Nigerian editors are inferior in any way, but that there are issues with Nigerian press across the board, such as low press freedom that is very different from say, news sources in Western Europe and North America, which should be kept in mind with evaluating their content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —A. B. 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I encourage you to engage with folks at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria as you develop guidance on Nigerian media. A. B. 21:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I second this. I conversion about Nigeria WP should not be done without Nigerians editors involvement. Just because you found something wrong in some sources that doesn’t give you the right to assume all is bad. I can literally give you examples of where BBC published falsehood, in 2024! So let’s listen to these editors as they are more familiar with these sources. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reliable sources can churn out a lot of rubbish once in a while. No matter what anyone says, the likes of Vanguard, Guardian, Daily Times, Punch, Daily Independent, The Sun, etc, would always be notable relating to general issues about Nigeria. Some weeks back, a state in Nigeria held their governorship election. These media houses in question were the source of verified information about the election. When a political appointment is made by the president, it is the same media houses that Misplaced Pages editors would use to establish the claim. If we make them unreliable, it means we are putting an end to Nigerian contents on English Misplaced Pages. These media houses will dish out promotional materials whenever they want and we can do nothing about it (it is business for them). All we can do as Wikipedians is to speedy norminate articles for deletion if they are not notable to be on the Wiki. The major issue we are having now is a result of a loophole in the notability criteria. GNG should not be used ALONE to establish notability. SuperSwift (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If these media houses(e.g The Daily Times) are churning out AI generated puff pieces then we should indeed add a cautionary clause in the guideline that care must be taken when using these sources to establish notability, especially at venues such as AfD. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- GNG still works. The sources have to be independent. What this means is that in the case of Nigerian media, it's tricky but necessary to try and determine if a particular report is independent of the subject.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Judging articles on a case-by-case basis is something we (Nigerian editors) are already doing and believe it or not, we’re doing a damn good job at it. Deprecating these sources means that articles on Nigerian topics would be deleted in batches——thousands, if I might add——and this doesn’t necessarily reflect the systemic bias we are supposed to be fighting.
- There are tells that give off a sponsored/paid article and every Nigerian editor in good standing already knows this and by this, I vehemently disagree with Hemiauchenia that Nigerian editors are not able to distinguish a reliable source from an unreliable source.
- Also, I think sometimes, what we consider as “poor journalism” (in the Western standard) are just Nigerian journalist (correctly) using Nigerian English to write articles that it seems like it is promo. This does not mean that undisclosed paid journalism does not happen but sometimes, we confuse the two. So, this is me opposing any form deprecations as this will have unintended consequences. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have a section on RSP that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ratnahastin, uhm, if Indian editors did so, someone took the liberty of doing it for us (possible due to our incompetence): WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA; no one is opposing it. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have a section on RSP that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
It is true that Nigerian news outlet like their Western counterparts (RSBIAS?) do publish opinions, promotional and advertorials like reliable news without explicitly marking them as much. In fact, this has long history in African media and it is mostly associated with UPE editors who want to create contents for their gain.
Yet, deprecating Nigerian sources is not the solution. It will definitely do more harm than good to the visibility of the most populous black nation on earth. This means that we would have no reliable source to either curate or create contents. This is just an indirect way of saying that Nigerian content is no longer acceptable on English Misplaced Pages. This is because reliable sources are the backbone of contents creation. Prior to this discussion, we have been sending a lot of articles with promotional sources to Nigeria AfD noticeboard. This is what we can do from our end. We can neither stop people creating them nor stop the media from doing their business.
Also, there is currently a section at WP:RSP tagged WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA notifying reviewers and editors of caution in dealing with Nigeria sources. This alongside thorough analysis of Nigerian sources should drastically reduce the promotional articles and create a better future for Nigerian contents on the English Misplaced Pages.Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We cannot disregard Nigerian sources entirely. Yes, there are issues with some outlets, such as publishing promotional content or reworded press releases, but this isn’t unique to Nigeria. Even in countries with established media systems, there are sources that can’t always be trusted. The solution isn’t to write off all Nigerian sources but to evaluate them individually. Some articles might be biased or promotional, and we can avoid those. However, there are also credible reports and investigative pieces from Nigerian media that meet our standards. By treating each source on a case-by-case basis, we strike a balance, avoiding systemic bias while ensuring the content we use is reliable. A blanket approach would only create more gaps in coverage, which isn’t what we want for Misplaced Pages. And as Reading Beans mentioned, we Nigerian editors are already doing a good work judging sources on a case-by-case basis. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
], the only keep argument is based on just the above "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?". This is why they should not be acceptable because content is being created (and defended) using dubious sources (on the very grounds those sources are being defended here, false allegations of racism or false balance). Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Such a statement from a suspected UPE with limited knowledge around Wp:BIO and Wp:GNG shouldn't hold water let alone be used as a basis or argument for the deprecation of an sources of information. The WikiProject Nigeria volunteer are doing enormous tasks to ensure content that doesn't meet the English Misplaced Pages standard is nominated for deletion. Atibrarian (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, like already stated above, every sources presented in an AfD discussion is analysed carefully. FYI, majority of !delete votes there are Nigerian editors and the only keep !vote there being the paid creator (whom I suspect of UPE). If you can get a deletion discussion where a non-notable article was kept and defend with unreliable sources, I would appreciate it. Like the examples shown, the unreliable of the published articles were always pointed out and the articles were (correctly) deleted. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. No. No. my friend, @Reading Beans, I have told you ever and anon that this editor is not into UPE. So STOP THE SUSPICION and even voicing it out. It is affecting the reviewing of my articles. It is a blessing in disguise that my article brought this intense discussion. My take away from here is the guide being created for Nigerian sources and the caution I will employ in future creations. Royalrumblebee (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- What I'm seeing in that AfD, and in the others mentioned that all ended in deletion, is editors using their own good judgement to deal with this issue. Hopefully the new advice at NEWSORGNIGERIA will help encourage other editors to use the same caution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, if someone argues "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?", the response should be "no, we don't. We're rejecting notability based on these specific Nigerian articles, because (a) the articles being used to assert notability all focus on a single "event," (b) the articles are extremely similar and might have been content farmed, especially since they seem overly promotional (e.g., it's not a "prestigous" award, it's solely based on number of hours volunteered and being nominated by a relevant organization), and (c) US government info about the award makes it clear that she's not eligible for that award (as she's not a US citizen or permanent resident), which means that these articles aren't reliable for this content. But the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do you have evidence of the latter? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which is what Im did say, more than once. To me met with stonewalling "but that's racism" comments (and still am), at which point if the best argument you have is emotive, I have to assume you have no others, thus Im assume its an accepted problem with them. And as this is about "reputation for fact-checking" and the best argument is "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism"...well I have to assume they dio not have said reputation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm not sure what the referent of "them" is in "Im assume its an accepted problem with them."
- As for the rest, my argument isn't "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism." My argument is "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do you have evidence of the latter?" You still haven't presented any evidence that articles from Nigerian news media are generally unreliable. Either you have evidence for that or you don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- ] ]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Did you actually read those articles? Neither one makes any mention of any of the Nigerian news outlets identified in the OP. The BBC piece is about new websites "established around the time of Nigeria's general elections in February 2023." The SSRC piece is about "the spread of disinformation and how social media has only furthered this spread by providing new, fast-moving arenas for confirming and amplifying such false information" in Nigeria, including uptake by traditional news media, while noting that "The increasing threat to democratic institutions posed by disinformation is a global phenomenon." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Vangaurd and The nation ]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- "This story is part of a series by the BBC on disinformation and fake news - a global problem challenging the way we share information and perceive the world around us," where this particular article focused on the "spread of fake news in Africa" by looking at how five false stories — one each from five African countries, including Nigeria — was picked up by some news media in those countries. Yes, "The Nation and the Vanguard, both published stories with a very similar theme" to one of those false stories, but absolutely nothing in the BBC article suggests that Nigerian news media are generally unreliable. Is there any country globally where the BBC couldn't write an analogous report? For example, another BBC story in this series is "How President Trump took 'fake news' into the mainstream." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- You have it in reverse, we judge a source on its reputation for fact-checking, I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not, it down to you to show they do, We do not judge sources based upon how local editors will police pagers, but on the sources alone. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not ]
No, you haven't. Nothing you cited says anything about their reputation or suggests that they're generally unreliable. If you believe that something you cited provided evidence of general unreliability, please quote what you have in mind.it down to you to show they do
I haven't claimed that they have a reputation for fact-checking, so I have no burden to prove that they do (and more generally, if you want me to show something that I've said is true, just quote it, so we're both clear about the claim in question). What I said is (again): "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter." Fram proposed "to formally deprecate these newspapers," and you responded with "a firm not reliable." Since you're claiming that they're generally unreliable, you have a burden to show that they're generally unreliable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- You have it in reverse, we judge a source on its reputation for fact-checking, I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not, it down to you to show they do, We do not judge sources based upon how local editors will police pagers, but on the sources alone. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- "This story is part of a series by the BBC on disinformation and fake news - a global problem challenging the way we share information and perceive the world around us," where this particular article focused on the "spread of fake news in Africa" by looking at how five false stories — one each from five African countries, including Nigeria — was picked up by some news media in those countries. Yes, "The Nation and the Vanguard, both published stories with a very similar theme" to one of those false stories, but absolutely nothing in the BBC article suggests that Nigerian news media are generally unreliable. Is there any country globally where the BBC couldn't write an analogous report? For example, another BBC story in this series is "How President Trump took 'fake news' into the mainstream." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Vangaurd and The nation ]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Did you actually read those articles? Neither one makes any mention of any of the Nigerian news outlets identified in the OP. The BBC piece is about new websites "established around the time of Nigeria's general elections in February 2023." The SSRC piece is about "the spread of disinformation and how social media has only furthered this spread by providing new, fast-moving arenas for confirming and amplifying such false information" in Nigeria, including uptake by traditional news media, while noting that "The increasing threat to democratic institutions posed by disinformation is a global phenomenon." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I finally dug up an old AfD comment I'd made after reading a bunch of literature on Nigerian sources:Nigerian newspapers in particular are well known to flout broadcasting rules on paid advertising.
Professor Omenugha describes a similar trend in the print media: “In the newspapers, the so called specialised pages of the property, IT and computer businesses and finance pages are prime examples of commercialised spaces. The point is that no attempt is made to let the audience or readers know that these spaces are paid for and they end up holding them as sacred as they would news”.
Some journalists also work as paid consultants to politicians and businesses thus threatening professionalism. AIT’s Amarere says it is demeaning to journalism as “some of the concerned journalists now work for companies through which they obtain jobs. They cover their track by saying they are staff of this or that company and run offices outside the newsroom. In this situation it is difficult to balance profession with commercial interest”.
"Awards" issued by media are also considered corrupt.“The awards are not free, they are for money and anything that comes with a prize has implications”, says Olumide Adeyinka-Fusika, a lawyer. “If a newspaper names a bank as the best bank of the year and the bank is later indicted for corruption, that newspaper will not be willing to publish the story because that will be like passing a vote of no confidence on their own judgement”.
JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)- Here are some other references: chapter "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome"
For example, such practices as pack journalism by beat associations of journalists which operate like cartels, the payment of protection fees by reputation managers of institutions, the granting of awards of dubious credibility to non deserving individuals and organisations are some of the ways in which corruption manifests in the media.
Nigerian media and corrupt practicesEven though over 64 % of those sampled believed that acceptance of any form of gratifications was unethical, over 75 % of the
The Nigerian Press, Brown Envelope Syndrome (BES), and Media Professionalism
journalists engage in corrupt practices with impunity. More than half of the 18 media outfits covered by the study are indifferent to certain identified corrupt practices in their organizations.Adewale (2008), in his "The Rot in Nigerian Journalism Is Much Deeper Than We Thought" cited a controversial statement by Graham Greene to back up his position thus: "A petty reason perhaps why novelists more and more try to keep a distance from journalists is that novelists are trying to write the truth and journalists are trying to write fiction". This embarrassing irony aptly describes the state of Nigerian journalism and journalists in particular.
Deep rot in NigeriaIn its mildest form, press releases are published almost verbatim. Reporters either have an agreement with the government media men and are ‘settled’ with money, or threatened they will not be paid what is known as ‘qua”, or ‘mobilisation”. Some papers don’t pay salaries, and journalists have to make what they can on commission. In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men. Newspapers have a straight conflict of interest, they are financially reliant on political adverts, full-page colour hagiographies to governors and other political players. Last year, one paper alone took an estimated £270,000 in advertisements on one edition from supporters of former military ruler Ibrahim Babangida, celebrating his birthday.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)- I think we need something similar to User:Ms Sarah Welch/sandbox/Paid news and private treaties for Nigerian media as well. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- @JoelleJay the "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome" is an auto-expiring link that doesn't let anyone else use it. Could you provide a better link/where you found the original link? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Clicking the link from this should work. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- All seriousness aside,
In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men
- those powerful men should just buy the newspaper or hell even a whole media empire to rebroadcast their personal opinions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here are some other references: chapter "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome"
- ] ]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which is what Im did say, more than once. To me met with stonewalling "but that's racism" comments (and still am), at which point if the best argument you have is emotive, I have to assume you have no others, thus Im assume its an accepted problem with them. And as this is about "reputation for fact-checking" and the best argument is "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism"...well I have to assume they dio not have said reputation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was pointed to this discussion by @Axad12 after a similar discussion when I ran across Bella Disu. It does seem like much of Nigerian media simply writes whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay for. It seems like these sources should simply be banned except in cases where it is clear that the article was not purchased. 🄻🄰 00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
| unhelpful ChatGPT wall of text |
|---|
|
- Comment pretty much everything has already been said; the news media in Nigeria seem to be in the habit of puffing everyone and everything. As with the Indian news sources, we almost have to evaluate each news story on a case-by-case basis. We can keep Nigerian sources, but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability. The sources in the country are in the habit of puffy reporting, we just have to learn to use them. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd be ok if we create a policy similar to the NewsOrgIndia ... We allow the sources, but to be taken with a grain of salt. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. What did you mean by “…
but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability.
”? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. What did you mean by “…
- @Hemiauchenia's addition of WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA is helpful but the link to the unvetted WikiProject list is not, in my opinion. It lists, for example, This Day as "reliable" which is the publication I made a thread about which seemed to have drawn the conclusion to disregard promo and use with caution. It also lists pretty much every newspaper which reported inaccurately sparking this thread as "reliable"
- Beyond the issue of promo, Reporters Without Borders state "Nigeria is one of West Africa’s most dangerous and difficult countries for journalists, who are regularly monitored, attacked and arbitrarily arrested, as was the case during the 2023 elections." 🄻🄰 10:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक What sort of opinionated and unstructured comment did you just make? What do you mean by "unvetted WikiProject list"? Do you, by any chance, know the efforts I and few other editors who are Nigerians have put to bring up that list? Please be careful when making comments, especially when the topic has to do with one you're not entirely familiar with. As far as I am concerned, you cannot call a list which I have put efforts in contributing to "unvetted", the comment is not only unreasonable but also incorrect.
- I couldn't locate the thread you linked but whatever you brough up there are your opinion. I know the efforts I have been putting at AfD when it comes to Nigerian sources. Be careful, please, with all due respect.
- In a more general note, this thread is not going anywhere, This Day is a reliable source of information whether anyone "who is not a Nigerian" likes it or not, in fact, any source listed in the WikiProject as reliable is indeed reliable. The Herald, Guardian, New York Times, and other UK or US papers all publish nonsense piece as well, no one is permitted to call Nigerian sources unreliable because there are only a few Nigerian editors? I can't tell. I guess when this thread was initiated it was thought that there'd be no editor to oppose. SMH. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The link they are referring to has been archived, see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 460#This Day on Bella Disu.
In regard towho is not a Nigerian
There are many non-Nigerians who don't agree with the comment that started this thread. I both support and encourage projects to maintain there own sources lists, as they most likely to have knowledge of that particular area, but they are subject to WP:CONLEVEL and so from to time discussions like this will happen. The net result of this discussion has been WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, which only writes down the advice that has been given in many other discussions. - If any editor wants to discuss a particular source they believe has issue outside of what's already covered by WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA I suggest they start a new section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested last time we discussed This Day, you pointed out that they have a tag for advertorials. Currently, top of the advertorials is this article about a former governor's successor's parents visiting him. As you noted, there is no indication on the article that this is an advertorial and it looks like a normal news item. This one is also also in the advertorials category with no indication on the article.
- How can this be a reliable source when advertorials are completely indistinguishable from reporting? 🄻🄰 15:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because otherwise it would result in the making all news organisations in multiple countries completely unusable, and it wouldn't be limited to India and Nigeria. Such undisclosed advertorials are common in a lot of countries, and will likely become more common not less due to the changes effecting news media across the globe. It wouldn't help to improve the encyclopedia by saying that such vast swathes of the news media are generally unreliable, and in many ways that isn't a fit description for the sources. They are reliable for many things, but not for the promotional nature of these advertorials.
- As has been said before the AfDs show that noone is being fooled. Editors are correctly spotting when this is happening and acting accordingly. Promo content being added to Misplaced Pages is certainly not an issue limited to these countries, just look to all the reputation management companies found elsewhere.
- Ultimately it's what effect should be had. We don't want those advertorials being used to add promo content to Misplaced Pages, that is achieved by WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. So do we need to class all those news media organisations as generally unreliable, will that help to improve the encyclopedia? I very much doubt it would. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are they? How are they being spotted? For example, see Eko Heritage Awards - there are many sources here but every single one of them appears more dubious than the two advertorial examples linked above. For an active AfD, see Misters of Nigeria. It was moved out of drafts by an editor who is now blocked and the editors voting keep simply insist that the sources are reliable without any evaluation. 🄻🄰 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Pinging you is difficult) Let me be blunter, you deletion rationale in that AfD
Sources all appear to be WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA
is not only unappealing but also vague. Why? you simply said that "ALL" of them are NEWSORGNIGERIA without telling us what analysis you did that made you come to that conclusion. I figured since we're not doing anything in-dept here, it would make sense to also tell you, since this area is my expertise, that the subject clear-cut passed GNG. If you did any analysis and showed it, then we'd be discussing what you analysed and not something else. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Pinging you is difficult) Let me be blunter, you deletion rationale in that AfD
- I do not get the impression that advertorials are regularly passed off as real news in countries with strong protections for journalism. What the academic papers I linked earlier were emphasizing is that Nigeria has a striking systematic problem with unethical journalism that goes beyond what is seen in respectable broadsheets (the "brown envelope syndrome" being one example) and appears to affect all major outlets. The last link talks about an egregious political advert for Babangida's birthday that ran in the Daily Trust—listed as generally reliable—and characterizes the newspapers as being reliant upon such revenue sources. Some of the other journals note that several newspapers don't even pay their journalists; surely at least those should be considered generally unreliable? JoelleJay (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are they? How are they being spotted? For example, see Eko Heritage Awards - there are many sources here but every single one of them appears more dubious than the two advertorial examples linked above. For an active AfD, see Misters of Nigeria. It was moved out of drafts by an editor who is now blocked and the editors voting keep simply insist that the sources are reliable without any evaluation. 🄻🄰 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure why you're responding with so much emotion. It would be better to discuss this dispassionately. Your reply doesn't actually explain why a publication like This Day, which publishes disguised promotions, should be viewed as reliable. @JoelleJay also provides very compelling evidence above which has not been rebutted. 🄻🄰 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe the rather emotionally charged use of "unvetted" to describe another editors work had something to do with it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, my reply is emotional to you, and you think I am dispassionate, lol. I'll entirely ignore this your comment. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The link they are referring to has been archived, see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 460#This Day on Bella Disu.
- I'd be ok if we create a policy similar to the NewsOrgIndia ... We allow the sources, but to be taken with a grain of salt. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
People may defend WP:RSNG, but when I see that e.g. The Nation is considered "generally reliable" but publishes (with a byline!) e.g. this pure promo drivel (used in a new article here, not something I went looking for especially), then it is hard to take that list or the defense of it seriously. It turns out to be (at least in part) a copy of a four year old article from the Vanguard, not some actual journalistic effort by the Nation, but how could one tell? Fram (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose blanket ban.The proponents of the ban have failed to actually demonstrate that all Nigerian newspapers have always been unreliable. As far as I can see, the evidence presented does not, for example, give any indication that the Lagos Daily News or the Daily Times were unreliable in 1925. In fact, they do not even appear to have been mentioned. This source, actually cited above, claims that the quality of Nigerian newspapers was better before the internet. This source, also cited above, only applies to the South-West geo-political zone, and not the other five geo-political zones (something not mentioned above). We need to take one newspaper at a time, and we need to look beyond the last five minutes. James500 (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- There has been no proposal to blanket ban all Nigerian Newspapers, so you are bold opposing a strawman. Fram (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Expressions such as "isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers" do look like proposals for a blanket ban. Everyone else in this thread seems to think that this is a proposal for a blanket ban. If you are not proposing a blanket ban, perhaps you should rephrase your comments in grammatically and semantically correct plain language that other people can actually understand. Anyway, in view of the statement that there is no proposal for a blanket ban, I have struck my !vote. James500 (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, I too, interpreted it as a blanket ban, and it's clear from people's comments that many other people did as well. Glad to know that that's not what you meant. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- There has been no proposal to blanket ban all Nigerian Newspapers, so you are bold opposing a strawman. Fram (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would support RSNG in that I would support projects creating source lists. How specific sources are listed on RSNG is first a matter of discussion at the project level (as the list is only at the project level), and RSN if there is no agreement there. This is the same for all project level lists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Brainstorming RfCs
It is clear that referring to the overly optimistic Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources is not a good approach to determine the current reliability of some Nigerian newspapers. If we were to reconsider the status of e.g. The Sun (Nigeria), to list it as e.g. "generally unreliable", what question should be posted in an RfC? Should we first try to find a cut-off date (i.e. "no longer generally reliable from year X on")? Are the above examples and reports sufficient, or is more needed? Or would it be easier to change WP:RSNP, correcting "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability. Wikiproject Nigeria has assembled a list of sources that they consider reliable/unreliable: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources." to "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability and verifiability", adding "verifiability" and removing the link to the project-based list? Fram (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think correcting WP:RSNP is a good start, simply by undoing this edit which there clearly wasn't agreement to add. 🄻🄰 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What to include or not include on the RSP (outside of the results of discussions at RSN) are probably best discussed at the RSP talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was WP:BOLDly added without discussion, though, so I've removed it for now as a first step. --Aquillion (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest that editing the section be done this way. RSP is no different from any other page, edit, discuss on talk page, then third opinion or noticeboard. Exact wording in the section doesn't immediately necessitate an RFC unless there is unresolvable differences of opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was WP:BOLDly added without discussion, though, so I've removed it for now as a first step. --Aquillion (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What to include or not include on the RSP (outside of the results of discussions at RSN) are probably best discussed at the RSP talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest against one RFC to cover all the sources, unless there is a very specific question about the sources (more specific than 'are they reliable?'), as it will likely result in a train wreck.
- If the issue is just to add 'and verifiability', or removing the project link, I would suggest just doing it. Consensus is first built through editing, and the RSP is no different in that matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever way the discussion goes it, I suggest an RFC should be in a completely new section. RSN gets overloaded, and this section is already very large. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Fram (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever way the discussion goes it, I suggest an RFC should be in a completely new section. RSN gets overloaded, and this section is already very large. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been reading old RfCs about unreliable medias to reference. Many of these discussions start with a blanket question. For example: "Is The Sun (Nigeria)
- Generally reliable
- Additional considerations apply
- Generally unreliable
- Deprecated"
- From there, editors can make their own arguments so if there should be a cut-off date for reliability. I think we can start with the more egregious media with examples and those who do not view them as unreliable should make the argument for why and when they should be considered reliable. 🄻🄰 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the TechCabal article is correct, then Nigerian newspapers were better before the internet. This might not apply to The Sun (Nigeria), which began publication in 2001. One of the earliest accounts of "brown envelopes" dates to the Second Republic (1979 to 1983): . On a search of Google Books, I found no references to "brown envelopes" in Nigeria in any book published before 1983. I found no more than 8 such references in books published before 1990, and 5 of those were from 1989: . In the absence of further evidence, I think we could take 1979 as a complete cut off point. Even after that, the evidence is not unequivocal. The study from 1984 says that NAN journalists may not be as corrupt as journalists are depicted: . And the claims of bribery during the Republic seem to relate more to government journalists, than to independent newspapers. The sources also suggest that Next (Nigeria) was more reliable. James500 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Jeff Sneider / The InSneider
Used for many claims throughout pages for CBM movies, such as The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Superman (2025 film), Kraven the Hunter (film), and Peter Parker (The Amazing Spider-Man film series), including those which are otherwise unverifiable like Victor von Doom appearing in the first or that Spider-Man was supposed to appear in Madame Web (film) but was cut.
I really do not see why his claims is so widely allowed and accepted as fact, even though he is undoubtedly more reliable than random blogs or posts on Twitter he's still a journalist making claims without evidence. I would like to establish here definitively if we continue to site theinsneider.com as a source, as we currently do in many articles. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did a Google News search and when other outlets report his stuff it is described as a rumour or "reportedly". He is also described as a "scooper". I don't think most of that should be used on Misplaced Pages because of NOTNEWS. Rumours about media that haven't been released yet aren't even news yet. Does he say that he got his info from a source? Then it should be attributed to that source. It also looks like a SPS. So everything sourced to him should be attributed, but even then it probably shouldn't be used. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right now, much of what is sourced to him is just taken as face value, for example Doom is listed in the cast for the Fantastic Four movie without clarification that it's based off a claim by him. My changes to remove such information from the pages were undone, so there seems to be some ambiguity if he is currently accepted as a RS. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- For any stories about named people (e.g. casting), WP:BLPSPS would probably bar use of this source, since he's self-published. His record on this is at best mixed from a quick search. For example, he reported that Sydney Sweeney would be starring in a new Johnny Depp film, which was swiftly denied, kept posting that it was true, and then a few months later, Penelope Cruz was announced as the co-star.
- I did some digging and apparently he made a recent post, copied here, , in which he says
This may speak to my own reckless vanity, but I’d rather be wrong sometimes than sit on 100 accurate stories and stand idly by and watch as Nellie Andreeva breaks every single one of them. Yes, it’s nauseating to get a story wrong — seriously, it makes me sick to my stomach — but it’s an even worse feeling when you don’t report something and then get beat by the competition.
If that's his attitude to reporting, then it would probably be best if we don't use him for non-BLP subjects as well. -- Patar knight - /contributions 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- I've removed everything that clearly failed WP:BLPSPS and tried to beef up non-BLP uses of this (e.g. filming dates, projects in development) with better sources that cite his work. Honestly most reputable don't really cite him and hedge by using "rumoured" or "reportedly" and cannot corroborate. Definitely not an ideal source and probably runs afoul of WP:NOTGOSSIP, especially if not picked up by better sources citing him at all. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
In the future it would be appreciated if you notified other editors of such a discussion rather than going on what I would describe as a deletion rampage, making dozens of edits to remove a source that is widely deemed to be reliable. Sneider clearly meets the SME requirement at WP:SELFPUB, he is a long time film and entertainment journalist whose work has previously been published by various reliable sources. The fact that he is now self-publishing his reporting does not now make him unreliable, which is what the wording at SELFPUB caters for. If you take issue with specific claims he has made or the wording of specific claims then the place to discuss those is at the talk pages of the articles in question, not here where the majority of editors will never see it. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have notified editors at WP:FILM, WP:TV, WP:MCU, DC Universe (franchise), and Sony's Spider-Man Universe. I think that should cover all the articles impacted so far by this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- For a lot of these pages, the relevant policy isn't WP:SELFPUB, but WP:BLPSPS, since the InSneider is self publishing reporting about living people (e.g. A didn't role B, C got fired because of D, E might be in F). BLPSPS is a bright-line rule and while WP:IAR exists, superhero movie rumours isn't going to justify that. This is especially true when non-selfpublished exist to cover the same claims or when WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies.
- For example, your revert at Black Widow (2021 film) restored The InSneider when the material in the sentence is already fully supported by the already cited The Hollywood Reporter piece and your revert at X-Men '97 restored material alleging very specific allegations of sexual misconduct with young men that is corroborated by independent sources . I've reverted the latter given the serious BLP issues there.
- It's less of an issue when the BLP-connection is less direct such as when it's talking about a film production in general (e.g. G starts filming in H, I was delayed to J, K is in development at L), but even SELFPUB recommends replacing with better sources when possible and I highlighted some reliability issues with Sneider above.
- I have also notified WP:BLPN since this touches on BLPSPS. -- Patar knight - /contributions 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are forgetting that there is a very big distinction between Sneider's pieces written for Collider and other RS and those he written on his own blog. He speculates much more and gives unverified, evidence-free information on his blog than he does when working with publications, and he isn't impeded by an editor or journalistic oversight in his own website.
- If you want to see proof that Sneider has made false and provably false claims on his own website before, then there's compilations of all the time he has made false claims thanks to the people at the subreddit for Marvel spoilers. Among the falsehoods he has promoted on his site include that the Fantastic Four movie would start filming in March, that Adam Driver was cast as Doom, that Jack Quaid was cast as Johnny Storm, and that Tom Holland was going to appear as a full role in Across the Spider-Verse. Sneider should be used in articles only when he is writing for reliable sources, otherwise we are inviting unsourced and oftentimes completely imagined speculation on our pages. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh wow, so he's basically correct about 2/3 of the time. Not terrible, I guess for online postings, but this would seem to fall well-short for WP:SELFPUB purposes, much less making an exception for WP:BLPSPS. -- Patar knight - /contributions 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we should be letting some people from a Reddit community dictate what they think is true or false to determine notability on this encyclopedia. I understand Sneider gets a bad rap from some people and in the press, but he does qualify as a WP:Subject-matter expert in the field of entertainment news. I am subscribed to his newsletter and Sneider does a pretty good job clarifying what he is actually reporting from what are his own opinions and beliefs. A lot of what he says in his newsletter tends to be blown out of proportion or taken out of context, and not everything pans out in the film industry. For the Sydney Sweeney thing, I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart and thus, Cruz came onboard, not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading. A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions (because they get ad revenue from major companies involved) but Sneider has a good track record of reporting on industry details, deals, and events as they are in progress, which goes for the Fantastic Four castings and Black Widow. I have been working on adding third-party sources for some of his recent newsletter issues being cited to help make verifying his reports easier, though this takes time. I do not agree with removing his published articles from Collider, Variety, or his newsletter outright as we cannot disregard a source simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT or you don't believe in it. We go by WP:Verifiability, not truth, and report all the facts as presented, which is how an encyclopedia ought to be. I have not found any instances to my immediate recollection where editors cited a Sneider report only for it to be proven intentionally wrong or misleading. The Madame Web report was not disputed or debunked, and the recent reports of Superman and Beyond the Spider-Verse have since been clarified as a matter of semantics, not actually being intentional false news reporting on Sneider's part. A lot of what he says is regurgitated through aggregators and social media which tends to be less reliable or transparent than what he actually says in his newsletter or on his podcast The Hot Mic. I would not go as far as to say Sneider's newsletter reporting is "speculation", as he is an independent working journalist with 20+ years of experience in this profession. He knows his stuff but gets a lot of bad publicity from his social media activity and because some of his reporting hits a nerve with select communities. I would consider him a reliable source, but with clarification needed to specify when he is making an educated guess or providing an opinion alongside what he is reporting from his industry sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, because @Tinynanorobots questioned what Sneider's sources are, I suppose it ought to be explained that every journalist gets their information from sources. These individuals are usually people who work within the industry they are reporting about, so they are often talent agents, managers, PR workers, producers, involved creatives in a production, etc. who have first-hand information and provide information as a tip to a journalist. Most of these sources prefer to remain anonymous, so we cannot just find who his sources are to verify their tips. That's just not how this industry works. Filming schedules and castings change all the time, so to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false, and if you have any reliable sources saying Sneider specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report, that should be presented rather than just going off of some editors' opinions of a controversial figure. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Anonymously-sourced reporting obviously can be used in RSs, but you're not really making a strong case for reliability and encyclopedic quality by defending Sneider with
to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false,
. In respect to the Holland thing, it's not a good look to be confidently stating things about major casting at the tail end of February 2023 that then don't pan out upon release in at the end of May that year. Maybe he was right at the time, though no one else has corroborated this from what I can tell, but even then he would've published too early given he was ultimately wrong. specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report
would meet the standard for defamation of a public figure, but it isn't the standard for assessing if a particular source is reliable or a good indicator of if something is encyclopedic. If someone gets a lot of stuff wrong in good faith, they're still not reliable, especially in WP:BLPSPS situations. -- Patar knight - /contributions 05:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- Yes, using anonymous sources is common in journalism, but is not standard. The standard is to cite their sources. Sure, NYT and WaPo don't always follow their own guidelines on anonymous sources. Usually such guidelines involve mentioning that the information is from an anonymous source and giving clues as to the credibility of the source. When including information from anonymous sources, wikipedia should follow suite. If the NYT cites a "source close to the president" for a claim, the wikipedia article should also mention a "source close to the president" So how much info does Sneider give?
- Also, information should be verified. This might involve asking another source if they object to the publication of the information. Also, really, the studio should be asked to comment. If there is not a comment from the studio or a line saying that comment was sought, then best practices have not been followed.
- The idea that Sneider is a SME is questionable. The reporting in question seems to be a matter of insider knowledge not expertise. Basically, people are leaking the information to Sneider or gossiping to him about who will get the part. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Anonymously-sourced reporting obviously can be used in RSs, but you're not really making a strong case for reliability and encyclopedic quality by defending Sneider with
- FYI, we are also not here to be WP:Righting great wrongs. It is completely acceptable to note what an SME reports about an industry topic they have been covering for two decades now. The reports should be judged on a case-by-case basis to determine if Sneider has ever actually intentionally made any false or misleading statements and passed them off as a report directly by himself, and not by sheer opinion or a lack of or misunderstanding of the filmmaking process and journalistic procedures. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if he is 100% correct (which he isn't), none of his tweets and InSneider reports can be used per WP:BLPSPS to verify anything about living people since they are self-published. There's presumably no issue with his work in non-self-published sources with editorial control like Collider, but for the self-published stuff in respect to living people (e.g. castings, cut scenes, staffing), Misplaced Pages has a bright line rule against it. The only stuff that is even allowed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for self-published stories would be for instances where it's being used for stuff that is general enough to not really implicate BLP (e.g. filming schedules, runtime, episode length). -- Patar knight - /contributions 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The whole sum of BLPSPS is that no self-published blogs may be used. Sneider's publishing is via a newsletter and is part of his job as a journalist. In what ways are his newsletter reports violating any core and basic BLP policies or how are they of a major concern to it beyond the X-Men '97 allegations. A lot of journalists nowadays are posting on their own outside of major trades or news organizations because those options have become more prevalent to do so. Anonymous sourcing is also how all journalists operate, so if we say journalists who post on their own cannot be cited as reliable sources for doing their job without disclosing their sources and having a company watch over them, that sets a very bad precedent for the freedom of the press and what we actually allow to be included, let alone mentioned, in this encyclopedia. If it applies to Sneider, it ought to apply to all self-published journalists and newsletters, and I don't see how that could go well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's a misreading of BLPSPS, which says:
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—
(emphasis added). Unless there's a clear organizational structure (e.g. 404 Media), most newsletters are little more than self-published blogs. There's tons of great journalists with their own newsletters that I think are most likely reliable that I would love to cite (though Sneider may not be one of them), but BLPSPS is crystal clear on this front and for good reason. If you want to start a new discussion somewhere (here, WP:BLPN WT:BLP, etc.) on whether we should move to a case-by-case basis for journalistic SPSs, you can do that, but until then BLPSPS is policy and can't be overridden by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Don't really care about the anonymous sources issue, since that is an accepted norm for journalists. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- Not all of the instances of Sneider's reports are about people themselves. They are primarily about the Hollywood projects which naturally involve people's jobs and castings. I fail to see how a technicality should prevent us from using a decent source at all. If the issue is of verification, find a third-party source verifying the report. This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that.
The InSneider can be separately assessed for reliability for any claims not about living people, but as WP:BLP makes clear in the first sentence, it applies regardless of if the article is a biography or not, so the fact that Sneider is cited on movie articles is immaterial in respect to WP:BLPSPS.- There's been multiple discussions on this noticeboard about Substack and other newsletters involving much more prominent journalists than Sneider and the consensus has always been that BLPSPS bars their use in respect to living people unless the publication has editorial oversight and a reputation for reliability (e.g. Glenn Greenwald , David Sirota , Matt Taibbi , in general )
- I don't object to the underlying facts per say if they are indeed verifiable through third-party sources. I did try to find non-self-published sources that independently corroborated what Sneider reported, and replaced InSneider with them when I did. I only removed when I was unable to do so. WP:BLPRESTORE makes it clear that the onus to restore material removed for BLP issues is on those who want to restore it to do so in a policy-compliant way, which seems unlikely since nothing in this section has challenged the individually self-published nature of InSneider. -- Patar knight - /contributions 21:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not all of the instances of Sneider's reports are about people themselves. They are primarily about the Hollywood projects which naturally involve people's jobs and castings. I fail to see how a technicality should prevent us from using a decent source at all. If the issue is of verification, find a third-party source verifying the report. This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's a misreading of BLPSPS, which says:
- The whole sum of BLPSPS is that no self-published blogs may be used. Sneider's publishing is via a newsletter and is part of his job as a journalist. In what ways are his newsletter reports violating any core and basic BLP policies or how are they of a major concern to it beyond the X-Men '97 allegations. A lot of journalists nowadays are posting on their own outside of major trades or news organizations because those options have become more prevalent to do so. Anonymous sourcing is also how all journalists operate, so if we say journalists who post on their own cannot be cited as reliable sources for doing their job without disclosing their sources and having a company watch over them, that sets a very bad precedent for the freedom of the press and what we actually allow to be included, let alone mentioned, in this encyclopedia. If it applies to Sneider, it ought to apply to all self-published journalists and newsletters, and I don't see how that could go well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if he is 100% correct (which he isn't), none of his tweets and InSneider reports can be used per WP:BLPSPS to verify anything about living people since they are self-published. There's presumably no issue with his work in non-self-published sources with editorial control like Collider, but for the self-published stuff in respect to living people (e.g. castings, cut scenes, staffing), Misplaced Pages has a bright line rule against it. The only stuff that is even allowed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for self-published stories would be for instances where it's being used for stuff that is general enough to not really implicate BLP (e.g. filming schedules, runtime, episode length). -- Patar knight - /contributions 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your lengthy examination of Sneider as a reliable source. I think a potential compromise that I hope the editors here could agree on- is to restructure all current citations to his self-published website so that it clearly states that it is journalist Jeff Sneider reporting. The example on The Fantastic Four: First Steps that spurred me to open up this discussion in the first place, for example:
Additionally, the character Mole Man is expected to appear, and Robert Downey Jr. is expected to appear as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.
- could be reworded to:
Journalist Jeff Sneider reported in 2024 that the character Mole Man is expected to appear, as well as Robert Downey Jr. as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.
- This would be done for every single citation that uses his personal site. I see your arguments defending his inclusion as a verifiable source, but I also feel as the central issue here- that a lot of pages take him at face value as equivalent to official news from Deadline or Marvel Studios themselves, should still be rectified. We could also add him to the RS list as a source that can be used in the articles with attribution only.
- Thoughts? @Trailblazer101 @Patar knight @Adamstom.97 HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- For anything that involves stories about living people, this would be BLP violation, attribution or not, since The InSneider is a self-published source and that's barred by WP:SPS. If no other sources are writing about it besides a self-published report from Sneider, that's a good indicator that we shouldn't include it on Misplaced Pages. Attribution for stuff like "Mole Man" might be okay depending on Sneider's reliability and how tied that is to a specific actor in the text. -- Patar knight - /contributions 06:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I support attribution being applied to Sneider's reports, and most of the instances where his reports are used already do this in prose while third-party refs are being added to them. The BLP violation reads to me like a bit of a stretch with semantics itself and could probably be re-evaluated when it comes to journalists reporting as part of their job. Reporting on allegations should not be a reason to be barred as a source when major news outlets do the same. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Reporting on allegations a reason to be barred as a source
is a straw man. Major news outlets have a reputation for fact checking and reliability, while Sneider has had multiple confirmed reports not pan out. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- Which ones have not panned out? Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sweeny, Lindelof, and Holland make at least three incorrect reports in approximately a year. If I did more spot checks from the spreadsheet, there would probably be more. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, not everything in Hollywood pans out. That does not mean the reports were false. Unless other independent sources confirmed they were false, you are assuming they were not true, which draws into some dangerous POV issues here on your apparent bias. I have asked you to provide sources which confirm Sneider's reports were false, and you have provided none of the sort. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Lots of stuff in all kinds of different fields don't pan out. However, if a source often reports things as confirmed and they don't pan out, there's a reliability/jumping the gun issue and its starts falling into unencyclopedic WP:RUMOUR territory. The end result is that Sneider either misjudged how correct the story originally was or how likely that status quo was going to remain. If you look at the Deadline and Variety archives, they only reported on certainties in respect to the Sweeey/Holland/Lindelof stories (i.e. Cruz hiring/nothing/hiring and departure).
- Genuine question, does Sneider ever issue corrections/retractions or do retrospectives on why he got stories wrong? Obviously sometimes reliable sources get it wrong, and the proper thing to do in that case is to issue corrections/retractions.
- I think I've seen only even heard of Sneider once before (when the X-Men '97/Beau DeMayo story was happening) so to accuse me of bias is wild when you've created a position where it is functionally unfalsifiable that Sneider could ever be wrong. If it pans out, he was correct. If it doesn't, he was correct but things changed afterwards, despite in many cases no reliable sources backing up his original story. Sneider isn't important enough for something like the Columbia Journalism Review or an an actual reliable source to investigate his methods and he uses anonymous sources (which isn't an issue in and of itself) so it's essentially impossible to prove if any of his reports are false in a way that would satisfy you. -- Patar knight - /contributions 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that is an argument for waiting until things are officially announced, before putting them in the article. The problem isn't Sneider, but the kind of reporting that he is doing. He is reporting other people's predictions. He also isn't a SME. He is a reporter that chases leads and reports what may be hearsay or leaks or outright lies by his sources. He is reporting on Hollywood, after all. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, not everything in Hollywood pans out. That does not mean the reports were false. Unless other independent sources confirmed they were false, you are assuming they were not true, which draws into some dangerous POV issues here on your apparent bias. I have asked you to provide sources which confirm Sneider's reports were false, and you have provided none of the sort. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sweeny, Lindelof, and Holland make at least three incorrect reports in approximately a year. If I did more spot checks from the spreadsheet, there would probably be more. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which ones have not panned out? Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @HadesTTW: I just saw that you pinged me in this message. I agree that a good resolution here would be to add Sneider to the RS list as an SME for entertainment reporting as long as he is attributed, and potentially with the caveat that his self-published sources should be replaced with non-self-published sources if available. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- You can spot check the examples used and some definitely seem to hold up as poor reporting. Besides the Holland/Across the Spider-Verse example I discussed above another one I spot checked was this comment made March 9, 2023, in which Sneider says it's 100% confirmed that Damon Lindelof's Star Wars film would be coming out in December 2025 film. On March 21, 2023, Lindelof's departure is announced.
I am subscribed to his newsletter
Can you confirm if the quotation from the post I cited is correct then? It matched the title of this post from InSneider and it went unchallenged in the thread and seemed to match the style from what I've found.not everything pans out in the film industry.
,I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart...not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading.
andA lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions
. I don't think Sneider is maliciously creating false reports or anything, but if he's reporting too early on things that aren't confirmed yet while the major trade publications are reporting when it's certain, that does not bode well for his reliability nor for the encyclopedic value of his coverage (WP:NOTNEWS).removing his published articles from Collider, Variety
Pretty sure no one here is suggesting that. The main issue is WP:BLPSPS and then reliability as a WP:SPS. -- Patar knight - /contributions 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- Sneider's report and those quotes are correct from his newsletter. I have no idea what "thread" you are referring to, but a lot can change and happen in the 12 days between Sneider saying Lindelof's film was confirmed for that release and when Lindelof ultimately exited the film. That's just how Hollywood, and all of business, pans out. You can't seriously hold that against Sneider to say his statement is false when Disney's Star Wars films have pretty much languished with development hell issues for years. Even major trades report on projects in early development and when directors or writers are in talks. That's just what the trades do. They report on the production process, which is always in flux. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the confirmation. I copied the quotation from a Reddit thread from a film podcast subreddit which I linked in my comment above. I dealt with how the other trades operate and the issues with using Sneider for the truth of what he's reporting above, so I won't repeat them here. -- Patar knight - /contributions 22:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sneider's report and those quotes are correct from his newsletter. I have no idea what "thread" you are referring to, but a lot can change and happen in the 12 days between Sneider saying Lindelof's film was confirmed for that release and when Lindelof ultimately exited the film. That's just how Hollywood, and all of business, pans out. You can't seriously hold that against Sneider to say his statement is false when Disney's Star Wars films have pretty much languished with development hell issues for years. Even major trades report on projects in early development and when directors or writers are in talks. That's just what the trades do. They report on the production process, which is always in flux. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, because @Tinynanorobots questioned what Sneider's sources are, I suppose it ought to be explained that every journalist gets their information from sources. These individuals are usually people who work within the industry they are reporting about, so they are often talent agents, managers, PR workers, producers, involved creatives in a production, etc. who have first-hand information and provide information as a tip to a journalist. Most of these sources prefer to remain anonymous, so we cannot just find who his sources are to verify their tips. That's just not how this industry works. Filming schedules and castings change all the time, so to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false, and if you have any reliable sources saying Sneider specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report, that should be presented rather than just going off of some editors' opinions of a controversial figure. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Alrighty, I wrote the below on The Acolyte (TV series) and I'm copying this below.
Jeff Sneider being used as a source in Hollywood reporting.
Jeff Sneider's reports, found in his TheInSneider blog and also Above the Line, have been covered in several other reliable sources.
His career besides his self-published blog: He has had two notable tenures at TheWrap, and in between those two tenures, he had a stint at Variety covering the film industry. This is confirmed here, with information here on his tenure at Variety. Collider also has him listed as Senior Film Reporter, and says he did work at Ain't It Cool News before his venture into trade publications, and at one point he contributed reports for Mashable.
These following perennial sources have cited his self-published blog, exemplifying WP:USEBYOTHERS:
- Forbes describes him here as, "Jeff Sneider, an industry insider and reporter", and covers his reporting, even providing a link to another site he contributes to, Above the Line.
- and here's him reporting that Kaitlyn Dever was chosen to play Abby in the second season of The Last of Us, which ended up being spot-on correct, via NME:
- per a Vox Media publication, New York (magazine)'s own Vulture, covers one of his reports here
- Screen Rant, (noted in the perennial source list as
considered reliable for entertainment-related topics
but not forcontroversial statements related to living persons
, which in this case, we're sort of concerned about that stuff in relation to Sneider's reporting) covers Sneider in many, many instances.
- Screen Rant, (noted in the perennial source list as
- and reported by Screen Rant here is an InSneider report that The Bikeriders, (a film with Austin Butler and Norman Reedus) was dropped by Disney's 20th Century Studios. Sneider's report ended up being true, as Disney let the rights go to Focus Features.
- And Variety - reporting on the InSneider report mentioned above concerning Bikeriders, right here. Can hardly get better than trade publications.
- Deadline Hollywood - reports that Sneider was the first to get the news that the Russo brothers were coming back for Avengers 5 and Avengers 6.
- via The Hollywood Reporter - Sneider first reported that Jeremy Allen White was playing Jabba the Hutt's son in The Mandalorian & Grogu.
BarntToust 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I also find the Mary Sue story about Johnny Depp and Sydney Sweeney to be drama mongering. Their punchline about Sneider's story amounted to "and internet users were pissed about the actress potentially working with the subject of the Amber Heard lawsuit" - like who cares about internet people being ticked? Was there doxxing? was anonymous or a world government involved? No!
- If Sneider gets something wrong, nobody gets mangled or tangibly harmed. The WP:BLPSPS policy is for claims concerning living people themselves, not films and casting processes or anything of the like. and for randoms who are not, something that is not what Sneider is doing.
- Let's WikiLawyer the concept of this policy and apply it to the Moon. Even though the chunk of rock is the subject of the article, there are parts of the article for the Moon which concern living people, like Buzz Aldrin and how he walked on it. Holy hell! the very association of living people to a subject of an article clearly not about people means we must NEVER use any WP:EXPERTSPS about the Moon in the article because it is WP:BLPSPS.
- I don't think that Sneider should be used to state facts about casting. I certainly don't believe we need to add a person to a cast list because he says something on his podcast: while I question his nature of jumping the gun on reports, I don't believe the rationale should be that the info he reports is concerning a living person. I figured that saying RDJ was gonna be in Fantastic Four was bold, but it's concerning that a character is going to be in a film, not some claim about a person's life and times. Besides his casting scoops, I think he gives worthy insight into the film industry and its processes. I think that his branding is corny and I'm concerned that once he implied a joke about suicide after losing a scoop to a THR reporter but hey, Kubrick was cruel yet he was still held in high regard for his work. Same thing for Sneider. BarntToust 21:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, I started this discussion because I was bothered by the Fantastic Four page where he's used for the cast list. I hope we are able to at least agree that he shouldn't be cited without attribution, lest he gets something wrong (not maliciously, but because his sources may have been wrong, or events changed in the production process that he was not aware of). Advocating him to be deprecated for BLP violations is a massive stretch that I do not agree with- he's generally reliable, and I trust that his self-published site can be used for article content. He just shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Precisely. I agree with all of that. The Fantastic Four page's cast section is something that is being discussed at Talk:The Fantastic Four: First Steps and would be best handled there rather than here, though I agree with the core points with the attribution and use with non-BLP content. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's best if we formalize it here, anyways. It's my hope that we can get a consensus enough to write an entry on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which would be helpful for everyone editing CBM articles that refer to his claims. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would prefer listing Sneider at perennial sources. The WP:MCU taskforce already has an entry for his reports at WP:MCURS, for reference. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to note that this wouldn't meat the criteria for inclusion on the RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's best if we formalize it here, anyways. It's my hope that we can get a consensus enough to write an entry on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which would be helpful for everyone editing CBM articles that refer to his claims. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Precisely. I agree with all of that. The Fantastic Four page's cast section is something that is being discussed at Talk:The Fantastic Four: First Steps and would be best handled there rather than here, though I agree with the core points with the attribution and use with non-BLP content. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know, saying someone was going to get a job, and then it turns out they didn't might have a negative effect on their career. A casting director might wonder why they weren't chosen. This is just speculation, and it probably helps the actors, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. The stakes are low either way, and it makes sense to wait for an official announcement. As it has been said, things don't always pan out. Speculation on casting seems like news to me. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, I started this discussion because I was bothered by the Fantastic Four page where he's used for the cast list. I hope we are able to at least agree that he shouldn't be cited without attribution, lest he gets something wrong (not maliciously, but because his sources may have been wrong, or events changed in the production process that he was not aware of). Advocating him to be deprecated for BLP violations is a massive stretch that I do not agree with- he's generally reliable, and I trust that his self-published site can be used for article content. He just shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- All three of the listed Forbes articles are written by Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry), which are generally unreliable due to lack of editorial oversight. Please note that Forbes.com contributor articles do not count toward WP:USEBYOTHERS. As a policy, WP:BLPSPS takes precedence over the WP:USEBYOTHERS guideline. — Newslinger talk 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- alright, we can consider the other 97 out of 100 joking exaggeration sources I've laid down here. We've still got use by Hollywood trades, reliable entertainment websites, and other popular sources. My point stands still. BarntToust 02:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe that Sneider's reporting of casting is 90% of the time on point, but the margin of error warrants attribution and additional consideration. I do not believe that info about a person being cast in a film constitutes personal information, and thus I believe that BLP does not apply to that extent. I believe additional considerations and attributions should apply for the first reason, rather than depreciation for a grossly WikiLawyered reading of BLP policy. I believe he is considered reliable for general behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood, having been at it for a long-o time and that he would know about these things. BarntToust 02:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLPSPS is a bright-line rule that prevents self-published sources from being used for third-party claims "about a living person". The policy is phrased with the word "Never" to emphasize that routine exceptions for claims such as film castings are not appropriate. This language is repeated in the WP:SPS policy in more explicit terms: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Like the remainder of WP:BLP, this rule applies to all claims about living persons, and not just "personal information". — Newslinger talk 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. We seem to agree to not use it as a third-party source. We seem to agree to give Sneider attribution and consideration of due weight in these reports he does.
- If there are any concerns, I suggest you turn to the great policy that is ignore all rules. BarntToust 02:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by
behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood
? Like what a gaffer is? Or the type of camera used? Or does he know more about things like how casting directors and location scouts work? I thought he was a reporter that covered the Hollywood beat. Does he do anything besides report what industry people tell him? Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)- I wonder if reporting what industry people tell you is, uh, what trade journalism is the definition of? BarntToust 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think he is a trade journalist, either. A trade journal covers an industry with people in that industry as the target audience. Jeff Sneider describes him as an Entertainment Journalist and describes him writing for publications aimed at the general public. His own website describes itself as
Scoops and insider analysis
. This isn't about being an expert, it is about being in the know and chasing down leads. A lot of the articles are even labelled "Hot Rumor". He is a reporter, he reports things. The nature of what he reports means that it involves making predictions as well as discussing rumours and other gossip. A lot of it involves upcoming movies, that is, events that haven't happened yet. It also means a lot of his stuff isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)- know what? I think his insights have merit. Glad to see you found the article about the journalist that I wrote. Did you see the part where he threatened to drive his car into a tree when he lost a Christopher Nolan scoop, then got fired from Variety? Or when he said something racially insensitive and got fired from Mashable? I personally enjoyed the part where he went on about getting his butt kicked by Uwe Boll in a boxing match.
- Anybody think that he does a self-published newsletter because he can't hold down a job? BarntToust 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- It did strike me as surprisingly negative considering the defence he is getting here. It is basically a hit piece. The boxing thing was confusing, it is probably undue. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reliable sources describe Sneider the way that they do, so that should be reflected in the article. This is a rationale that is based on a concept which is probably best explained by Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
- As for the boxing match, that is a notable event he was involved in. Fighting the director of one of the worst films is plenty notable for inclusion. BarntToust 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- It did strike me as surprisingly negative considering the defence he is getting here. It is basically a hit piece. The boxing thing was confusing, it is probably undue. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think he is a trade journalist, either. A trade journal covers an industry with people in that industry as the target audience. Jeff Sneider describes him as an Entertainment Journalist and describes him writing for publications aimed at the general public. His own website describes itself as
- I wonder if reporting what industry people tell you is, uh, what trade journalism is the definition of? BarntToust 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLPSPS is a bright-line rule that prevents self-published sources from being used for third-party claims "about a living person". The policy is phrased with the word "Never" to emphasize that routine exceptions for claims such as film castings are not appropriate. This language is repeated in the WP:SPS policy in more explicit terms: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Like the remainder of WP:BLP, this rule applies to all claims about living persons, and not just "personal information". — Newslinger talk 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I like Paul Tassi's work, but per WP:FORBESCON, he can't be used in USEBYOTHERS analysis. However, he, like the other links in this post generally refer to Sneider's reports as in terms of rumors instead of certainties. The one exception is Screen Rant article, where it is corroborated by THR, and they suddenly switch to writing in certainties. The last three links here from the major trades are clearly doing their own independent corroboration of Sneider's story and doing the polite thing in journalism and crediting him with being the first to break the news.
- As for accuracy, many of the links were about the Beatles casting, which Sneider was actually wrong about Charlie Rowe as George Harrison, which was immediately denied, and ultimately ended up being wrong. The many commentary pieces about the rumored casting that it sparked might justify inclusion, but the miss doesn't speak well to his reliability. So even from your own links, it seems that for content that doesn't run afoul of WP:BLPSPS and is encyclopedic enough to include, it would have to be attributed and written as though it's a certainty. -- Patar knight - /contributions 04:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I have not kept up with this discussion over the holidays but I see a bunch of dubious arguments have taken place. Trailblazer was correct above when he said that Sneider makes it clear when he is noting rumours versus reporting on something that his sources have confirmed to him, and the high-profile instances where he "got something wrong" are not examples of him lying but clearly examples of things being true or potentially true at the time which did not pan out. Several instances have been mentioned where a potential casting was reported but did not pan out. That is not a lie or a "miss" or anything of the sort, he is reporting on people being eyed by a studio or even entering negotiations but he can't guarantee that everything will work out in the end, and his wording reflects that. The exact same can be said for any of the Hollywood trades who have reported on potential casting that ended up falling through. The level of scrutiny being put on the accuracy of his reporting here is a bit ridiculous considering the same would not be done if he was still writing for TheWrap or Variety, which is what WP:SELFPUB protects. If any of these reports had come from a journalist who was still working at the trades we would not be having this conversation at all. As for WP:BLPSPS, its wording is oddly vague. "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person" -- what does that even mean? Any sentence that mentions a living person cannot be sourced to any self-published source, regardless of what that source is or what the sentence says? If an expert on the life of Donald Trump had a meeting with him and then tweeted out something Trump had said, we could not include that in any articles even if it was not a detail about Trump's personal life? I think it is crazy to say that we can't use a tweet or a blog post from a person we otherwise consider to be reliable to note when an actor is being considered for a role in a film or that they may have a scheduling conflict that could prevent them from doing a certain job. I am sure the wording at BLPSPS could not have been meant to prevent that. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- In your example, if that expert's tweet contained anything of substance, a reliable source would mention it, and you would be free to cite that reliable source. Alternatively, you could wait until the WP:BLP policy no longer applies to Trump, although I highly doubt that the tweet would constitute due weight in any Misplaced Pages article if no reliable source mentions the tweet by that time. In all other cases, yes, WP:BLPSPS would prohibit that tweet from being cited on Misplaced Pages to support a claim about Trump, despite the tweet being written by an expert, because the tweet is self-published. — Newslinger talk 22:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- The WP:SPS policy, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer", is as explicit as can be. That longstanding requirement has been part of the verifiability policy since February 2007, and part of the biography of living persons policy when it became a policy in July 2006. (It was added to the latter page as a guideline requirement in April 2006.) If you would like to contest these policies, you are free to do so on their respective talk pages. — Newslinger talk 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to mention the wording in WP:V, as it's more explicit, but Newslinger beat me to it. I've found this annoying in the past, where the project of a living person is detailed in a otherwise reliable third party self-published source. However that exact situation is meant to be covered (and excluded) by it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I and others have said, the policies against self-published sources used for anything about living people is a bright line rule. And as for WP:DUEWEIGHT and ignoring the self-published/BLP issue, if the only source that mentions an aspect of an article subject is a self-published newsletter, then it would more likely to be undue to include based on the proportion of RS coverage. Misplaced Pages is not the great place to right great wrongs about what reliable sources should be covering. -- Patar knight - /contributions 06:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- When I went through and removed most of the mainspace uses of InSneider, the overwhelming majority were reports of people being cast, people being considered for a acting/directing role, when an already cast role was going to make a secret appearance in a film, or creative decisions that can only be made by a very small number of people at a studio (i.e. director, producer, executives) that the guidance at WP:BLPGROUP leans towards applying the policy.
- If something aligns with what other reliable sources have said, then it would be best to use what those sources have said instead of a SPS. But in any case, UNDUE is not an avenue to bring in content that doesn't meet our verifiability/sourcing policies. -- Patar knight - /contributions 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, we are not writing a biography about James Gunn or Peter Safran and using Sneider to source claims about their person. Sneider is used to write about the particulars of film production.
- One side of this discussion is looking at the forest, while the other side is focused on the trees. BarntToust 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- BLPGROUP doesn't seem to be relevant to this discussion, it is talking about "corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons" and specifically refers to harmful claims, neither of which apply here. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- The subsection is about when BLP applies to "legal persons" AND "groups". It does not displace WP:BLPSPS and in no way limits the applicability of BLP to groups to instances of potentially harmful material.
- The first part of the paragraph is a clarification about how legal persons existing as a term of art in law doesn't mean that they are always covered by BLP, which is meant to protect natural persons. The second half of the paragraph applies to all groups and tells us to look at each group on a case by case basis to see where it fits on the spectrum between groups that are small enough that BLP should apply and ones where they are too large. The part about harm is simply noting it is part of the analysis. For creative decisions on films, the people actually making that decision would be very small, so it should attract BLP protections, which means BLPSPS applies. -- Patar knight - /contributions 03:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Besides the stories involving named people where BLP would obviously apply, the level of creative decisions that InSneider reports on and that Misplaced Pages uses him for are those that would clearly be attributable to a very small number of people (5-10 max). They're typically stuff such as what projects a studio is considering, what characters will be cast, and what the plot of film will be about.
- We're not using InSneider for lower-level stuff like what belt buckle was used on a particular costume, what brand of communication devices the PAs use, or what shade of a color was used in a particular CGI shot. -- Patar knight - /contributions 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of due weight, we are fine. #2: ignore all rules. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see #Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson on this very page. NYT censored CEO killer Luigi Mangione's face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If general association, not even direct, with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ignore all rules. BarntToust 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The one policy that WP:IAR does not bypass is consensus. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the WP:BLPSPS and the WP:SPS policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like Fandom – which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful", particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. — Newslinger talk 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- A few editors here are trying to stretch the BLPSPS and SPS policies to prevent Sneider from being used at all, which shouldn't override the existing community consensus and clear evidence that he is a reliable source for film-related reporting. HadesTTW suggested wording that is a good start towards a common-sense solution where Sneider is used, with attribution, for reports on film-related coverage where better sources do not exist. This should lead to a compromise, with Sneider being used in situations where his reports are improving articles while editors become more aware of whether he should be used (and not using him in situations where his reports genuinely fall into BLPSPS territory, could be replaced by a better source, or some other issue such as DUEWEIGHT). All that is preventing us from moving on to that conclusion and ending this discussion is the idea that BLPSPS and SPS apply to every little mention of a living person in a source, which I maintain is ridiculous and inappropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you do not agree with excluding self-published sources from being used for claims about living persons, you may propose a change to the relevant policies at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons. What you believe is "ridiculous and inappropriate" is actually how these policies have been applied on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, per community consensus. — Newslinger talk 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I never said I was against the central ideas of BLPSPS, I completely understand why we want to have a higher standard of verifiability when it comes to exceptional/controversial claims about real people who may take issue with said claims. That makes sense from multiple angles. What I take issue with is using the same standard for non-exceptional claims that happen to involve people. In my opinion, there is a very big difference between not trusting a SPS to report on claims of sexual misconduct (which I accept) and not trusting them to report on basic casting and filming details for a movie. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- exactly! If I actually paid any attention to X-Men 97, I would have rm'd that in a hot second. Sneider making claims that Beau DeMayo was doing heinous stuff to his staffers is some outrageous content that I would insist we wait on reports by NYT or WaPo or The Times, any particular source of merit to include those claims in the article. Outrageous claims require usage of especially reliable sources like newspapers of record. BarntToust 19:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the 18 years since that BLPSPS policy was enacted, the industry of journalism has changed drastically with a variety of seasoned journalists and subject-matter experts publishing their reports on their own accord, and I believe it is about time that the policies are updated to compliment such changes to update with the times. I do not think Sneider's status as a self-published source should discount his reliability with his actual reporting in his newsletter, and am more than happy to raise concerns for the policy to be updated elsewhere, but that is not the central issue to determine reliability in this discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most people on this board are aware of the poor state of traditional journalism and the rise of indie outlets. I myself noted in a section below that Ken Klippenstein, who has a track record of good journalist work and whose stories I think are accurate, should nonetheless not be used without corroboration and/or discussion by non-SPS RSs because he's a BLPSPS. If any of you think there's appetite in moving from the current bright-line rule to another system for BLPSPSs (e.g. limited carve out where RSN endorses use with attribution), that might be a worthwhile discussion to have. As its stands though, BLPSPS is quite clear and the overwhelming majority of the uses of InSneider are in such cases.
- If we do want to go back to discussing the reliability of InSneider for non-BLP claims, I would start with something I asked earlier, are you as a subscriber to InSneider, able to provide examples of if he retracted, corrected, and/or explained why he missed on the Sweeney/Day Drinker, Holland/Spider-verse, Lindeloff/Star Wars stories? Getting a story wrong isn't fatal to use as a reliable source since even the best sources aren't 100%. However, for assessing new sources, correcting mistakes is an indicator of reliability (as long as the miss rate is not too high), but not addressing them is a sign of unreliability. -- Patar knight - /contributions 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The language in WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS does not provide an exemption for self-published content about other living persons that is deemed to be uncontroversial. The "central idea" of this requirement is to ensure that any claim (not just controversial claims) about a living person passes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing special about Sneider or his self-published newsletter that would warrant an exception to this requirement, which applies to every other individual who meets the WP:EXPERTSPS criterion. If anyone wants to amend this requirement, which has been applied on Misplaced Pages for more than 18 years, a discussion at WT:V, WT:BLP, or WP:VPP would be the first step to enact the change you are looking for. Such a change, if it gains community consensus, would apply to all sources of this kind and not just Sneider's content. Until then, the use of Sneider's self-published claims about other living persons remains a violation of core content policies. — Newslinger talk 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, that is your interpretation of the policies which is clearly not shared by all editors. I fear a discussion at one of those other places will have similar luck due to a few editors that like things the way they are, but I am happy to give it a go. As for wrapping up this discussion, I still think we should return to the wording that I suggested above in response to HadesTTW. I am not concerned about these apparent "misses" that Patar knight keeps harping on about. Some of these may have been genuinely wrong, but not many of them (which is the case with almost all reliable trade sources as well). Most would have been accurate at the time but then things changed due to the developing nature of films (i.e. Lindelof leaving his SW film, Driver being considered for FF but not getting the part). The Sweeney instance seems to be a blatant case of him getting it wrong and being called out immediately, but that one time isn't enough to make him an unreliable source especially when nearly everything else he has reported aligns with other sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've started a policy talk page discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability § Self-published claims about other living persons. — Newslinger talk 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, that is your interpretation of the policies which is clearly not shared by all editors. I fear a discussion at one of those other places will have similar luck due to a few editors that like things the way they are, but I am happy to give it a go. As for wrapping up this discussion, I still think we should return to the wording that I suggested above in response to HadesTTW. I am not concerned about these apparent "misses" that Patar knight keeps harping on about. Some of these may have been genuinely wrong, but not many of them (which is the case with almost all reliable trade sources as well). Most would have been accurate at the time but then things changed due to the developing nature of films (i.e. Lindelof leaving his SW film, Driver being considered for FF but not getting the part). The Sweeney instance seems to be a blatant case of him getting it wrong and being called out immediately, but that one time isn't enough to make him an unreliable source especially when nearly everything else he has reported aligns with other sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The language in WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS does not provide an exemption for self-published content about other living persons that is deemed to be uncontroversial. The "central idea" of this requirement is to ensure that any claim (not just controversial claims) about a living person passes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing special about Sneider or his self-published newsletter that would warrant an exception to this requirement, which applies to every other individual who meets the WP:EXPERTSPS criterion. If anyone wants to amend this requirement, which has been applied on Misplaced Pages for more than 18 years, a discussion at WT:V, WT:BLP, or WP:VPP would be the first step to enact the change you are looking for. Such a change, if it gains community consensus, would apply to all sources of this kind and not just Sneider's content. Until then, the use of Sneider's self-published claims about other living persons remains a violation of core content policies. — Newslinger talk 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I never said I was against the central ideas of BLPSPS, I completely understand why we want to have a higher standard of verifiability when it comes to exceptional/controversial claims about real people who may take issue with said claims. That makes sense from multiple angles. What I take issue with is using the same standard for non-exceptional claims that happen to involve people. In my opinion, there is a very big difference between not trusting a SPS to report on claims of sexual misconduct (which I accept) and not trusting them to report on basic casting and filming details for a movie. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you do not agree with excluding self-published sources from being used for claims about living persons, you may propose a change to the relevant policies at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons. What you believe is "ridiculous and inappropriate" is actually how these policies have been applied on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, per community consensus. — Newslinger talk 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- A few editors here are trying to stretch the BLPSPS and SPS policies to prevent Sneider from being used at all, which shouldn't override the existing community consensus and clear evidence that he is a reliable source for film-related reporting. HadesTTW suggested wording that is a good start towards a common-sense solution where Sneider is used, with attribution, for reports on film-related coverage where better sources do not exist. This should lead to a compromise, with Sneider being used in situations where his reports are improving articles while editors become more aware of whether he should be used (and not using him in situations where his reports genuinely fall into BLPSPS territory, could be replaced by a better source, or some other issue such as DUEWEIGHT). All that is preventing us from moving on to that conclusion and ending this discussion is the idea that BLPSPS and SPS apply to every little mention of a living person in a source, which I maintain is ridiculous and inappropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The one policy that WP:IAR does not bypass is consensus. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the WP:BLPSPS and the WP:SPS policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like Fandom – which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful", particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. — Newslinger talk 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of due weight, we are fine. #2: ignore all rules. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see #Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson on this very page. NYT censored CEO killer Luigi Mangione's face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If general association, not even direct, with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ignore all rules. BarntToust 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a particular problem with using Sneider as a source, as long as we attribute his speculations properly. He has a generally good track record and is used by reliable sources. But I have come across situations where we report his speculations as fact. When he has an expectation that is not attributed to an official or at least genuinely connected source, if we choose to report that expectation at all, it needs to be attributed as "Sneider's expectation that such and such will occur", not as a Wikivoice statement that "such and such will occur." Rlendog (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Telegram (software)
Once Telegram gets mentioned on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, its shortcuts would be WP:TELEGRAM and WP:RSPTELEGRAM.Telegram is unreliable because:
- Telegram is an alt-tech platform, which means that it is highly unreliable as a source because it is used by the alt-right to evade censorship and publish far-right opinions and pseudoscientific conspiracy theories.
- Telegram is a self-published source because it is a social networking service.
- Most far-right things (such as Red Ice, The Light (newspaper), and Nicholas J. Fuentes) have escaped to Telegram after getting suspended on several mainstream social networking services.
- Telegram has been described as a "safe haven for spammers and crypto scams" because of how most Telegram groups are flooded with cryptocurrency scammers and other types of spammers. However, t.me links are barely seen on Misplaced Pages (or i just don't see them often).
- Pavel Durov has been arrested in France.
Telegram would either be WP:GUNREL (like all other self-published sources) or WP:DEPREC (because it is alt-tech). However, if t.me links are commonly used to violate WP:NOTSOAPBOX, it would be WP:SPB.
67.209.128.52 (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware there was anyone suggesting that it might be reliable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Telegram doesn't need to be on the RSP, it's obviously unreliable and I don't see anyone arguing that it is reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's just a user-generated source (WP:USERGEN). Reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF claims and posts by respectable experts/journalists/reliable sources, unreliable generally. Ca 16:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Aside from the fact that the alt-right i.e. literal neo-Nazis use it (which is something you can say about almost every social media platform at this point), Telegram, as a platform where anyone can create content with no clear editorial oversight, is a self-published source and unreliable, except in cases such as basic self-descriptions. I thought this was pretty obvious. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson
Ken Klippenstein is cited in the Media outlets section of this article. He's an independent journalist who self-publishes and doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist. Reliable or not? I say no. Some other editors from that article might come here with more context. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- permalink of the 'Media outlets' section. Mr. Klippenstein is being used to cite:
Klippenstein also alleged that The New York Times directed their staff to "dial back" on showing photographs containing Mangione's face.
A report on the killing by the NYPD was obtained by independent journalist Dan Boguslaw, and published by Klippenstein on December 26. The report focused on Mangione's motive and people who express sympathy for him, whom they labeled as "extremists". Klippenstein alleged that multiple media outlets had access to the report, but selectively quoted it in a way that focused on Mangione. He said that "By withholding documents and unilaterally deciding which portions merit public disclosure, the media is playing god."
- Klippenstein, Ken (December 11, 2024). "NY Times Doesn't Want You to See Shooter's Face". kenklippenstein.com. Retrieved December 15, 2024.
- "Read the NYPD's Mangione report the media won't publish". Ken Klippenstein. Retrieved 28 December 2024.
- Some1 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's crap. "Media reactions" or "in the media" sections in Misplaced Pages articles too often, like this article, become dumpsters where Wikipedians simply like to show off how good they are at finding random sources and shoehorning them into an article, for reasons. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right, but the focus here is on the reliability of Ken Klippenstein and whether or not his statements (sourced to his own website and attributed) are usable in the article. Some1 (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist
That's not accurate, as you could have confirmed by checking out the references in the Klippenstein WP article that note that he's been a journalist for outlets like The Nation and The Intercept. Both of those are generally reliable on the RSP. He's also seen as serious by other journalists (e.g., in this Columbia Journalism Review interview, which describes him "as one of the most fearless reporters of the Trump era").- His self-published work cannot be used as a source for WP content about living or recently dead people (e.g., about Mangione's letter), per WP:BLPSPS. He could be used as a source on a BLP if the WP text sourced to him is not itself about a person (e.g., if it's about mainstream media). But in this case, I don't see how to disentangle his statements about the press from content about Mangione. Some other news outlets have reported a bit about the content currently sourced to Klippenstein, such as this Hill article, noting Klippenstein's apparent publication of Mangione's letter. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was just going to say something similar - it's definitely inaccurate to say he hasn't written for other reliable sources in the past. It's true that his own stuff would fall foul of WP:SPS, but his stuff picked up by other reliable sources is usable, conceptually, with proper context and attribution. Sergecross73 msg me Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hell no, get rid of this Kenny guy now. WP:BLPSPS: this content directly involves a living person (Luigi), and to make self-published claims about info regarding these living persons is against policy. And, Kenny boy over here is using his blog to write WP:BOLD things about an American newspaper of record. BarntToust 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- BarntToust - Dial it back a bit. WP:BLP applies to all BLP is all Misplaced Pages spaces. You calling him weird names like "Kenny Boy" probably doesn't constitute "written with the greatest care and attention". Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this was like WaPo or The Times writing this about NYT then yes I would support inclusion. This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here. "Ken" should be more concerned that he is writing damning blog posts accusing a reputable newspaper of compromised journalistic integrity. Who else will pick this up? Who else will corroborate this bold as all hell claim with trusted journalistic process? BarntToust 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- "This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here" is false, as is "he is writing damning blog posts." More than one person here has noted that he's a reliable journalist. Unbandito explained why he chose to start his own journalism Substack (not a blog). There are a number of established writers using Substack to host their reporting; here's WP's incomplete list. It's bizarre that you put his name in quotation marks, especially after calling him "this Kenny guy" and "Kenny boy." Nothing is stopping you from answering your own questions. I already noted a couple of sources that had picked it up; here's another. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I personally believe that bold claims against these news organisations need other comparable news organisations to corroborate them, to establish wp:due weight. the spreading of claims by sources who are especially biased and opinionated means nothing. "Ken" can make a bombshell accusation against NYT for spineless reporting but can we get The Guardian or some other prestigious institutions to back these claims? BarntToust 18:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- A reminder that WP:RS states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject," so I don't agree that his reporting "means nothing." This thread started off with the false claim that he "doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist" and the question "Reliable or not?" The false claim has been addressed. The question shows that people have different opinions. Whether some mention of Klippenstein is DUE is not a matter of reliability and belongs on the Talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Having been employed by two ultra-partisan outlets for some short period, and then by "The Young Turks" which is marginally better than InfoWars, does not indicate this individual's self-published works meet the encyclopedia's reliability standards. And it has not been shown that I made a false claim, only if you think these ultra-partisan sources are "mainstream". Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent, which is laughable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was employed by The Young Turks before he worked for The Nation and The Intercept, not after, and those aren't the only other media for which he's written. Partisanship doesn't determine whether a given media outlet is/isn't mainstream media. They're both listed on Harvard's Index of US Mainstream Media Ownership.
Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent
Please quote whomever you're referring to, because I don't see any comment suggesting that. I'd be happy to be corrected, but otherwise, it's counterproductive to characterize people's comments as more extreme than they actually are. Again: people clearly have different opinions about whether he's "Reliable or not?" You have your opinion, and I have mine. Personally, I consider the Columbia Journalism Review interview as evidence of his reliability; if they happen to focus on someone who's unreliable, I think they say so, as here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)- Funny, Misplaced Pages lists The Federalist as "generally unreliable due to its partisan nature" yet they're listed as mainstream on Harvard's index. Seems like some kinds of partisanship are more acceptable than others. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't claim or imply that all MSM on Harvard's list are reliable. Reliability, partisanship, and mainstream media status are all distinct dimensions. A source can fall into any one of their 8 combinations. The full RSP sentence is "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories." Maybe you think a source that promotes conspiracy theories is reliable, but I don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think a source promoting conspiracies is reliable, and I'm not disputing the decision against The Federalist. I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview, and I disagree. Even the content in question isn't just a professional critique of editorial decisions, but it's couched in nefarious undertones, even going so far as to accuse MSM of "playing god." Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here.
That's a very general claim for which you've provided no evidence and that also seems way beyond the scope of this particular thread.Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview...
Another very general claim, though this one at least touches on the thread's topic. Focusing just on Klippenstein, if you have evidence that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it. If you do have that evidence, then you really should have presented it when you first asked "Reliable or not?" FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- I would just refer you over to the article's talk page where discussion of this issue has continued, and a resolution has been reached. As to Klipp's conspiratorial worldview, see his latest media rant which I also submitted in talk.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how anything on the talk page provides evidence for your claim that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters," and either you have evidence of that or you don't. So far, it looks like you don't. The only thing I see in your link relative to a "conspiratorial worldview" is his claim that "every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is," which hardly rises to the level of "frequently." FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a taboo? BarntToust 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a BLP violation to keep calling him a conspiracy theorist is what it is. One that Jonathan f1 seems quite committed to. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like I explained to you on the talk page, I'm using his own words. He's alleging that politicians and major media outlets "conspired" against the public. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Him using a turn of phrase one time doesn't give us cause to start throwing insults at him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Please provide a couple of reliable sources calling Klippenstein a conspiracy theorist or desist immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- if it looks like a duck, do we need reliable sources? I don't think we should explicitly be throwing around the Alex Jones-word, but rather show don't tell. Keeps BLP vio away. BarntToust 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not putting him in the same bucket with Alex Jones, but his repeated attacks on major media followed by a remark about them "conspiring" with each other is what it is. But okay, to move past all this pointless tone policing, I'll find a new phrase. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- if it looks like a duck, do we need reliable sources? I don't think we should explicitly be throwing around the Alex Jones-word, but rather show don't tell. Keeps BLP vio away. BarntToust 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Him using a turn of phrase one time doesn't give us cause to start throwing insults at him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Please provide a couple of reliable sources calling Klippenstein a conspiracy theorist or desist immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like I explained to you on the talk page, I'm using his own words. He's alleging that politicians and major media outlets "conspired" against the public. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a BLP violation to keep calling him a conspiracy theorist is what it is. One that Jonathan f1 seems quite committed to. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to rehash his entire career as a journalist here, and particularly his time with The Young Turks which will certainly provide you with ample evidence of this. It isn't even relevant here -the articles in question are attack pieces where he is either implicating major media outlets in a plot or calling their journalistic ethics into question. That we are even debating inclusion with no corroboration from high-grade sources is remarkable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I said
if you have evidence that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it.
You're the one who made the claim, and you're the one with the burden of proof for it. Don't try to shift the burden onto me. I'm not "debating inclusion" of any specific edit right now. I'm telling you that if you can't or won't substantiate your claim, then you should retract it, as it's an unsubstantiated contentious claim and a BLP violation. The BLP policy applies to any statements about living persons on all WP pages, including this one. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- I'll retract it just to move on from this. My objection to Klippenstein in this particular case does not hinge on this little side issue. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I said
- is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a taboo? BarntToust 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how anything on the talk page provides evidence for your claim that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters," and either you have evidence of that or you don't. So far, it looks like you don't. The only thing I see in your link relative to a "conspiratorial worldview" is his claim that "every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is," which hardly rises to the level of "frequently." FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would just refer you over to the article's talk page where discussion of this issue has continued, and a resolution has been reached. As to Klipp's conspiratorial worldview, see his latest media rant which I also submitted in talk.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think a source promoting conspiracies is reliable, and I'm not disputing the decision against The Federalist. I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview, and I disagree. Even the content in question isn't just a professional critique of editorial decisions, but it's couched in nefarious undertones, even going so far as to accuse MSM of "playing god." Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't claim or imply that all MSM on Harvard's list are reliable. Reliability, partisanship, and mainstream media status are all distinct dimensions. A source can fall into any one of their 8 combinations. The full RSP sentence is "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories." Maybe you think a source that promotes conspiracy theories is reliable, but I don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Funny, Misplaced Pages lists The Federalist as "generally unreliable due to its partisan nature" yet they're listed as mainstream on Harvard's index. Seems like some kinds of partisanship are more acceptable than others. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was employed by The Young Turks before he worked for The Nation and The Intercept, not after, and those aren't the only other media for which he's written. Partisanship doesn't determine whether a given media outlet is/isn't mainstream media. They're both listed on Harvard's Index of US Mainstream Media Ownership.
- Having been employed by two ultra-partisan outlets for some short period, and then by "The Young Turks" which is marginally better than InfoWars, does not indicate this individual's self-published works meet the encyclopedia's reliability standards. And it has not been shown that I made a false claim, only if you think these ultra-partisan sources are "mainstream". Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent, which is laughable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- A reminder that WP:RS states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject," so I don't agree that his reporting "means nothing." This thread started off with the false claim that he "doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist" and the question "Reliable or not?" The false claim has been addressed. The question shows that people have different opinions. Whether some mention of Klippenstein is DUE is not a matter of reliability and belongs on the Talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I personally believe that bold claims against these news organisations need other comparable news organisations to corroborate them, to establish wp:due weight. the spreading of claims by sources who are especially biased and opinionated means nothing. "Ken" can make a bombshell accusation against NYT for spineless reporting but can we get The Guardian or some other prestigious institutions to back these claims? BarntToust 18:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why did you put his real name in quotes like that? Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- As an indicator that I generally distrust Substack reporters and their methods. I can't believe that anything will pass as qualified journalism nowadays 😐 BarntToust 18:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- "This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here" is false, as is "he is writing damning blog posts." More than one person here has noted that he's a reliable journalist. Unbandito explained why he chose to start his own journalism Substack (not a blog). There are a number of established writers using Substack to host their reporting; here's WP's incomplete list. It's bizarre that you put his name in quotation marks, especially after calling him "this Kenny guy" and "Kenny boy." Nothing is stopping you from answering your own questions. I already noted a couple of sources that had picked it up; here's another. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this was like WaPo or The Times writing this about NYT then yes I would support inclusion. This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here. "Ken" should be more concerned that he is writing damning blog posts accusing a reputable newspaper of compromised journalistic integrity. Who else will pick this up? Who else will corroborate this bold as all hell claim with trusted journalistic process? BarntToust 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- BarntToust - Dial it back a bit. WP:BLP applies to all BLP is all Misplaced Pages spaces. You calling him weird names like "Kenny Boy" probably doesn't constitute "written with the greatest care and attention". Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- In this case, I'd say keep it. Klippenstein obtained and published the manifesto, which mainstream sources begrudgingly admitted was the same one they refused to publish. It appears that the citations in this article are of secondary coverage of his work, which makes them even more admissible. Klip is not just some guy, he has journalistic credentials and a past of reliable reporting for multiple reliable orgs. He's one of a number of journalists who was laid off from major outlets in the last year or so as part of a broader trend of restructuring in media that is ongoing. He and others like Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill have moved on to independent work, but despite the loss of their association with an established organization, their reporting remains influential and they've made a number of valuable contributions to our knowledge of and discourse on current events. I worry that Misplaced Pages policy, which assumes that mainstream media has a static financial and ethical position in perpetuity, is not adequately nuanced to accommodate major shake-ups in the press such as what we're seeing today. I think it's also worth noting that while Ken publishes on substack, at least in some other articles he's written (such as his publication of a US intelligence report on Israeli preparations to strike Iran) he employs an editor to review his work. This is the same sort of self-publishing that mainstream RS do, and another argument in favor of his reliability. Unbandito (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- "multiple reliable orgs."
- Really, like what? The Young Turks? I'm aware that Nation and Intercept are considered generally reliable, but there's also consensus that they're opinionated, biased and partisan, and should be used with caution. Klipp doesn't work for any of these publications anymore; he self-publishes on substack and has made a career for himself publishing MSM polemic. That's what this section includes currently -Klipp's self-published polemic directed at NY Times, CNN etc. Even if this appeared in The Nation, there'd be weight issues. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, The Nation and The Intercept. All media has bias, and any media-literate person should understand this. I think weight arguments are a lot stronger regarding content that is more than a few sentences or a short paragraph long. I don't think the due weight for this content is zero, and therefore I think the material is appropriate. If there is a significant view in opposition to Klippenstein, I think the page would be better improved by expanding it. Unbandito (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course all media, and all humans, are biased, but when a consensus on here comes with that caveat, you know you're not dealing with a gold standard RS. And this is only relevant here if you think his past employment with these outlets, however brief, in some way lends credibility to his self-published substacks. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think what his past employment in media shows is that he has the training and follows the same standards of verifiability as prestige media organizations. I think it's worth noting that when a fake version of the manifesto was making the rounds, Klippenstein declined to publish it and called it out as misleading because he couldn't verify its authenticity. Regardless of where he's publishing them, I think his publication of several leaked documents ahead of the mainstream press as well as his history as a FOIA journalist shows that he is well connected to valuable sources of information and is engaged in "real" investigative journalism of the sort that prestige outlets are increasingly unwilling to pay for when opinion pieces get them just as many clicks.
- His perspective on the unwillingness of the media to publish a document which they had verified is true is granted some additional relevance by the fact that he is the one who published the document and inquired to these organizations as to why they hadn't, as well as by the fact that journalists from those legacy organizations leaked internal communications to him which showed the decision those organizations had made.
- I think that this is frankly a strong example of the way that Misplaced Pages's current RS policies are inadequate to handle the reality that with the traditional media in financial and organizational crisis, sometimes breaking news is going to be published by small independent outlets or individuals. Any conception of reliability that uniformly dismisses sources like Klippenstein as if they're some random blog post by John Q. Public while reifying legacy media despite the history of its errors and shortcomings and the media studies scholarship that problematizes a simplistic conception of source reliability, is sure to exclude some valuable material and include a lot of junk. Without getting too far off topic, I think the solution to this is to emphasize verifiability and source consensus over things like editorial process and organizational prestige, and to attribute wherever there is controversy or disagreement. Unbandito (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course all media, and all humans, are biased, but when a consensus on here comes with that caveat, you know you're not dealing with a gold standard RS. And this is only relevant here if you think his past employment with these outlets, however brief, in some way lends credibility to his self-published substacks. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone using phrases like "MSM polemic" ought to be stepping well away from deciding the reliability of any sources, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- NY Times and CNN are mainstream media, a polemic is "a piece of writing expressing a strongly critical view of someone or something." Thus, Klippenstein's hit pieces on MSM are polemics. I don't see why me knowing what these words mean implies I need to "step well away" from assessing reliability. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, The Nation and The Intercept. All media has bias, and any media-literate person should understand this. I think weight arguments are a lot stronger regarding content that is more than a few sentences or a short paragraph long. I don't think the due weight for this content is zero, and therefore I think the material is appropriate. If there is a significant view in opposition to Klippenstein, I think the page would be better improved by expanding it. Unbandito (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- if someone else reports on it, its not sps, its secondary coverage of SPS, which should be admissible in BLP, right? I think we can't directly use any details in his blog that aren't vetted and cited by another non-SPS news source Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, secondary sources can be used for a BLP, if they are RSs. For example, this LA Times article confirms that Klippenstein published Mangione full "manifesto." And this Mediaite article could be used re: his criticism of other media for not releasing the whole thing, though RSP says "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." Perhaps there are other reliable non-SPSs that are better sources for the content about Klippenstein's criticism of other media; I'm not going to take time right now to search further. There may still be questions about due weight, whether a claim needs to be attributed, etc., but those are distinct from the question of reliability and what can be used for BLP material. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- See, this is the thing, we've got LA Times, a high quality RS for news, so there's no reason to cite Klippenstein. But that covers the manifesto issue, which I wouldn't object to including. But the hit piece on those MSMs? Yeah, that's not found in LA Times or any other source on that level, only a "marginally reliable" source. I do not think Klipp is any position to critique editorial decisions at these publications, and do not see how that's due weight anyway. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this:
- I don't object to the bit about media not publishing the manifesto, and this could be sourced to the LA Times (the secondary source referencing Klippenstein).
- The next line about the NY Times not showing the suspect's face -no RS is talking about this and I personally find it irrelevant.
- The last part about media outlets selectively quoting from the NYPD report -this exceeds weight limits and makes the section read like a hit piece against MSM, all sourced to one man. Klippenstein objects to the NYPD using the term "extremists" to describe the suspect's supporters, and cites a report by security firm Dragonfly to argue that the risk of violent attacks on corporate leaders will likely remain low. If you read his source, they, too, use the word "extremists" to describe people who support the killing.
- Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this:
- See, this is the thing, we've got LA Times, a high quality RS for news, so there's no reason to cite Klippenstein. But that covers the manifesto issue, which I wouldn't object to including. But the hit piece on those MSMs? Yeah, that's not found in LA Times or any other source on that level, only a "marginally reliable" source. I do not think Klipp is any position to critique editorial decisions at these publications, and do not see how that's due weight anyway. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, secondary sources can be used for a BLP, if they are RSs. For example, this LA Times article confirms that Klippenstein published Mangione full "manifesto." And this Mediaite article could be used re: his criticism of other media for not releasing the whole thing, though RSP says "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." Perhaps there are other reliable non-SPSs that are better sources for the content about Klippenstein's criticism of other media; I'm not going to take time right now to search further. There may still be questions about due weight, whether a claim needs to be attributed, etc., but those are distinct from the question of reliability and what can be used for BLP material. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I read his work and personally trust Klippenstein. However, his substack is clearly a self-published source. Unbandito's comments on broader issues with Misplaced Pages, while interesting, don't address the WP:BLPSPS issue. Ultimately, Klippenstein is the person with final approval on what he wrote.
- I would consider Klippenstein's views WP:DUE if they are reported on by reliable sources. Based on what I know and see here, I can't consider him to meet the WP:EXPERTSPS criteria in this topic area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Chess here - WP:EXPERTSPS is appropriate here. Klippenstein is a respected journalist. He's also self-publishing. But, in this case, he's an expert who is self-publishing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- See talk page (article linked up top). Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll endorse this as position as well. Klippenstein has a good track record with reputable outlets and hasn't had issues so far on his own, but is ultimately a WP:BLPSPS that should only be included when corroborated and/or discussed by non-SPS RSs. That appears to be the case with the manifesto itself, but not the other reports. -- Patar knight - /contributions 01:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pretty much yes. There's no issue with the manifesto content, but the other reports are not mentioned in any secondary RS of any quality (ignoring Washington Times and the art website). There's also the fact that he's mentioned 3 separate times in a section of only 8 lines, which is hard to defend. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I merged the 'Media outlets' section with the 'Other' section. An editor made a good point on the talk page that according to Klippenstein's article, he's a FOIA document expert, and that
much of his journalism draws on information he has uncovered from records requested at state and national levels of the US government
, whichalso frequently include information from leaked documents
. Some1 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Regardless of expert status, BLPSPS applies and would bar the use when it's not corroborated. It seems the new combined section has some sources that discussion Klippenstein's work in and of itself, which partially solves that issue. The issue then is if the amount of coverage is DUE. Klippenstein is an established journalist and some inclusion is probably due given the coverage, but a lot of the paragraph is repetitive, so I would probably cut it down by half. -- Patar knight - /contributions 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you comment in the article's talk page, because despite what is being said here in this thread, certain editors still think he's a "certified rando", "a random blogger", and unreliable 1, 2, 3. Some1 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of expert status, BLPSPS applies and would bar the use when it's not corroborated. It seems the new combined section has some sources that discussion Klippenstein's work in and of itself, which partially solves that issue. The issue then is if the amount of coverage is DUE. Klippenstein is an established journalist and some inclusion is probably due given the coverage, but a lot of the paragraph is repetitive, so I would probably cut it down by half. -- Patar knight - /contributions 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I merged the 'Media outlets' section with the 'Other' section. An editor made a good point on the talk page that according to Klippenstein's article, he's a FOIA document expert, and that
- Pretty much yes. There's no issue with the manifesto content, but the other reports are not mentioned in any secondary RS of any quality (ignoring Washington Times and the art website). There's also the fact that he's mentioned 3 separate times in a section of only 8 lines, which is hard to defend. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Chess here - WP:EXPERTSPS is appropriate here. Klippenstein is a respected journalist. He's also self-publishing. But, in this case, he's an expert who is self-publishing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, a consensus has not yet been achieved here. I don't wish to step on anybody's toes, but I have reverted User:Toa Nidhiki05's blanking of a large portion of the disputed section here. Kire1975 (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please see WP:ONUS:
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
You should self-revert your reversion until consensus has been reached in one way or another. Astaire (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- But WP:NOCON is also relevant:
When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. Astaire (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The material that User:Toa Nidhiki05 removed had been in the article since December 13 without any dispute (until now). Some1 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. Astaire (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- But WP:NOCON is also relevant:
- Please see WP:ONUS:
- Ken Klippenstein is a bit of a weird special case because he's an experienced reporter whose Substack is nevertheless still clearly an WP:SPS but because he has very different views on the direct publication of source documents (like manifestos) than much of the rest of the media, he is reasonably often the main source of the full text of a document that the rest of the media acknowledges exists, is real, and that Klippenstein's version of the text is correct, but refuses to actually publish the text themselves. A sort of one-man Wikileaks situation.
- I honestly think that since he is clearly reliable in these situations he is actually a fine source for these sorts of documents, presuming we bear in mind that:
- a) Documents published by him should be clearly acknowledged in the text to be sourced to him alone.
- b) Just because Klippenstein is reliable for the text of the documents he publishes doesn't mean that the documents themselves are reliable for facts or that Klippenstein is endorsing or even has checked their factual claims.
- c) Klippenstein doesn't have to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and so it's very possible that documents he publishes don't follow BLP guidelines for some reason. AFAICT usually what he publishes is about public figures but that doesn't have to be the case, and in cases where a document has private information about a private figure we shouldn't repeat it. Loki (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: NewsNation
What is the reliability of NewsNation?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Survey (NewsNation)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings, Coulthart said "... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"! . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including Jamey Jacob and Mick West, all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
- Writing in The Skeptic, Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: "Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."
- He wrote a UFO book titled Plain Sight which Jason Colavito described as a "conspiracy narrative" and a "slipshod summary".
- The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for “espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”
- The Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking "Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary? while strongly implying the former.
- The Sydney Morning Herald has described him as a "UFO truther" with "little appetite for scrutiny".
- Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked 60 Minutes (Australian TV program) investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
- Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
- In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the Washington Post: ), the channel "was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health".
- In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said "... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing". The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to Mick West's analysis, a Boeing 737 .
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage Personisinsterest (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. BarntToust 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 per Chetsford. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. Compare WP:ROLLINGSTONE. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 why are we putting any stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “broken clock” syndrome. Dronebogus (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (NewsNation)
- For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Is this article declaring the Newport Tower a 12th c. baptistry a reliable source for the tower??
The autho rhas emailed me demanding it be added to the Newport Tower article as it has been peer reviewed.. Other non-peer reviewed papers of his can be found here. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- For reference the tower is Newport Tower (Rhode Island) The answer is no. The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming. Even academic presses slip up sometimes and Istanbul University Press is frankly quite a bit distant from Rhode Island such that I would be cautious about the level of rigour of its fact checking (if any) on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- In addition to this, the author is retired from the U.S. Navy and a student of aeronautics, while this paper involves a great deal of cartography, religious history, etc. In other worlds, far outside of the author's field, even if there was some question about its reliability. Looking at the non-peer reviewed papers, I see that the author also believes the Kensington Runestone is legit. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hemiauchenia, that WP article has an entire section on alternative hypotheses, so it's not clear to me that "The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming" is a reason to exclude this hypothesis. Given that context, what does it means to be a RS for a fringe theory? A source may be reliable for the existence of the fringe theory but unreliable otherwise.
- It's unclear to me whether this chapter is truly peer-reviewed. It appears in an edited book, and the editors are on the faculty of Istanbul University, but it's not clear to me that they have expertise in this area, whether they reviewed all of the chapters for accuracy or only for things like pertinence and organization, or if they sought any outside review for any of the chapters. Their Google Scholar info: , . The book was just published, and I couldn't find any reviews for it. What the author of the chapter "demands" is irrelevant. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- The question is, does this source add anything to the "Norse hypothesis" such that it is worth adding the article to include it? I think the answer is no. There's no evidence that this paper has had any impact on the wider discourse surrounding the tower. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't read the paper, but the abstract says "Two Turkish cartographers, the earliest being Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-1310), and later, Piri Reis (c. 1465-1553), illustrated the North American Baptistery on their respective cartographic works." I know nothing about the "Norse hypothesis" and so cannot judge whether this is something new; the current WP text makes no mention of Turks, but perhaps that's just a matter of what was judged to be DUE. The book link above says that the book was only published last week, so at this point the chapter cannot possibly have had any impact on wider discourse. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems the text is mostly taken up by attempting to divine meaning from certain blotches on an old map. This is not a particularly convincing hypothesis for what it's worth. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't read the paper, but the abstract says "Two Turkish cartographers, the earliest being Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-1310), and later, Piri Reis (c. 1465-1553), illustrated the North American Baptistery on their respective cartographic works." I know nothing about the "Norse hypothesis" and so cannot judge whether this is something new; the current WP text makes no mention of Turks, but perhaps that's just a matter of what was judged to be DUE. The book link above says that the book was only published last week, so at this point the chapter cannot possibly have had any impact on wider discourse. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- The question is, does this source add anything to the "Norse hypothesis" such that it is worth adding the article to include it? I think the answer is no. There's no evidence that this paper has had any impact on the wider discourse surrounding the tower. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Peer review is only as good as the peers in question... Istanbul University and history have a rather fraught history when it comes to Turkish nationalist historiography (which I would fit this under given the elements of Turkish exceptionalism). We have a long history of disregarding those views because academics outside of Turkey do (especially as it concerns claims of Ottoman voyages of discovery, the Kurds, and the Armenian Genocide). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, obvious crank. I would take it as evidence that Istanbul University Press is not reliable. I imagine he was stationed at the base in Newport and got interested, but he should seek professional training in history and learn to read some relevant languages before leaning in on a claim this unlikely. There's really nothing in his article except some maps so extremely magnified that they don't resemble anything in particular. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Pinkvilla
Pinkvilla has been flagged as an unreliable source, and there is growing consensus around its exclusion from the list of acceptable sources on Misplaced Pages:ICTFSOURCES. Previously dicusssed (see 1, 2). Due to concerns about the site's editorial standards, accuracy, and potential biases, I propose to dicussss the credibility of Pinkvilla. The aim is to ensure that Misplaced Pages articles are supported by sources that meet higher standards of reliability and credibility. Pinkvilla itself states that the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data. However, it asserts that the numbers are generally reflective of the box-office performance of the films in question ().Morekar (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think there's a difference between the box-office numbers in Pinkvilla and their general articles? Could one be considered reliable and the other not, or is this looking at the site as a whole? Ravensfire (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data
it probably shouldn't be cited then. EEpic (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Reliability discussion took place previously Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_9#Can_Pinkvilla_be_considered_a_reliable_source_? putting it as one of the best sources for movie related news and box office collections. RangersRus (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu
The following genealogy sources are currently considered Generally unreliable at WP:RSP (A), or in repeated inquiries at WP:RSN (B and C):
- A: Geni.com
- B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
- They should be:
- Option 1: listed as Generally unreliable (change nothing to A; add B and C at WP:RSP as such)
- Option 2: Deprecated (list them as such at WP:RSP)
- Option 3: Blacklisted (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)
- A: See "Geni.com" at WP:RSPSOURCES.
- B: See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#Have we got lists of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research?, in particular subsection #genealogy.eu, where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @ActivelyDisinterested. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
- C: See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Preliminaries
- Probably need to add the website Genealogics.org to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be WP:CIRC. --Kansas Bear 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. NLeeuw (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read Background: B. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey A: Geni.com
- Deprecate. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. JoelleJay (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate.
Question. Isn't it already deprecated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) - Deprecate A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unsure. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- Deprecate, per background discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.
- Deprecation of this source will reduce the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.
- Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally unreliable. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) Generally unreliable is the one which says this:
"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"
I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would only allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be prohibited. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the Generally unreliable category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then only as far as we have to. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally reliable, in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. Ghirla 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Deprecate. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. JoelleJay (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as genealogy.eu and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Lancaster (talk • contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the Europäische Stammtafeln, Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. Ghirla 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". NLeeuw (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; Foix. --Kansas Bear 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)
@ActivelyDisinterested: my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Franklin Open
I would like to know what is known about "Franklin Open" (link). It claims to be peer-reviewed but charges $1900 to publish an article. Should we count this as an RS, or should its articles be treated as self-published? (Apologies if it's already dealt with somewhere — I searched and couldn't find it.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's published by Elsevier on behalf of the Franklin Institute. So not self-published. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- But the question is, is the stuff peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? --Trovatore (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like any other Elsevier/Franklin Institute journals. Reliable in its area of expertise, which is mostly engineering and applied mathematics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, here's the thing. They published a paper with no meaningfully new content on the so-called infinite monkey theorem, here. This thing should never have gotten past peer review, not because anything in it is wrong per se, but because it's not a novel contribution (and is also not a survey). It's a bunch of trivial calculations, put together well with nice illustrations, but with an overall conclusion that is not remotely new.
- So this makes me wonder about their standards, and whether they should be treated as a predatory journal or something similar. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Article processing charges are completely standard, expected, uncontroversial aspects of nearly all open access journals, including Franklin Open. If a journal can't charge for subscriptions or article access, it needs to make at least some money through APCs. Does this discussion concern the journal itself and every article it publishes, or rather a single article regarding monkeys and typewriters? If the latter, then the qualifications of the authors and which salient points of the paper merit mention should be discussed on article talk pages per WP:DUE, WP:ASPECT & WP:ONUS. Not all articles ever published warrant stuffing into every Misplaced Pages article about a topic, no matter how much individual Wikipedians may slobber over the authors, and thousands of perfectly reliable and decent-quality articles should not be cited per WP:MEDRS and WP:PRIMARY. But I'd almost always place more importance on published academic journal articles, even if I dislike the methods or conclusion, over the quibbles and beard-strokings of Wikipedians. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per the scope of the journal "Original manuscripts and special topic issue are welcome as well as multidisciplinary topics or application-oriented articles, reviews, surveys, and educational articles." (emphasis mine) There's zero issue with a journal publishing an educational article with routine calculations and no new conclusions. You said yourself the illustrations were nice. What's the reliability concern here? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? reliable journals publish educational articles all the time and they're preferable to novel hypotheses and research. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be an educational article. The authors seem to think they're making a novel contribution. --Trovatore (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if that is the case why would this have any bearing on the reliability of the journal? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it might not, or at least not very much. In my opinion they should not have published this particular article, and I think that reflects badly on them, but of course that is going to happen from time to time. I was trying to find out what was known about the journal, specifically whether it was predatory or predatory-adjacent, and I did that because I didn't think a reputable research journal would publish this. But it seems that that was not the issue. --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if that is the case why would this have any bearing on the reliability of the journal? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be an educational article. The authors seem to think they're making a novel contribution. --Trovatore (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like any other Elsevier/Franklin Institute journals. Reliable in its area of expertise, which is mostly engineering and applied mathematics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- But the question is, is the stuff peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? --Trovatore (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I want to raise a concern about Twitter or known now as X. I'm planning to nominate a list to Featured List and some awards are cited as a tweet from a Philippine Record Label, Star Music, and some cited on YouTube but originally from a significant subscribers (1 Million plus subscribers) and have a Official Artist Channel and can be treated as a reliable source per WP:RSYT. So, is it okay to cite a tweet directly from record label because some awards aren't covered on a news article, which is only acknowledged on their social media.
P.S: I added a discussion just in case some reviewers have a disagreement on citing a tweet. Royiswariii Talk! 01:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- From your description alone, it sounds like you're asking if Star Music's tweets about (themselves or their bands) winning awards can be cited as sources? If that's the case, the tweet would be a self-published, primary source, and inherently self-serving. So no, I wouldn't consider that appropriate. Reliable, independent, secondary sources reporting on the awards are what makes them important.
- If I've misunderstood your question, can you give us some examples of the tweets and how they would be used? Woodroar (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Woodroar one of their post is here , they recognized the awards for the Best Inspirational Secular Song at the 46th Catholic Mass Media Awards, and this is only the piece of sources i searched. Royiswariii Talk! 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- the List of awards and nominations received by SB19 a Featured list was cited from a Facebook too cause they considered it. and List of awards and nominations received by Bini cited this on ref 28. So, I think needed to be considered to since it was awarded. Royiswariii Talk! 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem isn't really Twitter/X or Facebook, it's that you want to use a post by the record label about an award they received. That's inherently self-serving, which means we should avoid using it.
- The Facebook sources at List of awards and nominations received by SB19 were posted by Awit Awards (still a primary source, but not the recipient) and the Philippine Movie Press Club (a secondary source, though I wonder how reliable they are), so I'm assuming that's why they were included. Personally, I think both of those should be removed until they can be supported by better sources, but that's just me. Woodroar (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Woodroar I think it can be considered? because
The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
The claim made in the post is specifically about Bini (girl group) under the record label Star Music, which is not considered a third party in this context. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim
- The award mentioned is neither excessively self-serving nor extraordinary (such as a prestigious recognition like the Grammys). Instead, it is a straightforward of Bini achievements. Royiswariii Talk! 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Of course it's self-serving, it's about an award that one of their bands received. As far as the claim about third parties, I hadn't considered that. But Star Music's tweet does involve claims about third parties, both the group Bini and the organization Catholic Mass Media Awards.
- As others have pointed out, there are also NPOV concerns. Alongside reports from reliable, secondary, independent sources, it's WP:UNDUE to include an award sourced only to a self-published, primary tweet from the record label. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that coverage of winning an award is obviously
unduly self-serving
. As I said below, we're not just relying on the source for the statement that the award was given but for the implication that it is worth noting; we can't rely on the recipient for that! --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Woodroar I think it can be considered? because
- the List of awards and nominations received by SB19 a Featured list was cited from a Facebook too cause they considered it. and List of awards and nominations received by Bini cited this on ref 28. So, I think needed to be considered to since it was awarded. Royiswariii Talk! 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Woodroar one of their post is here , they recognized the awards for the Best Inspirational Secular Song at the 46th Catholic Mass Media Awards, and this is only the piece of sources i searched. Royiswariii Talk! 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If an award isn't covered by secondary independent sources, how is it BALASP on the page? JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- exactly. Had it recieved media coverage, it would've been notable and due for inclusion. BarntToust 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with the sentiment overall for due weight in articles, but this is a list after all. Per WP:FLCR, a high-quality list would;
"comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items"
, suggesting that all items would ideally be included in the list, even if not a requirement. I'm inclined to agree with opinions above that documenting an award you have received is not unduly self-serving, even if publishing such information is entirely self-serving. I otherwise don't agree with the argument that publishing an award won is effectively unwarranted. The question should be more about the awards themselves, for example if the awards were meaningless or irrelevant then sure it would be unwarranted. Give the awards referenced above, the Catholic Mass Media Award by the Catholic Media Association, I'd say it's questionable, but otherwise there are enough secondary sources reporting on them even if not widespread, even if not those in question it seems. CNC (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Twitter, when cited that way, is WP:ABOUTSELF, which carries several restrictions; it's also obviously WP:PRIMARY. One key thing is to avoid such about-self cites for anything self-serving - things companies post on Twitter are often promotional in nature and therefore potentially self-serving. "We intend to release this at date XYZ" would be something we could cite to Twitter. Winning an award, unfortunately, is almost certainly self-serving and therefore is probably something we can't. Note that even if you're absolutely certain they're not making it up, you're still relying on them for the implicit statement that this award is worth noting, which they are obviously not a good source for. And similarly, even beyond that, it raises WP:DUE issues - if there is no coverage of the award anywhere except by the recipient (who is obviously not a neutral party and could therefore be expected to highlight even exceptionally marginal things, providing little weight to them), this makes it hard to justify as worth including. --Aquillion (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Far Out Magazine
Would Far Out Magazine be considered a reliable source for music and the arts? 2600:100C:A21D:971A:1418:AFA9:3465:D674 (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only RSN-comment I could find on it here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_458#Rockpasta.com. I can't find an "about"-page. Currently it's used on WP quite a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comments at Talk:Far Out (website) indicate caution is called for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I make it a point to remove this source whenever I see it because of the fact that, beyond the WP:CIRCULAR concerns noted on the talk page linked above, many of their articles seem to republish content from years ago, while titling them to make it sound as if new insight has come out recently. For a few examples as of late, see , , and are all examples of this website recycling content from other, more reliable sources that can (and should) be cited instead. For all I know, there may be minor instances where this site can be used, but I'm familiar enough with Far Out Magazine to say that, for the most part, their content is clickbait churnalism, and in particular, should not be used for information about living persons. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Credit to User:Binksternet for explaining the unreliability of this source on this user talk page message. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- TL;DR, no, Far Out is unreliable; it's a website that engages in churnalism. See this discussion at WT:ALBUMS. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 14:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Minimally reliable, there may be some use but in general I don't think they're reliable for the reasons that have been mentioned (especially the churnalism/CIRCULAR concerns). I don't think that this is suprising, they are what it says on the label... "Far Out" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary?
Are the sources in these two articles primary or secondary? 1874 Waitemata by-elections and 1886 Waitemata by-election. The book provided is just a collection of parliamentary records, elections, terms served etc. an example is here: Traumnovelle (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those articles are sourced to contemporary newspapers, which would be secondary sources; one of which, the New Zealand Herald, is included in the "perennial sources" page and categorised as "Generally reliable". Daveosaurus (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Newspapers are interesting to discuss because their classification evolves with time. Historians usually classify recent newspaper reports as being secondary, but old reports are classified as primary (this is because the sources used by the newspaper have been lost, and so the newspaper becomes the earliest available record of the events… with more modern sources based on that old newspaper). Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliability isn't the issue here. It is if the sources are primary or secondary. Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, and Berkeley considers contemporary newspaper articles as primary sources: Traumnovelle (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
AdWeek
Would AdWeek be considered a reliable source in terms of advertising campaigns? 2600:100C:A21D:971A:19F4:96E7:9B0B:1686 (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- AdWeek is a perfectly reliable advertising trade magazine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The thing is public relations notices aren’t usually considered reliable for companies. 2600:100C:A21D:971A:19F4:96E7:9B0B:1686 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As an established trade magazine, I consider AdWeek generally reliable for topics related to the advertising industry. AdWeek's own press releases, which consist of a small number of articles published under
adweek.com/pressbetween 2017 and 2022, are non-independent primary sources that are promotionally toned, and should not be considered the same as AdWeek's standard content. Are these press releases the public relations notices that you are referring to? — Newslinger talk 05:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- As an established trade magazine, I consider AdWeek generally reliable for topics related to the advertising industry. AdWeek's own press releases, which consist of a small number of articles published under
- The thing is public relations notices aren’t usually considered reliable for companies. 2600:100C:A21D:971A:19F4:96E7:9B0B:1686 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Langweiledich.net
I came across this article being used in the Bad Apple!! article to support this claim:
In 2023, users of the Touhou Project, Osu! and Hatsune Miku subreddits collaborated to recreate "Bad Apple!!" on Reddit's r/place canvas, during its 2023 event.
It's in German, so I can't really judge the reliability of this site myself - would it be considered a reliable source? MiasmaEternal☎ 22:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's the self-published blog of Maik Zehrfeld. There's some advice about self-published sources here WP:SPS. I don't think it would be considered reliable, best to find a better source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)
This thread is opened at the request of @Kovcszaln6 following the dispute between me and @Javext in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) on the multiple issues regarding that article.
I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:
1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and
2. Yemeni state-controlled media outlets
wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")
Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article.
Special:diff/1266430566: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used.
Special:diff/1266448873: This is the version that Jav wants to keep
Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):
- (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:
Abo Yemen✉ 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle
WP:AGE MATTERS?citing Portuguese records
That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above Abo Yemen✉ 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama. pp. 290-291. (link) GordonGlottal (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the Quaiti Sultanate was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended). He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)
High School Flags
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.
May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.
The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.
Abo Yemen✉ 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the Special:diff/1266430566#Background Special:diff/1266430566#Losses and Special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city Internet Archive a txt version of the book that can get machine translated can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) Abo Yemen✉ 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, @GordonGlottal. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
- "Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." Javext (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
capturing Al-Shihr
hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? Abo Yemen✉ 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
- I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. Javext (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. Javext (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
-
"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr,
(Never happened btw)and how important it would be to conquer Diu."
Abo Yemen✉ 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned Abo Yemen✉ 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here Abo Yemen✉ 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? Javext (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? Abo Yemen✉ 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Bossip
Hello. I am debating on improving the "4 da Fam" article for a possible WP:FAC nomination. I have a question about a potentials source. Would Bossip be considered reliable and high-quality enough for the FAC process (or for Misplaced Pages in general)? I would be using the following source: Rappers Be Lyin: 10 Greatest Rap Lies. The About Us page says that the site has earned awards in the past and has been mentioned in various reliable sources. I am hesitant about it as Bossip is a "gossip" website. Apologies if this site was already discussed before, and thank you for any help and insight on this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks marginally reliable to me. Like it's not great. But by the standards of pop culture media it's not as bad as it might be. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. That is fair. I had a similar opinion about to be honest. If I do decide to work on this article in the future, I may use other sources first and then see if this one would even be necessary in the end or not. For the purposes of a FAC, which has stricter requirements for sources, it may not be the best option for that context. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What exactly would 'Before she was the illest female in her Dillard’s department, Amil was the illest in all of Hip-Hop, making $40K/guest verse as the Roc’s first lady? Riiiiiiiight.' be used to source? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be used as a negative review for the song as it is criticizing Amil's lyrics. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. The use of slang isn't the issue here. Reliability isn't a register of specific vocabulary. I suppose the question would be whether, Amil was, in fact, making $40,000 per guest verse previously. Should they be reporting that factual statement accurately and should they have a decent history of accuracy in reporting and clarity in corrections when they make an error then the rest is just aesthetics. Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be reported in the article as a factual statement. The "$40,000 per guest verse" bit is part of the song's lyrics and would be addressed in that context, not as an absolute fact. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. The use of slang isn't the issue here. Reliability isn't a register of specific vocabulary. I suppose the question would be whether, Amil was, in fact, making $40,000 per guest verse previously. Should they be reporting that factual statement accurately and should they have a decent history of accuracy in reporting and clarity in corrections when they make an error then the rest is just aesthetics. Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be used as a negative review for the song as it is criticizing Amil's lyrics. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seems pretty odd if not outright illogical to use a gossip website if you're going to bring this to FAC. The typical reviewer there expects the cream of the crop of sources, not tabloid gossip. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read some of the articles on the site and it's overly unserious and pretentious BS; my advice is to not use this source. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. Thank you for the response. I agree with your assessment. I have removed it from the article. I am honestly not sure why I used it in the first place. I just thought that it would be beneficial to open a discussion about it here to get further feedback. I believe my question has been answered, and hopefully this can be used to help any other editors in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read some of the articles on the site and it's overly unserious and pretentious BS; my advice is to not use this source. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Science-fiction fanzines
I see the question of science fiction fanzines has come up many times in the archives. My question is fairly simple. Writer and translator Philippe Hupp, the founder of the Metz science fiction festival, sent a letter to PKD Otaku, a sercon fanzine that is notable in the PKD community and is often referred to by PKD scholars, but is admittedly obscure in the grander scheme of things when it comes to reliable sources. In the letter that they published (pp. 4-6), Hupp goes into some historical detail of his relationship with Philip K. Dick and how he was able to get him to speak at the festival in 1977, and provides important historical documents (correspondence, photos) that is reprinted with permission by PKD Otaku. Currently, I'm citing this letter in an article about the festival to say some basic facts about the history. While Hupp and Metz have been covered by numerous reliable sources in France and elsewhere, I believe this kind of exclusive historical detail has only been revealed in PKD Otaku. Is it acceptable for me to carefully cite this info from Hupp (it is, after all, about him and his relationship with PKD) and point to PKD Otaku as the source? The article I am working on, If You Find This World Bad, You Should See Some of the Others, is currently on GAR, and it has been pointed out that this fanzine may not meet the criteria for a RS. It does have two editors, however, but I think it is safe to say it is self-published like most fanzines. It would be a shame for this historical information to be ignored. What is the best course of action? If it isn't acceptable to use as a primary source, I've thought that a brief mention of it in a footnote might be okay. Please let me know your thoughts. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it's the only source available, and the facts are not controversial, and cited as being from Hupp's account of things, it seems fine to me. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I believe it meets that criteria, however, I will revise it further to make sure that it does. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Beebom.com
Beebom has been in a few discussions previously about reliability but they've had few responses. I'm asking about their reliability after their reference in Game Science where their opinion is being used as fact WP:RSOPINION. Issues below also make it difficult to establish reliability via WP:SOURCEDEF.
I'm not familiar enough with Beebom to know their overall reporting but I've come across issues.
- They don't have a masthead so I don't know who their writers are or what their expertise is. The most they have is an About Us page with a few higher roles not in editorial and then two editors without any information. This makes it difficult to establish their level of independence and editorial control. A previous RS discussion pointed out some of their content being written by "Beebom Staff" which is still the case but not often.
- Their editorial guidelines are limited and don't disclose important information. For example, they don't state a separation of ads from editorial. They don't mention here the affiliate programs they're in or the sponsorship deals they do. They don't mention their Beebom Gadgets storefront where they sell phones and make videos on them. However, they disclose having an Amazon affiliate program in their privacy policy. But they don't disclose the other "affiliate partners" they use. These issues brings into question conflicts of interest which they don't have a policy on. Alongside other basic guidelines like a corrections policy or how they handle accepting samples (if they do).
- A 2016 interview explains that they make money from sponsored posts and partnerships. This isn't included in their editorial guidelines. I bring it up since they feature this interview on their About Us page, but Misplaced Pages blocks links to the interviewer's site, YourStory.
- They used to tag sponsored posts as "#sponsored" 5 years ago but stopped. It seems they now use a byline named "Partner Content" for those articles. But they don't mention anything about a sponsorship or partnership in their latest article under this byline. Nor is there anything about this in their policies. So I can't confirm if they do this for all paid content or not.
- I tried looking into their gaming coverage after seeing them on the Game Science page and found a clickbait news article where they deliberately lie. The headline is, "Black Myth: Wukong Is Now the Most Played Steam Game of All Time", which they almost immediately state isn't true. While also stating "Yes, Black Myth Wukong is now the most-played Steam game of all time!" This makes me question their overall fact checking and reliability when they lie in a news headline.
I can't find much mention of Beebom aside from their own social media on google. Even after removing their social media, I can't find anything. Snakester95 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It should probably be removed as a source for the example you brought, since an "opinion" piece is not "reporting." As for the site as a whole, it seems to fit more the model of YouTube gadget reviewer, and could probably be used as a source for certain product reviews where appropriate. But they haven't shown that they have much editorial oversight. The two editors I see listed do not have bios. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- So I did a bit of digging and they haven't really been keeping their website up to date. One of the two editors has now moved into the position of "content strategist". This looks like a very marginal source. I've definitely seen worse in the video game space but I'd personally hesitate to use it for anything controversial. I would also suggest that opinion from this source is likely undue unless there is a named author on the byline with some sort of expertise independent of the outlet. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Jacobin
Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under WP:RSP. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are definitely issues with Jacobin, and a reevaluation of its reliability is probably going to come sooner or later. I don't think a Reddit page full of amateur pundits, who are in turn discussing another social media discussion, is going to give us anything meaningful to work with. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not a good look, but I will note that the article referred to says at the bottom:
Correction: An earlier version of this article overstated the amount of US housing stock that Blackstone owns.
So far as I can tell, the sentence in question is removed from the current version of the article entirely. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- That would indicate, notwithstanding snark on Twitter, the website for snark, Jacobin actually did the thing we expect of a reliable source and made a correction to an article with a factual error, identifying with a correction notice that a correction had been made. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this justifies a significant increase in caution towards the author at the very least. In general, an in-depth look at it's reliability is probably due, even though a Reddit discussion isn't evidence. FortunateSons (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's strange that it was closed as 'generally reliable' in the first place, when most respondents voted either 'no consensus' or 'generally unreliable' in the last RFC. Hi! (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Had a quick perusal of the r/neoliberal subreddit. It appears to be discussing one sentence in one (possibly opinion) article in Jacobin. Are you asking whether that particular article is a reliable source for that one sentence? Burrobert (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just as an aside, RFCs are not votes (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sources making corrections, as has happened in this case, is a sign of reliability. Things that happen on social media, and reactions on social media, are mostly irrelevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The original RfC that supposedly found Jacobin to be reliable really is a bit of a tenuous close. A simple beancount in that RfC would lean against treating it as WP:GREL, and I'm not really able to discern why the arguments for reliability were so much stronger than those in opposition that an affirmative Option 1 consensus was declared instead of a no-consensus close (at minimum). I do think that it's ripe for re-evaluation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The author's behavior would be annoying if we were chatting at lunch and I personally dislike the smugness, but reliability isn't a personality contest, and as Simonm223 points out the article itself was corrected and the erroneous information removed. That's basically what we expect a reliable source to do—fix itself when an error gets pointed out. So long as the actual content produced is dependable or gets fixed to become dependable, that's reliability. Anonymous Reddit complaints trying to score Internet points aren't a compelling reason for overturning the prior RfC. Evidence of a pattern of unreliable reporting and failures to make corrections would be more persuasive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is time for a review of the past discussion and time to bring up Jacobin for a reliability check. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What does "NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus" mean? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like they handled this appropriately, can you explain what the issue would be? Your comment is a little light on details, its basically just spamming a reddit discussion... Maybe tell us what you think? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
A new discussion on Jacobin is long overdue, particularly per Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin. It's clear that Jacobin is not reliable on all topics, and at the very least additional considerations should apply in these cases. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- An RfC next would be worthwhile. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors
The discussion is partially non-topical for this forum. The discussion about the issues that belong here continues below in § The Heritage Foundation.—Alalch E. 19:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Taking this here based on a recommendation from Aquillion. The conversation began at the PIA arbitration evidence talk page where a report from forward was shared . According to this report, the Heritage Foundation plan to use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia
. A copy of the Heritage Foundation proposal deck is available here. This Heritage Foundation plan to dox wikipedia editors also would include creating fake Misplaced Pages user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them. It is unclear whether this has begun.
Clearly this situation is alarming in the extreme and the discussion at the arbitration case brought forward the very reasonable suggestion of a project-wide block of all Heritage Foundation domains. So why here? Well Aquillion suggested a reasonable first-step toward this would be to get the site deprecated and blacklisted via RS/N. So that's what I'm here to do. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am unsure about a retalitory deprecation (or whatever). Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- No this would be a preventative deprecation. The idea, to my understanding, is to remove the ability of Heritage Foundation domains to interact with en.wp as much as possible. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is that not best done with range blocks, to prevent them from setting up accounts? Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is a discussion to be had at the Village Pump, as it's not a matter of reliability. Deprecation wouldn't have the effect that your looking for, you would need blacklisting and I don't think this would fall within the normal process of blacklisting. So a discussion at VP seems more appropriate as it's something outside of prior policy or guidelines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- A village pump discussion was created and the suggestion to bring the conversation here actually arose from discussion of that conversation at the arbitration page. Honestly I'm pretty nervous about a pseudo-governmental organization trying to interfere with individual Misplaced Pages editors in this way so I'll happily take the conversation to whatever board we think is most appropriate. But right now we've got a whole lot of conversations pointing to different places as a precis to discussing the actual problem. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hostile actions by a third party against Misplaced Pages or it's editors isn't a reliability issue, and this isn't a forum for anything but reliability issues. If anything it sounds more like safe guarding, a much bigger issue that should probably involve the WMF. However if editors want to start a discussion about it's reliability, per the sources below, that would be a seperate matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- A village pump discussion was created and the suggestion to bring the conversation here actually arose from discussion of that conversation at the arbitration page. Honestly I'm pretty nervous about a pseudo-governmental organization trying to interfere with individual Misplaced Pages editors in this way so I'll happily take the conversation to whatever board we think is most appropriate. But right now we've got a whole lot of conversations pointing to different places as a precis to discussing the actual problem. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- No this would be a preventative deprecation. The idea, to my understanding, is to remove the ability of Heritage Foundation domains to interact with en.wp as much as possible. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will point out that part of what I said there was that they're already used on some 5000 pages, and are probably already depracable for publishing obvious disinformation (especially since the 2020 election.) I wouldn't have suggested going through RSN to deprecate them if I didn't think they were also worthy of deprecating on their own merits, entirely separately from the threats to use their websites to dox Misplaced Pages editors; but deprecating them would make it easier to add them to the spam blacklist and would help avoid situations where editors are forced into a situation where they have to consider whether to click a link to an obviously Heritage Foundation-controlled site in order to verify a presented source. I suppose we could just move ahead with trying to get those sites added to the spam blacklist without deprecation, but for a site that also publishes disinformation, it seems easier to get it deprecated first, since it ought to be an easy call. --Aquillion (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies if I misinterpreted. I'll admit that reading the thread at the arbitration case upset me rather considerably. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is a more valid reason, there do seem to be issues with the recent work. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- This discussion should be closed and a proper thread should be opened with substantiated concrete claims about problems with this source. —Alalch E. 15:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The thread itself is the precursor to an RFC. That said, they've published misinformation or disinformation about climate change, the FDA elections and politics, and more. --Aquillion (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's enough to open an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can I suggest closing this section and starting another, to afford accusations that questions of reliability are based on animosity to the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- +1 I think it's time we started a RfC (perhaps in a new section, as suggested by AD). M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, new section. —Alalch E. 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- An RFC is in a new section already? You mean a new RFCbefore section? Titled Heritage Foundation? (ie without the dox part) Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- New level 2 section. —Alalch E. 19:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I certainly have no objection to closing this discussion and opening a new one to host an RfC / RfC Before.Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- New level 2 section. —Alalch E. 19:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- An RFC is in a new section already? You mean a new RFCbefore section? Titled Heritage Foundation? (ie without the dox part) Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, new section. —Alalch E. 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's enough to open an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The thread itself is the precursor to an RFC. That said, they've published misinformation or disinformation about climate change, the FDA elections and politics, and more. --Aquillion (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- Washington, Haydn; Cook, John (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. London: Earthscan. p. 75,77. ISBN 978-1-84971-335-1. OCLC 682903020.
- Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
- McKie, Ruth E. (2023). The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19–50. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2. ISBN 978-3-031-33592-1 – via Springer Link.
Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...
- Wubbena, Zane C.; Ford, Derek R.; Porfilio, Brad J. (1 March 2016). News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-68123-401-4 – via Google Books.
For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...
- Kessler, Glenn (March 31, 2021). "The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 11, 2021. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
- Bensinger, Ken; Fausset, Richard (September 7, 2024). "Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2024. Retrieved September 7, 2024.
- Fields, Gary; Swenson, Ali (July 12, 2024). "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
Could someone who can read Bengali take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tamluk Royal Family?
Hello, I started the title AfD in response to some users recreating a rejected draft in mainspace and they responded by filling the discussion with sources that don't pass WP:SIGCOV. I'm unable to read some of the sources, though, in particular one that the users claim has a whole chapter on the subject of the article. Could someone who can read the Bengali sources take a look at the discussion and see if the article passes WP:GNG? --Richard Yin (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- You may have more luck asking at WT:WikiProject Bangladesh or WT:WikiProject West Bengal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, will repost there (West Bengal, since it's the Wikiproject whose scope covers the article's subject). --Richard Yin (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change, the FDA elections and politics, and more. It has been publishing obvious disinformation especially since the 2020 election. Its website heritage.org is used as a source on some 5000 pages (correction: I copied "5000" with this search link from another editor uncritically. "heritage.org" includes all of "english-heritage.org" links; the real count is around 1750 —00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—Alalch E. 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the Index of Economic Freedom? —Alalch E. 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation?
- What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in Laffer curve? —Alalch E. 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the Index of Economic Freedom? —Alalch E. 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods.
- On a quick search, I only found this discussion in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. Not sure if we want this used or not. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index
The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. Simonm223 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes.
- Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh do stop. I've heard that particular WP:NPA violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a WP:FRINGE WP:AGEMATTERS perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. Simonm223 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? Simonm223 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. Simonm223 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a bold claim. Evidence? --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (archive.is). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —Alalch E. 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a bold claim. Evidence? --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. Simonm223 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? Simonm223 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh do stop. I've heard that particular WP:NPA violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a WP:FRINGE WP:AGEMATTERS perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. Simonm223 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index
- It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by WP:EDITCON, replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting WP:FRINGE. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would consider it WP:GUNREL since it’s self published and openly partisan. HenrikHolen (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether WP:SPS applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was an RFC as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against always considering them to be self-published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether WP:SPS applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Please review reference no. 6 in Special:PermanentLink/1264352480 (
Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state
). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —Alalch E. 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in Special:PermanentLink/1262085410#History, supported by the Project 2025 publication, with attribution:
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their 2025 Mandate for Leadership, they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration.
Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —Alalch E. 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It might be 'reliable' that the HF said what they said they said, but is it relevant? This is getting into questions about whether the content is even WP:DUE. Lots of people say lots of things about lots of stuff, but Misplaced Pages doesn't quote it all. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's the reputed Index of Economic Freedom, for one. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in Special:PermanentLink/1262085410#History, supported by the Project 2025 publication, with attribution:
- Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Please review reference no. 6 in Special:PermanentLink/1264352480 (
- I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —Alalch E. 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is directly relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. -sche (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —Alalch E. 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support blacklisting Abo Yemen✉ 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Minor point but it's used on 1700 pages not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support blacklisting. I don't wanna get doxxed.. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually prevent and/or stop any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They have threatened to start doxxing people on Misplaced Pages. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 22:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- And also have said they will do it with links. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's unlikely that any professional phishing campaign by HF would use heritage.org, and if their home website were blacklisted, they would proceed to use other websites Placeholderer (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually prevent and/or stop any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
As with ALL think-tanks, I think they should be considered WP:GUNREL; though if some of their reports see WP:USEBYOTHERS than those could be used with attribution.---Avatar317 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Could we see some evidence of doxing please? If this is something they do to people it is a safety concern and we probably need to deprecate. As for the rest, I think they are an over-used fringe source, but there are probably times when their attributed opinion is due. The Economic Freedom Index was something you used to see quoted a lot in newspapers and on TV in the UK, not so much now. It shouldn't be mentioned in our Economy of Narnia or Socialist Republic of Zenda type articles.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This expose in the Forward, a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting. I don’t know if it’s “spam” per se but an organization that has stated an intent to dox editors is obviously just a simple threat to user safety. And I don’t think there’s any debate their content is all garbage, disinfo, and propaganda. Even WP:ABOUTSELF content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. Dronebogus (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting. User:Headbomb am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? Doug Weller talk 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting. The Heritage Foundation produces two things: disinformation and opinion. I don't think the opinion of a disinformation vendor is particularly noteworthy except in WP:ABOUTSELF contexts. With such minimal value to use of this group as a source let's just show them the door. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support blacklisting. The site is published by an ideologically-motivated group which is well-documented for making false claims of fact, using dubious methodologies in their work, and is now engaged in efforts to damage this very project. There's absolutely no use, and much potential harm to come from using them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
RFC: The Heritage Foundation
 |
|
What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
- Option 5: Blacklist
Poll: The Heritage Foundation
Option 5: Blacklist: Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Pinging @Dronebogus@Doug Weller@M.Bitton@Simonm223@MjolnirPants, they voted above before I made this RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in.
- is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bluethricecreamman: There is a way to warn users attempting to add these links (filter 869), but warning users who click on them would likely require some JavaScript magic that's above my pay grade. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support option 5 - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP Abo Yemen✉ 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —Alalch E. 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources § Definition of a source; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —Alalch E. 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said:
We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization
—Alalch E. 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig Abo Yemen✉ 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is the status of 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, Institute for Economic Freedom (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —Alalch E. 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —Alalch E. 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —Alalch E. 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Daily Mail is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):
- {{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}}
I'll help you: Daily Mail is not blacklisted.—Alalch E. 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- ]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —Alalch E. 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see this comment below. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment:
Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing).
Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise.But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal?
Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question ofDo paperbacks get special dispensation ...
. That original question, mildly rephrased, is:How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source, which is how this RfC's question is also formulated (What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation ...
)?Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is possible, but it is not what, say, User:NatGertler thinks. He wrote:... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question ...
. —Alalch E. 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —Alalch E. 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing Abo Yemen✉ 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —Alalch E. 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —Alalch E. 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Daily Mail is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):
- We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —Alalch E. 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —Alalch E. 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —Alalch E. 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is the status of 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, Institute for Economic Freedom (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —Alalch E. 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said:
- Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —Alalch E. 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. Dronebogus (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support option 5 and option 4 per my statements above. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3, with Option 5 post 2016 and Option 4 for any hard copy after 2016. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at WP:RSP; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —Alalch E. 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E. Interesting, it looks like it's possible only if you can do some regex trickery. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is interesting. In the present case, if blacklisting for ostensible security reasons, the date isn't a factor. —Alalch E. 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E. Interesting, it looks like it's possible only if you can do some regex trickery. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at WP:RSP; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —Alalch E. 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3: generally unreliable. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as this article by Clarence Thomas which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 and Option 4. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 for pre-2016 (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "yellow" think tanks) and Option 4 for 2016 and later. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., this (permalink)), not from value judgements.—Alalch E. 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—Alalch E. 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —Alalch E. 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—Alalch E. 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Blacklist -- but this does not mean removing the reference. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable (option 3) as they are into WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "find out." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- Patar knight - /contributions 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- Patar knight - /contributions 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JoJo Anthrax, Bluethricecreamman, Abo Yemen, Dronebogus, Doug Weller, MjolnirPants, SarekOfVulcan, Vanamonde93, NatGertler, Boynamedsue, Gnomingstuff, Patar knight, 1AmNobody24, Tryptofish, Chaotic Enby, and Horse Eye's Back:
- While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it wasn’t security related I wouldn’t have voted. But I would still allow older cites under a 3 if and only if they were replaced by wayback machine links. Dronebogus (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. Nobody (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 6, Mu. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you give out your IP when you visit any website and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing.The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a very specific link, and they have to be fairly certain that only you could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that outwardly looks like something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be more effective by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.The Heritage foundation is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/WP:PRIMARY source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-anonymize and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.The technical solutions offered at the Village pump are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions would do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both. We can remove a WP:FRINGE source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of bad-faith interference.Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is very relevant. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing #Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting.
- Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is very relevant. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: Blacklist (along with 4: Deprecate). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the Forward piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been continuing to think about this, and I've also been reading the subsequent RfC comments by editors who argue that we should still consider that it's a think tank that can provide citable source material. Some editors have also said that we should not let our emotional reaction against the doxing issue influence how we evaluate Heritage as a reliable or unreliable source. In some ways, I agree that we should not make sourcing decisions based upon emotion. However, we should also not be naive about what a legitimate think tank does. Think tanks take advocacy positions, but they also are populated by thinkers, people with expertise who think carefully about issues, and seek to publish well-reasoned analyses of issues. But it's frankly laughable to characterize Heritage that way. An organization that says, publicly, that they are going to go after Misplaced Pages editors, as persons, in order to enforce their preferred view of what information Misplaced Pages readers will find, is not an organization that is producing scholarly analyses of information that Misplaced Pages might want to cite. If it's a legitimate think tank, then Antifa is a think tank, too. Even if they also purport to produce thoughtful position papers, those publications simply have to be recognized by us as tainted by intellectual dishonesty. There is no passing that off as reliable sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? Placeholderer (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's a wide range, in both directions, of how much valuable information a source can offer. On WP:RSP the only sources deprecated with antisemitism as part of the justification are Press TV, an Iranian propaganda outlet; The Unz Review, with justification mentioning "racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content" and "many apparent copyright violations"; and Veterans Today, which was blacklisted for abuse and deprecated for "unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories." Unz Review is the only deprecation citing racism. Searching for a few other "horrible things" keywords, I don't immediately see anything else.
- With Press TV and Veterans Today it seems there are, I would say, much clearer underlying problems with the sources than is the case with HF. Unz Review seems to have been a clear-cut case — the only such case I see — of cancelling an outlet primarily for being unusably (i.e questionably) rabid, and it being an outlet that no one would miss because it doesn't seem (per its RfC) to provide useful info. HF may be unhelpful to an extent, but not that unhelpful. Apart from that, sources are flagged for their information being inappropriate for the encyclopedia, not for saying horrible things.
- It's also worth looking at Asian News International. They're another organization hostile to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's mission, but despite that whole situation, they're only MREL, and the description of why gives no mention to that situation. That's the most important precedent in this comment.
- If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those Placeholderer (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well said @Placeholderer, "
If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those...
" Iljhgtn (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- Because never has a reliable source planned on coordinating a massive attack on what is essentially information itself. If they do that, then I seriously doubt their informational integrity, and that's just in addition to the opening statement above. Deprecation means there's a warning when you try to add a new usage, and that is appropriate here. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well said @Placeholderer, "
- Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? Placeholderer (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: Blacklist, primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, generally unreliable at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense:
- In general, Option 5 for editor security reasons, as per all above.
- With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, Option 4 as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve WP:FRINGE theories.
- With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, somewhere between option 2 and option 3 - WP:NEWSOPED would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. The Kip 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- GreenC 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. nableezy - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s security theater, which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Their is no reason not to place fingerprint gathering html5 snippets as widely as possible if you want as much tracking as possible. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- And consider, Misplaced Pages editors will only be one target. A large tracking network can be a used to doxx other people they dislike (advocates of racial equality, LGBT people, non-capitalists). Its pretty safe to assume they will have middleware somewhere in their webstack to affect fingerprinting. I'd be mad at my cyberattack consultant if they missed the obvious. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fingerprinting everyone is useless for purposes of following and tracking Wikipedians. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- "This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 per PARAKANYAA. Well said. - Amigao (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 and in case it's considered seperate Option 4 as well. THF are not only publishers of WP:Fringe but are posing an active threat to WP:NOTCENSORED Bejakyo (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. soibangla (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2-3 There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Springee makes the most well articulated point of anyone in this RfC. This would indeed be "very bad precedent" and we should not also retaliate based on the claims of a single source in such bad form. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3, at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (Associated Press, New York Times and academica (Springer International and Routledge) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from The Forward, a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2, per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least some things. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1, though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the Forward source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So Option 1: Generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you point me to where you answered that? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the Forward source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So Option 1: Generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 as their own communications indicate that they are a security risk, that they intend of publishing malicious web content in order to identify people who click on their links. TarnishedPath 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 and maybe 5. Based on their (lack of) quality as a source this is an extremely obvious 4 but their recent outrageous threats were making me think that 5 was also justified, comparable to how we would treat a terrorist organisation. After seeing Red-tailed hawk's comment, among others, I am now less sure about that. What I am sure of is that they publish deliberate disinformation in intentional bad faith and that makes them utterly untrustworthy and unreliable (with both an upper and lower case "u") as a source for anything at all except for their own claims. Literally nothing that they say can be relied upon unless independently corroborated by actual Reliable Sources, in which case we should just use those Reliable Sources instead. If they say that the sky is blue then a Reliable Source needs to open a window and check before we can say that it is. I see people saying that they may have been more reliable in the past. I have my doubts about that. Sure, they are probably even worse now than they were before but were they ever really anything better than a 3 or 4? That said, if that does turn out to be true, and we do decide to blacklist, then I guess we could use Archive.org to refer to contemporaneous copies of their content which we know not to have been subsequently tampered with. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 because they have announced they are a security risk, and Option 4 because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors. Sita Bose (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 as they routinely publish material chock full of conspiracy theories and outright fabrications.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5, regrettably. I would normally have suggested option 2. But given they are actively trying to dox editors on Misplaced Pages and contributors to other internet sources, that is absurd and is not something that can result in them being tolerated as a source on Misplaced Pages. They do good work - they produce things that, while biased, are reliable, generally speaking. But their efforts have extended to doxxing contributors, and that is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages has an obligation to make reasonable attempts to protect its users - whether editors or readers - from having their information harvested through links. And since the Heritage Foundation has admitted they intend to engage in information harvesting based on links... nope. Not permissible. To clarify - my !vote here is not a comment on their reliability overall. If they cease their information harvesting, I support a further discussion on this topic. But if they intend to (and per reliable sources, may have already begun) use their links to harvest editor/reader information, absolutely not acceptable, and they should be blacklisted until they cease engaging in such behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be at minimum a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say a newspaper of record with a notable ideological bias. Dronebogus (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I counted two Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I counted two Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- option 2/3 - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them.
- That said, what they publish is opinion and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE.
- If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to Mein Kamph as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable threat of harm and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. NadVolum (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. GretLomborg (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with the BADRFC !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Very poor option 2 or option 3 gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. FortunateSons (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, if accurately recounted in the media, to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —Alalch E. 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the Index of Economic Freedom because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general Placeholderer (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular.
+1 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- What about the democracy indices from The Economist, or V-Dem, or Adam Przeworski et. al? Or the World Happiness Report? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL Placeholderer (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC Placeholderer (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the democracy indices from The Economist, or V-Dem, or Adam Przeworski et. al? Or the World Happiness Report? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL Placeholderer (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Wealth of Nations is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the Principia outmoded. Placeholderer (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't current and reliable scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for Principia's estimate. I'm going to read current scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. Wealth of Nations lies in the social sciences while Principia deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the Providence of God, not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly because it is inspired by The Wealth of Nations.
- The IEF is not a problem with this organization Placeholderer (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't current and reliable scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for Principia's estimate. I'm going to read current scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. Wealth of Nations lies in the social sciences while Principia deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the Providence of God, not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference
: No, it wouldn't make sense to reference the Heritage Foundation directly. If what we want to cover is the criticism, we want secondary source coverage of such criticism; citing such criticisms directly and just deciding to put them in an article is original research in the pursuit of a false balance. Criticism of vaccination is an influential element of American culture, but we don't go out of our way to cite anti-vaxxers; we instead cite reliable sources that independently document and analyze such. The Confederate secession was a major part of American history, but we ought not write Civil War articles by citing 1860s South Carolina newspapers for information about anti-abolitionism; we cite historians and how they have documented and analyzed what's relevant, what's meaningful, what was disinformation, etc. Likewise, if what we want is coverage of the Heritage Foundation and its role as an agitation engine against certain kinds of policies (in your example, education), then we cite journalists, historians, sociologists, education professors, etc. who study and write about organizations like the HF. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- This is entirely correct. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The difference between anti-vaxxers and Heritage Foundation is that anti-vaxxers are a fringe perspective in the medical field, even if one of them is going to lead the NHS, and that Heritage Foundation is, like Cato, a well-established but POV/advocacy think tank. As for Civil War newspapers, the difference is timeliness: of course historical events have many better sources that are third-party analysis, but we do cite think tanks all over the place. I don't see why HF is substantially different from any other MREL POV, advocacy think tank whose work should be attributed.
- To source HF's own role in policy, of course it wouldn't be used as a source for itself. The same holds for any source, MREL or not Placeholderer (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
What are you suggesting out of this, what we delete the Index of Economic Freedom page?Placeholderer (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- If you mean to say that HF is GUNREL because the IEF is pseudoscientific, then I'd ask for RS that say the IEF is pseudoscientific (not that it's just flawed, because of course any index is flawed) Placeholderer (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1268161574, which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org):
Ireland is an open economy (3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom), ...
—Alalch E. 23:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a non-scientific source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —Alalch E. 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- To restate my own point, I don't think the IEF can at all be taken as a reason to call HF a GUNREL source.
- I actually think Economy of Ireland is a great example of an article where the IEF (and by extension HF work) can be brought up, since Ireland's corporate economy is based around being a regulatory/tax haven, though I do think the current phrasing especially with parenthesis is weird so early in the article Placeholderer (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —Alalch E. 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven Placeholderer (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —Alalch E. 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a non-scientific source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —Alalch E. 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1268161574, which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org):
- Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is entirely correct. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican
: Reliable sources and the neutral point of view aren't determined by what is politically mainstream, whether Republican or Democrat in the United States, or Labour or Tory in the United Kingdom, or LDP in Japan, etc. The Taliban is a mainstream political faction in Afghanistan, insofar as it's the faction in power, but I don't think we would consider some kind of Taliban-aligned think tank to be a reliable source for Afghani society and politics. Mainstream reliability is determined not by the ideologies of politics but by the rigors and standards of academia and journalism. A majority of Americans believe a creator deity was involved in the origins of humanity, but that belief being 'mainstream' doesn't make it reliable, and we wouldn't treat a source attesting such as one that's reliable for biology or evolutionary anthropology. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- To clarify, I don't mean to assert that HF is reliable because of being mainstream Republican. I mean to say that WP:FRINGE, specifically, doesn't make much sense to use against what is, in the US, a political and academic giant. They might have some specific views that are fringe, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the source — The Economist has called for the legalization of cocaine, which is a fringe position, but The Economist is (rightfully) a well-respected source.
- TLDR I complain about specifically WP:FRINGE being invoked against HF as reason to deprecate Placeholderer (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2. Other sanctions may be appropriate for the privacy issues, but RSN is not an appropriate forum to pursue them. We cannot retaliate against sources for conduct which is not restricted by wiki accuracy and notability guidelines. And I'm leery of taking such wide action against an organization with a long and complicated history, comprising some intentional lying (especially the last 4 years) but also real and valuable research. Ideally we would give Heritage up to 2020 similar treatment to Cato
The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.
(which I think is the only thinktank with an RSP listing) and minimally GUR it for 2020+, but with the RFC as-listed I think we have to err on the side of trusting editors to use their own judgement. This RFC did not arise from an editing dispute and I don't think Heritage is being regularly used inappropriately on wiki. If a dispute does arise, Option 2 will be enough to prefer other sources. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 2. It's a widely used source, not just on Misplaced Pages but also in other RS, including scholarly articles (, ), so WP:USEDBYOTHERS applies. I'd support every effort to combat their scheme to influence Misplaced Pages but blacklisting them as a source is not going to help. Blacklisting them would make us look like vindictive amateurs rather than a serious encyclopedia. Alaexis¿question? 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
If its relevant would not other RS report it anyway? Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is most cited through their Index of Economic Freedom, which is a lot of data that's documented on that article in tables refreshed each year; no secondary source includes all the data included on that article. We could start a discussion on that article's talk page about removing the data under WP:Indiscriminate if we wish, but there does seem to be precedent with global indices to include all countries' rankings, indices, and historical rankings. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I just meant with the WP:Indiscriminate part of my reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. It would be a bit hard, though, since other indices also list everything. I would support such rampant restructuring if I had a clear picture of where the removed data would go. I'd say Wikidata, but that doesn't seem to have such facilities/pages. And no, I don't think it's reputation is that much worse to warrant deletion. Alaexis lists two sources that cite IEF: one source from the unreliable MDPI, but also one source from Nature, which is like top-tier iirc. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I just meant with the WP:Indiscriminate part of my reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "
An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor.
" How does this in any way comment on the RfC, "What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted?
" - This is exactly the sort of comment that is not actually addressing the RfC, but is purely retaliatory and very angry (perhaps understandably, but that is besides the point). Nothing about this sort of comment is rooted in policy, and I hope any closer views such !votes with the correct and proper disregard that they deserve. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If they are unreliable on specific grounds, so be it, but so far mere retaliation is neither valid nor constructive. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope. Their hostility is the icing on the cake. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "
- Option 5, or at the very least options starting from 3, due to its publication of fabricated and/or misleading information and its widespread use in the project. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 or 2. As far as I can tell, their internal memoranda are a wishlist and aspirational, and so far they haven't been successful in any of their reprehensible ideas. As far as the source itself, I tend to see it as verging into pretty unreliable territory similar to Fox News, but it's a think tank, so sometimes they might have some well-researched reports or attributable opinions, and they're one of the largest right-wing think tanks so they have a large body of usable attributed information, similar to other think tanks or advocacy groups, biased, but occasionally useful with real academics working there, so I think full deprecation or blacklisting seems excessive. The reality is, their desire to dox editors is easier wished for than done, and it doesn't expressly impugn the reliability of their past material. Andre🚐 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- After some thinking, I'm leaning towards option 4 per Tryptofish above. Besides the extensively documented lying, I (unfortunately?) don't trust a source that aspires to covertly attack and burn down us and our library, and there should be a pretty good reason for someone to click twice on the "publish" button. This won't stop any "link injection", and it shouldn't: Thinking blacklisting would diminish security problems is pure security theater, per RedTailedHawk; it is not something we should do. Deprecating informs newer editors of the situation, and that's something we should do. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —Alalch E. 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- How about you stop asking me to read what I read and disagree with? M.Bitton (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —Alalch E. 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- M.Bitton, you're wrong to insist on blacklisting based on this discussion. The real discussion about what to do technically, and blacklisting is a technical and not an editorial measure is had at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. It is also had at other places, where discussions aren't public. —Alalch E. 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 The sites are not reliable and the new information showing recently shows clear and obivous issues brought up by most here so far. ContentEditman (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 - Are there any indications at all that their statements are a reliable source about anything that is not embarrassing to themselves? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4+5 per the sources above. They routinely publish misinformation, and make no particular claim that I can see towards doing any fact-checking or having any editorial controls in the first place, so they shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with; but the fact that they somehow ended up used in so many articles shows that deprecation is necessary. In the rare case where someone there says something significant, it will be reported in secondary sources and can be cited via those; there is no exception to WP:RS for "they're really important, tho", precisely because unreliable-but-important sources can be cited via secondary coverage. Their threats to use domains they control to dox and out Misplaced Pages editors is just an additional reason on top of this and a reason to take the step of a formal blacklist. While blacklisting obviously won't solve the problem, it will avoid situations where editors feel they have to click their links in order to evaluate a potentially-viable source, and force them to use lesser-known (and, for most editors, more intrinsically suspicious) domains in order to do any sort of spear-phishing attack. Some editors seem to be saying "well let them use their own domain for those attacks, that'll make it more obvious" - but if we don't blacklist it then it won't, because allowing it means it could also be used in good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Routinely publishing misinformation would be a concern, but I haven't been convinced from the discussion so far that they do that. Could you elaborate? Placeholderer (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: +1 (what Aquillion said) + Think tanks are rarely anything but a source of last resort on Misplaced Pages. We mostly use them when they have useful insight into niche security topics. If any primary research or opinion from the HF is particularly notable and due, it will be covered by reliable, secondary sources, and we can still cover it. We don't need to send users to a website with potentially malicious activity. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 This seems like a drastic overreaction. Nemov (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- 5, and 3/4. If this had been asked a month ago, I'd've said 3 because, as Alalch and others laid out in the RFCBEFORE, they have a reputation for letting politics trump accuracy, leading to mis- and dis-information; in any situation in which their views are DUE, those will (by definition!) have been covered by other, reliable sources; and any ABOUTSELF statements needed on their own article can be handled as exceptions/whitelisted. But 5 is also in order: for a source to operate in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, is not only additional evidence that they do dishonest/untrustworthy things and are unreliable, the misuse of their domains in particular merits blacklisting. Pace those who think blacklisting their main domain is "security theater" because they'll also use other domains, I think it's necessary, as I (a) see no reason to doubt they're using their main domain for the same thing, and (b) view blacklisting them (under their main domain) as a necessary first part of blacklisting them (under any other domains they're caught using). -sche (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 given the explicit details of the threat they pose to editors here. (same reason that a site like Conservipedia should be blacklisted too). The content they produce would already make them generally unreliable (and I don't know if we ever considered them reliable before so deprecation doesn't sound possible), but we should go the step further to protect WP editors here. I can see limited exemptions to use them as a primary source only on a page about the Herigate Foundation itself if that absolutely needed, but likely not. --Masem (t) 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 This feels cut-and-dry. They're a propaganda wing for a specific hardline ideology and have a long and storied history of simply disregarding factuality. Ignoring all the concerns with them outing editors, I'm amazed it wasn't already considered unreliable.
- Option 4, and blacklist: clearly unreliable. The blacklisting decision should ideally not be here but a matter for the Spam Blacklist discussion pages, but as it is here, I support blacklisting for security purposes too. If the HF changes course and presents no further security considerations, the blacklisting can and should be revisited without prejudice to a RSN discussion. Sceptre (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion: The Heritage Foundation
What exactly happens to the 5000 links if we blacklist them? Does a bot go through and remove the https:// from them so they are unclickable? (Seems reasonable.) Or are the citations deleted? (Seems a bit damaging.) Or something else? This will affect how I opine in the above RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae I'm just noting that it isn't 5000 but cca 1750, please see Special:Diff/1268481621. Sorry for propagating the incorrect number. —Alalch E. 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It could either of those two options or it could be that the bot goes through and replaces the references with a {{cn}}. I guess that should be discussed. TarnishedPath 23:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting says "Ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting." —Alalch E. 23:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The page Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see WP:RSP#Blacklisted) only explains what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an additional outcome may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —Alalch E. 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think a malware website can not be used as a reliable source. The intent is to misinform and endanger. Nothing reliable about that. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The page Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see WP:RSP#Blacklisted) only explains what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an additional outcome may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —Alalch E. 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I see arguments above that the Heritage Foundations declared hostility to Misplaced Pages's neutrality means we should treat them as a hostile organization. There are other entities hostile to our neutrality; Donald Trump and the Chinese government are two that come to mind. Neither is what I would call a reliable source, but we don't ban all links to them; they're treated as reliable for a very limited set of cases. What's the difference between these cases? There are governments who have imprisoned Misplaced Pages editors (so I gather; I don't have a reference but I've seen it said). Can those governments be cited for anything at all -- e.g. the names of their ministers? Option 5 seems inconsistent with the way we treat these other hostile entities. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Donald Trump doesn't have a detailed cyberattack plan to doxx editors here. The heritage foundation does plan on using web technologies to harm editors. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, but that vector doesn't seem as hostile as imprisonment to me. Why does the fact that this attack is digital mean option 5 is appropriate (instead of e.g. just using archive.org to avoid direct links)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment, a great many comments !voted purely out of retaliation to try and stop Heritage foundation from taking a certain action that some perceive to be "doxxing". I have a serious question though, "Does deprecating and removing any links to Heritage Foundation, IF the blacklist/deprecation retaliatory measure passes... does this actually stop them from initiating their plan, or parts of it? I am not familiar with all of the details, but with A.I. and other tools these days, couldn't they still try and do things to identify some editors with certain editing patterns or behavior completely independent of whatever happens with this discussion and then do the "doxxing" anyway? This seems to have larger legal implications, unless I misunderstand it, and if that is the case then this seems silly to try and solve with a angry RfC which might not have any real defensive benefit for the community. Has anyone taken this into consideration? Is anything being done about that? If not, why not? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Reference Subsection
References
- Washington, Haydn; Cook, John (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. London: Earthscan. p. 75,77. ISBN 978-1-84971-335-1. OCLC 682903020.
- Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
- McKie, Ruth E. (2023). The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19–50. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2. ISBN 978-3-031-33592-1 – via Springer Link.
Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...
- Wubbena, Zane C.; Ford, Derek R.; Porfilio, Brad J. (1 March 2016). News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-68123-401-4 – via Google Books.
For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...
- Kessler, Glenn (March 31, 2021). "The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 11, 2021. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
- Bensinger, Ken; Fausset, Richard (September 7, 2024). "Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2024. Retrieved September 7, 2024.
- Fields, Gary; Swenson, Ali (July 12, 2024). "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
- Foundation, Heritage (1 February 2023). "Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise" (PDF). The Heritage Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 November 2023. Retrieved 1 September 2023.
- Rosenfeld, Arno (2025-01-07). "Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to 'identify and target' Misplaced Pages editors". The Forward. Retrieved 2025-01-10.
- "Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom". www.heritage.org. Archived from the original on 21 May 2020. Retrieved 2022-11-12.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)
Are PCORI statements a WP:Reliable source for medical claims? Do PCORI statements pass WP:MEDRS as coming from a medical organization?
I say yes. The organization is non-governmental, but was established by the United States government, and they have awarded about US$2 billion in grants over the past 10 years. They are a large research organization which takes care in making conventional statements. Also, they have good alignment with wiki community organizations, and have hosted and joined wiki editing events in the United States and with Wikimedia Medicine for almost 10 years. That alignment is because of PCORI's patient advocacy, and because typical people find this organization's statements to be more relevant than those from more industry-oriented medical organizations. While PCORI does drive a lot of research through peer reviewed journals, they also make expert consensus statements in the name of PCORI which are not peer reviewed.
@Zefr: said that some PCORI statements are "neither vetted by peer-review nor is it mainstream clinical practice", which is correct, but I feel that they still meet MEDRS by being a statement from an authoritative organization. Similarly, @Whywhenwhohow: reverted saying the sources were not MEDRS compliant. FULBERT made the statements as Wikimedian in Residence at PCORI, and I collaborate with FULBERT through United States Wikimedia groups and through the University of Virginia, where I also am a Wikimedian in Residence.
Here are the talk notices about reversion. The statements are
- Talk:Modafinil#Clarification_on_a_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted
- Talk:Amantadine#A_recent_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted
- Talk:Methylphenidate#Update_on_a_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted
Here is an actual PCORI statement from the Modafinil article. The reverted claim from this statement was that 40% of patients using a drug have adverse effects.
I support using this source for this claim.
Thoughts from others about PCORI generally? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry - in the case of my revert at Modafinil, the PCORI report was just a summary of preliminary results (n=33, i.e., primary research) from the "Treatment of Fatigue with Methylphenidate, Modafinil and Amantadine in MS" (TRIUMPHANT-MS) trial, which had been funded by PCORI.
- At this early stage,TRIUMPHANT-MS was actually just a pilot study reported here. That study is not a MEDRS source for the article statement, "modafinil has been shown to be effective in managing fatigue in people with MS" when other more substantial sources, including a meta-analysis, are used.
- Further, the PCORI statement is that "These findings can contribute to clinician and patient discussions about treatments to reduce MS-related fatigue." In other words, the PCORI article is a) a progress report, and b) an advice source for a physician-patient discussion.
- In this case, such a brief update on funding for preliminary research is not an appropriate reference, and does not comment on the wider issue of PCORI as an organization. Zefr (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reviewing the PCORI website leads to the conclusion that their strength is the cross-sectional diversity in how they evaluate, monitor, then disseminate summaries of research projects, described here. They are not the publication venue for completed research - the WP:MEDASSESS sources of journals, books or clinical organizations - but rather their reports are summaries of the research project. For this reason, I would ask why would we cite a PCORI summary when a peer-reviewed publication is the main source? Is there an example of a PCORI final report that you feel is a good MEDRS example?
- There was concern that funded research groups submitting final reports to PCORI had "spin" language, which was caught and adjusted by PCORI before publication.
- As of 2023, the National Academy of Medicine is collaborating with PCORI to improve the review process for evaluating research funding candidates.
- The PCORI article needs updating. There are fewer than 30 watchers/editors of the article. Zefr (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Zefr: Two issues here: The extent to which PCORI publications meet MEDRS, and then presuming that PCORI is reliable, WP:Verifying that Misplaced Pages reflects PCORI's claim in an appropriate context. Originally I think you were challenging PCORI, but here, I think you are challenging the claim. Do you agree with that distinction and separation, and if so, can you (or I) move your text discussing the claim to Talk:Modafinil#Clarification_on_a_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted?
- This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, so this is the place to discuss your comments about the organization and your question about why to cite PCORI's summaries instead of the original source. Briefly, there can be multiple approaches to healthcare. Most approaches originate in the healthcare industry, and it is challenging to escape that. PCORI speaks for itself, but I would describe it as remaining in the healthcare industry (as opposed to exiting it to seek alternative medicine), and within that context, recommending evidence-based medicine which prioritizes person-centered care. So for example, many medical recommendations from industry seek to maximize curing disease, but a patient-centered approach could emphasize managing side effects and planning the financial cost of treatment. Regardless of what kind of recommendations PCORI is making, I sustain the notion that per WP:MEDORG, Misplaced Pages includes expert institutional claims which may not go through the peer review process of a journal.
- I think the report we have been discussing is a good MEDRS example. It comes in different forms -
- for clinicians (we were discussing citing this one)
- for patients
- the peer reviewed research article for the trial
- Misplaced Pages typically does not cite trials, but here, PCORI is elevating the results of this case study into a special report and expert recommendation. We can attribute this to the organization following WP:ACCORDINGTO/WP:INTEXT guidelines, which was the original attempted edit.
- PCORI gets into cases like this which are fairly unusual. The situation is that there is an Off-label use for a drug (so it is not indicated or approved, but there is evidence for it) and then PCORI is giving an alert about that off-label use. I am not a physician, and I do not know how to untangle expert institutional critiques of off-label drug use, but in general, I just trust PCORI's process and think Misplaced Pages can include PCORI recommendations attributed to them. I do not see this as the same as citing a case study without the backing of an expert org.
- Base question back to you - how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence? Bluerasberry (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If PCORI published a summary of results from a multinational Phase III trial or a systematic review that it had helped to fund, then perhaps that would meet WP:MEDORG (although still not a national clinical guideline that would better meet MEDASSESS). In the case of the reference for modafinil, PCORI is giving an update on a pilot study, which clearly isn't MEDRS.
- "how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence?" Defined on the PCORI website under Evidence Updates:
PCORI presents findings from systematic reviews and some of our funded research studies in concise, accessible formats called Evidence Updates. Most Evidence Updates are available in two versions: one for patients and caregivers and one for clinicians and other professionals. These updates, which capture the highlights and context for these new findings, are created and disseminated in collaboration with patients, health professionals, and other organizations."
- Likely, the PCORI update for a systematic review would be more digestible for the common Misplaced Pages reader, but having the original journal publication would have to go with it as the more complete source. If there was a conflict with another source and both were MEDRS-qualified, WP:BALANCE would say discuss them both.
- It's ok to copy any of this to the modafinil talk page. Zefr (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: I do not think there is a term for nonprofit organizations which have strong government ties, but yes, I understand what you mean. PCORI is a 501(c)(3) organization which receives government grants through the Affordable Care Act.
- I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Law&Crime Network
Hello! I would like to know your opinion about Law&Crime Network youtube channel and their news site Law&Crime News. Are they reliable source for information about murders/trials? SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Youtube channels are generally not reliable sources. Please see WP:RSPYT for additional context. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't speak to their YouTube channel at all. Re: their website, Adam Klasfeld used to be their managing editor (he's now a journalism fellow with Just Security), and I found him to be a very reliable reporter on legal issues. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their website is RS. However many of the sources there, you have to deal with BLPCRIME, for which you must be cautious anyway. But I have found them to be fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Catholic-Hierarchy.org
Catholic-Hierarchy.org is a self-published source that has been featured in two prior discussions (2016 and 2020). Multiple editors appear to consider it a reliable source specifically because it is used in other independent publications. This is a noted exception for self-published sources that can be found in WP:RS/SPS. However, users also acknowledge that it should never be used in biographies of living people.
Is there more discussion that should be had? Should these details be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? This source is used several thousand times on the English WP, so centralized standards for it might be desirable. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has inclusion criteria and can be discussed on WT:RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @OldPolandUpdates: Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mid-paragraph here. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If Catholic-Hierarchy.org is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles.
- Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_203#catholic-hierarchy.org. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used enough by external publications.
- If you consider Catholic-Hierarchy.org not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The standard is mid-paragraph here "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which does not appear to be the case here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would also note that there appears to be a consensus from 2020 that this is a SPS, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Catholic-Hierarchy.org Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a subject-matter expert in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on Catholic-Hierarchy.org is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, there has to be works other than the self published ones and they have to predate the self published one. Generally only academics and journalists satisfy our requirements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on Catholic-Hierarchy.org is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have modified the WP:RSPSOURCES entry to better reflect this comment. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It still feels off, you're giving wayyyyyy too much weight to the group that thinks its reliable when that view isn't supported by policy and guideline. You also make the consenus that it isn't an expert SPS look like just an opinion, but we clearly have consensus that the author isn't a subject matter expert by our standards. It also isn't a general opinion that SPS can't be used for BLP, thats solid policy. This comes off more as apologism than what consenus actually is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a subject-matter expert in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mid-paragraph here. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a non-expert self published source. We have established that no such "noted exception" exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it is used by reliable secondary sources then it shouldn't be difficult to find the information from the reliable source itself. Shankargb (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: The London Standard
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The London Standard, formerly known as the Evening Standard, has 18,703 links on the English Misplaced Pages. Its reliability has not been discussed since 2018, and there is currently no consensus on its reliability. Therefore, what is the reliability of the London Standard?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Marginally reliable, or additional considerations apply
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated
JJPMaster (she/they) 23:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should also post some examples of the articles from this publication. People would then know why this outlet is now up for discussion. Shankargb (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can we stop doing RfCs with no background? That is not what this is for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: I brought it here (a) because of its recent change in format and (b) because it hasn't been discussed in seven years. I figured that the previous discussions would have been sufficient for WP:RFCBEFORE, so I didn't think to start a regular discussion beforehand. JJPMaster (she/they) 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You don’t start off with the RfCs, for which you provided 0 context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: I brought it here (a) because of its recent change in format and (b) because it hasn't been discussed in seven years. I figured that the previous discussions would have been sufficient for WP:RFCBEFORE, so I didn't think to start a regular discussion beforehand. JJPMaster (she/they) 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Summoned by bot) I'm with Parakanyaa here. That it hasn't been discussed since 2018 is not sufficient reason for an RFC, in fact it's reason against one. I would have expected some recent discussion prior to an RFC, so that we have some context. TarnishedPath 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RFC because of lack of WP:RFCBEFORE. I have no context whatsoever here. Presumably if it's being brought up here, JJPMaster thinks there's some kind of problem with it, but if so it's not clear at all what problem(s) they think there is. Loki (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RFC due to complete lack of WP:RFCBEFORE. No discussion in any capacity since 2018. The Kip 04:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Procedural Close. There is no mandatory periodical process for the reliability of specific sources. A source is brought here for discussion only after what the instructions demand, in large fonts, right at the header:
Please supply the article is used in, and the claim it supports. RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions .
This is a bad RfC and should not be entertained nor continued. -The Gnome (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - Unless there's some new context in regard to it's reliability, disagreement between editors or discussion of London Standard's reliability in secondary sources, then there's no need for a new discussion let alone an RFC. Maybe the wording in header and edit warning needs to be stronger. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable per WP:NEWSORG. Since this newspaper is listed in RSP, we are within our rights to !vote on it. James500 (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Request withdrawn per above. Checking a wikipedia source
I'm curious as to whether in general I can copy an already existing citation from one Misplaced Pages article to another which says the same thing without having to check that citation. For example, on the page George Robert Russell there's a citation which I haven't checked, but I'm assuming the person who added it did: , and I want to use it to link his name on Jonathan Russell's page. This example is the specific one and a little complicated (and I apologize for that), but the question also applies for other cases. Can Do I have to check the citation myself first to do this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Wikieditor662 You should. Noone can force you, but sadly often, WP-sourcing is not what it should be. Gbooks and archive.org is sometimes helpful. Note also that you are close to have access to the WP:LIBRARY. WP:RX is sometimes useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You should be able to access page 190–191 via Google books here -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The advantage of checking sources yourself is that you're much less likely to see your edits reverted with a comment of failed verification, not in source later. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you guys very much, I added it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The advantage of checking sources yourself is that you're much less likely to see your edits reverted with a comment of failed verification, not in source later. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- Jacques Downs, The Golden Ghetto (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1997), 191.
RE: Lambgoat
Lambgoat just got discussed recently, but I have a useage that hasn't come up yet in discussions that I want to get clarity on. Is an article like this, about heavy metal genres, acceptable for use on the relevant Misplaced Pages genre articles, with the exclusion of any BLP claims or controversial statements? I'm pinging the other editors who were involved in that discussion. JeffSpaceman, Sergecross73, MFTP Dan.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have to say, I have never seen LG do something like this and would not be personally inclined to use it. It's only just over a year old, so maybe it's a new thing they're doing and I didn't keep up. mftp dan 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found another music history article from 2024, so it looks like this might be a new addition to the type of coverage that they do.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I suspected. I would be loath to use this, I always treated LG as a last resort for routine coverage of bands. To me, it's the lowest tier of source that's still acceptable for use especially on, you know, older subjects where there isn't surviving online coverage otherwise. They are impressive for cataloguing that far back. mftp dan 14:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found another music history article from 2024, so it looks like this might be a new addition to the type of coverage that they do.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would recommend verifying with other, more established reliable sources, and potentially citing those instead per User:MFTP Dan. I think routine coverage (as you state, barring exceptional claims or third-party information about living people) is probably viable, but I'm not confident this source should be cited for what you are looking into it being used for. But I'll see what others think and where consensus goes. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't mention editorial staff or fact checking on their about us. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They do have an editor, per the staff page, but the role is not explained.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, you don't see that explanation a lot these days. Especially in the content area LG serves. It's surprisingly slim pickens out there. mftp dan 14:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- They do have an editor, per the staff page, but the role is not explained.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)