< Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 01:05, 12 November 2022 view sourceÆo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers17,666 editsm →Association of Religion Data Archives and World Religion Database← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:55, 24 January 2025 view source Hemiauchenia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users60,421 edits →Is this citation/reference using Answers in Genesis reliable for Mosaic Authorship: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}}		{{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 = 389		|counter = 465
	|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 (The Daily Dot) ==
	<!-- ] 19:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1667588470}}
	What best describes ''The Daily Dot''<nowiki/>'s reliability?
	* '''Option 1:''' Generally ] for factual reporting
	* '''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply
	* '''Option 3:''' Generally ] for factual reporting
	* '''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ]
	] (]) 00:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
	*Sigh… none of the standard options fit… so I will say '''Option 5: Use with in-text attribution''' ] (]) 02:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' I'm not sure this RfC is helpful. It looks like the discussion in the previous section was already reaching a consensus of something like '''2''' but the more difficult question is ''what'' additional considerations apply. Most people were arguing that it should be seen as a biased source and used with attribution where something is contentious. I think {{u|DFlhb}}'s suggestion that we treat it similarly to the ] is probably sensible. ] (]) 13:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
	*I just want to post here to point people to my analysis and conclusion in the section above (]). I think an '''"option 2 with required attribution"''' would be fitting, similar to ]'s '''option 5''' idea above. It's quite unlikely that the Daily Dot would be the only source reporting on something, so other sources that don't require attribution should be preferred; and the Daily Dot shouldn't be used for notability evaluation since many editors have pointed out in the discussion above that the Dot frequently covers inconsequential topics or Daily-Mail-like gossip. ] (]) 14:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' I agree with others that our typical options don't work well here. In fact I think this is a good example of why the typical options list and the color coding in general aren't very helpful. The current RSP listing says DD is reliable for internet trends. It doesn't say it's green for comments about people or politics etc. Of the options we have I would say #2 because that is where I think most sources like this should fit. Are they likely to tell an outright lie? No. Are they likely to skew what they report in a way that could lead to a false impression or that leaves out signiticant context? Yes. Are they likely to amplify a claim based on their own bias rather than based on a good analysis of the evidence? Yes. So all of these things point to a clear "use with care" type warning. However, the other issue is how much weight, if any, should be given to claims that we only find in DD? I would say just about none. I mean I'm fine with using them as a source for an otherwise mundane detail, "Ford released the new Palomino on March 5th". Should the source be used for a controversial claim ("Ford is hiding a safety defect in the Palomino"), heck no. Would I consider a claim made by another source more valid because DD echos it? No, they are trolling the web for clickable content. Thus my biggest concern is why would we give them any weight rather than are they messing up the actual facts. ] (]) 15:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 3 for politics'''. I think it makes sense to split this out by topic. ''The Daily Dot'' seems fine when they write about so-called internet culture, which seems to mostly consist of reporting on a viral TikTok video or the like, with a few paragraphs of analysis, which they do quite often, with , for some reason. (All of these examples are from the last four days!) It seems harmless enough. But when they cover politics, their status as a clickbait-y aggregator really becomes a problem: they still focus much of their reporting on Twitter randos and so on, with very little actual reporting, and in their analysis they seem much more interested in taking cheap shots at conservatives than at accurately capturing events. And, as ] pointed out in the section above, even when they get things right, {{tq|any non-obvious facts would be covered in other sources}}. So it seems useless to include them as a source for political topics. ] (]) 16:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1 in general, biased and ] for politics'''. I see no evidence above of serious failed fact checks or blatant propagandistic shenanigans like doctored images or mixing fringe POVs with factual reporting (please feel free to inform me if I missed something of this form), but it does appear to be biased and opinionated for politics, so it should have a disclaimer similar to Jacobin, Reason etc that it is an opinionated/biased sources and treated as such (attributed where usable when biased/opinion, not for weight). ''']'''<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> 19:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
	*:Reason is a publication with years of history and plenty of good work to it's credit. This is none of that. It's mostly a farm for click bait stories. It's crazy that we would consider this crap source more reliable than Fox News (which isn't meant to be a compliment to Fox). ] (]) 20:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
	*::I'm open to changing my view on it, but I haven't seen any evidence, unlike copious failed fact checks and misleading statements by Fox. ''']'''<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> 20:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
	*Probably option 1.5/2? It seems like sometimes attribution is appropriate when there's an unclear separation of reporting/analysis and commentary, but I have not seen sufficient evidence that we should consider it unreliable. Presumably we're supposed to base this, at least in part, on the list of stories which exemplify DD as unreliable in the section above. But actually looking at them, it's less a list of problems and more a list of when the OP disagrees. That DD considers Joe Rogan's statement that {{tq|healthy 21-year-olds who exercise regularly have no need for vaccination}} to be a "false claim about COVID" is ''not'' an example of ''this'' source being unreliable. As for the Vance quote about being a "nationalist who worries about America's low fertility", as the DD article says, that's typically a white nationalist perspective. Maybe he wants there to just be more Americans, and supports lowering barriers to immigration rather than wanting more of ''specific types'' of Americans, but we don't need to know his thoughts to say that the Daily Dot pointed out that it's typically a racist argument (or a dog whistle to those who support that racist argument, with the built-in deniability that dog whistles come with). OP seemed to simply miss the point of the Musk/hair/gender-affirming care story, but that's ultimately DD highlighting a perspective ''other'' people made rather than their own, anyway, and there's no "unreliability" in there. The evidence is simply unconvincing. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 19:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
	*:I agree with this read ''']'''<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> 20:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''': There is no question that its home page looks clickbaity, and my initial reaction was to dismiss the publication outright (though not for the reasons cited by the OP, as to which I agree with Rhododendrites). But it actually seems to be reasonably accurate in its substantive news, it has something of a reputation for breaking news, and it's used by others. So on further consideration, I think it can be used with attribution. Some examples of use by others:
	::*"The woman came forward last year shortly after the Daily Dot published an article recounting accusations that Maloney sexually harassed women connected to Young Americans for Liberty, a conservative political organization." Atlanta Journal-Constitution (5/8/2022).
	::*"The caller also provided police with a username, which belonged to a website's administrator, which they claimed belonged to them, suggesting that the caller's alleged motives and identity may have been fabricated, according to the Daily Dot, which first obtained a copy of the police report ." Independent Online (U.K.) (8/25/2022).
	::*" Loudermilk gave an interview to a local Georgia radio station on the day of the riot . The Georgia Republican was still in an undisclosed secure location as he spoke. His comments would not become widely known until The Daily Dot uncovered them months later." Business Insider (6/16/2022).
	::*"Unjected, a dating app and the "largest unvaccinated platform" online, apparently left its entire website's back end unsecured. Security researchers, working with Daily Dot reporters, reportedly accessed the site's administrator dashboard, which had been left entirely unsecured and in de-bug mode." National Law Review (8/4/2022) (also covered in other sources).
	::*"The Daily Dot recently discovered that one of the companies the state authorizes to provide campaigns and political action committees (PACs) with campaign finance software is owned by an open and avowed White supremacist who still praises the Confederacy." Florida Politics (9/16/2022).
	::These are just some recent examples from Westlaw. ] (]) 04:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1.5/2''' per {{u|Rhododendrites}}, but weakly oppose Option 1 due to additional considerations below. ] evidently appears to be clickbait, and most of its culture articles are superficial, reporting on popular social media videos with limited analysis. This, IMHO is echoed in its political coverage, which per the previous thread is somewhat exaggerated and leaves out context. However, I couldn't find specific examples in which The Daily Dot has written a piece that is blatantly misinformation or disinformation, but it is far from the quality of a newspaper of record or another site with high-quality editorial control. Numerous pieces previously provided are also marked as opinion pieces, which are irrelevant, such as . Also, while the label of the coronavirus piece could be slightly opinionated, IMO it is not misleading to the point of damaging reliability. Further, the previous articles definitely show that The Daily Dot is ], reflected by the current RSP entry {{tq|Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.}} Due to that The Daily Dot frequently covers controversial and possibly exaggerated content that possibly violates due weight, IMO attribution should be recommended, and better sources should be preferred when possible. '''] '''] 01:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
	*:> {{tq|reporting on popular social media videos with limited analysis}}
	*:Is a lack of analysis for that a problem, I wonder? Watching and documenting the Web is also necessarily their forte (it's ] too). It may seem irrelevant and silly to many, or even clickbait-y. But to give a contrasting example, I found the Daily Dot indispensable in helping to catalog the cultural evolution of ]. An Internet cultural history that nobody could argue didn't dip into some politics, by the way. ] (]) 19:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1'''. ] is not based on whether editors personally disagree with a source's conclusions (which seems to be the only arguments made above), but on its {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}; and nobody has presented any secondary sourcing calling the Daily Dot's reputation into question, just things they personally disagree with. We don't perform ] here, we rely on what other sources say - you have to demonstrate its ''reputation'', not just a laundry-list of articles you take issue with. And as far as its reputation goes, the source ''does'' have decent ]. See eg. . The first two particularly stand out because the authors relied on the Daily Dot for part of their classification scheme, ie. its reputation for accuracy - ''when covering politics'', note - was central to their research. is similar, presenting an article and comparison from the Daily Dot to justify the basis of their research. That's (generally) the way we'd expect academic papers to treat a ]. And coverage in other sources generally covers it the way we'd expect them to cover another RS, eg. --] (]) 02:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
	*:Quite a few of these are paywalled, but , which you describe as standing out, lists Media Bias/Fact Check the exact same way it lists Daily Dot. Yet, MBFC is not a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. I don't think a pile of links to largely paywalled sources that (at least some of the time) refer to them in a way they refer to unreliable sources really establishes their reliability.
	*:Also, the question of bias needing attribution for WP purposes is separate from the issue of factual accuracy; and the site's strong bias is quite obvious. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 05:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
	*::I think you need to read that source again. They aren't listing them, they're using lists from them (and three other places). ] (]) 05:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
	::::Yes. The point is that, in context, their conclusions depend on the accuracy of data that they got from the Daily Dot, which is the way I would expect an academic paper to use a ]. This ''alone'' is not always enough because we have to consider what others say about them, but since it is otherwise generally structured like a reputable news source, and since the only objections anyone seems to be raising about the Daily Dot are that they personally disagree with its conclusions, it seems sufficient in this case. --] (]) 19:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1'''. I just looked at TDD. A story about an incident at a Walmart ends with "The Daily Dot reached out to ...." Another about a TV weatherman using scenes of an animal caught in Hurricane Ian rising waters states "The Daily Dot reached out to WINK News...." There's one about a former employee exposing JCPenney's secret loss prevention surveillance, with "The Daily Dot reached out to Han via TikTok comment and JCPenney via email." TDD does what journalism is expected and supposed to do. <br /> As for opinions, and its coverage of politics and culture, ''']''' states: "{{green|''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... 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''.}}" ] ]. ''L not Q''. 03:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''', there has been no evidence presented that ''The Daily Dot'' engages in misinformation or that they have purveyed factually innacurate information and refused to correct it, all publications that report on politics are biased to some extent and the only way to avoid this would be to delete all Misplaced Pages articles on politics. ] (]) 23:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2'''/'''Option 5''' from ] above. Per ]'s analysis in the section above The Daily Dot does not appear to draw a clear line between opinion pieces and factual reporting, so they need to be treated like a ] source with in-text attribution. Their building articles around random social media posts (as shown by ]'s list of articles about fast food tiktok's in this section and the quoted tweets mentioned by ] above) raises some pretty serious concerns both around ] and about its usability for establishing ]/]. As its editorial standards appear to have gone down somewhat recently, maybe it would be possible to establish a rough cut-off point, prior to which it could be used with less caveats. ] (]) 08:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''' highly biased on numerous fronts, not a source that should be generally used on Misplaced Pages. ] 18:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1'''. I don't see any evidence that suggests ''TDD'' is anything but a generally reliable source. In fact, the examples of ''TDD'' following (what should be) accepted journalism practices has left me ''more confident'' of their reliability than I had been previously. ] (]) 19:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2/5''' per Blueboar, Bobfrombrockley, and others above; mixes fact and opinion and hence the rules on opinion pieces apply. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 21:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
	* Terrible RfC as per all the varying views offered above, which are valid answers to the question but not the options presented. The only one I would be wholeheartedly against is option 4. ] (]) 11:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' - this RfC is due in part to a (now-archived) list I created of what I saw as false or misleading wording in some ''Daily Dot'' articles; you can see the list, and some discussion about it, ]. ] (]) 00:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Option 2? It depends''' - this RFC for generic labelling doesn’t seem applicable, it would depend on the specific item in question. The DailyDot collection of pieces range in areas and sourcing and value - many are by staff writers with good rep and giving a factual reporting, many are more question pieces or about non-fact topics. Cheers ] (]) 15:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Option 1''' per {{noping|Aquillion}}: they don't seem to have any sort of history of inaccuracy and there's sufficient ] to make it hard to say they're not reliable. I could see noting them down as biased but TBH they're not any more biased than something like ], which is also green on RSP. ] (]) 17:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Option 2''' for political content, '''Option 1''' for general content per {{u|Andrevan}} and {{u|Rhododendrites}}. Contentious or questionable political views (whether explicit or implied) are not enough to write a source off as unreliable, but it does warrant additional considerations in a source's use and preference for better sources when possible. ] (]) 06:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
	* My personal view is: if text can be sourced only to the Daily Dot, then we should not include it. If it's in a more reliable source but the Daily Dot provides additional colour then it ''might'' be acceptable as a supporting source with inline attribution, but even then I'd be skeptical. It's trashy and clickbaity. We should never drop sourcing standards to the point that we can include sensationalist content just because people like it, after all. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 19:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
	* Seems like '''Option 5''' is the best; it's an ok source, but we should find better, but it's better than nothing. ] (]) 17:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
	:'''Options 2 or 5'''. I concur with Oaktree; it's not the best source to use but it's better than Infowars. Ideally, I would elect to '''Decide on a case by case basis'''. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 21:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Option 1''' per {{noping|Aquillion}}, particularly good on Internet Culture (even though I'd acknowledge there has been a noticeable trend towards clickbaity articles in recent years). (Disclosure: I have for the Daily Dot.) --] <small>]]</small> 17:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Option 3 for politics''' as per ]. - ] (]) 19:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	== ] Relisted ==
	Context: Original poorly formatted notification ]. However, it contains how the authors and organization are covered in reliable sources. In addition, since the original listing, I created an article for ]
	<!-- ] 05:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1668056472}}
	Question: Can we use Health Liberation Now! as a source for factual information?
	: '''1)''' We can use it as a source without in-text attribution (X happened)
	: '''2)''' We can use it as a source with in-text attribution (Health Liberation Now stated X happened)
	: '''3)''' We can't use it as a source at all
	] (]) 04:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
	:* ''' 1 though 2 is an acceptable compromise (as proposer)''': HLN's reporting is often used matter of factly in reliable sources. The authors are considered subject matter experts and we also have practically every mention in a reliable source, especially ], describing them as an organization known for reporting on political attacks on transgender healthcare. While they are an advocacy group, that doesn't mean they aren't neutral or uncitable, as we quote organizations such as the ] in a similar manner. No reliable sources have raised doubts about the accuracy of their reports, and frankly they do good reporting on an under-reported issue. For those reasons, we should be able to include details from their reporting in articles, either as facts since they often publish easily verifiable statements, or attributed to keep in line with Misplaced Pages policies.
	:] (]) 04:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
	*''']'''. The three options in the RfC represent a false choice, which is to say that the poorly constructed RFC ignores the potential that we should '''treat as ]''' and apply additional considerations with respect to ]. There is not all that much significant coverage of the website itself, though the best I can piece together is that this is a that appears to be a ]. I don't see evidence of the sorts of things that we require of news organizations, such as strong ]. I also don't think that this is anywhere near the level of ]. As always, the guidance of ] that {{tq|Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable}} is worth heeding here.{{pb}}There is a narrow exception for expert sources, which is reserved for people {{tq|whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications}}. Along those lines, {{yo|TheTranarchist}} has the research of the two people who run this website previously been published by independent, reliable publications, such as ]? If so, would you be willing to provide links to some examples? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 16:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
	*:Yes, I covered how they were considered experts extensively in the ] but was chided for information overload.
	*:: 1) Leveille, Schevers, and Health Liberation Now are cited in peer-reviewed article
	*:: 2) The independent calls Leveille a {{tq|a trans researcher and health activist who has extensively documented the origins of what he calls TAnon}}
	*:: 3) Xtra Magazine describes Schevers as a {{tq|researcher}} who {{tq|researches TERFs because she used to be one. She’s written extensively about being sucked into a cult-like “detransition” movement which convinced young transmasculine people that their dysphoria was caused by misogyny and could only be cured by radical feminism.}}. They also state {{tq|She has been my most patient guide through the world of organized transphobia, having previously spoken to me about the rise of anti-trans activism targeting doctors and gender clinics; every conversation is a whirlwind of names, dates, times and bizarre blog posts from TERF havens, illuminating the underbelly of an obsessive and increasingly dangerous movement.}}
	*:: 4) Ms. Magazine describes Schevers as {{tq|a researcher who tracks anti-trans activity}}
	*:: 5) Salon describes Schevers as a {{tq|trans journalist}}
	*:: 6) Vice despite being a passing mention does describe Schevers as a {{tq|HLN researcher}}
	*:The Indepedendent and Xtra Magazine both discuss their research in depth and use them as reliable sources.
	*:In addition, Schever's past involvement with transphobic detransition communities is well documented in places such as .
	*:While they are a ], the policy states {{tq|Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.}}
	*:The reason I initially listed this is because they have done in-depth reporting of modern anti-trans groups such as ], and their reports are fact-based and link to evidence. Since we can't link to such evidence directly, such as when they provide receipts for Genspect partnering with anti-LGBT groups, they allow us to give a more in-depth article. An example of the kind of content they produce and how it fills in gaps in articles is also in the previous discussion. ] (]) 16:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
	*::You are correct that Schever's work is mentioned in (along their ). Reading the relevant portion of the article, which follows the sentence that mentions anecdotal accounts from detransitioners, Schever's work is used to represent an anecdotal account of a former detransitioner, which makes ''perfect'' sense for a journal article that wants to discuss narratives described by detransition advocates. And the remainder of the citations are used to describe Schever's sexual orientation/gender identity and personal regret with de-transitioning (i.e. the sort of stuff ] is fine with) and their personal experience within the detrans community (again, see ]).{{pb}}But none of this but lends credibility to Schever as being an SME broadly on the sorts of stuff that HLN covers, which per the is {{tq|the social and political forces acting in opposition to health liberation for transgender, detransitioned, retransitioned, and gender diverse people, as well as those questioning their gender}}. And, frankly, none of the other publications appear to provide evidence that either of the founders of the website have previously published their work in reliable, independent publications; merely being referred to as a researcher or a journalist by the popular press is not evidence that an individual is an SME in light of ] on ]. As such, this appears to be a '''non-SME SPS''', though if you can provide evidence either founder has actually published their research in reputable, independent publications, I'd be happy to look it over. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 17:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
	*:::Does count (Leveille wrote the article) or are you looking for scholarly sources specifically?
	*:::In addition, considering {{tq|the social and political forces acting in opposition to health liberation for transgender, detransitioned, retransitioned, and gender diverse people, as well as those questioning their gender}}, the fact that Schevers has verifiably been on both sides of the issue adds credence to her expertise. The Florence Ashley paper described her factually as {{tq| heavily involved in detransitioner advocacy for 6 years}}. There's also the fun aspect that transgender people pay much closer attention to legislative attacks on our rights, since they affect us directly, than cis colleagues are likely to. ] (]) 17:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
	*::::A in ''The Advocate'' (or news organizations, more generally) is not the sort of thing that makes one an SME, especially in light of our general guidance that op-eds and editorial pieces {{tq|are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact}}. (I can't imagine that writing an op-ed or commentary piece in the ''WSJ'' or the ''The NY Times'' instantly qualified someone as a subject-matter expert when we don't typically consider their regular columnists to be reliable for statements of fact.) I think the guideline looks more for academic sources or something published by reputable think tanks like ] or the like; we typically don't even consider independent journalists who formerly worked at a major newspapers to be SMEs.
	*::::With respect to {{tq|There's also the fun aspect that transgender people pay much closer attention to legislative attacks on our rights, since they affect us directly, than cis colleagues are likely to}}, I don't think that I've ever advocated for discounting trans people's writings or opinions on the basis of their gender identity. I also don't think that being trans makes one an SME on the social and political forces opposing trans people, much in the same way that being Muslim or being Jewish doesn't make one an SME on the various Islamophobic or antisemitic social and political forces that prowl about the world, respectively. Is one's baseline awareness higher? I imagine so, but that's not really relevant to source analysis here. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 17:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::I hadn't noticed that was an opinion piece, thanks for pointing that out! My comment wasn't implying you didn't, more so reflecting on the sad fact that two trans people who've had personal experience with the hijacking of the detransition community, have created well-formed factual reports and research tracking anti-trans attacks on our rights, which have been referenced in reliable sources, can't be used since they don't report through official institutionalized channels. The presence of an editorial board doesn't mean a source will report accurately or fairly any more than its absence means they won't. The quality of their reporting hasn't been brought up, and the fact we trust authority rather than veracity of reporting is saddening on many levels. Put simply, it's depressing they point out things that are happening that are completely verifiably true and we can't say they happened or even that HLN said they happened, even when it would greatly improve the quality of an article, not because they didn't actually happen but because of technicalities. ] (]) 18:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
	*'''None/3'''. I don't see why this page should be listed at RSP at all. My understanding is the RSP list is for frequently used sources. This source seems to be an obscure trans-rights group run by two people without an editorial policy. The WP article for the group is actually ]. I just don't see how this rises to the level of being listed on RSP - there are thousands of websites that are used more frequently. --] (]) 16:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
	*As I noted when this question was first raised just a couple weeks ago, this is not a reliable source. It is self-published, and the co-founders are not recognized as subject matter experts. The only mentions of them or their website in independent sources are anecdotal and trivial. Neither has been published in a reliable independent source other than a single op-ed style article in The Advocate criticizing a 60 Minutes segment. The comparison to the SPLC is not apt. This is simply not a reliable source. ] (]) 18:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
	*'''3''' per what I said in the ] on this, as well as Red-tailed hawk and Banks Irk above. It is a two-person activism blog with no editorial oversight whatsoever. We have actual RS on these matters we can use. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 21:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
	*I prefer this format better than the one that commonly includes "deprecation". ] (]) 11:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
	*It's an obscure website that will most certainly be forgotten in ten years time and has only received sizable outside coverage in one . There's no need for an RfC in the first place. ] (]) 20:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
	* As above. We do not need an RfC to know whether to cite an activist website. The About page gives no indication of authority or editorial oversight, it's just two folks' website. We can quote it if it's cited in an independent RS, otherwise, not. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 19:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Not reliable'''. No reputation for fact checking or accuracy. No corrections policy that I could find. ] (]) 11:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Not reliable''' Per the above, its clearly an SPS, with no evidence these people are regarded as experts. ] (]) 11:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Unreliable''' and treat as '''Self-published''' per {{u|Red-tailed hawk}}'s excellent analysis. Essentially a two-person blog, has a page outlining its aim but has no editorial policies or corrections policies, nor are the authors subject-matter-experts. ] is also minimal, with the article on the blog being deleted at ] with strong consensus, indeed, most of the RS cover the founder's experiences and then trivially mention the site. '''] '''] 02:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
	== Association of Religion Data Archives and World Religion Database ==
	{{u|Æo}} has removed ARDA religious estimations from various wiki pages because he says it uses some World Religion Database data which he claims is affiliated to the World Christian Database which he claims is unreliable. First of all, ARDA is completely separate from both of them. Below is ARDAs impressive resume from their about page https://www.thearda.com/about/about-the-arda
	Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) strives to democratize access to the best data on religion. Founded as the American Religion Data Archive in 1997 and going online in 1998, the initial archive was targeted at researchers interested in American religion. The targeted audience and the data collection have both greatly expanded since 1998, now including American and international collections submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA is generously supported by the Lilly Endowment, the John Templeton Foundation, Chapman University, Pennsylvania State University and Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.
	ARDA Advisory Board: Renata Curty (UC Santa Barbara), Joel Herndon (Duke University), Nathaniel Porter (Virginia Tech), Ruth Tillman (Pennsylvania State University), Andrew Tyner (Center for Open Science)
	ARDA Affiliates: US Religion Census, Baylor Univeristy, World Religion Database at Boston University, which is part of Brill publishing: https://www.worldreligiondatabase.org/
	Here is The Harvard Library calling World Religion Database "a good source of statistics" https://guides.library.harvard.edu/religion and here's The Stanford Library https://guides.library.stanford.edu/religion saying of Arda "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA allows you to interactively explore the highest quality data on American and international religion using online features for generating national profiles, GIS maps, church membership overviews, denominational heritage trees, tables, charts, and other reports." University of Oxford Library also recommends both of them https://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/collections-and-resources/data/finding-data/themes/religion.
	Below are multiple book sources that call ARDA and the World Religion Database "Reliable", including the Oxford handbook and Cambridge University: , , ,
	AEO does not have ANY reputable source that calls it unreliable it is completely his personal opinion from his own original research. He thinks he knows better than Harvard and Oxford.
	] (]) 23:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
	* Since 2022, ARDA has completely reviewed its datasets and has aligned them with those of the WRD/WCD. As I have thoroughly demonstrated '''''', the WRD and the WCD are the same, they are the continuation of the '']'', and are ultimately produced by the ]. They are therefore biased and unreliable (], ], ]). In any case, they should never replace data from national censuses and surveys conducted by statistical organisations. In the linked discussion, I cited extensive excerpts from ] which have criticised the WRD/WCD. I have also thoroughly commented the links provided by Foorgood in support of his opinion and even provided an excerpt from one of them which demonstrates my view.
	* Other users who have recently been involved in discussions about these topics can intervene: {{u|Erp}}, {{u|Nillurcheier}}, {{u|Lipwe}}.--] (]) 23:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
	**The World Religion Database and World Christian Database are not officially affiliated but in any case both are considered Reliable by endless scholars including the 5 I included above such as Oxford and Cambridge.] (]) 00:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	***{{U|Foorgood}}, "endless scholars" isn't going to cut it, and "Oxford and Cambridge" aren't scholars. It's important to be precise here. One of the librarians listed on one of the pages you linked confirmed to me what academics already know: a note on a library guide on a university library's website should NOT be taken as any kind of official endorsement for the reliability of that database. ] (]) 01:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
	***:I have 5 books from scholars in the original post and then I added some of the many institutional examples: Harvards Library calls it "a good source of statistics for religions" right here https://guides.library.harvard.edu/religion and Stanfords Library calls ARDA "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA allows you to interactively explore the highest quality data on American and international religion using online features for generating national profiles, GIS maps, church membership overviews, denominational heritage trees, tables, charts, and other reports" here https://guides.library.stanford.edu/religion but I'm done with this conversation. Have your way and make the source deprecated so that all the scholars and universities can continue to tell their students they shouldnt use Misplaced Pages. New editors here will now see that sources called good by Harvard are considered deprecated by Wiki. ] (]) 01:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
	In one of the sources provided by Foorgood (F. Lionel Young, III, '''', Wipf and Stock, 2020), which is itself a book dedicated to a particular Protestant missionary project and view, you can read the following lines: {{tq|...]'s research has continued under the auspices of an organization established in 2001 named the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, now situated on the campus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. The center's co-director, Todd Johnson, began working with Barrett in 1989, and collaborates with his colleague on several projects, including the 2001 edition of the ''WEC''. Building on Barrett's groundbreaking work, the center launched the ''World Christian Database'' and the ''World Religion Database''...}}.
	As a general example and point of reference, compare to the ] (ARDA overestimates Christianity by 14%); to the ] (ARDA overestimates Christianity by 10%). They are completely wrong, for every single country.
	A further critical remark is that ARDA data are speculative projections, not actual surveys, and therefore violate ]. There have already been discussions about these matters in the past (), and some time ago {{u|Nillurcheier}} and I discussed about the possibility of making these sources ] ().--] (]) 00:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	===Authoritative critical assessments===
	====Religion studies scholars & statisticians====
	<small>For the sake of information completeness, I re-copy hereunder the excerpts I originally reported on my (Æo's) talk page in the discussion with Foorgood.</small>
	The following academic papers express criticism about the WRD/WCD, regarding their common origin in the WCE as a missionary tool, their systematic overestimate of Christianity while underestimating other forms of religion, and their favouring certain Christian denominations (Protestant ones) over others:
	* {{cite journal|author1=Liedhegener A.|author2=Odermatt A.|year=2013|title=Religious Affiliation in Europe - an Empirical Approach. The "Swiss Metadatabase of Religious Affiliation in Europe (SMRE)|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317185160|publisher=Zentrum für Religion, Wirtschaft und Politik (ZRWP), ]|doi=10.13140/RG.2.2.33430.55364}}
	:* p. 9: {{tq|"...the World Christian Database (WCD) or the World Religion Database (WRD) which is a direct offspring of the WCD. ... In itself the latter is not an unproblematic source, because its data, gathered originally from the World Christian Encyclopedia, result mostly from country reports prepared by American missionaries. Therefore, a systematic bias of its data in favor of Christianity is a major, although controversial point of criticism"}}.
	* {{cite journal|author1=Hsu, Becky|author2=Reynolds, Amy|author3=Hackett, Conrad|author4=Gibbon, James|year=2008|title=Estimating the Religious Composition of All Nations: An Empirical Assessment of the World Christian Database|url=http://www.conradhackett.com/uploads/2/6/7/2/2672974/evaluating_world_christian_database.pdf|journal=Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion|volume=47|issue=4|pages=691–692|doi=10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00435.x}}
	:* p. 679: {{tq|... The main criticisms scholars have directed at the WCD concern the estimation and categorization of certain religious populations. There are questions about whether religious composition within countries is skewed by the overcounting of certain groups or variance in quality of information obtained on different religious groups. There is also concern about possible bias because the WCE was originally developed as a Christian missionary tool. Some of the country descriptions in the WCE have been characterized as having an anti-Catholic and pro-Protestant orientation (McClymond 2002:881), and Martin describes the WCE as a work "dedicated to the conversion of mankind" (1990:293). Criticisms have also been raised about projections for different religious groups and demographic trends, as the WCD provides empirical data for the population of religious groups well into the future. Doubts have been raised about the WCD's estimation and categorization of new religious groups. Steenbrink (1998) criticizes the 1982 WCE data for Indonesia, which suggest the population is only 43.2 percent Muslim and 36.4 percent "new religionist." Steenbrink maintains that those classified as "new religionists" should actually be classified as Muslim, even if stricter Islamic groups might disagree. Lewis (2004) observes that the Soka Gakkai, Rissho Kosei Kai, and Nichiren Shoshu in the Japanese Buddhist tradition are classified as new religions, whereas Pentecostals (a much more recent movement) are classified as Christian rather than a new religion. The size of Christian populations is also debated. Jenkins (2002) notes a large gap between the reported size of India's Christian population in the government census and in the WCE/WCD. While he admits that census figures omit many Scheduled Caste adherents who can lose government benefits by declaring Christian identity, he suspects the WCD overcounts Christians in India. The WCE has also been criticized for including "inadequate and confusing" categories of Christian religious groups, in particular, "Great Commission Christians," "Latent Christians," "Non-baptized believers in Christ," and "Crypto-Christians" (Anderson 2002:129). Some worry that it is difficult to distinguish Christians who keep their faith secret from Christians who practice an indigenized form of Christianity that incorporates elements of non-Christian religions. McClymond writes that estimates for the "non-baptized believers in Christ" or "non-Christian believers in Christ" in India who are Buddhist and Muslim "seem to be largely anecdotal" (2002:886). Estimates of adherents in the United States have also been challenged. Noll has questioned the designation and size of certain Christian categories, for which the WCD and WCE provide the most detail. Although he finds estimates for most Christian denominations agree with other sources, he notes that "Great Commission Christians"—a category used to describe those actively involved in Christian expansion—are estimated in the United States and Europe to be a much larger group than the number of Christians who weekly attend church (2002:451). Another cause for concern is the number of "independents," a muddled category including African-American, "community," and "Bible" churches. Changes in the data set also raise issues about categories: Anderson notes that groups previously labeled as Protestant in the first edition of the WCE in 1982 (Conservative Baptist Association of America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and the Presbyterian Church in America) were relabeled Independent in the second edition published in 2001 (Anderson 2002). Some have argued that projections of religious composition for years such as 2025 and 2050 should not be included with the empirical data, as they are merely conjecture (McClymond 2002). Irvin (2005) argues against making predictions about the future of worldwide religion based on recent statistics because Christian growth in Asia and Africa will not necessarily continue along the trajectory it has in past decades. ...}}.
	:* p. 680: {{tq|... To address the criticisms mentioned above, we compare the religious composition estimates in the WCD to four other cross-national data sets on religious composition (two survey-based data sets and two government-sponsored data sets): the World Values Survey (WVS), the Pew Global Attitudes Project (Pew), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the U.S. State Department (State Department). In our analysis, we find support for some of the criticisms made by reviewers ... the WCD does have higher estimates of percent Christian within countries. Another important difference between the WCD and other cross-national data sets is that the WCD includes data on 18 different religious groups for each country while other data sets only estimate the size of major religions. In evaluating some of the specific critiques discussed above, we find that WCD estimates of American Christian groups are generally higher than those based on surveys and denominational statistics. ... The majority of data came from fieldwork, unpublished reports, and private communications from contributors who are a mix of clergy, academics, and others; the Christian origins of the encyclopedia explain in part its detailed information on Christian groups. ...}}.
	:* p. 684: {{tq|... Figure 1 shows that the WCD tends to overestimate percent Christian relative to the other data sets. Scatterplots show that the majority of the points lie above the y x line, indicating the WCD estimate for percent Christian within countries is generally higher than the other estimates. Although the bias is slight, it is consistent, and consequently, the WCD estimates a higher ratio of Christians in the world. This suggests that while the percentage Christian estimates are closely related among the data sets, the tendency is for them to be slightly higher in the WCD. ... On the other hand, the WCD likely underestimates percent Muslim in former Communist countries and countries with popular syncretistic and traditional religions.}}.
	:* p. 692: {{tq|... We find some evidence for the three main criticisms directed at the WCD regarding estimation, ambiguous religious categories, and bias. The WCD consistently gives a higher estimate for percent Christian in comparison to other cross-national data sets. ... We also found evidence of overestimation when we compared WCD data on American denominational adherence to American survey data such as ARIS, due in part to inclusion of children, and perhaps also to uncritical acceptance of estimates from religious institutions. We agree with reviewers that some of the WCD's religious categories are impossible to measure accurately, such as "Great Commission Christians," "latent Christians," and "Crypto-Christians." ...}}.
	====Missionologists====
	<small>Added by Erp:</small>
	* {{cite journal|author=Woodberry, Robert D.|title=World Religion Database: Impressive - but Improvable|date=2010|url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/216016184/abstract/B79FE8EEB7774511PQ/1|journal=International Bulletin of Missionary Research|volume=34|issue=1|pages=21–22| issn=02726122}}
	** Quote: {{tq|... the editors seem to have constructed their estimates of religious distribution primarily from surveys of denominations and missionaries, not from censuses or representative surveys of individuals ...}}.
	* {{cite journal|author1=Marsh, Christopher|author2=Zhong, Zhifeng|title=Chinese Views on Church and State|journal=Journal of Church and State|year=2010|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/23922246|volume=52|issue=1|pages=34–49|issn=0021-969X|jstor=23922246}}
	** Quote: overestimate of Christianity in China, which adds a lot to the total number and percentage of world Christians: {{tq|... At the extreme high end, the World Religion Database puts the percentage of Christians in China at 7.76 percent, or a just above 100 million, but this number is most certainly an overestimation ...}}.
	<small>Added by Æo:</small>
	Another edition of WRD/WCD data has been the ''Atlas of Global Christianity'' (produced by the same Gordon-Conwell team). I have found negative critical assessments even for this edition, this time coming from an "insider" (Christian missionary) source, even though through an academic publisher, written by Anne-Marie Kool of the Evangelical Theological Seminary of ], ]:
	* {{cite chapter|author=Kool, Anne-Marie|chapter=Revisiting Mission in, to and from Europe through Contemporary Image Formation|chapter-url=https://ceeamsprints.osims.org/588/1/Fuller%20Images%20in%20AGC13_2015_10_24_working%20paper.pdf|title=The State of Missiology Today: Global Innovations in Christian Witness|editor=Charles E. Van Engen|pages=231–49|location=Downers Grove|publisher=IVP Academic|year=2016}}
	** p. 1: {{tq|... seeks to give “as nuanced a picture as possible” of the history of Christianity over the last 100 years showing an “unmistakable” general pattern, that Christianity experiences a “severe recession” on the European continent that once was its primary base, while it has undergone “unprecedented growth and expansion” in the other parts of the world. ...}}.
	** p. 2: {{tq|... widespread caution is raised with regard to the accuracy of the figures and not to engage in statistical analysis with the data, “without robustness checking… they contain random error and probably some systematic error” ...}}.
	** p. 9, containing a self-criticism from Kool for having herself made uncritical use of the data: {{tq|... The World Christian Database and the World Religion Database serve as sources for the data of the Atlas. With regard to the methodology used, Woodberry is right in emphasizing that “more transparency is needed”. It might well be that the great quantity of details easily silenced possible critical voices. It is peculiar that hardly any serious critical interaction and discussion of the underlying methodology of the Atlas has taken place, neither of its two data providing predecessors. The data are simply taken for granted, as I have taken them for as authoritative in my teaching and research during the last two decades. ...}}.
	** p. 12, about systematic overestimation of Christianity in Europe, with allusions that there might be financial reason behind such overestimations: {{tq|... The statistical image of Europe that is now communicated only re-enforces the image of Europe as a Christian continent, by not giving insight in the internal diversification and erosion. So why is only this broad definition used? Is it for fear of losing power? Or for maintaining the image of the numerically strong “World C” that provides the human and financial resources to “finish the task”? Are matters of Christian finance playing a role? Out of a sense of empire building? Or of a sense of hidden resistance to accept that Europe also is now also a mission field? Is it out of fear of becoming a minority? Fear for ending up statistically weaker than the Muslims? Or an attempt to cling to the influence of the “Western” over the “non-Western” world, based on an image of Europe as still a massive Christian continent? ...}}.
	** p. 13; it is a missionary tool designed for a specific strategy of aggression towards what in American missionary Christianity has been conceptualised as the "]": {{tq|... Eric Friede’s sharp analysis points us to the fact that the Atlas is ultimately written from the perspective of the so-called Great Commission Christians, Christians who engage in and support Christian missions, as many essays address the issue of “how to grow Christianity” in a particular region. The mission strategy invoked is then one of identifying within Global Christianity the resources needed for the task, the human resources, the GCC Christians, as well as the Christian finances that could make this enterprise work. An assessment of major tools needed for finishing this task is offered in subsequent sections, like Bible translation is followed by a section on Evangelization, with a division of the world in A, B and C, according to the level “being evangelized”. Statistics are used to motivate missionaries and national workers to mission action with Christian mission being reduced to a manageable enterprise with a dominant quantitative approach and a well-defined pragmatic orientation, “as a typical school of thought coming from modern United States”. ...}}. Kool makes largely reference to: Eric Friede, "Book Review. Atlas of Global Christianity: 1910-2010, by Johnson, T.M. & Ross, K.R. (Eds.), 2010", Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, ''Theological Librarianship 3''(1), 2010.
	Among other sources, some of which we have already analysed, Kool makes reference to:
	* {{cite journal|author=Brierley, Peter.|title=World Religion Database: Detail Beyond Belief!|url=https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA216269878&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=02726122&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Eb2336dc9|journal=International Bulletin of Missionary Research|volume=34|number=1|year=2010|pages=18-20}}
	** It is a critical assessment, once again coming from a missionary journal, that raises doubts as to the reliability of the WRD on the basis of the mismatch of the latter's data (purportedly based on censuses) with actual data from censuses, in particular those of the UK. Judd Birdsall and Lori Beaman, in '''', Transatlantic Policy Network on Religion & Diplomacy, 22 June 2020, at p. 3 say that the WRD, despite being widely cited and impressive, {{tq|"comes with limitations. In his review of the Database, the statistician Peter Brierley pointed out that for the United Kingdom the Database used denominational reports, such as Church of England baptismal records, rather than the UK census figures to calculate affiliation. A tally of denominational reporting showed that 82% of Britons were Christian, whereas only 72% of them claimed to be Christian in the UK census"}}. (n.b. Brierley makes reference to the UK 2001 census data, showing that already in 2001 the WRD overestimated Christianity in the UK by at least 10%).
	===Discussion (ARDA and WRD)===
	====Part 1====
	::The World Religion Database provides its estimates based on census and surveys: https://www.worldreligiondatabase.org/, just like Pew Research does. The sources I cited above from Oxford and Princeton call it very reliable and accurate even though it is not exact as Censuss but estimates like Pew are used all over Misplaced Pages.] (]) 00:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::That being said, I want to confirm whether or not AEOs position is that ARDA/WRD estimates shouldn't override national censuss(which I agree with) meaning they could still be used for other estimates, OR if AEOs position is that ARDA/WRD should not be used at all(which is absurd given their reliable reputation with Oxford and Cambridge)?] (]) 01:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	::::The WRD is not a census (survey of the entire population of a state by that state's statistical office), and, as demonstrated by Erp herebelow, their methods for collecting and elaborating data are unclear (and, n.b., ]! the WRD makes reference to Pew which in turn made reference to WRD!). With my comments, I have abundantly demonstrated the bias of the WRD and its sponsors. Please note that some of the sources you have cited are from the same sponsors of the ARDA (e.g. Pennsylvania University), others (the Oxford etc. books you claim recommend ARDA) are from years ago when the ARDA had not yet switched completely to WRD data (I myself consulted the ARDA site in 2020/2021 and their data were completely different, and more reasonable, than those from the WRD implemented after 2020/2021) and they merely list or cite ARDA as a source. That ARDA data should never replace data from national censuses is obvious. Moreover, they are ] projections. Therefore, I think that ARDA/Gordon-Conwell data, together with Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures (another dataset of projections based on Pew 2001-2010 surveys) should be ]. ] (]) 10:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::::Nope you cannot radically decide to block PEW and ARDA, both globally recognized as top reliable sources, from Misplaced Pages just because you now think you know better than them. But what we can do is give preeminence to Censuss while allowing estimates to be provided lower in the article with the disclaimer that they are not official surveys etc. ] (]) 14:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	::::::"Both globally recognized as top reliable sources". Please note that such alleged "global recognition" is basically the result of their own campaigns of promotion, and support by their allied journalistic media. Take the F. Lionel Young source cited above: it indeed praises the WRD within a chapter dedicated to statistical sources which are part of a precise Protestant Christian missionary project. These are, very simply, unreliable biased sources. Obviously, I cannot classify them as deprecated myself; this would require community consensus. Let's see how the present discussion will develop before proceeding with further steps. ] (]) 14:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::You actually think that PEW or ARDA, globally recognized as reliable, would meet all the requirements listed here?!: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources.. Again are you so extreme in your stance that you can't come to a compromise like you've done already by simply having Censuss take top priority on nations religions pages? ] (]) 15:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::Regarding census data I have not come to any compromise; census data are simply the best, most accurate available. And yes, I think ARDA/WRD/WCD (alias Gordon-Conwell) and Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures (projections based on outdated 2001-2010 surveys/collections of data) meet the requirement for deprecation. Note that deprecation does not mean banning a source (blacklisting), it's just a warning that will appear whenever contributors will insert links to such sources. ] (]) 17:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::Ok so you are saying that you don't feel the PEW or ARDA data needs to banned entirely from articles, just given disclaimer that it's not an official survey like a census? ] (]) 17:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::ARDA itself is a database archive and states that when citing ARDA the original source must be included in the cite so the key question in most cases is the reliability of WRD. I have access to the World Religion Database so decided to check one recent cite in the ] article where the claim was "In 2020, the World Religion Database estimated that the countries with the highest percentage of atheists were North Korea and Sweden". First how on earth does anyone know what the percentage of the population are atheists in North Korea? Tunneling down through the WRD yielded the source for its info on religion in that country as "North Korea, Future of the Global Muslim Population (FGMP), 2020" and a note at the bottom of a fairly blank page was "Pew Forum Projection". Unfortunately the Pew FGMP (a) doesn't mention atheists and (b) cites the WRD as its source for the Muslim population of North Korea. I do note a WRD discussion of its methodology is at https://worldreligiondatabase.org/wrd/doc/WRD_Methodology.pdf including the paragraph:
	:::"Religious demography must attempt to be comprehensive. In certain countries where no hard statistical data or reliable surveys are available, researchers have to rely on the informed estimates of experts in the area and subject. Researchers make no detailed attempt at a critique of each nation’s censuses and polls or each church’s statistical operations. After examining what is available, researchers then select the best data available until such time as better data come into existence. In addition, there are a number of areas of religious life where it is impossible to obtain accurate statistics, usually because of state opposition to particular tradition(s). Thus it will probably never be possible to get exact numbers of atheists in Indonesia or Baha’i in Iran. Where such information is necessary, reasonable and somewhat conservative estimates are made."
	:::My suspicion is the estimate of the number of atheists in North Korea is a guess with very large error bars. The number of atheists in Sweden is likely to be more accurate though the latest survey they used is 2008. One should check what definition of atheist is being used by WRD. ] (]) 01:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	::::Excuse me the 2017 Win/Gallup poll also has Sweden as the 2nd most atheist country and here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Religion_in_North_Korea we can see 2 different estimates are used to give North Korea's high atheist percentage. Estimates have their own methodology and they are considered Reliable by Oxford and Cambridge so don't try to reinvent the wheel and say that we know better than these statisticians because if so you're going to have to remove every single estimate on Misplaced Pages for every topic- and there are thousands. Our job on Misplaced Pages is to include estimates that are reliable while obviously giving precedence to government surveys *When available*.] (]) 01:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::::Actually the estimates for North Korea in the ] are for 'no religion' which is not the same as being atheistic. Also the 2017 Win/Gallop report (https://web.archive.org/web/20171114113506/http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/370/file/370.pdf) has China as being the 'least religious', not atheistic, of the countries polled with Sweden second. However in the same report when it comes to percentage stating they are atheists Sweden drops below China, Hong Kong, Japan, Czech Republic, Slovenia, South Korea, France, and Belgium. North Korea for obvious reasons was not among the countries polled. This does not help in showing that WRD is a reliable source. Note that does not mean I agree with @] that censuses are the best sources; censuses can have biases or be incomplete and good surveys/polls can be just as reliable or better if not as precise. I would be happier with WRD if it were specific on how it got its figures for each country (among other things it would avoid articles citing X and then citing WRD which in turn was using X). ] (]) 17:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	::::::If you click here https://www.thearda.com/world-religion/np-sort?var=ADH_704#S_1 and read the top it says "Variables: Total number of Atheists by country and percent of population that are Atheists: Persons who deny the existence of God, gods, or the supernatural. (World Religion Database, 2020) (Atheists)1" Again, you guys are acting like you know better than these world renowned sources. ] (]) 17:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::Foorgood, I have thoroughly demonstrated that such "world renowned sources" are not produced by actual statisticians but by Protestant missionaries and Erp has demonstrated that their methods for collecting data are dubious. The line you have cited does not mean anything as to statistical survey methodology, it is just a conceptual category they have used to represent their data. Please read ]. ] (]) 23:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::I suspect the precision of exactly 4,016,422 atheists in North Korea in 2020, too precise for what is suppose to be an estimate. Have the authors not heard of significant figures or more likely it is an issue with the database design not being able to round? Also the definition at the top of the ARDA WRD chart is not quite the same as the one in the World Religion Database (the numbers do match). The latter definition is "Number of Atheists in this country's population. Atheists are persons professing atheism, skepticism, impiety, disbelief or irreligion, or Marxist-Leninist Communism regarded as a political faith, or other quasi-religions, and who abstain from religious activities and have severed all religious affiliation; and others opposed, hostile or militantly opposed to all religion (anti-religious); dialectical materialists, militant non-believers, anti-religious humanists, skeptics." There is a separate category for agnostics.
	:::::::As for world renowned? Something can be well known yet still not be deemed reliable. I did a search of the Wiley Online Library for "World Religion Database", 27 hits though 16 of them were to a single book by the people who created the database. Wiley also includes the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion which had two of the cites (one of which was a critique of the World Christian Database). One would think people contributing to a journal on the scientific study of religion might be using this database extensively? I also did a search on "]" in Wiley, that had 1,248 hits.
	:::::::I will note that Brian Grim's background does include a PhD in sociology from Penn State which should ensure some statistical training. ] (]) 00:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::Oxford and Cambridge and 3 other top publishers call them reliable , , , Why? Because they are all statisticians from Universities around the country: ARDA Advisory Board: Renata Curty (UC Santa Barbara), Joel Herndon (Duke University), Nathaniel Porter (Virginia Tech), Ruth Tillman (Pennsylvania State University), Andrew Tyner (Center for Open Science)
	::::::::ARDA Affiliates: US Religion Census, Baylor Univeristy, World Religion Database at Boston University, which is part of Brill publishing: https://www.worldreligiondatabase.org/
	::::::::No, you do not know better than these experts. But AEO I'm asking you, your position is that ARDA not be banned from articles you just want it with the deprecated tag?] (]) 01:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::And ERP you will have to show us a screenshot if you think we will simply take your word about what WRD classifies as atheism because there is so far absolutely 0 proof of what you just stated. ] (]) 01:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::@] I'm not sure I'm permitted to put a screen shot in this discussion (wikipedia images are suppose to be stuff we can use in articles) or even if it would be sufficient proof for you given you apparently have no access to the database and therefore don't know what it looks like (I could after all photoshop it). Would it be better to have a third party who has access to WRD to vouch for the accuracy? A party you choose. I'm not sure whether @] or @] have access. ] (]) 04:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Nope because as I wrote below: Here is The Harvard Library calling World Religion Database "a good source of statistics" https://guides.library.harvard.edu/religion and here's The Stanford Library https://guides.library.stanford.edu/religion saying of Arda "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA allows you to interactively explore the highest quality data on American and international religion using online features for generating national profiles, GIS maps, church membership overviews, denominational heritage trees, tables, charts, and other reports." University of Oxford Library also recommends both of them https://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/collections-and-resources/data/finding-data/themes/religion. All the top Universities call it a reliable source period you do not have ANY reputable source that calls it unreliable it is completely your personal opinion from your own original research. ] (]) 14:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::@]: I don't have access to the database, but I personally trust your word. In any case, I think it would not be a problem if you uploaded a little screenshot of the section of the page which demonstrates unclear and ]; I think it would not be a copyright violation. Regarding Foorgood, I think he is gaming the discussion system by bringing the interlocutor to exhaustion, ignoring the evidence we have put forward and stubbornly copy-pasting his links which do not demonstrate anything except that ARDA/WRD is listed among other sources on some university/library websites. ] (]) 17:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I would also remind {{ping|Foorgood}} of ]. We have no reason to suspect Erp of fabricating a quotation from WRD and I very much hope that FoorGood doesn't imagine that such suspicion would be justified by or would justify misleading statements by Foorgood themself. ] (]) 17:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Many thanks for pointing that out about Good Faith. I would like someone else to check given that I am using an older browser so perhaps some things are hidden from me such as lack of sources (not the definition of atheists, that is definitely there). Or I should check on a different computer. I note @] has been contacting various people and one of them might have access.
	::::::::::::I'm actually not so sure it was circular reporting since it isn't clear whether the surveys listed by WRD were actually listed sources or listed links for related information. The idea behind the WRD makes a certain amount of sense; however, the methodology is lacking in a few ways. What are the sources for each country and a short description on how they are used, who is responsible for the calculations in each country (or are the listed editors, Todd M. Johnson, Brian J. Grim, Gina A. Zurlo, Peter Crossing, and David Hannan, responsible for all countries?), are there regular archives so a researcher using it doesn't find the data changing out from underneath them (these archives might exist); why aren't figures rounded to avoid giving a precision that is impossible for estimates? what are the error estimates?
	::::::::::::By the way if WRD is well known (whether for good and/or for bad), it probably should have its own Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 02:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::Foorgood, your wrote "Oxford and Cambridge and 3 other top publishers call them reliable" and previously "they are considered Reliable by Oxford and Cambridge". Books publishesd by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press don't represent the opinion or judgment of OUP or CUP (or of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge), and this is true of publishers generally; for example, a book published by ] does not represent the opinion of Rupert Murdoch. An advisory board of statisticians "from Universities around the country" isn't automatically of high quality (they might be the best in the US or they might be the only ones in the US who'll work with that organisation) and the extent to which advisory boards influence an organisation's work and output varies massively. ] (]) 14:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::Here is even The Harvard Library calling World Religion Database "a good source of statistics" https://guides.library.harvard.edu/religion and here's The Stanford Library https://guides.library.stanford.edu/religion saying of Arda "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world. The ARDA allows you to interactively explore the highest quality data on American and international religion using online features for generating national profiles, GIS maps, church membership overviews, denominational heritage trees, tables, charts, and other reports." University of Oxford Library also recommends both of them https://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/collections-and-resources/data/finding-data/themes/religion. All the top Universities call it a reliable source period you do not have ANY reputable source that calls it unreliable it is completely your personal opinion from your own original research. ] (]) 16:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Foorgood, note that the sites you have linked merely list ARDA among other sources, and the blurb is likely a self-presentation. They are not critical researches; critical assessments are those like the ones from which I have excerpted the quotes reported at the beginning of the discussion (Liedhegener et al. 2013, Hsu et al. 2008). Also please note, and I repeat this for the umpteenth time, that the ARDA acquired all its data from the WRD only by 2021/2022, and before then it hosted completely different data. As already expressed before, the first problem here is the WRD, and the ARDA is the secondary problem as it functions as the dissemination platform of WRD data. ] (]) 17:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::And as you saw Harvard calls World Religion Database a good source so do yourself a favor and stop humiliating yourself trying to make it seem deprecated and pretending you know better than Harvard Stanford and Oxford. Even the Yale and Princeton Library websites suggest World Religion Database. ] (]) 17:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::That's better, at least to start with; you clearly identify those mentions as being from university libraries. But then you veer into saying "all the top universities", as if the libraries are the universities, as if those samples do call it a reliable source, and as if your sample proves that all "top" universities or even their libraries call it a reliable source. And then you tell me that "you do not have ANY reputable source that calls it unreliable it is completely your personal opinion from your own original research". You do not know what my opinion is; my comment above on your statements was my first. ] (]) 17:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::That first sentence from Stanford Library, "Data included in the ARDA are submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world", is also in our article ] and has been since its origination in 2006. The Stanford page appears to be comparatively recent - note that from the Wayback Machine doesn't mention a religion page. The Stanford statement might be copied from Misplaced Pages, which is not a ], or both might be taken from a self-description of ARDA, whose website currently has "now including American and international collections submitted by the foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world." (I notice that's not such a strong statement, not making a claim about all the data.) It does not appear to be Stanford Library's independent appraisal of ARDA. ] (]) 17:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Correct, as I wrote above the blurb is a self-presentation copied and pasted here and there, including on Misplaced Pages. Also note that the self-proclaimed "foremost religion scholars and research centers in the world" are fundamentally the same people of the WRD alias ] and of the ] (another organisation about which we could report plenty of criticism). ] (]) 17:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Sorry, I missed that you'd found it on[REDACTED] too! ] (]) 17:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::{{RPA}} ] (]) 18:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::I think that much of the evidence presented so far by ] indicates that ARDA is a reliable source. The set of references that were provided , , , indicate that there is scholarly usage of such a database. Keep in mind that all major surveys have their limitations and none are really the final word - especially on atheism. Estimates of atheism are particularly problematic e.g. estimates from China differ between surveys (WIN-Gallup International vs Pew Research Center) and China and well... Asia alone shifts the global estimates of atheism considering that just China by itslef has the greatest number of atheists in the world. From wikipedia's stand point there is no issue using ARDA. It is not a depreciated source. It has limitations and problems like all other surveys. ''Attribution'' may solve the issues of putting any results from any particular survey in wikipedia's voice.
	:::::::::::::::From the arguments presented against ARDA, none indicate that it is a depreciable source. ARDA has notable sociological researchers like Roger Finke in its board and peer reviewed articles on it are also available . Also, there are many hits from other scholarly sources on google scholar using the database too .] (]) 00:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::In my view it is not ARDA that is in question but rather one of the databases it archives, World Religion Database. ARDA itself says that the source should be cited with ARDA just being the repository.
	::::::::::::::::If I modify the google scholar search for just "World Religion Database" I get 559 results though some of them aren't exactly supportive. For instance
	:::::::::::::::: one article reviewing the database states <blockquote>Second, the editors seem to have constructed their estimates of religious distribution primarily from surveys of denominations and missionaries, not from censuses or representative surveys of individuals</blockquote> and <blockquote> would radically improve the usefulness and face-validity of the data:
	::::::::::::::::* Documenting how each estimate was calculated. A Webbased format is ideal for revealing this kind of information: most users would not be interested in the details, and costs to print such information would be exorbitant.
	::::::::::::::::* Providing some measure of uncertainty with each estimate (e.g., standard errors or even a qualitative evaluation by the editors). Researchers could then integrate uncertainty into their statistical models or exclude cases with uncertain estimates. As it is, estimates for Afghanistan, Algeria, China, and North Korea appear as precise as estimates from Canada and Germany. ({{Cite journal| issn = 02726122| volume = 34| issue = 1| pages = 21–22| last = Woodberry| first = Robert D.| title = World Religion Database: Impressive - but Improvable| journal = International Bulletin of Missionary Research| accessdate = 2022-11-02| date = 2010| url = https://www.proquest.com/docview/216016184/abstract/B79FE8EEB7774511PQ/1}})</blockquote>
	::::::::::::::::I also noted that many of the other cites were in articles authored by the database creators.
	::::::::::::::::I also did a search on jstor which tends to be a bit more selective than google scholar on what is scholarly though some recent stuff (3-5 years) may not yet be available on it. There were 31 results (with at least 3 of those by people directly involved in the database). One is by Hsu et al. 2008 mentioned above which is not favorable to the database. One article had the statement <blockquote>"Relying on the 2010 estimates of the World Religion Database (WRD), this method is used in instances where no better data than the religious composition of the birth country were available" ({{Cite journal| issn = 0197-9183| volume = 45| issue = 4| pages = 979–1016| last1 = Henning| first1 = Sabine| last2 = Hovy| first2 = Bela| last3 = Connor| first3 = Phillip| last4 = Tucker| first4 = Catherine| last5 = Grieco| first5 = Elizabeth M.| last6 = Rytina| first6 = Nancy F.| title = Demographic Data on International Migration Levels, Trends and Characteristics| journal = International Migration Review| accessdate = 2022-11-02| date = 2011| url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/41427975| jstor = 41427975}})</blockquote> This seems to show a reluctance to use it if anything better was available. Also <blockquote>"At the extreme high end, the World Religion Database puts the percentage of Christians in China at 7.76 percent, or a just above 100 million, but this number is most certainly an overestimation" ({{Cite journal| issn = 0021-969X| volume = 52| issue = 1| pages = 34–49| last1 = Marsh| first1 = Christopher| last2 = Zhong| first2 = Zhifeng| title = Chinese Views on Church and State| journal = Journal of Church and State| accessdate = 2022-11-02| date = 2010| url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/23922246| jstor = 23922246}})</blockquote>
	::::::::::::::::WRD seems to be on the edge of acceptability. At most it should only be used if no better source exists (I still can't imagine how they calculated the so very precise numbers for North Korea). ] (]) 02:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::WRD is not on the edge of acceptability. It is clearly used in the sources you cited above. Brill, which is an academic publisher, publishes the database and it comes from Boston University by the way so it is RS by that measure alone. I see no reason to object to it from wikipedia's policy standpoint. The sources you brought do not show that it is a bad database, because clearly peer reviewed sources do use it. Google scholar also produces peer reviewed articles and books that use it too. I got more than 800 when looking at "world religion database (WRD)". How is this a problem for it? It is used quite a bit. Bad sources do not get used this often to build on research. So clearly it has value for academics.
	:::::::::::::::::Now, there are studies that do sloppy work on atheism such as WIN-Gallup which showed global atheism rising way too fast in 2012, and magically declining by half in the subsequent WIN-Gallup surveys within the same decade. This of course is preposterous - that atheists would double and then decline in 10 years. People, on a global scale, do not change radically one way and then change back in a decade. And some researchers have advised caution on WIN-Gallup's data set (e.g. Oxford Handbook of Atheism) since their numbers on atheism in China are way too large - compared to all data sets on religion and atheism available. But none of this makes WIN-Gallup an non usable or depreciated source on wikipedia.
	:::::::::::::::::That is because all studies have their weaknesses and they usually contradict each other in the literature (Pew vs WIN-Gallup vs WVS vs census data, etc). Misplaced Pages just presents what certain data sets have come up with. We as wikieditors do not psychologize or make assessments or judgments on how one database is good or bad methodologically. As long as WRD has an academic standing in some way in the literature, there is no real reason to discount it over any other. Attribution should take care of placing the weight on the database being cited for the numbers.] (]) 06:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::As it has already been written and amply demonstrated, the ARDA is a repository of data which at some point between 2021 and 2022 changed all its datasets with those of the WRD/WCD alias Gordon-Conwell. It is the latter that is in question in this discussion, and judgment on the ARDA follows judgment on WRD/WCD. As it has been widely demonstrated, the WRD/WCD is a Protestant Christian encyclopedia, dataset and missionary tool. Its sources are Protestant Christian missionaries, for the most part, as stated in its own (pp. 13-14: {{tq|... The WRD taps into knowledge from contacts in every country of the world who inform us on what is happening in non-traditional forms of Christianity, such as churches and insider movements ...}}; notice that some of these firsthand informers, "insiders", are sometimes completely out of reality: for instance, in 2013 some Protestant churches that 10% of ]ns would be Christians by 2020, yet ] Christians in the country have declined from 2.2% to 1.3%).
	::::::::::::::::::As for the sources you have listed (which are the same links provided by Foorgood), the respectability of the publisher or hosting site does not necessarily imply that the content is qualitative and reliable. Cf. ]: ]: "POV and peer review in journals": {{tq|Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs...}}; cf. Drmies above who has contacted one of the hosting websites: {{tq|One of the librarians listed on one of the pages you linked confirmed to me what academics already know: a note on a library guide on a university library's website should NOT be taken as any kind of official endorsement for the reliability of that database}}.
	::::::::::::::::::Regarding more in detail the sources you (and Foorgood) have listed, I repeat once again: is a book dedicated to a particular Protestant Christian view and project which is ultimately the same one of Gordon-Conwell; is written by one of the compilers of the ARDA itself (Finke of Pennsylvania University); simply lists and comments the ARDA among other resources, and, note it well, goes back to 2011 when ARDA had not yet switched to the WRD/WCD (it says that at that time its sources were mainly the World Value Survey and the International Social Survey Program); is just the list of references used within the book; is not a source of a good quality and in any case I don't find any reference to the ARDA. ] (]) 10:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::<small>P.S. O.T. Regarding atheism/irreligion and WIN-Gallup, which are not into question in the present discussion, notice that the definition of "atheism" and "irreligion" can vary according to the context, and that these categories overlap and are not as well definible as belief in a specific Abrahamic religion. Also notice that "atheism" and "irreligion" can overlap with the categories of Eastern religions: Buddhists could be considered atheists, while the notion of "religion" in East Asia does not traditionally apply to non-Abrahamic religions (or to forms of East Asian religions which have adopted an organisational form similar to that of Abrahamic religions), especially to East Asian diffused traditions of worship of gods and ancestors, and the same could be said for certain non-Abrahamic religions and unorganised beliefs which are emerging in the Western world.</small> ] (]) 11:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	====Part 2====
	:Worth observing the Foorgood has repeatedly canvassed editors to this discussion; that's how Ramos1990 got here, for example. --] (]) 12:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::What are you talking about? Nowhere did he/her or anyone else reach out to me prior to me making a comment on this thread.
	::Back to the program, to the comments of AEO, I see that most of the discussion is not on whether it is academic (clearly it is - has peer review, Brill is an academic published with peer review, Boston University, notable academics head the project, many peer reviewed publications widely use it, etc). On this alone it is a RS per wikipedia. The stuff about WP:Scholarship applies to fringe publishers, but not Brill (which uses peer review).
	::Most of the issues that mentioned in this thread relate to methodology and the papers cited in the top of the thread (Liedhegener (2013) and Hsu (2008) both show generally positive views of WRD despite any shortcomings). This has nothing to do with the fact that it IS an academic source, is used by academics to advance research and that it used as a tool in academic research on religion worldwide. As far as I have seen, no major objections have been provided on this latter front. If bias or fault is perceived (this is not agreed upon and the uses of it in peer reviewed publications show its wide utility), this would not be a problem for[REDACTED] either because even ] states that ''sources'' do not need to be neutral and that these sources may be better sources for numerous contexts and that ''attribution'' would be appropriate.
	::On top of that I see that researchers on Islam use it too , and apparently Pew uses WRD data for some of its numbers in Africa for instance . (interestingly it mentions that census data have design problems as well so no dataset is without its problems - which is true since censuses have inconsistent terminology and metrics on religion and some censuses like the American one do not ask about religion). Also, the Liedhegener (2013) paper mentioned at the top of this thread says WCD was used for Encyclopedia Britannica numbers too. Here is another paper using WRD in combination with other sources to get a comprehensive demography . Here is another on Islam in combination with other studies . Also here is one that compares WRD numbers in New Zealand on the nonreligious along with other datasets and is comparable to Pew.
	::The more I look into this the more I find that it is used quite a bit in the literature along with other datasets either As Is or in a supplementary fashion. I don't see it being used in a depreciative fashion. I see no issue with it being cited with attribution (most studies get attributed either way) and scholars generally do not have a problem with it either (which is why they use it in the first place including general positive comments on it from Liedhegener (2013) and Hsu (2008) which were cited at the top o the thread), and there certainly is no[REDACTED] policy basis against WRD.] (]) 22:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::"...As far as I have seen, no major objections have been provided on this latter front". What needed to be said has been said, about the use of the source in certain books and about the publishers of either the source itself or books which have made use of it, and academic assessments regarding its non-neutrality and dubious methodology (with one such assessments even affirming that they {{tq|"seem to have constructed their estimates... from surveys of denominations and missionaries"}}) have been provided (please see ]).
	:::Moving forward, please notice that there are various precedents of sources sponsored by or affiliated to religious organisations which have been deemed unreliable: ], ], ], ], and, most significantly, the academic ] and its journal ''Bitter Winter'', which are listed among ] for being {{tq|"an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest. There is also consensus that its content is unreliable on its own merits"}}. Also the '']'' of the Catholic Church is not used in Misplaced Pages for statistics about Catholics in every country of the world, so I don't see why Misplaced Pages should be filled with statistics produced by the ]. ] (]) 15:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::I think we have brought up our points on the matter and when you look at the sources, they show more than what you constantly present in your quotes. The sources you presented here usually ''support'' WRD too. For instance, its own methodology paper you cited clearly shows that WRD's sources {{ font color | red | include Censuses, surveys and polls}} along with denominational data (see p. 4-5) . So just isolating "from surveys of denominations and missionaries" is incorrect on methodological grounds and even this quote misrepresents the source you extracted this from (Woodberry, Robert D. (2010). "World Religion Database: Impressive - but Improvable") because after reading it, Woodberry is very positive to WRD overall and acknowledges its comparativeness with other datasets and even says {{ font color | red | "Still, despite my criticisms, I will eagerly use these data in my research. I do not know of any better data available on such a broad scale and am amazed at the editors’ ability to provide even tentative estimates of religious distribution by province and people group."}} Plus the fact that WRD is used by Islamic researchers, nonreligious researchers, Pew Research Center (actually integrates it as part of Pew's methodological design per Barton in Palgrave Handbook), CIA estimates (per Woodberry), and Encyclopedia Britannica (per Liedhegener) show that it much more reliable and trusted than you are willing to give credit. But since all datasets have their problems - including censuses, attribution would solve any issues. And its academic status with Brill which is a peer reviewed publisher helps too.] (]) 00:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::Another edition of WRD/WCD data has been the ''Atlas of Global Christianity'' (produced by the same Gordon-Conwell team). I have found negative critical assessments even for this edition, this time coming from an "insider" (Christian missionary) source, even though through an academic publisher, written by Anne-Marie Kool of the Evangelical Theological Seminary of ], ]:
	:::::* {{cite chapter|author=Kool, Anne-Marie|chapter=Revisiting Mission in, to and from Europe through Contemporary Image Formation|chapter-url=https://ceeamsprints.osims.org/588/1/Fuller%20Images%20in%20AGC13_2015_10_24_working%20paper.pdf|title=The State of Missiology Today: Global Innovations in Christian Witness|editor=Charles E. Van Engen|pages=231–49|location=Downers Grove|publisher=IVP Academic|year=2016}}
	:::::** p. 1: {{font color|blue|《... seeks to give “as nuanced a picture as possible” of the history of Christianity over the last 100 years showing an “unmistakable” general pattern, that Christianity experiences a “severe recession” on the European continent that once was its primary base, while it has undergone “unprecedented growth and expansion” in the other parts of the world.》}}
	:::::** p. 2: {{font color|blue|《... widespread caution is raised with regard to the accuracy of the figures and not to engage in statistical analysis with the data, “without robustness checking… they contain random error and probably some systematic error” ...》}}
	:::::** p. 9, containing a self-criticism from Kool for having herself made uncritical use of the data: {{font color|blue|《The World Christian Database and the World Religion Database serve as sources for the data of the Atlas. With regard to the methodology used, Woodberry is right in emphasizing that “more transparency is needed”. It might well be that the great quantity of details easily silenced possible critical voices. It is peculiar that hardly any serious critical interaction and discussion of the underlying methodology of the Atlas has taken place, neither of its two data providing predecessors. The data are simply taken for granted, as I have taken them for as authoritative in my teaching and research during the last two decades.》}}
	:::::** p. 12, about systematic overestimation of Christianity in Europe, with allusions that there might be financial reason behind such overestimations: {{font color|blue|《The statistical image of Europe that is now communicated only re-enforces the image of Europe as a Christian continent, by not giving insight in the internal diversification and erosion. So why is only this broad definition used? Is it for fear of losing power? Or for maintaining the image of the numerically strong “World C” that provides the human and financial resources to “finish the task”? Are matters of Christian finance playing a role? Out of a sense of empire building? Or of a sense of hidden resistance to accept that Europe also is now also a mission field? Is it out of fear of becoming a minority? Fear for ending up statistically weaker than the Muslims? Or an attempt to cling to the influence of the “Western” over the “non-Western” world, based on an image of Europe as still a massive Christian continent?》}}
	:::::** p. 13; it is a missionary tool designed for a specific strategy of aggression towards what in American missionary Christianity has been conceptualised as the "]": {{font color|blue|《Eric Friede’s sharp analysis points us to the fact that the Atlas is ultimately written from the perspective of the so-called Great Commission Christians, Christians who engage in and support Christian missions, as many essays address the issue of “how to grow Christianity” in a particular region. The mission strategy invoked is then one of identifying within Global Christianity the resources needed for the task, the human resources, the GCC Christians, as well as the Christian finances that could make this enterprise work. An assessment of major tools needed for finishing this task is offered in subsequent sections, like Bible translation is followed by a section on Evangelization, with a division of the world in A, B and C, according to the level “being evangelized”. Statistics are used to motivate missionaries and national workers to mission action with Christian mission being reduced to a manageable enterprise with a dominant quantitative approach and a well-defined pragmatic orientation, “as a typical school of thought coming from modern United States”.》}} Kool makes largely reference to: Eric Friede, "Book Review. Atlas of Global Christianity: 1910-2010, by Johnson, T.M. & Ross, K.R. (Eds.), 2010", Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, ''Theological Librarianship 3''(1), 2010.
	:::::Among other sources, some of which we have already analysed, Kool makes reference to:
	:::::* {{cite journal|author=Brierley, Peter.|title=World Religion Database: Detail Beyond Belief!|url=https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA216269878&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=02726122&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Eb2336dc9|journal=International Bulletin of Missionary Research|volume=34|number=1|year=2010|pages=18-20}}
	:::::** I can't access the paper at the moment. However, it is a critical assessment, once again coming from a missionary journal, that raises doubts as to the reliability of the WRD on the basis of the mismatch of the latter's data (purportedly based on censuses) with actual data from censuses, in particular those of the UK. Judd Birdsall and Lori Beaman, in '''', Transatlantic Policy Network on Religion & Diplomacy, 22 June 2020, at p. 3 say that the WRD, despite being widely cited and impressive, {{font color|blue|"comes with limitations. In his review of the Database, the statistician Peter Brierley pointed out that for the United Kingdom the Database used denominational reports, such as Church of England baptismal records, rather than the UK census figures to calculate affiliation. A tally of denominational reporting showed that 82% of Britons were Christian, whereas only 72% of them claimed to be Christian in the UK census"}}. (n.b. Brierley makes reference to the UK 2001 census data, showing that already in 2001 the WRD overestimated Christianity in the UK by at least 10%).
	:::::] (]) 22:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::Appreciate the references. However, again these do not impact WRD much at all. The Kool source on the Atlas mentions that WRD data is used by the Atlas, not that WRD is the Atlas or that the goal of the Atlas was the same as WRD. Just like Pew uses WRD, it makes no sense to associate Pew's agendas with WRD's database just because one uses the other. The Atlas' goal and interpretations numerical data is different than WRD and Kool rightly focuses on the contents of the Atlas, instead of WRD (WRD is not mentioned much throughout the paper). WRD is one data set and is not the only one and attribution solves any issues here on wikipedia. You keep on thinking that these papers are calling for the removal of WRD when they are actually trying to improve it and they continuously praise it overall. They all agree that it is very valuable and merely say that there are limitations to it - just as the same applies to Pew, Gallup, and censuses all around the world. This is nothing new in this and if you ever look at the numbers of nonreligion, for example; from Pew, Gallup, and Cenuses, there are significant discrepancies to be found there between these datasets (easy examples include China, Japan, and numerous countries in Europe like Netherlands and Sweden). They are all flawed and limited. None stands as the authority. Stuff like "spiritual but not religious" messes up the numbers because religion is not perceived in Western sense in most of the world.
	::::::::If we want to criticize census data, there are papers showing the limitations and issues with that too . Censuses get quantity - but they do not guarantee quality of course. In fact mentions the limitations of surveys and census too (America has not asked on religion for 70 years, for example). Pew clearly states that {{ font color | red | "Censuses and nationally representative surveys can provide valid and reliable measures of religious landscapes when they are conducted following the best practices of social science research. Valid measurement in censuses and surveys also requires that respondents are free to provide information without fear of negative governmental or social consequences. However, variation in methods among censuses and surveys (including sampling, question wording, response categories and period of data collection) can lead to variation in results. Social, cultural or political factors also may affect how answers to census and survey questions are provided and recorded."}} Its pretty obvious that big variations exist between just these datasets alone. Anyways, Pew also mention that they used WRD data for 57 countries as a supplement in their methodology in that same section. Furthermore, Pew acknowledges that statistical reports from religious groups are also valid measures. {{ font color | red | "In cases where censuses and surveys lacked sufficient detail on minority groups, the estimates also drew on estimates provided by the World Religion Database, which takes into account other sources of information on religious affiliation, including statistical reports from religious groups themselves."}}
	::::::::So I don't see much of an issue in light of this. So all of this thread on equating a critique of a dataset = bad dataset is preposterous when you see that all datasets have problems and issues. In fact, there is research indicating that "religion" is invented in surveys and polls (if you are interested see Wuthnow, Robert (2015). Inventing American Religion : Polls, Surveys, and the Tenuous Quest for a Nation's Faith. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190258900.) We know that WRD is used by Pew, CIA, Encyclopedia Britannica, Islamic researchers, and nonreligious researchers among many others. But most importantly it satisfies wikipedia's RS criteria since it has peer review, and is from Brill, an academic publisher.
	::::::::You cited {{cite journal|author=Brierley, Peter.|title=World Religion Database: Detail Beyond Belief!|url=https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA216269878&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=02726122&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Eb2336dc9|journal=International Bulletin of Missionary Research|volume=34|number=1|year=2010|pages=18-20}}. Cool. It says the same thing - that there are limitations. But keep in mind what he also clearly states {{ font color | red | "It is always easy to criticize any grand compilation of statistical material by looking at the detail in one particular corner and declaring, "That number doesn't seem right." The sheer scope of this database, however, is incredible, and the fact that it exists and can be extended even further and updated as time goes forward in the framework of a respected university deserves huge applause for those responsible for it. Praise where praise is due, even if I am about to critique it."}} And after reading it, the overall view is positive to WRD, not negative on WRD.] (]) 02:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::]:
	:::::::::* You write: "...these do not impact WRD much at all". This is your opinion, not that of Kool, and not my opinion or that of other editors for whom the WRD's reliability is questionable.
	:::::::::* "The Kool source on the Atlas mentions that WRD data is used by the Atlas, not that WRD is the Atlas or that the goal of the Atlas was the same as WRD". Kool is clear: {{font color|blue|"The World Christian Database and the World Religion Database serve as sources for the data of the Atlas"}}, and the Atlas is produced by the very same Gordon-Conwell team.
	:::::::::* As for the rest of your message, it is completely off-topic and diverts from the main theme. Censuses, Pew, CIA, Britannica (of which the latter two are not statistical organisations and only cite figures taken from other sources) are not what is being discussed here. Indeed, Pew-Templeton's ''Global Religious Futures'' is affected by the present discussion since it, just like ARDA/WCD/WRD, is a violation of ] (pseudodata projections based on Pew's 2001-2010 cycles of surveys, which are being presented throughout Misplaced Pages as hard data for 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050). The fact that Pew used the WRD for some of its data only detracts from Pew's own quality.
	:::::::::] (]) 14:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::The Atlas uses WRD as a source for its ''data'', like you mentioned. So does Pew, Muslim researchers, nonreligion researchers, etc. None of this means that WRD is equivalent to the interpretations, contents, views or arguments presented in the Atlas, Pew, Muslim, nonreligion sources. It is just a dataset. In terms of projections, I am sure you already know that ALL projections are wrong. In the last quarter century it was projected by numerous sources and studies that significant parts of the world would not be religious, due to secularization. But this never happened. Projections are usually wrong. But that is a different discussion.] (]) 16:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	Not being sure, whether it is the right place, I am repeating my comment regaridng sources for membership data in religious bodies. They should be used according this priority ranking:
	1. Data of the religious body itself if officially counted like in Austria and Germany
	2. Census data like in India, Indonesia and many other contries
	3. Data from high quality independent surveys like in Spain or US
	4. CIA data may fill the remainig gaps
	5. Data from missionary sources should be avoided!
	] (]) 10:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	== Newsmax interviewee's opinions ==
	I added some content presenting the opinion of Rabbi Yaakov Menken, who is the Managing Director at Coalition for Jewish Values. He made that opinion during a ] interview. But ] with the reason "{{tq|] is a deprecated source}}".
	I personally do not agree with deprecating Newsmax entirely, but I'm not going to discuss that at here. For now, I would like to propose a change which allows the opinions of such interviewees to be added in articles, based on the ]'s saying "{{tq|Fox News talk shows, including}} &hellip;{{tq|, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions.}}" In other words, I propose that rule be applied to Newsmax interviews as well. ] (]) 11:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:No, it's fine as is - ] (]) 12:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::I think it's not fine because it prevents such interviewees' opinions from being heard and therefore is unfair. Please specify your reason. ] (]) 12:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::Given the reasons Newsmax is deprecated, if they are the only outlet reporting someone's views that is a strong indication that those views should be left out of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::It's not a report; it's an interview. ] (]) 14:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::A distinction without a difference. ] (]) 14:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::I'm very much with Blueboar, below. In theory, despite deprecation, we could use a Newsmax interview for the opinion of the interviewee, but we would need some reason to show that such an opinion was ] for inclusion--usually by showing that it was noted in reliable sources. Short of that, I don't think inclusion is appropriate, but reasonable minds may certainly differ on the subject. Cheers. ] (]) 14:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::Thanks. My addition is to balance the opposite opinion. There is currently no overwhelming consensus on the topic (whether Trump's comment is antisemitic or not), so my understanding is that there is no issue of ]. ] (]) 14:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::When I mention ], what I mean is representing {{tq|all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.}} Newsmax has been judged not a reliable source, so the fact that the opinion appeared there doesn't really fulfill the need for {{tq|published, reliable sources}}. If, say, a whole bunch of newspapers printed articles to the effect of "hey, look what this person said in a Newsmax interview," it would certainly be due for inclusion to me. But I am not seeing anything along those lines here. Cheers. ] (]) 14:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::The talk shows of Fox News is currently considered unreliable (by participants of the discussion at that time) as well, but they still can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. So my understanding is that whether Newsmax is considered reliable should not prevent its interviewees' opinions from being used for attributed opinions. ] (]) 14:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::Yup! I agree entirely. This is what I am saying: Newsmax' status does not involve a categorical prohibition on attributed opinion found there. What you have ''not'' demonstrated (at least to me) was that any reliable sources took note of this particular opinion. Cheers. ] (]) 14:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Since the ] does not require any reliable sources to take note of an opinion presented in Fox News talk shows, I suggest that we don't ask Newsmax interviews for such a requirement as well. ] (]) 14:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Fox News opinions are still very much subject to an analysis of whether they are ], as are all Misplaced Pages contributions. Reliability is one inquiry, but this is another. ] only addresses the former--as a determination of whether something is due for inclusion is not going to be source-wide, but heavily dependent on context. Cheers. ] (]) 15:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Sorry for not being able to follow well, but would you mind shedding some lights on whether the specific Newsmax interviewee's opinion (Rabbi Yaakov Menken) has any serious issue of ]? --] (]) 15:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::It is not ]. It has only been shared in one unreliable source. ] (]) 15:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	*Interviews are tricky… first we have to examine the reliability of the outlet: does it have a reputation for accurately representing the views of the interviewee, or does it have a reputation for presenting what the interviewee said in ways that skew their views.
	:Then we have to examine the reliability of the interviewee. Are they an expert on the topic they are being interviewed about? For example… a politician would likely not be an expert on the ''science'' of climate change, but could be considered an expert on the ''politics'' of climate change (such as the flaws in a specific bit of climate change ''legislation'').
	:And, of course, we have to consider DUE WEIGHT… are the views of the interviewee appropriate to mention in a specific article. Are they fringe or are they more mainstream?
	:In short, CONTEXT is important. The same interview might be appropriate and reliable in one article, and completely inappropriate and unreliable in another. ] (]) 13:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::Thanks. I have watched the interview, and I would say the interview does not have those issues. --] (]) 14:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:RSOPINION allows for using individual statements to be used with attribution from non RS sources. What then must occur is to whether the individual or their opinion is DUE for the content (eg the essence of Blueboar's statement above) (This assumes that we don't have a Daily Mail situation where people's words have been known to be altered and thus we can't even trust the source a accurate). ] (]) 14:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::Thanks for your input. Could you please elaborate on "{{tq|DUE for the content}}"? ] (]) 15:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::Apologies for jumping down here, but the conversational threads are converging and it seems efficient. You can think of ] as asking whether the information at issue has "mindshare" in the reliable sources. If it is in every major newspaper and the scholarly literature, etc., it is clearly due. If it is in no reliable sources, it is clearly undue. If it is in, say, one major newspaper, then you have a situation where it might be argued either way. I can see no reliable sources mentioning this interview or the opinions expressed therein. If not for this policy, every statement of opinion would be fair game for inclusion, which would obviously become quickly untenable. I have not seen any discussion of this opinion in reliable sources, so for the moment, I would argue that it is not due for inclusion. Cheers. ] (]) 15:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::What is and is not DUE also depends on which specific WP article we are working on… to give an example: the fringe views of an author who has written books about how the Apollo 11 moon landing was faked might be DUE to mention in a bio article about that author (per WP:ABOUTSELF)… but completely UNDUE to mention in our articles on the Apollo 11 mission.
	::::To relate this all to the NewsMax interview of Rabbi Menken… what specific WP article are we talking about? The article on Menken himself, or on some other topic? ] (]) 16:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::It's ], and the added words came after "Multiple organizations criticized Trump's comment as condescending and as repeating a "dual loyalty" antisemitic trope." I assume that nobody means it's due to mention the criticism of Mr Trump, but not due to mention the defence. But the "deprecated source" objection was poor. If the objection had about WP:UNDUE (which is part of WP:NPOV not WP:RS) there might have been less kerfuffle. ] (])
	::::::Ah… a situation where I would deem ''both'' the “accusation” and the “defense” UNDUE (ie none of it should be mentioned - thus resolving the POV conflict entirely). But, yeah, that is more a NPOV question and not really a reliability issue. ] (]) 18:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding something, but are you suggesting that it's not ideal to include both the “accusation” and the “defense” in the ]? ] (]) 01:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::I’m saying that the entire section is somewhat UNDUE and should be seriously reworked or cut. ] (]) 11:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::I see and agree with a rework. Some contents do not even belong to that section, such as the "licensing agreement with TMTG requiring him " and "Truth Social experienced a significant uptick in downloads following the " --] (]) 15:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::See ]. Just because there's a burst of coverage about something that causes outrage doesn't mean it has legs to actually be of encyclopedic value. We need a LOT more editors to recognize this stance to cut down endless debates about sources, DUE and so on. ] (]) 02:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::Thanks for the link of WP:RECENTISM. From my understanding (based on the explanatory essay), the said “accusation” and the “defense” are just recent events which are of transient merits. That is, both of them might not be worthwhile for including. Is that correct? ] (]) 02:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::Exactly. There may be longer-term implications, but we cannot crystal-ball that, so as it seems to be a typical "person make statement that creates outraged reaction, then blows over", it really is beyond appropriate to include anything surrounding it until it had critical impacts (such as a lawsuit on the matter) ] (]) 12:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::That makes sense to me. Thanks for the confirmation. --] (]) 14:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Looking at the article, that whole section should be heavily trimmed. Scholarly research on the information networks and clustering of Truth Social users, or the spread of information/disinformation would be due. Random Trump tweets (or "truths" as they're now called) just don't belong there. Side note, I second your reasoning higher up above on using interviews as sources. ] (]) 03:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC) edit: when I say "your reasoning", I'm referring to Blueboar. Seems I made a mistake in the indentation. ] (]) 18:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::Thanks. I'm fine with trimming the whole section. Since some editors have pointed out that the argument on antisemitism is more related to NPOV and RECENTISM, I'm planning to start with removing the paragraph of the transient argument if there is no editors suggesting other solutions. ] (]) 05:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	::{{tq|RSOPINION allows for using individual statements to be used with attribution from non RS sources.}} I know we've had this conversation before, but that's not really what ] says. It sets up a secondary tier of ] - {{tq|some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact}} . But that is still a subset of RS and is still ultimately subject to the broad ] requirements that it be from a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, just with somewhat different standards. We cannot cite random YouTube channels, Reddit posts, or Twitter posts via RSOPINION, for instance (although there are a few other policies that can let us cite them in certain ways, like ], and some individual YouTube channels can be reliable.) Some people act as thought RSOPINION frees sources completely from the requirements of ] as long as it's presented as an opinion and in-text attribution is added, and that's absolutely not the case. Opinions that express ] claims in particular or which are themselves exceptional still require high-quality ] sourcing. --] (]) 17:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
	*This is more a question for the NPOV noticeboard. Newsmax did not misquote Menken, but then it's not the problem.
	:The section is pretty bad and needs a rewrite. But if you ask me if this works, well, it appears that CJV American Orthodox Jewish group that the right-wing media ecosystem seems to adore. IDK about the specific preferences of each rabbi but they seem to be positions/statements so long as the political allegiance of whoever said iis Republican.
	In my view, their mentioning is not DUE - hell, they don't even have a WP article of their own yet, even though it exists for 5 years. Only if you frame it as an "ultra-Orthodox pro-Trump group of American rabbis", then maybe, but then again a group that is pro-Trump will defend Trump whenever he is under fire, that sort of goes without saying, and we should avoid too much focus on recent events. ] (]) 13:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
	:I'm not surprised that left-leaning media like The Forward and Haaretz would criticize CJV. But why is it indefensible to defend people who quoted Hitler purely for the purpose of illustrating the danger of having someone instill bad values in children? When one wants to let the public know that it is dangerous to our society if someone can brainwash our next generation, I think it's fine for him/her to sarcastically quote Hitler and say "Hitler was right on one thing: He said, whoever has the youth has the future." So I'm not seeing the problem in that part. ] (]) 03:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:I don't see a problem with either Haaretz or the Forward - the issue is trusting their reporting, not the bias of the opinion section. WSJ's journalism is hardly conservative, but the opinion section sure is. So, I believe these sources give an impression of what this organization is.
	*:Also, in FORUM territory, in public, it's better just to drop the reference to Hitler, particularly if he is . Approvingly reciting a passage from ''Mein Kampf'' is normally going to insult Jews for obvious reasons, even if that is ''one thing'' and even if she didn't actually mean to insult anyone. But that's OT, my assessment that mentioning their position is UNDUE still stands. ] (]) 07:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::I personally tend to take what left-wing outlets say about conservatives with a pinch of salt. But that's me.
	*::As for the congresswoman's quote, I'm not a native English speaker after all and it looks like my use of the word "sarcastically" was inaccurate. My apology for that. What I was trying to convey is that she quoted Hitler ''warningly'' to illustrate the danger of youth brainwashing. The context of her quote is: "{{tq|You know, if we win a few elections, we’re still going to be losing, unless we win the hearts and minds of our children. This is the battle. Hitler was right on one thing: He said, ‘Whoever has the youth, has the future.’ Our children are being propagandized.}}" And she later also said "{{tq|I sincerely apologize for any harm my words caused and regret using a reference to one of the most evil dictators in history to illustrate the dangers that outside influences can have on our youth}}" So the purpose of her quote was very clear that it was to illustrate the danger of youth brainwashing and was in no way endorsing Hitler. ] (]) 09:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	*], replying to, and (in the main) challenging, every opposing post is a bad thing, known as ]. By my count, you have made 16 comments here (as well as many more little tweak edits, likely to edit conflict others, as you did me just now). Please think about it, read ], and leave more space and oxygen for other people. It's not the number of comments that establishes a consensus. ] &#124; ] 09:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC).
	*:To respect your feeling about my comments, I will only address the "{{tq|likely to edit conflict others, as you did me just now}}". I never do that kind of irrational/disruptive thing to others editors. Those little tweak edits are either grammar corrections or rephrasings. Kindly ]. Not sure whether "as you did me just now" means I overwrote your comment because I can't recall that happened, but I'm sorry if I accidentally did that. ] (]) 11:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	*The problem, as it has been across a number of deprecated sources, is that there has never been an agreement on what it means to be deprecated. And users have enforced maximalist understandings of that through reverts across the entire encyclopedia. If one is unwilling to continue edit-warring with them, their position that deprecated means entirely verboten wins out. Something should be done about that, but the last time it came up it just, as it always does, ], and the users who enforce their maximalist view continue to prevail by sheer force of will. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 10:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
	*'''Not usable''' ''unless'' independent reliable sources positively cite a particular piece of its reporting/commentary (''a la'' '']'' and the ], although in such cases too it is better to cite the more trustworthy secondary sources while crediting the original reporting) because one concern with such POV deprecated sources is that they spread misinformation by providing a platform for unreliable/non-noteworthy voices to be aired (cf the ] and ]) and another is that the segments may be edited to present a partial/distorted view of what the inteviewee actually said (cf, ]). For these reasons we need to rely on a secondary reliable source to kick-the-wheels and not cite the primary interview itself. ] (]) 19:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Not usable''' per Abecedare. ''']'''<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> 21:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Not usable''' - Old cartoon of advertisers reading the reviews of a new Broadway play that went something like: “Wonderful example of bad directing”, “Amazing this ever opened”, “Don’t watch this play”. So they put together the poster attributing each review: “Wonderful”, “Amazing”, “Watch this play”. Deprecated means unusable as a source because the source cannot be trusted. ] (]) 21:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
	== Is Steam a reliable source for basic facts on a title? ==
	Can we use as a reliable third-party source specifically for a game's release date, publisher and/or developer? For example, see the . ] (]) 15:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:The contents of Steam pages are made by the developer or publisher so it should be recognized as primary and dependent; only the release date if In the past could be taken as safe data. ] (]) 15:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::That makes sense to me. In an article about a game, would it acceptable to use the game's Steam page as a reliable source for the game's developer or publisher even assuming this is a primary source? Are we required to seek out a third-party source to determine who is the developer or publisher of a game? ] (]) 15:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::If the only source you can find for the developer or publisher of a game is the game's Steam page, the game is unlikely to pass Misplaced Pages notability requirements, e.g. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I can't see how anything could give a game 'significant coverage' without saying where it was from. ] (]) 15:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::There are times where a third party article doesn't explicitly use the words "publisher" or "developer" but instead will say "made by" or "is sold by" or when an older game franchise is acquired by a new publisher like in the case of Homeworld or Fallout and the current publisher isn't the same publisher as when the game was originally released. ] (]) 16:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::Pretty sure this is about ]. Also pretty sure that parties are not supposed to be ]ing the dispute to other noticeboards while DRN is in progress. ] (]) 16:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::If that's the case then the appropriate answer to the question is that no source is 'always reliable' in the abstract, and that where there are serious questions regarding whether a ''specific source'' is reliable for a ''specific statement'' in a ''specific article'', this needs to be considered on its own merits. And if this is being discussed at DRN, it doesn't need to be discussed here. ] (]) 16:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::My question does not concern a specific instance but rather the '''general''' question on whether Steam facts on release dates, developer, publisher are considered reliable or not. If this is not the place to ask a general question as to whether the product box on Steam can be used as a source then I apologize. If the answer is "it depends on the specific situation" then that is a sufficient answer. ] (]) 16:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Not reliable''' The release date on Steam is purely the date it was released on Steam. That makes zero claim about the date it was released in general, as not everything is released on Steam first or even on the release day. If something is taken down and put back up again, the release date will change. It's only reliable as a last release date on Steam and nothing else. And, as mentioned, the publisher and developer are who currently owns the rights, not who initially published/developed it. In many cases it's the same, but it's not a given and as a result can't be taken as reliable for the original publisher and developer. ] ] 16:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Not reliable''' Steam isn't a source, it contains user-submitted material and content. ''']'''<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> 21:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	== LBC News ==
			==RfC: NewsNation==
	The British radio station ] publishes online news articles at https://lbc.co.uk/news . It was previously discussed at RSN ]. Is this article a reliable source?
			<!-- ] 13:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740574870}}
	*{{cite news |last=Davidson |first=Gina |title=NHS apologises for claiming eunuch is a gender identity |url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/nhs-apologises-for-claiming-eunuch-is-a-gender-identity/ |date=17 June 2022 |publisher=LBC |language=en |access-date=3 November 2022}}
			{{rfc|prop|sci|rfcid=5F45265}}
	There is a related RfC at ]. Cheers, ]] 13:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}}
	*I don't think reliability is the concern here. Nobody is claiming the article is factually incorrect (though it may have issues). Several editors are trying to insert a "controversy" into an article that is only mentioned by press with an openly trans hostile editorial stance, or in the case of the LBC piece above, a journalist with a trans hostile agenda. The context for the LBC piece is the Gender Recognition Act changes in Scotland (which the journalist opposes) and can be viewed from that point of view as randomly digging up dirt. Most sources have ignored this story. ] is what matters here, and the "body of reliable sources" includes those who choose to regard this "controversy" as a nothingburger. ] advises us "This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." So we need to be concsious of both bias and reliability in our sources when working out whether to include something. -- ]°] 16:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
			What is the reliability of ]?
	*:I brought LBC to RSN because Newimpartial said {{tq|Since when would LBC be considered a "reliable source"?}} and {{tq|No, LBC isn't "a mainstream news organisation".}} I have no interest in relitigating the rest of the WPATH RfC here. ]] 13:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
	*Yes, it's a ] and I see no reason to consider it unreliable. I invite anyone to read . How on earth is this being tarred as a "trans hostile agenda"? Like, just read it! The stuff about outlets having a "openly trans hostile editorial staff" is completely unsupported. This seems to be the fallacy of taking the most radical activists on a subject and assuming they and they alone represent the legitimate viewpoint on a matter. Imagine if people started saying anything less than ] or instituting communism was anti-black or anti-labor. Then, that preconceived political viewpoint is used as a yardstick to reject any sources deemed insufficiently deferential to the activists' demands as too biased to be reliable and summarily UNDUE. That's where we're at with some of the rhetoric on trans issues. In reality, lots of trans people are not too keen to have their situations conflated with stuff like becoming a eunuch for whatever reason. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 17:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	*Yes. This noticeboard is about the reliability of sources. No reason has been given for judging that LBC is unreliable. {{u|Colin}}’s argument about whether inclusion is proportionate belongs on the article Talk page, not here, but I think it is worth saying here that referring to a publication as having {{tq|an openly trans hostile editorial stance}} sounds like ]. ''PinkNews'' is grossly biased, yet it is accepted as a reliable source. ] (]) 17:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:See ]. Just because two things are in opposition, doesn't mean they have equal value. ] and all that. If we claimed that a source was "Openly hostile against black people" and your response was to cite a source that says "Maybe black people should be treated with due decency and respect and should be afforded the same human rights as others" as "grossly biased", you're both right and wrong. I want my sources ''grossly biased in favor of decency and basic human rights''. You're ''supposed'' to want that kind of editorial stance. Sure, "supports bigotry" and "opposes bigotry" are opposing viewpoints, but I wouldn't be fighting hard against sources that are grossly biased against bigots. It's not a good look. --]] 19:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::I can’t work out what you’re talking about, since your post does not seem to have any logical connection with my post. And if your intent is to accuse me of being a racist, please post this on my Talk page – where it will be duly ignored. ] (]) 19:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::Jayron is making a parallel between sources that are openly hostile against trans people (like the Telegraph), against those that were historically openly hostile against black people. In both cases, the sources that are hostile against a minority are those biased against ''"decency and basic human rights"'', and that as an editorial stance we should favour sources that are biased towards ''"decency and basic human rights"''. Another equally relevant comparison would be comparing the UK media's current anti-trans stance, versus the UK media's anti-homosexual stance in the 1970s-1990s. According to ], trans people are at least the fourth minority group targeted for . Past targets included Jews during the ] panics of the 12th, 13th, 15th, 17th, 19th, and 20th centuries, black people during the US ] of the 1950s-60s, and homosexuals during the 1970s-1990s. With both the anti-black and anti-gay panics in particular, many of the headlines like "X is coming for your children in public bathrooms" are directly interchangeable across all three eras.
	*:::The logical connection is that sources, and by extension editors who defend those sources, are on the wrong side of history, and that it is "not a good look" to oppose a minority. ] (]) 20:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::If Jayron wants to explain what they meant, and how this relates to my comment, they could do this themselves. There is no point in engaging on this page in any discussion which includes reference to editors being ‘on the wrong side of history’, since this is meaningless. ] (]) 21:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::It's really very simple. If one source takes a stance that bigotry against trans people is a good thing, and a different source takes a stance that bigotry against trans people is a bad thing, while it is true that they have opposite biases, that doesn't mean we give equal weight merely because they hold opposing positions. The position that is opposed to bigotry, or in your words, "grossly biased" against bigotry, is the one we're supposed to favor. The ] is not "pro-bigotry" and "anti-bigotry" are equivalent, so we give them equal weight. The neutral position is bigotry is bad, and we don't pretend that pro-bigotry perspectives are worth giving weight to. Also, I haven't said one word about you or what you believe or are. I've only ever mentioned the sources. You believe what you want to believe, I don't give a shit about you. --]] 11:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::The point that is important is that this noticeboard won't settle your question for inclusion. ]. -- ]°] 19:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::Umm… I can’t get that point from Jayron’s comment. ] (]) 20:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::I'll make it simpler. You are wrong. And persisting to argue here about whether LBC is a reliable source is wasting everyone's time, because it doesn't help your case. And selecting hateful sources and demanding Misplaced Pages repeats their hate, is not earning you any brownie points. -- ]°] 21:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Colin, this is supposed to be a discussion about whether LBC is a reliable source. It seems that you disagree with me about that. But I don’t know whether that is what you mean when you say that I am wrong. Nor do I know what you mean when you say {{tq|selecting hateful sources and demanding Misplaced Pages repeats their hate}}; this does not relate to anything I have said here. '''''Please stick to the point on this page'''''.
	::::::If you want to engage in personal insults, then the appropriate place to do so is on my Talk page: but I’m not much interested in being insulted. ] (]) 22:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''No''' - the ] site is an adjunct of a right-wing talk radio establishment; I don't believe that its blogroll has a reputation for editorial oversight or fact-checking. ] (]) 23:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	::To describe "LBC" as "right-wing talk radio" is absolutely detached from reality. It certainly has some right-wing presenters, but it also has leftist ], and prominent centrists like ] and ]. It's a bit right-wing for my taste, but it is well to the left of the Telegraph or the Washington Post. In any case, political positions do not determine reliability. ] (]) 03:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
	::I think it would be fairer to say LBC has a history of hiring contributors with strong views who are not afraid to share them, vs somewhere like the BBC which is much stricter (if imperfect) at aiming for impartiality. I don't know whether it has a track record on trans issues, but the particular journalist (who is a new hire on Scottish politics) does, and presumably LBC likes the fact that they say controversial / populist things. While I think papers like the Telegraph are so extremely anti-trans that it is clear some of their stories are just plain made up and misrepresent the facts, the main problem with such sources is that selecting them selects for bias. It is tricky, when more neutral sources write nothing. Misplaced Pages has always had a problem in this area. ] says "For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news." Which is exactly what that Scottish debacle was: unimportant to the article topic. Most of those newspapers were dealing with the self ID debate in Scotland and the Scottish National Gender Identity Clinical Network (which doesn't even have an article). So it is arguable those sources were not writing about the article topic, but about another topic and happened to bring in this side issue because it helped their case.
	::So I do think it is important for both sides to abandon trying to win some vote over whether LBC is generally reliable. If they dropped the journalist who wrote the above article, and hired Ugla Stefanía Kristjönudóttir Jónsdóttir, a trans journalist, from the ] tabloid then maybe your view of LBC as a source would change. LBC would need to be Daily Mail level unreliable for you to get a no response. What you have in the above debate is not editors examining the literature on WPATH guidelines and writing a balanced article, but editors doing a google search and finding random stuff on the internet. The debate is not WP:V but about neutrality and weight. -- ]°] 08:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
	::Is it possible that you have confused LBC with ]? ]] 13:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::There was a period where ] had a talk show on the station, which led to a feeling it was going down the right-wing shock jock route. But he's was sacked in 2020 for comparing Black Lives Matter to the Taliban. gives a good analysis and points towards ] being the new shock jock home. -- ]°] 13:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::It should also be noted that LBC is primarily a talk radio station, which has recently become national and was previously London only. As a news website it is a minnow with a miniscule readership compared to BBC or Guardian. So the fact this story was found there reflects Google's ability to find keywords buried deep inside a story about something else on a minor news site. -- ]°] 13:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::Since you say it is a minor news site and was offering a platform to ideologues as recently as 2020, it sound that it is not generally reliable, unless there is evidence that it is. ''']'''<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> 09:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::I doubt there's a rule that says that news sites can't offer a platform to ideologues in editorial sections without being considered unreliable. We may imagine that there's some correlation there, but it seems to me that it would be wrong to label the non-editorial section of a news site unreliable because of things found on the editorial section. ] (]) 23:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Yes'''. I don't see any evidence presented for its unreliability, and it is a prominent broadcaster. News articles like the one above should be fine to use.] (]) 03:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
	*Colin makes the salient point here; reliability ''of the source'' is not at hand. The relevant position is ]; not every single thing written in every single reliable source needs to be included in a Misplaced Pages article, ] In particular, if a story appears only in a single, or a very small number of sources, it may not be a story that is relevant or important to the subject. The reliability of a source doesn't come into it here; of course if the source ''isn't'' reliable, then we shouldn't pay any attention to it at ''all'', but even ''if'' we concede that the source is, there still needs to be ] that the story is ''relevant'', in the sense that it's worth documenting. Deciding which things are, and are not, worth documenting often comes down to seeing how widespread the coverage of the subject is, what kinds of sources cover it, etc. etc. That requires analysis and discussion, and isn't something we can just say "It's reliably sourced, so it must be included". Reliable sourcing is required, but is not sufficient, when deciding to include something. If there is a good faith dispute over the relevance, or wording, or phrasing, or how much of the article space to dedicate to it (if any), all of that really just depends on consensus building. There is no magic pill that means that either side in such a dispute "wins". There is only discussion and consensus. --]] 11:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	*Could I move that this be speedily closed? No real arguments against reliability have been presented, and I think most contributors agree that the actual question is whether the claims in the source merit inclusion in a particular article according to ]? ] (]) 14:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
	*'''Yes''' Mainstream standard news organisation, passes ]. ] ] 18:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
	*:Has anyone provided any evidence that LBC is either "mainstream" or "standard"? Perhaps I missed it. was literally the first secondary source I found, and it doesn't support reliability. ] (]) 19:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
	*::I thought we didn't treat MBFC as reliable for analysing RSs. Anyway, the only failed fact checks that article seems to discuss when is when their opinion commentators on-radio said something factually inaccurate. The same way we do not treat opinion pieces as reliable other than for the opinion itself the same would apply here. ] ] 19:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
			] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	*:::I agree MBFC doesn't work, and isn't reliable, but everything I'm reading says that LBC is a right-wing opinionated talk radio outlet seen as an alternative, more politically incorrect and opinionated radio than the BBC. Usually in the US at least talk radio outlets lack the editorial oversight of a NEWSORG. Feel free to offer evidence otherwise. ''']'''<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> 21:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::Hi @], what is the "everything you are seeing" which suggests that LBC is a "right-wing orientated talk radio"? As mentioned above, many of their presenters are centrist or left-wing, and explicitly state those views in their show. Their news partners are Sky News, a reliable organisation, and their news output is covered by ]'s rules on . These rules are actually much stricter than those which apply to the British newspapers we accept as reliable sources.] (]) 08:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Particularly . ''']'''<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> 08:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::Well, that is an opinion piece from 8 years ago. A lot has changed in that time. Nobody is arguing there aren't right-wing presenters at LBC, particularly Ferrari, but flagship-presenter O'Brien (whose liberality the author questions) has become one of the strongest anti-Brexit voices in the media and is an open supporter of the current Labour leadership. And even back then, the article mentions the breakfast show hosted by ]. The news coverage is regulated to be more neutral than the talk output, which would always only be valid as attributed opinion anyway. --] (]) 09:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::That's fair, I still feel this opinionated/biased talk radio outlet isn't a reliable source for information about gender identity or medical endocrinology, or for statements such as {{tq|Scottish NHS bosses have been forced to apologise and launch an investigation after the organisation published a document to its staff suggesting eunuch should be recognised as a formal gender identity, and as a result, men seeking castration should be helped to receive it.}} I stand by "no" ''']'''<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> 09:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::{{ping|Andrevan}} Thank you for your reply, though I respectfully disagree. {{tq|Opinionated/biased talk radio outlet isn't a reliable source for information about gender identity or medical endocrinology}}- I definitely agree that this is opinionated, and caution is needed per ] (which isn't a RS issue), along with extraordinary claims definitely requiring additional caution. But to me that is mostly within the boundaries of ] and might push it over to {{tq|additional considerations apply}}, nevertheless, I still don't see a convincing case it should be downright unreliable here. Many thanks! '''] '''] 09:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Respectfully, reliability requires a demonstration per ] and ] of editorial oversight, fact-checking and accuracy. The claims by Boynamedsue that simply because the UK gov't mandates some impartiality and accuracy demonstrates that LBC Radio News has a reputation for it, doesn't hold water. Please provide some evidence of this reputation, as I did not find any. The question is not simply whether it is ] but whether it is offering alternative facts as suggested by the Guardian for contentious topics. I agree there is not much evidence of RS fact-checkers checking LBC, but I do not think it should be treated as generally reliable absent evidence thereof. The idea that they have a socialist commentator means they are reliable is quite flawed and silly. ''']'''<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> 09:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Thank you for your detailed reply. ] piece describes that {{tq|O'Brien loves the fact that LBC is editorialised like a newspaper}}, which shows that it describes this as resembling ]. This probably falls under {{tq|News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact}}, though my reading is that {{tq|less reliable...}} doesn't mean {{tq|generally unreliable}}. The piece frequently mentions its apparent bias, e.g., {{tq|The current incarnation of LBC has a clear bias to the right}}, {{tq|Is this butch, right-of-centre tone}}, though I would also point out that for {{tq|offering alternative facts as suggested by the Guardian for contentious topics}}- most of the content from The Guardian piece is denoting to opinion talkshows, which I believe per ] is already not usable. Of course, I'm not contending that the source is generally reliable on par with BBC, it definitely needs more caution and should not be used on itself for extraordinary claims. Many thanks for your replies, let's wait for more editors to comment here and thanks again! '''] '''] 09:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Yes we will see what others have to say, I agree that the "less reliable" or "marginally reliable/unreliable," is what I was thinking of here, as a less-established outlet and one that may be largely opinionated and should be used with care as its reliability may be unclear or considerations may apply, and may additionally be biased. However, I am open to considering additional evidence, as I understand the Guardian piece is just one old piece and is limited. Thanks. ''']'''<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> 09:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Thank you for your reply! Of course, those are just my subjective takes, this isn't a RfC but if so I'd imagine a no consensus outcome. Many thanks! '''] '''] 09:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::@] is the report from the same site you mention for the Telegraph, which is a British newspaper of record and a pretty much unquestioned source here. It gives it as further right than LBC and also mixed. I think there are possibly a lot of American users here giving opinions on media they have not actually got any direct experience of. "I don't know" is a valid response when you don't actually know. --] (]) 08:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Let's agree that MBFC is not usable per VickKiang below and established consensus. ''']'''<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> 09:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Given that ''The Telegraph'' has been documented in academic and other high-quality sources as canpaigning against transgender rights (including in its reporting), it may be your {{tq|pretty much unquestioned}} evaluation that is in need of revision, rather than that of MBFC. And I am not an American user. ] (]) 11:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::It is not my evaluation that the Telegraph is reliable, it is a collective decision of the users of wikipedia. Political positions do not affect reliability. --] (]) 13:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::First of all, when political positions affect the selection, presentation, and language used in reporting, they most definitely do affect reliability, as plenty of discussions here at RSN van attest. And more particularly, there is in fact no consensus at enwiki that ''The Telegraph'' is actually reliable for its reporting on transgender issues; you are assuming the thing that is to be proven. A broad consensus that the Telly is "generally reliable" doesn't make it reliable in specific areas where RS has noted that it is not just a BIASEDSOURCE but actually unreliable. ] (]) 13:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::Fair enough, I'm surprised I hadn't heard of that. Out of interest, where was the community discussion that agreed that the Telegraph is not reliable for questions relating to transgender issues, rather than being biased? The list of perennial sources should be updated to reflect it. ] (]) 15:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::So far, the relevant discussuons are taking place at article Talk pages, where some of the HQ/academic sources have been presented in an ''ad hoc'' way. A number of editors have acknowleged that a noticeboard discussion will be required to amend the list entry; I would attribute my own procrastination on this to (1) my preference to treat ''The Times'' and ''The Telegraph'' together on this, so we don't see Times pickups replacing Telegraph coverage (as currently happens when either source runs with a ''Daily Mail'' story for example) and (2) my inclination to wait for the academic sourcing on this to strengthen further (as seems inevitable given recent developments in the UK). ] (]) 16:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::@]Ah, I would have been surprised that the Telegraph had been agreed to be unreliable on Transgender issues, I think that might be quite hard to do. In effect you would need to show a higher degree of factual inaccuracy in the T's output on this topic than across its general output. I introduced a similar conversation a few years ago on ]'s coverage of Muslims and the British left, and despite it having had dozens of regulatory judgments against it for printing false information on these topics, it still only just scraped a "no consensus it is reliable". People are very reluctant to downgrade on single topic areas, especially controversial ones. --] (]) 08:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''No''' per Newimpartial. ''']'''<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> 21:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Weak Yes''', Option 1-2 if this is a four options RfC. This is a decent news organisation per ] that partners with the UK ], which is . IMO the source is mostly opinion and apparently biased and opinionated (i.e., way worse compared to ]), but that falls within ]- {{tq|Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, 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.}} However, per {{u|Jayron32}} it's definitely important that ] weight is considered depending on the context, and this source is not the best for extraodinary claims IMHO. However, I see insufficient evidence from ] news organisations or fact-checkers such as ] or ] directly criticising coverage is false and misleading. Besides, ] (MBFC) is unconvincing, if we determine reliability based on MBFC ratings, we can assume that and , which are rated worse, are ''unreliable'', and that the reliability of is worse than the user-generated - which is a good indication why MBFC regarded as generally unreliable per ]. '''] '''] 08:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:Just a note that MBFC doesn't measure reliability by Misplaced Pages's criteria, so it's really only useful for determining where a source stands on the U.S. political spectrum. It's standards of reliability are based on factual truthfulness, which while a very good standard, Misplaced Pages goes a few steps ''further'', because user generated sources are out here; MBFC has no stance against those. Different standards are because of different purposes, it doesn't mean that one is better than the other, MBFC is fine for what it is, but it is not ''unreliable''. It is also not ''reliable'', it's an opinion source, and as such, doesn't fit on Misplaced Pages's reliability scale at all. --]] 11:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::{{tq|There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings.}} ] ''']'''<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> 17:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::This comes up from time to time. Please note that the RSP listing apply to use in articles, not use in talk page discussions. A number of editors, myself included, will mention Adfonts Media's bias chart when discussing sources. MBFC is another source that can be used in such discussions. Editors can consider if a source is biased, etc based in part on the MBFC listings. What we can't do is add text to articles based on that listing. We can't add, "MBFC rates CNN as an X source". ] (]) 17:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::Thank four your replies, to me {{u|Jayron32}} summarised it well. I understand that the RSP wording discourages MBFC to be included in mainspace articles as generally unreliable. On talk pages and noticeboards it is neither deprecated, disallowed, or explicitly discouraged (except for using it as the sole evidence in a RfC), but personally I take those with a grain of salt, as it's primarily one person's opinionated, poorly updated view and doesn't separate fact and opinion in the same way that WP editors do. Ad Fontes also is in the same vein but Allsides is marginally reliable. I browse some of these ratings as a good starting point when evaluating a source I don't know, it would usually not be far off but it is nowhere near decently accurate and it doesn't make sense to me that a common rating of "centre-right" and "mixed" would demonstrate unreliability. But IMHO MBFC is better than other (even worse) bias fact checkers, i.e., The Factual, which I critiqued in a separate RfC (it rates two marginally reliable sources with an almost perfect score), but to me Politifact and Snopes are way more accurate and established. '''] '''] 20:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::If a source is unreliable, it can't be used to determine reliability. It's not categorically barred from being mentioned, but per RS, a source's reliability can only be determined by other RS. ''']'''<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> 20:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::::Where is that in policy or guideline? ] (]) 21:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::::{{tq|Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.}} ... {{tq|News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact.}} What I guess is not explicitly spelled out but is true from long-standing consensus practice is the idea that you won't determine reliability of an RS using a non-RS. But it's clearly implied that what determines how "established," or "well-regarded," or "reputable," a source is, must itself come from other RS. ''']'''<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> 22:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::::::Actually, we come to consensus as to what is “established”, “well-regarded”, “reputable” via the messy process of discussion (and argument) - sharing our own opinions as to the source’s reputation… it’s a purely internal determination. ] (]) 23:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Yes'''. I would tend to agree with VickKiang that this is probably in the Option 1-2 range in that it doesn't appear to be rock solid source but it also doesn't appear to have any red flags that would tell us we can't treat it as reliable or with no weight. ] (]) 17:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''', mainstream site, surprised to see this being an issue. --] <small>]]</small> 08:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Yes''', per ]. - ] (]) 20:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''No'''', separate from the discussion about the one specific article that started that, I find the sources about them being right-wing talk radio convincing. I don't see anyone who's offered actual proof that they are reliable, like some kind of editorial or corrections policy. The two combined means I have to vote no here (on the ordinary 4-level RFC, probably 2-3). ] (]) 19:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
			===Survey (NewsNation)===
	== TimesNext - reliable? ==
			*'''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 ], 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. – ] (]&nbsp;<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)
			*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. - ] (]) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. ] (]) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' for non-UFO coverage, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. ]@] 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Discussion (NewsNation)===
	is being used as a source in a few articles. It doesn't seem a reliable source to me, I can't find any indication of it being considered a mainstream news source and the does not inspire confidence with the heavy blockchain focus. There's a related issue that some of the links have been added by one of their founders ] but I'd appreciate a general opinion on if they're a RS. ] (]) 14:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
			*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)
			== Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] ==
	:The site's content appears to be limited to press releases, sponsored blog entries and top 10 lists, with https://timesnext.com/advertise giving the impression that companies can pay TimesNext to write favourable articles about them, with no suggestion that such content is marked up as being sponsored. I'm not seeing anything I'd recognise as journalism. ] (]) 16:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
			This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article.
	:'''Not a reliable source.''' It is a 3-year-old startup. As noted by Belbury above, its own website states that it will publish sponsored stories and press releases. Most significantly, I cannot find a single instance in which a story from the website has been cited by an independent, mainstream, reliable news source. ] (]) 15:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
			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>
	:'''Not a reliable source.''' Advertisements (such as this ) are not clearly marked, its "news" are not picked up by anyone else, and most non-sponsored articles seem to be listicles or middle-school level essays . ] (]) 21:39, 9 November 2022 (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>
			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")
			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.
			]: 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>
			]: 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:
			*
			''']]''' 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. ] (]) 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. also seems to be a relevant document. ] (]) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{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)
			::::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)
			:::::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)
			::GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--] (]) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?''']]''' 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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)
			::::::::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)
			:::::::::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)
			:::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)
			::::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)
			:::::@] 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 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." ] (]) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (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 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. ] (]) 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 ''']]''' 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. ] (]) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{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)
			:::"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)
			:::::All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned ''']]''' 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. ] (]) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::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)
			:::::::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)
			::::::::Now show me where in your sources does it say that ''']]''' 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? ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (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)
			:::Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. ] (]) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@] so we can finish with and archive this, can we use those sources in anything other than the battle section? like the other sections that I've mentioned being deleted here ] <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]&nbsp;] (])</span> 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. ] (]) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]&nbsp;] (])</span> 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			== RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu ==
	== Book of Daniel ==
			<!-- ] 18:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740333680}}
			{{rfc|hist|bio|rfcid=5DC5768}}
			The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (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 ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such)
			* '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ])
			* '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
			] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) ===
	{{talk quote|No problem I understand and I feel the same, just to reiterate, the following all criticize the aforementioned theory by S.R. Driver, further developed by J.J. Collins:{{pb}}Many of these are given by Collins:{{pb}}Robert Dick Wilson of Princeton{{pb}}Young and Baldwin.{{pb}}The studies of C. F. Boutflower,{{pb}}D. J. Wiseman
			* A: See "Geni.com" at ].
	{{pb}}Gerhard Hasel,{{pb}}K. A. Kitchen, "The Aramaic of Daniel." Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel 31 (1965){{pb}}W. H. Shea, A. J. Ferch, “The Book of Daniel and the ‘Maccabean Thesis (1983){{pb}}Vasholz, Robert I. "Qumran and the Dating of Daniel." JETS 21.4 (1978){{pb}}Beckwith, Roger. "Early Traces of the Book of Daniel." (2008){{pb}}Haughwout, Mark S. "Dating the Book of Daniel." (2013).|Billyball998}}
			* 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.
			* C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Preliminaries ===
	Please chime in if these sources count as ], especially in view of ]. ] (]) 00:39, 5 November 2022 (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)
	:My position is that the underlying facts and analysis have not changed principally since the relevant works were created (except one issue, arguably in favor for the works, certainly not discrediting). Unless it can be demonstrated that a work is relying on an antiquated set of information that is distorting their findings, it should be treated as relevant.
			::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)
	:<small>"Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources '''may''' be inaccurate '''because new information has been brought to light,''' new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. '''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. In particular,</small> <small>newer sources are generally preferred in medicine."</small> ]
	:The article is clear that "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light" not that they are inherently outdated. ] (]) 00:52, 5 November 2022 (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)
			::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::And Wegner, Walter E. "The Book of Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls." (1958). ] (]) 01:07, 5 November 2022 (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 ]. -- <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 ===
	*This isn't how you present an RS query. Nobody is going to go through a list of allusions to sources, like that presented in the first part of your quote, trying to find out what they are. In the second part, you give us no publishers' information or details on the author. You give no information on the claim you wish to source, which means uninvolved users lack any context to judge reliability.
			:'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''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)
			::The vast majority of editors adding Geni as a citation for the primary sources it hosts are using those sources in exactly the way that is prohibited (i.e. they are using it as the sole supporting source for a statement rather than as background support for secondary sources). Even that's rare, as way way more people are citing it for its user-generated (often Misplaced Pages-based) "profiles" rather than whatever historical records are uploaded there. ] (]) 05:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. Really bad. Needs to go away.—] 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Invalid RFC/No change''' - giving only options here that are highly negative is not a neutral stance. And there is no specific evidences shown or reason why this is even coming up or needs that all previous RSP should be declared invalid. (See discussions ). Cheers ] (]) 01:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Why would we provide positive options when the overwhelming consensus already is that it is not reliable? There is absolutely no requirement that RSN RfCs be formatted with the standard options, especially when the aim isn't even to change the status quo GUNREL designation but rather to flesh out how we technically handle the source. And how could this possibly be declaring the previous discussions invalid, given that they all concluded Geni should not be used? The point of deprecating is to prevent ''new'' usage of the source, by warning editors who try to insert it that it's generally unreliable and tagging the citation if they go through with it. Geni is constantly being re-added by clueless people, deprecating would help a lot with cleaning it up. ] (]) 05:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley ===
	:In terms of the RSAGE query, when we are talking about the Book of Daniel, anything from the nineties onwards is almost certainly fine unless there was some earth shattering discovery in 2003 that changed what everybody thinks about the question; like, I don't know, archaeologists finding a lion's den with "Daniel was here, but I'm nor actually a Hebrew" written on the wall in Aramaic or something. A 1965 source should probably be considered outdated if it espouses views that are no longer current, but may be included as part of a discussion of the history of the debate on a question, or attributed to an author with the book's age mentioned in the text.
			:'''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)
			:'''Deprecate''' per ActivelyDisinterested.—] 00:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''No Change''' - no entry to RSP needed and seems has been accepted. This just is not something that often comes up for question and seems has not been hard to figure out the nature of so it also does not need a RSP entry. Yet as can be seen by , it is used and that seems evidence that common view *is* de facto RS by usage. Really seems like just declaring all those edits wrong is not a useful thing. Cheers ] (]) 02:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Editors using a source does not make it "de facto" RS... We have thousands of hits for pinterest and the like, and used to have thousands to the Daily Mail; that doesn't mean any of those are actually reliable. If you're objecting to the whole concept of RSP this isn't the place to do it. ] (]) 04:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Usage has absolutely no bearing on reliability. Thousands of Wikipedians could be quoting from '']'', and that still doesn't make it {{!xt|de facto RS by usage}} for information on butterflies.
			*::{{!xt|This just is not something that often comes up for question}} It ''does''. In Background: C ], I have indicated a long list of previous discussions on MedLands by Cawley, which has been going on for 15+ years (by now 17+ years). All this time, the conclusion that they reached repeatedly was that MedLands by Cawley was not reliable, but for a time it was thought that we could just gradually replace MedLands by other sources, and keeping MedLands template with a warning as a temporary measure until better sources had been found. However, that didn't happen, and the supposedly temporary measure became quasi-permanent until we agreed in the May 2023 RSN to no longer use the template or the website in any other way. And even after that, the website still gets used as a source by Wikipedians (usually new ones who were not aware of the previous discussions and the May 2023 decision). Deprecation is exactly what allows us to give editors a warning that it is not reliable, and to check out previous discussions and decisions, to prevent new usage. See also JoelleJay's response to your comment under Survey A: Geni.com. ] (]) 09:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav ===
	:Having said that, my initial feeling is that this is not a reliability issue,] (]) 07:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
			:'''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)
	**I would not trust the 1965 source. It was written by ], a so-called ] who has spend his career defending the historicity of the ]. He does not even accept the ], he is that much of a fringe voice. ] (]) 05:35, 6 November 2022 (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">—&nbsp;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)
			:'''Deprecate'''. ]. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—] 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''No change to either of these''' - seems this is referring to two different sources, both of which are somewhat widely used in WP and neither of which seems suitable for an RSP entry. Just not seeing sufficient case or benefit from any entry either. Cheers ] (]) 02:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:They are the same website; the old url is just broken now. And the fact that it is still being widely used is exactly why it needs an RSP entry and even more so to be deprecated... ] (]) 05:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{!xt|somewhat widely used in WP}}. Again, usage has absolutely no bearing on reliability. This is English Misplaced Pages, not Wikimedia Commons. Just because a source is widely used doesn't mean it gets a free pass. ] (]) 09:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)===
	*{{talk quote|When you say: {{tq|"As far as dual authorship, the jury is still out. The idea was first put forth by Spinoza..."}} I would note that you do not need to be looking further back in time to look for current updates on scholarship but forwards. Anything older than a 100 years is almost totally void in terms of modern scholarship except as an example of the history of the modern scholarship. For current updates on a debate you are looking at the last two, three decades max. ] (]) 07:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)}}
			{{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)
	:Quoted by ] (]) 10:29, 5 November 2022 (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. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::This quotation is not a helpful addition here, what do you actually want from people on this board? ] (]) 11:17, 5 November 2022 (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)
	:::I simply want to know if the sources championed by {{user|Billyball998}} may be used inside the article ]. That means if those may be used in order to show that there is a controversy about its dating inside the mainstream academia. Since IMHO such sources do not ] the claim that there is a controversy raging in the mainstream academia. ] (]) 12:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
			::@] Thanks for restoring the discussion from the archive; it evidently was not yet closed. It would seem that we've got a clear result though. Should I request a third party to formally close it with a conclusion, or how does this go with RfCs? ] (]) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Ok, so what you would do in that case is to present the sources individually, giving details of where they are published and links to them in the case that this is possible. What you really shouldn't do is post quotations from a discussion between yourself and another user, which is impossible to understand without context. I have added a section below for you to clearly post the sources you believe to be questionable with as much detail as possible. Links to them would really help here, but it is essential that you state who published them (author and publisher/journal) and whether they are books or journal articles. If these details have not been provided by the other user, then there is no debate to be had, as the claims can not be considered to have been sourced. ] (]) 15:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
			:::The {{tl|RFC}} tag was missing, which would have added "DoNotArchiveUntil.." to the header to stop it from being archived. I've add the RFC tag which will list in for every to see (not just those to happen across it on RSN). I suggest waiting and seeing if any more comments come in, as they editors have taken part yet. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::That would be a waste of editor time and effort. I think even the ] acknowledge and discuss the "controversy", but the discussion should be the nature of the debate and how to put in proper context. That discussion can't be had while editing such as and ] is ongoing. As {{u|tgeorgescu}} puts it {{tq|a controversy raging in the mainstream academia}} and looking at {{u|Billyball998}}'s edit and arguments, the clear answer from ] should be no, that's an inappropriate use of sources, move along. ](]) 16:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::@] I understand your position but could you explain what about the sources dont hold up for you, ie they are missing crucial information. ] (]) 17:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::I no longer play your game, that's ]. ] (]) 20:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::you are asserting the sources are not appropriate for seemingly no reason, it is not sealioning to ask you what your claim even is. I'm not even asking for evidence at this point ] (]) 20:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::In answer to @] and @]. This is the reliable sources noticeboard, if you don't want to discuss the reliability of sources, this is probably the wrong place to be. As Tgeorgescu did bring this here, I thought they might want to discuss the reliability of some sources. I seem to have been mistaken. ] (]) 22:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::{{re|Boynamedsue}} As far as I am concerned, the final verdict fell with what {{u|Fiveby}} stated. I take their advice to the heart. Further prolonging this discussion seems unnecessary. ] (]) 22:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::The truth is that it seems @] wants to deny my sources all my sources in one fell swoop without even explaining the assertion against them, unfortunately. ] (]) 22:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::An unpublished Master's thesis will never amount to a ], here at Misplaced Pages, for a start. ] (]) 22:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::If the complaint is Mark Haughwout's work cited is unpublished, then I would point to the ]. If you need help finding it, please let me know. If your complaint is that it is not published with a mainstream publication, I would ask why you believe that would disqualify it, assuming it represents appropriate scholarship? Also that would apply to only the one source, the other sources aren't affected by the assertation. ] (]) 22:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Your statement only shows that you completely lack any ]. E.g. no ] claiming that such controversy is raging in the mainstream academia in the 2000s, or in the 2010s, or in the 2020s.
	:::::::::::But, of course, why your position lacks any ] is only apparent to those who have a ]. We are the cabal of cluocracy. ] (]) 01:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::{{re|tgeorgescu}} I strongly suggest that you do not attempt to use the brief comment by Fiveby as support for your position on the talkpage. No consensus yet exists on this page as to the reliability of the sources you have questioned, largely because you have not posted them here in a format which can be understood. You have also decided to continue to bicker here, instead of engaging in constructive discussion. This is very bad form, and a waste of other users' time. --] (]) 08:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::{{re|Boynamedsue}} I took your advice to the heart. As you see, there are only two sources published in the 21st century, one of which a pious editor like {{u|StAnselm}} finds that it isn't ]. And yup, there even is a source from the 19th century.
	:::::::::::::A safe assumption is that Beckwith reflects the situation of the debate up to and including 2001 AD, i.e. more than 20 years ago. And Thompson (2020) is in fact a 1993 book, i.e. not written in the 21st century. ] (]) 20:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::Can i ask why post 2000 vs pre 2000 is an important distinction for you in the scholarship? thanks ] (]) 21:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::Please read the quote by {{u|Iskandar323}} above. Please list 10 post-2010 works listed in the annotated bibliography, i.e. Thompson (2020).
	:::::::::::::::"The pretended certainty of the criticism is imaginary" is a judgment dated 1930 AD. It is attributed to Gerhard Charles Aalders.
	:::::::::::::::What Thompson (2020) says in his own voice is that the liberal perspective became normative in the 19th century. ] (]) 21:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::Sorry but iskandar's claim is unsubstantiated unless it can be demonstrated, or at least explained why, as of now there is no reason not to accept works dating much further back than that, especially considering there is very little scholarship on the issue since 2000, and once again, there have been no new discoveries that would make older sources outdated, to my knowledge. ] (]) 21:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::Funny, you're the one claiming that a controversy about the dating of Daniel is raging in the mainstream academia in the 21st century. If it raged in the 20th century, then it is simply a thing of the past, already left behind. ] (]) 21:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::please see the "commentary" section in the introduction where Thompson gives a complete synopsis of the argument. Also i think these comments don't have to do with the reliability of the sources and should be listed on the Daniel talk page instead. ] (]) 21:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::I mean, here we are judging if the sources which you have pushed are reliable for the specific claim that ''a controversy about the dating of Daniel is raging in the mainstream academia in the 21st century.'' There is no such thing as a source reliable in general.
	:::::::::::::::::::E.g. Bart Ehrman makes some valid points about ] and ], but we do not ] him as an authority upon either of them. ] (]) 21:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::Still it is for discussing the reliability of the source, not debating who the source supports, nevertheless I have uploaded a preview of the source and will place it with the source in the source section below (https://ibb.co/s9YVy5b) ] (]) 21:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	*Haughwout is not a reliable source; Beckwith certainly is. ]] (]) 16:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	{{od|:}}
	Note: Andrews, JETS, Themelios, and Tyndale publish only evangelical scholars (if we count the SDA Church among evangelicals). ] (]) 20:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
			*I don't see the point to this. I can see there being concerns about quality of niche sources, but do not see a reason why a RSP entry should be made or benefit for trying it. Why should the source choice of hundreds or thousands of editors at thousands of entries be disregarded ? How can they all be effectively replaced ? I'm thinking that their de facto opinion has to be given great weight and that all those cites would either stay or that holes would be made in the affected articles -- so any RSP entry seems just pointless or causing lots of trouble rather than making any improvement. Am I missing some magic wand or an urgent concern worth the trauma ? Cheers ] (]) 02:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	Thompson (2020) is in fact a reprint of {{cite book | last=Thompson | first=Henry O. | title=The book of Daniel : an annotated bibliography | publisher=Garland Pub | publication-place=New York | date=1993 | isbn=0-8240-4873-3 | oclc=25507833 | page=}} at {{cite book | last=Thompson | first=Henry O. | title=Book of Daniel: An Annotated Bibliography | publisher=Taylor & Francis | year=2020 | isbn=978-1-135-77658-9 | url=https://books.google.nl/books?id=hBUHEAAAQBAJ&pg=PR30 | access-date=2022-11-06 | page=xxx}} it says that the liberal perspective did not became normative until the 19th century, i.e. the opposite of {{u|Billyball998}}'s POV. ] (]) 20:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
			*:These are all ''clearly'' user-generated and/or amateur SPS and therefore automatically unreliable, so the source preferences of the random drive-by editors adding it absolutely ''should'' be disregarded. I've removed thousands of citations to these and ], they almost invariably support undue trivia and frequently BLPNAME violations (e.g. full names, birthdates, and birthplaces of non-notable minor relatives) that shouldn't be in the article in the first place. ] (]) 05:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::It seems to me that Markbassett is trying to have it both ways.
			*::* On the one hand, he claims that all three sources are {{xt|niche sources}}; that {{xt|there is no specific evidences shown or reason why this is even coming up}}; and that {{xt|This just is not something that often comes up for question}}. So it's a ''small matter'' about ''niche sources'' that are ''rarely discussed'' (and rarely used?), and there is no reason to discuss it now and change their status, because it's ''not important enough''.
			*::* On ther other hand, he claims that {{xt|there is no that all previous RSP should be declared invalid}} (presumably he means previous RSN discussions on the source); that {{xt| seems has been accepted, it is used and that seems evidence that common view *is* de facto RS by usage. Really seems like just declaring all those edits wrong is not a useful thing.}}; that {{xt| are somewhat widely used in WP}}; and finally {{xt|Why should the source choice of hundreds or thousands of editors at thousands of entries be disregarded ? How can they all be effectively replaced ? I'm thinking that their de facto opinion has to be given great weight and that all those cites would either stay or that holes would be made in the affected articles}}. So it's a ''big matter'' about ''widely used sources'' that have been ''discussed many times before'', but there is no reason to discuss it now and change their status, because the usage of these sources in thousands of articles is ''too important'' and too impossible to be replaced by anything else.
			*::These two lines of reasoning are in contraction with each other. These sources can't be simultaneously ''niche'' but also ''widely used''; ''rarely discussed'' but also ''frequently discussed at RSN before''; and ''not important enough'' but also ''too important'' to have their status changed. The second argument seems to undermine the first, as evidence is given for how often these sources are indeed used, and that they have been frequently discussed before at RSN, and that the impact of the decision could affect thousands of articles. The second argument also seems to invoke ]. Unfortunate though that might be, it may be the conclusion we sometimes have to reach about sources that have been frequently cited in the past, but have subsequently turned out to be (very) unreliable. ] (]) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			==RfC: Jacobin==
	:I was citing it for the statement that I quoted on the talk page, it is a second print, from 1993. Also i think you should make comments similar to this one above or on the talk page, not here with the sources. (edit: the comments have now been moved) ] (]) 20:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740070870}}
			{{RfC|prop|pol|media|rfcid=857ECCA}}
			Which of the following best describes the reliability of '']''?
			* Option 1: ]
			* Option 2: ]
			* Option 3: ]
			* Option 4: ]
			— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Source 1:''' Not reliable for anything but Haughwout's opinion, the notability of which can be discussed at the relevant talkpage. '''Source 2:''' Reliable. '''Source 3:''' Reliable. '''Source 4:''' Reliable. '''Source 5:''' Reliable. '''Source 6:''' Reliable. '''Source 7:''' Reliable. '''Source 8:''' So old it is impractical to use. '''Source 9, 10, 11:''' Reliable, but very old. '''Source 12, 13, 14, 15:''' Reliable. '''Source 16,''' probably just about too old to be practically used. '''Source 17:''' Very reliable. All but the last source are clearly from a similar evangelical perspective, but are generally the work of serious scholars. However, they are mostly composed of the scholars' judgments on the question, so the actual factual comments can be used without attribution, but great care should be taken to separate fact from opinion. The degree of weight given to their perspectives is difficult to assess, and it may be necessary to find a non-evangelist source (such as the last one) to effectively do this. However, that discussion is for the talkpage and would refer to ]. --] (]) 08:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	::BTW, many thanks for posting the sources. --] (]) 08:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
			===Survey: ''Jacobin''===
	* Largely concur with the foregoing assessment. Haughwout is not reliable. The rest are reliable - published by independent, in most cases scholarly publications or publishing houses. I would be cautious about those more than 50-60 years old. I'm not saying don't use them, but I have no idea whether, and to what extent, there is anything "new" in this particular field of scholarship since that timeframe. ] (]) 17:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' I am opposed to the use of ] and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. ] (]) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	*:@] @] @] @] Thank you very much for your help, and everyone else who contributed here. ] (]) 19:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2/3''', bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. ] (]) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. ''And it was fixed.'' There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. ] (]) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? ] (]) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::::I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including ] and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::::You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***:::::::You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::::No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***:::::::::I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we ]. I believe @] is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. ] (]) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::::::Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. ] (]) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. ] (]) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) ] (]) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I note the failure to provide the requested source. ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:::::Right back at you.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			**::::::, your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***::::::Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			***:::::::Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? ] (]) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over ''Jacobin'' publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for ] which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation ()? <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --] (]) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{ping|Gamaliel}} Mostly ] and at ]. Kind regards,
			:::::Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. ] <small>(])</small> 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment'''. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at ] and at ]. --] (]) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' (intext attribution) ] and ] cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of ] that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' ]: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. ] (]) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1-ish''' Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major ]. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that ''improves'' their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. ] (]) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC''' - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that ''Jacobin'' published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. gives ''Jacobin'' a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the ''New York Times'' (1.4) and ''Washington Post'' (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2/3''' While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes ''Jacobin''. While ''Jacobin'' is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, ''How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba'' is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of ''Jacobin'' is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by ''Jacobin'' that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think ''Jacobin'' is "unreliable" ''per se'', I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. ] (]) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Sources in question on the Book of Daniel article===
			*'''Option 1''' for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. ] (]) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: '''''Option 2''': mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory.'' I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: '' I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus.'' In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. ] (]) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—] 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''1 or 2''', I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. ] (]) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Weak option 2''' per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. '''Strong oppose option 3''', though, for somewhat obvious reasons. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/2''' - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - ] (]) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/2''' Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' <s>or 4</s> They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''', with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. ] (]) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of ''general'' reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the {{tq|no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2}} position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" ''always'' apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to ''how likely'' we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. ] (]) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''', it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as '']'' {{rspe|Reason}}. There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. ] and ] are quite clear.&nbsp;
			:Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has ] for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a '''Bad RfC'''. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the ] where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant ] and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "]" which doesn't needs to be rehashed.&nbsp;<span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio''' Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated ] for deletion not long after the ], and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that ''Jacobin'' has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary ] and ]] sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias."
			:I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that ] to falsely luring Americans into supporting ] based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable '']'' and contain no obvious factual errors. <b>]</b> ] 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2''', mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from ] {{tquote|Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely.}} A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. ] is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by ] and ]. Notably, ] is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. ] (]) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , ] ] (]) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You should probably read farther than the headline. ] (]) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. ] (]) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::"The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it ''literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice''. ] (]) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			* (Summoned by ping in this thread) '''Bad RFC / No listing''' just as in 2021. Or '''Option 2''', it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as ]. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. ] (]) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: <small>This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but ''Jacobin'' is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --] (]) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) </small>
			*::For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. ] (]) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. ] (]) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' The current summary at ] acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' ] already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a ]. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. ] (]) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''3'''. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than ''Jacobin'' to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.
			:It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The ''NYTimes'' has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, ''Nature'' finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the ] 'fact' that 80% of the world's biodiversity is found in the territories of indigenous peoples] are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in ], ], and ], and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the ''emotional hind-brain'' of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.
	'''Source 1:''' Mark S. Haughwout, "Dating the Book of Daniel. A Survey of the Evidence for an Early Date", self-published, M.A. The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Hebrew University Jerusalem, 2013, http://markhaughwout.com/Bible/Dating_Daniel.pdf
			:Which just strengthens my point, there're no blinders like ideological blinders, so its not so much a matter of how many fact-checkers you have as in how you maybe are presenting facts which, while individually true, are cherry picked or incomplete or out of context or one-sided or otherwise misleading. It might not even be intentional, exactly. Mind-sets are like that. Better to stick with ''Time'' or other people who are more into just blandly attracting a broad readership rather than with people who have points to make.
	'''Source 2:''' Beckwith, Roger, "Early Traces of the Book of Daniel", ''Tyndale Bulletin'', scholarly article, 2002, https://web.archive.org/web/20211018172928/https://nevt.org/doc_474318.pdf
			:They're big and smart enough that reporting their ''opinions'' are worthwhile, of course. "According to ''Jacobin'', consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine. As long as we include the qualifier. ] (]) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Source 3:''' Vasholz, Robert I., "Qumran and the Dating of Daniel", ''The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society'', scholarly article, December 1978, https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/21/21-4/21-4-pp315-321_JETS.pdf
			::{{Reply|Herostratus}} not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. ] (]) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't ''all'' publications are completely reliable ''for their contents''? If the ''News of the World'' says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the ''News of the World'', the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we.
			:::What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that ''in our own words'' because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for ''all'' races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. ] (]) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Source 4:''' Arthur J. Ferch, "The Book of Daniel and the 'Maccabean Thesis'", ''Andrews University Seminary Studies'', scholarly article, Summer 1983, https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1609&context=auss;THE
			::::I think the thing is our due weight policy says that due weight (noteworthiness) is apportioned based on the amount of attention given in reliable sources. I take that to mean opinion in generally reliable sources is worth reporting; opinion in generally unreliable sources isn’t. ] (]) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The Daily Mail is not reliable for its own contents, having doctored its archives. ] (]) 00:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per ] – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. ] (]) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to ''Jacobin'' should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --] (]) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Source 5:''' K.A. Kitchen, "The Aramaic of Daniel", The Tyndale Press, part of a book, 1965, https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tp/notes-daniel/daniel_kitchen.pdf
			*'''Option 2'''. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. ] (]) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per {{u|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}}'s previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!
			::{{tq| Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon {{RSP|Salon}}, Townhall {{RSP|Townhall}}). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with ]. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: {{tq|centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement}} . So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. ] identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. ] (]) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) <u>Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet {{RSP entry|AlterNet}} , Daily Kos {{RSP entry|Daily Kos}} , Raw Story {{RSP entry|The Raw Story}} , The Canary {{RSP entry|The Canary}} , and the Electronic Intifada {{RSP entry|The Electronic Intifada}} .] (]) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)</u>}}
			:As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory ] (]) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation {{tq|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}}. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:
			::# ''Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order'' Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
			::# ''Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still.'' By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
			::# ''THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK.'' By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 <small>(note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the ] but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)</small>
			::#''The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy,'' Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
			::So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? ] (]) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. ] (]) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? ] (]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. ] (]) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. ] (]) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is ''too biased to be reliable'' personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. ] (]) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. ] (]) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their page states they offer {{tq|socialist perspectives}} and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supporting {{tq|radical politics}} and {{tq|very explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism}}. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms ''are'' commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of ] notes {{tq|the political diversity of contributors, incorporating "everyone from social democratic liberals to avowed revolutionaries"}}, so I don't think either you or Simonm223 are wrong on this. Different people are gonna use different terms and apply different meanings to each of them. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{tq|Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center.}} Where outside the United States are you talking about? The world where ]? Where ]? Is it Japan, where the conservative ] has been in power since 1955? Or China, where a media outlet that is as critical of the ] as Jacobin is of the ] would have long been banned, and their writers arrested? I think we all need a reality check here, especially if we want to represent reality in our articles. ] (]) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing they probably had in mind specifically other western democracies, as it's common for European countries to have a mainstream Socialist Party with an ideology listed as social democracy (to name a few: ], ], ], ], etc).
			::::::::I'm comfortable speculating this is their argument because it's one that's often repeated in American progressive-left circles. This argument is usually presented as follows: ] is viewed as the furthest left one can go in America, the things his supporters want are not radical to other developed countries (paid time off, universal healthcare, etc), therefore what is far left in America is only moderately left elsewhere.
			::::::::Not saying I entirely agree or disagree with that argument, either how Simonm223 phrased it or how I interpreted it. Just saying I think they had in mind comparable democracies, not the entire world.
			::::::::<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 16:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. ] (]) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::This has become a discussion about Overton windows rather than the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3 or 2''' - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be ''relied on'' (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like ''Jacobin'' that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like ''Quillette''). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in ''Jacobin'' are more noteworthy than they really are. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Jacobin's ] is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. ] (]) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::This is no more a good argument than it would be to state that the raison d'etre of X publication is to promote capitalism and the geo-political interests of the United States, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting.
			*::I could apply that faulty argument to shitloads of mainstream US publications that are currently considered to be generally reliable. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite ''Jacobin'', but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of ''The Economist'' or ''Reason'' (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to ''Quillette'', which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, on a hoax published in ''Quillette'', revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of ]) ] (]) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) ] (]) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Additional considerations apply'''. As I indicated in the ] which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that ] "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. ] (]) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''. Our ] is explicit that {{tq|reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective}}. I may not personally love the political perspective of ''Jacobin'', but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding ''Jacobin'' as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.{{pb}}Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we ''expect'' from a reliable source; and B) a case where ], as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number was {{tq|Information provided in passing}}, and we already know that such info occasionally {{tq|may not be reliable}}, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the ]. For a topic like ], looks like ''Jacobin'' is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try from the journal '']''. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.{{pb}}Finally, when a piece published in ''Jacobin'' is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, ]. ''The Economist'' and ''The Wall Street Journal'' publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of ''The Economist'', {{tq|editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources}}. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3''' or '''Option 2''', long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the ] was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. ] (]) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Source 6:''' Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Identity of the 'Saints of the Most High' in Daniel 7", ''Biblica'', scholarly article, 1975, https://www.jstor.org/stable/42610712
			*:For the record, the that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of '']'', a book about the ], not the French. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::''The Black Jacobins'' is named so because the author analogizes the actions of the Haitians to that of the French Jacobins. It's just adding an extra step (not to mention that the word has a known meaning on it's face, so it's mostly irrelevant.). Regardless, it's clearly derived, and it's frankly silly to even argue semantics. ] (]) 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing ]. Your objection doesn't make any sense. ] (]) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't ''inherently'' reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. ] (]) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::That is arguing semantics. ] (]) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::If that's your benchmark, then practically everything is arguing semantics, including this whole thread. "Jacobin publishes words -> what are the meaning of those words? (semantics) -> can we qualify those meanings as 'reliable?'" Clearly distinguishing factors, and I'm not interested in ''arguing semantics about the word "semantics"'' with you like a 12 year old. My vote's been explained, ]. ] (]) 17:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/Keep the current RSPS summary''' I think a few people arguing for additional considerations are misremembering the current RSPS legend. ''Additional'' considerations doesn’t refer to things like weight, or bias, or that you need to attribute opinion pieces because those are all standard considerations that apply to ''all'' sources. The current RSPS summary already says (in part) {{tq|Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.}} I can't find anything that indicates that's not still a perfectly good summary. ] (]) 01:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Source 7:''' D. J. Wiseman, "Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel", The Tyndale Press, part of a book, 1965, https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tp/notes-daniel/daniel_wiseman.pdf
			*'''Option 1*''' Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. ] (]) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Source 8: '''Boutflower, Charles, "In and around the Book of Daniel", Society for promoting Christian knowledge, book, 1923, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=W-g2AAAAMAAJ
			*'''Option 1:''' Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1/2''': generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. ] (]) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Bad RfC''' As on . ] (]) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on ]. In particular I found persuasive. Most recently cites a ''Jacobin'' article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find ''Jacobin'' worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow ''CJR''s lead? The arguments seem to be (1) ''Jacobin'' recently issued a major retraction and (2) ''Jacobin'' has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to ]. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat ''Jacobin'' differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like '']'' or '']''. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2 or Option 3''': Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. ] (]) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2'''. This is not a ]. Its stated purpose is . Compare to the missions of the NYT: ; or the BBC: . The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver ''reporting''. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. ] (]) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a '''Bad RFC''' because there's no reason for initiating it, I support '''Option 2''' or '''Option 3''' because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. ] (]) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''{{spaced en dash}}''Jacobin'' may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that ''Jacobin'' isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like ''The Economist'', ''Jacobin'' publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be ''better'' than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very '''bad RfC''' given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by {{noping|Tayi Arajakate}}) and a complete lack of any examples of ''actual uses on Misplaced Pages where the reliability is questioned''. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Misplaced Pages. An absurd reason to open an RfC. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard"><span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px lightskyblue, -1px -1px 4px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">]</span> (] • ])</span> 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' per Silver seren and Wugapodes (and thank you for providing actual reported information on their editorial process rather than speculation, heavy irony in this whole discussion). This whole saga is based on one correction? Really? ] (]) 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --] (]) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Bias has plenty to do with reliability, or can. It's a worthwhile thing to take into consideration. ] (]) 21:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3/4:''' An encyclopedia should focus on high-quality, fact-driven sources. Not on ones that report the news with ''heavy'' political agendas, at least not without qualifying it. Using a highly politically charged source (of whatever political persuasion) inevitably leads to
			:# '''Bias and lack of objectivity:''' Sources with extreme political leanings present information ''very selectively'' and often distort facts to support an ideological agenda. This can lead to biased or one-sided entries that undermine neutrality. It can also lead to including content that is not encyclopedic. See ].
			:# '''Erosion of credibility:''' Misplaced Pages is expected to provide balanced, factual, and well-researched content. Reliance on politically extreme sources can damage its reputation as a reliable and neutral reference.
			:# '''Misinformation and inaccuracy:''' Sources like ''Jacobin'' often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation.
			:# '''Cherry-picking evidence:''' Extreme political sources may ''omit contrary evidence'' or fail to represent the full range of perspectives. This results in incomplete or skewed coverage. Critical context is lacking.
			;# '''Harm to reputation of the field:''' Normalizing unreliable content can set a dangerous precedent here. Per Misplaced Pages policy, a fact worthy of entry in an encyclopedia would be covered by ''multiple'' reliable sources. It would be difficult to "counter" each instance of citing ''Jacobin'' with another source of equal repute but on the opposite political extreme covering the same story.
			:Further, ''Jacobin'' is mostly an ''opinion'' source. While it is not the worst source in the world, it hardly among reliable sources. According to Ad Fontes Media, which monitors news value and reliability, "Ad Fontes Media rates Jacobin in the '''Hyper-Partisan Left''' category of bias and as '''Mixed Reliability/Opinion OR Other Issues''' in terms of reliability."
			:The goal of Misplaced Pages, which prioritizes reliable ], is to present information with a sense of ]. There is no shortage of such sources, and those are the ones to use. --] (]) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Well said. ] (]) 21:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: Thank you, {{Reply|Iljhgtn}}. I'd also like to add that {{Reply|Herostratus}} put it nicely above: "If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it." --] (]) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That is also a good point. I imagine that is why as a standalone source it likely should not be relied upon for reliable reporting on the facts, but that maybe it could work to bolster a claim made already by another reliable source. Option 2 of "Additional considerations" is where I am leaning. ] (]) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The OP @] also spoke to this. ] (]) 21:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::# All sources are biased, it's a natural part of human nature. This is covered by ], if that bias effects accuracy and fact checking then that needs to be shown by examples. Biased sources are not unreliable simply because of their bias.
			::# People's opinions of Misplaced Pages are not a criteria for determining a reliable source.
			::# Instances of errors or misinformation should be shown, saying they might exist isn't evidence that they do exist.
			::# This is again covered by ].
			::# This point relates to NPOV not reliability. Editors should take ], ], and ] into account, but ultimately whether a source should be used is not the same as if a source is reliable.
			::-- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Detachment is specifically not required of sources per RSBIAS {{tq|"... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."}} -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{ping|Precision123}} did you employ ChatGPT or other LLM to compose this response? The structure is suspiciously similar to ChatGPT's writing style and your response is primarily platitudes with no specific examples or references to the specific policies undergirding RSP. Your sentence {{tq|Sources like Jacobin often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation}} is especially LLM-like and makes the spurious claim that {{tq|sources like ''Jacobin''}} may use {{tq|conspiracy theories}} which hasn't been brought up anywhere here. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard"><span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px lightskyblue, -1px -1px 4px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">]</span> (] • ])</span> 02:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I was going to comment on their lack of examples given for claims, but correctly assessed that someone else would probably do so. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It is an unfortunate aspect of LLMs that they generate nice sounding wording that has no understanding of Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2'''. They are an analysis/opinion magazine rather than a strait news source, so their pervasive bias has to be carefully considered when assessing its use as a source. ] (]) 00:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' Yes, we allow biased sources, but a source like this with explicitly declared bias that includes its title should be balanced against our NPOV policy, particularly. ] and ]. In Perennial sources we reserved option 1 for the established reliable sources like BBC or ''Time'' magazine. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:BBC as unbiased, hmm ... ], ], etc. ] (]) 12:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::] ] (]) 12:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Discussion: ''Jacobin''===
	'''Source 9:''' E.J. Young, "Daniel's Vision of a Son of Man", Tyndale, book, 1958, not on public web
			*Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Pings to {{yo|Feminist|The wub|Thebiguglyalien|Super Goku V|Simonm223|FortunateSons|Oort1|Burrobert|ActivelyDisinterested|Hydrangeans|Vanilla Wizard|Iljhgtn|Selfstudier|Horse Eye's Back|NoonIcarus|Harizotoh9|Springee}} who commented above. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Additional pings to {{yo|WMrapids|David Gerard|Bobfrombrockley|Shibbolethink|Crossroads|Herostratus|Dumuzid|Aquillion|Gamaliel|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|BSMRD|Wugapodes|Ip says|King of Hearts|Chetsford|Tayi Arajakate|MPants at work|Jlevi|The Four Deuces|Grnrchst|Szmenderowiecki|Dlthewave|Jr8825|Thenightaway|Nvtuil|Peter Gulutzan|FormalDude|Volunteer Marek|FOARP|Sea Ane|3Kingdoms|Bilorv|blindlynx|Jurisdicta|TheTechnician27|MarioGom|Novemberjazz|Volteer1}} who commented in the ]. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames ] and ]) and the discussions that followed at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6#Jacobin (magazine)}} and {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability}} led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a ], followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed.
	'''Source 10:''' E.J. Young, "The Messianic Prophecies of Daniel", Eerdmans, book, 1954, not on public web
			Ironically, there can be no article about the book because it lacks notability. It was only reviewed in Jacobin. We are basically working to prevent things that will never happen. Under current policy therefore this source could never be used.
	'''Source 11:''' E.J. Young, "The Prophecy of Daniel", Eerdmans, book, 1949, not on public web
			Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.
	'''Source 12:''' Joyce G. Baldwin, "Daniel", Inter-Varsity Press, book, 1978, not on public web
			] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Source 13:''' Joyce G. Baldwin, "Is There Pseudonimity in the Old Testament?", ''Themelios'', scholarly article, 1978-1979, https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/themelios/pseudonymity_baldwin.pdf
			*'''Bad RFC''' because we should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, but since we're doing this: Jacobin is clearly an opinion outlet, not a news outlet. We shouldn't be relying on them for statements of fact for that reason alone. ] (]) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Source 14:''' Joyce G. Baldwin, "Some Literary Affinities of the Book of Daniel", ''Tyndale Bulletin'', scholarly article, 1979, https://tyndalebulletin.org/article/30610-some-literary-affinities-of-the-book-of-daniel.pdf
			*:Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. ] (]) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks.
			*::That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. ] (]) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --] (]) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Source 15:''' Robert Dick Wilson, "Studies In The Book Of Daniel: A Discussion Of The Historical Questions", G. P. Putnam's Sons, book, 1917, https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Book-Daniel-Discussion-Historical/dp/1437138012
			*:They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like ''New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times'' to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at ]. ] (]) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. ] (]) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what {{noping|Volunteer Marek}} was concerned about was ]. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. ] (]) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. ] (]) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It is not the case that a book review can ''only'' be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet ]. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. ] (]) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== The Heritage Foundation ==
	'''Source 15:''' S.R. Driver, "The Book of Daniel. With Introduction and Notes", The Macmillan Co., book, 1900, https://books.google.com/books?id=YC82AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
			<!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}}
			{{Moved discussion to|WP:Requests for comment/The Heritage Foundation|2=Due to how large the discussion has become, and size constraints on the noticeboard, this discussion has been moved to it's own page. <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			== RfC: TheGamer ==
	'''Source 16:''' Wegner, Walter E., "The Book of Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls", ''Quartalschrift-Theological Quarterly'', scholarly article, 1958, http://essays.wisluthsem.org:8080/bitstream/handle/123456789/626/WegnerDaniel.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
			{{atop|OP has withdrawn the discussion. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 21:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			<s>TheGamer seems to be either user-generated content, or slop listicles. Additionally, it seems to source it's content largely from dubious YouTube content, Reddit posts, or Twitter/X threads. However it is listed as a source in articles such as ] purely in relation to one listicle that ranks Flowey in relation to other characters. What is the reliability of this site?
			* Option 1: ]
	'''Source 17:''' Thompson, Henry O., "The Book of Daniel: An Annotated Bibliography", Routledge, book, 2020, https://www.routledge.com/Book-of-Daniel-An-Annotated-Bibliography/Thompson/p/book/9781315056609 relevant section:https://ibb.co/s9YVy5b
			* Option 2: ]
			* Option 3: ]
			* Option 4: ]
			]</s>
	'''Source x:'''
			<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Of the 17 sources, only one dates from later than 2000 (the Thompson book was published in 1993, not 2020), and most are far older, up to half a century or more. That alone would make them very dubious as reliable sources. ] (]) 20:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
			* '''Bad RfC'''. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not {{tq|neutrally worded and brief}} as our ]. I would also ask why the ] about ''TheGamer'' available at the list maintained by ] isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about ], as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at ]. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	::My field of greatest expertise is the linguistics of dark age Britain. The key text was published in 1953, and is still cited in every single article on the subject. It is cited on 46 articles here. ] (]) 21:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
			Nevermind then. I'll delete the info on the Flowey page that provides no encyclopedic value. The reason I proposed this originally was because TheGamer's content has gotten worse and more sloppy since 2020.<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I am just a dabbler in your field, though I am on somewhat more solid grounds in biblical linguistics. While your point is taken and mere age does not invalidate a source, I think it is fair to say the field is ever-evolving, especially as it has diverged (though never fully separated) from its historical religious underpinnings. Cheers. ] (]) 21:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
			{{abottom}}
	::::@] I would disagree that it has evolved substantially since the early 20th century, the routledge bibliography actually says "a review of scholarly history finds an amazingly consistent set of arguments—the same arguments are used by both camps today, a century ago, two centuries ago."
	::::Not trying to be argumentative but I think its important, thanks :) ] (]) 23:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::: For the Book of Daniel, the key texts are those of Collins and Seow. ] (]) 02:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
			== Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer ==
	== The New York Observer ==
			Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	Rate the reliability of ''''.
			:The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. ] (]) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Ok, thank you very much. ] (]) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			==''Pirate Wires''?==
	* '''Option 1:''' Generally ] for factual reporting.
			'']'' as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, ? — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	* '''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply.
			:Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.
	* '''Option 3:''' Generally ] for factual reporting.
			:Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. ] (]) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	* '''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ].
			:: So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of {{talk quote inline|as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher '']'' lists him as a senior editor|q=yes}}? I just wanted to make sure ''PW'' was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. ] (]) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I think this is a case for ], but it seems like a reasonable option ] (]) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			: Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Invoking ] to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not ], and I would avoid using this publication for ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			] (]) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. ] (]) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	] (]) 15:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
			* ''Pirate Wires'' should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered ] unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. ] (]) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Comments (Observer)===
			*:It's Mike Solana's blog. ] (]) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1 or 2''' - It has a reasonably good reputation for fact checking and accuracy - with a center-right bias. Care must be taken to distinguish ''opinion'' and ''gossip'' from factual ''event'' reporting (as is true of most online journalism, the lines can be blurred)… and, of course, headlines are not reliable. ] (]) 16:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
			::Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. ] (]) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''1987-2006, Option 1; 2006-current Option 2'''. The ] newspaper changed hands and is considered, based on my reading, generally less accurate and respected after the purchase by ] in 2006. Why is this under discussion? Is there some significant credibility issue we are resolving? If we are discussing reliability, I believe we should divide that into time frames, say before the Kushner purchase and after. I am no content expert, but I did live in NYC during the double naughts, and the general feeling among my rather knowledgeable and diverse crowd was the subscribers had been torpedoed by the purchase. Today it's a rag, IMHO. Suitable for the birdcage, except no print version. ] (]) 20:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	**'''Question'''. I ask again of the OP, why are we having this conversation? Normally we don't have these sorts of evaluative discussions on RS/N unless we have a specific issue with the source or we've seen a pattern of issues with the source. What sort of activity or usage was seen which provoked this inquiry? ] (]) 12:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)		:::Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link {{U|Selfstudier}} provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." ] (]) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously ''his personal thing.'' ] (]) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' CJR pieces too would suggest that greater care would be required in judging TNYO in more recent years. The first speaks about the variable quality ({{tq|...readers are left with a highly variable product...}}) and diminished editorial oversight ({{tq|The old Observer was edited, on a story-by-story basis, in a way that the new online Observer isn’t...}}), and the latter to bias ({{tq|...use the paper to settle scores or reward cronies...}}). ] (]) 21:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
			:::::There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. ] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2 2006-present''' per BusterD. ''']'''<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> 21:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
			::::::Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. ] (]) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Pre-2006, Option #1; Post-2006, Option #2''' Per the observations above. ] (]) 17:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
			:::::::What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that ] and/or your own conclusion being reached? ] (]) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Considering that comment and the fact that founder ] is the chief marketing officer of ], Pirate Wires has a major ] with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-] source with respect to all related topics. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - ] (]) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Marginally reliable, there seems to be a pretty wide spread quality wise because they seem to allow their writer a loose leash. This means that some articles are very good and some are very bad. Personally I've found them solidly reliable for the more wonkish techy stuff but have a lot of issues when they start to cover politics or culture/society in general. Crypto seems to be the only blindspot within their otherwise area of expertise, their crypto coverage is just awful and should be avoided like the plague. When used I would attribute and I would strongly advise against any use for BLP not covered by ABOUTSELF. I agree that pieces by Solana should be treated as self published and that coverage by Pirate Wire is not to be considered independent of the Founders Fund. ] (]) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Need context before coming to RSN ===
	== The Hindu ==
			At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. ] (]) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	Per ], we should treat '']'' as a ].
			* Per <s>{{U|Slatersteven}}</s> its founder describes it as a ] - it should be treated accordingly. ] (]) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Not me. ] (]) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per {{U|Selfstudier}} apologies. I will strike above. ] (]) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It is not ] and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. ] (]) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an ] would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the ''shape'' of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a ], according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yeah by that criteria this is a SPS, one guys blog is still one guys blog even if they let their friends post. ] (]) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Usage in ] ===
	So I would have thought in ''The Hindu'' is –
			Is the Pirate Wires piece by ] a reliable source of claims for the ] article? Rindsberg has published other content about Misplaced Pages on Pirate Wires, including . —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It's at best, usable for the attributed opinion of Rindsberg only, but even then, it's obviously polemical and partisan. There's lots of right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages that I personally find disingenuous, but inevitably an article on "Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages" is going to have to include some partisan sourcing, but not framing it as fact is essential. I am unsure whether Pirate Wires is prominent enough a publication that it would be due to mention in any capacity. ] (]) 04:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	# reliable for statements of fact about the book and its author ("published by Westland", "written in four months", "scriptwriter living in Mumbai", etc.)
			::I don't even think its usable for that... Can't find anything that suggests that Rindsberg is a subject matter expert. ] (]) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	# reliable for sourcing the publication's description and assessment of the book discussed (e.g. that the book's style is "simple and racy", that it takes the reader on "an interesting journey", deals with "aspects of cricket, including the dark side of the game – match-fixing ...", that the author "drifts from the subject midway when he writes more about the off-field activities of the cricketers", etc.)
			:Sources in that article should have some leeway, as Misplaced Pages is obviously going to be criticised by such sources. But I totally agree with Hemiauchenia that framing is key. This is the opinion of a hyper partisan source, framing it as fact is wrong. Whether it should be included or not is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It is more or less a group
			:blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Misplaced Pages editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. ] (]) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Both unreliable and ]. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Agree fully. Unreliable and undue. ] (]) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:almost certainly no. the article attacking[REDACTED] has falsehoods and even ignoring that and arguing its an opinion piece we could use with attribution , it goes at it from a very marginal POV … there are more useful opinion pieces from more reliable outlets out there.] (]) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:How is it used by others or is it even used by others? If sources have cited their work then I think we can as well. However, I would be very cautious about using it as an independent reference. Very cautious to the point where I would generally say no. Perhaps in a case where it's spot on topic (ideological bias of Misplaced Pages) but then only with attribution. Speaking generally, these sort of sources are always difficult as they may provide very good information but other than editors reading the text and using their own common sense, OR, etc, we don't have a good way to judge the quality of the output. BTW, this is also why I think "use with caution" may not be specific enough. Some sources are more like "use with caution but probably OK" while others are more like "use with extreme caution but there is probably a case where it provides more than about self content". ] (]) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Pirate Wires itself is notable as it's had coverage in other notable outlets but its viewpoint about Misplaced Pages per se might not have been documented in RS yet. But I'm confused -- Why are some of these other media outlets' self-published viewpoints ] without them necessarily being considered RS themselves? ] (]) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The term '']'' refers to sources without adequate editorial oversight, which includes most ]. ] are not self-published sources. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Imo Having Misplaced Pages articles that discuss whether Misplaced Pages is reliable, biased, antisemitic, etc is silly. We're all too inherently conflicted as Misplaced Pages editors to give a sober assessment of these topics and what is/isn't due to include. These topics are best left to scholars. That said, Pirate Wires is a lot less established than these other publications you mention. ] (]) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Outright rejecting ] because it's "right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages" and has "a very marginal POV" is the issue with ] that the piece is trying to critique. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::But it does affect ] weight (which requires balance between sources, and which is the real concern for something that, as a ] or a website with no reputation, would obviously be opinion at best.) The article already contains a large number of right-wing sources with a similar perspective; does this piece add anything to them? My feeling is that articles like this are subject to problems where editors try to do this nose-counting thing where they add dozens of opinionated or biased sources saying the same thing because they feel it's a ''really important'' perspective - but that's not how opinion is really meant to be used. If we have twelve sources that are fundimentially similar saying the same thing, they ought to be condensed down to a single sentence or so saying "a bunch of sources said X" (unless some of them are individually noteworthy on their own merits somehow, eg. if they're an opinion from a significant expert, but that obviously isn't the case here.) --] (]) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] makes a perfectly valid point. ] (]) 14:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::It's being rejected because it's a random tech guy's blog - not because it's right wing. ] (]) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::One thing @] said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because <s>s</s>he's just some person with a megaphone. ] (]) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. ] (]) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Also, ] is a man. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Evidence has already been provided. In this thread. The founder brags about having no editorial board on twitter dot com. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Getting neither the gender {{tq|"she's"}} nor the spelling {{tq|"Ashley Rindberg"}} correct shows me you may not have looked into this very much. ] (]) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Oh do stop. That's an awful lot to take from a bloody typo. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Here's a freebee for all the people looking to say Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias. This is what a reliable source accusing Misplaced Pages of a left-wing bias looks like: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793846 ] (]) 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased ] (]) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a ]. --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. ] (]) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I should add that the Manhattan Institute was discussed previously ]; the discussion was never closed or added to ] but by a quick nose-count the total unreliable + deprecate opinions outnumbered the "unclear" opinions almost two-to-one (and there were almost no people saying it was GREL.) --] (]) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::What game? I literally provided a source accusing Misplaced Pages both of left-wing bias and of bias against women at the same time. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::*We don't actually require an RFC for every individual dispute; and sources certainly do not ''automatically default'' to reliable. Just doing a quick nose-count in this discussion suggests that it's extremely unlikely that an RFC on Pirate Wires' reliability would support your contention that it is reliable - numerous issues have been raised, especially regarding its lack of editorial controls and its lack of the {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} that RS requires. We can pull it through an entire RFC if you really think it's necessary but I think your time would be better-spent looking for more clearly reliable secondary sources covering this, if you want it in the article. This would also turn things back to the more fundamental ] problem I mentioned above - this looks identical to dozens of similar pieces posted by people with similar opinions; given that it's published in what's ''at least'' a low-quality source compared to the ones already in the article, what makes this one significant enough to highlight? --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:For disclosure, I originally wrote the ] article. I think the answer is ''no'' to this question specifically, and similar questions generally.<Br/>Pirate Wires is an advocacy media outlet. Its writing is in a punchy tone -- a tech-ish form of ] -- that blends opinion with explanatory reporting. They don't do spot news. So there's just no utility in using it for encyclopedia-writing.<br/>That's not to say it's either good or bad, merely that it doesn't serve the limited purposes for which we use sources here. (It ran a widely cited interview with ] and I don't think anyone believes they made-up the interview. But if we need to cite that interview in an article it can be referenced to any of the numerous RS that, themselves, cited it through précis', versus Pirate Wires directly.) In any case, anything it publishes that ''is'' encyclopedic will be covered in a second, more conventional RS and we should reference the second source. Anything not referenced in a pass-through outlet is probably undue. ] (]) 18:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			'''Respectful comment:''' This discussion would be more helpful if we focused on how reliable sources treat a specific startup news organization and less on original research and personal opinion. --] (]) 21:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	Does such use of this source strike anyone as incompatible with sourcing policies and guidelines? --] <small>]]</small> 17:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
			== CEIC data ==
	*Hmm. An article in the ''Metro Plus'' section with no by-line and consisting largely of quotes by Sinha and ] (who was the chief guest at the book launch) and the most cursory form of commentary (""simple and racy", "an interesting journey") is hardly a good quality source to build an encyclopedic article on. Not saying that it is an unreliable source ''per se''; just a low-quality one that should be given minimal, if any, weight. ] (]) 19:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	:*{{U|Abecedare}}, this is CIR at play. See ] ''or'' ]. ] (]) 17:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	*I agree with Abecedare - this is a very poor quality source and definitely, far from a book review. ] (]) 17:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:Obviously, the article is reliable for statements of fact. ] (]) 17:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
			I often see this site being used as a source for country-list data. They appear to be professional, but I'm not sure if they're considered a proper secondary source. They do not appear to be the same CEIC as the one owned by ], as they say they are owned by "ISI Markets". ] (]) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	==news18.com==
			:It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. ] (]) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	1. Does this on ] pass ]?
			::If in question use secondary sources.] (]) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Fantasy Literature ==
	2. What are editors' views on ] more generally? It's cited in about 1,000 articles and is a sister site of ], ] and ]. --] <small>]]</small> 18:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
			I see this source around a lot and I would like to have it settled for whether it is OK to use for reviews. It looks good to me and not promotional or any of the typical sorts of issues that plague these kinds of websites, but I am not sure, and I would like to know before I use it on pages, and sometimes books are cited to this at NPP and I am unsure how I should judge it. I would judge it as decently established but it looks to me to be straddling the line between online review publication and blog. It's used on about 160 already. Anyone else have any thoughts? ] (]) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Not seeing a problem with this one especially since has reviewed books for CNN-IBN/News18 at least semi-regularly (eg, , ) and not always positively (which eases my concerns of sponsored content and republishing of lightly edited press-releases, which is rampant in the subject area). ] (]) 20:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	::{{ping|Abecedare}} Thanks for commenting here and in the section above.
	::What do you think of review in '']''? It's by , who wrote several hundred book reviews for that paper, and was quite capable of panning a book (, , , , ) or of providing nuanced criticism (, ). Best, ] <small>]]</small> 16:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::: Not exactly a comment on reliability but... Wow! that is such a poorly written "review"! Just count the number of redflag and/or superlative claims in it that cry out for a {{t1|cn}} tag: "credited with inventing the genre of political thrillers in contemporary Indian writing", "moved away from his usual genre" (IIRC, in one of the earlier interviews you had linked to, Sinha had said that he intentionally tried to pen his first three books to be in different genres), "One of its kind", "first-of-its-kind book released in recent times" (what does that even mean?!), etc. Also the whole third paragraph is such a cliche-ridden over-generalization. Reads to me as a breathless fluff piece. ''If'' cited (which can be decided per ] on the article talk-page), be especially careful not to use it as a source for any disputable factual claim. ] (]) 17:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::Well, his usual genre was fiction; this was his first non-fiction book. As for "One of its kind" etc. I took that to be referring to its being a book about parenting from an Indian dad's perspective.
	::::I agree with you that the diction sure is flowery and not what we'd expect to find in a UK or US paper, but that applies to much of what I read in Indian newspapers (not just the book reviews). So I am not sure what it means – beyond the fact that a woman who wrote hundreds of reviews for an RS newspaper appears to have liked the book and said so.
	::::I agree it should be used as a source for a reviewer's opinion on this book rather than as a source for more general factual claims of the type you mention ("inventing the genre"). ] <small>]]</small> 20:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	*Reviews are pure opinion, and are not subject to ]-type analysis, unless we believe the source misattributed the review or altered the authors original words in some way. If we believe the source accurately represented the opinion, then all that matters is if the authors opinion is ], due to their expertise or regard in a particular field, not whether or not the source that printed the review is reliable per ]. --]] 17:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:{{ping|Jayron32}} In this case we have who regularly reviewed books for ], one of India's leading dailies, for a number of years. Yet the review has been of the article, based on an argument that the source is "unreliable" or that it is ]. ] <small>]]</small> 18:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::See, here's the deal, I'm not assessing the reviewer. I don't have the expertise to do so. What I am saying is that, by Misplaced Pages's ], there is no magic pill that overrides discussion and consensus building. What you need to do is use the article talk page, start a discussion there, seek outside attention on the discussion via ], ] or other ] methods, ask at some relevant Wikiprojects, etc, etc. You've characterized him as a well-known reviewer at a major newspaper. If that is the case, ''other people who know the situation well enough will agree with you'', and you'll have built consensus to include the review. If you aren't correct in your assessment, or if you are correct, but other people feel like it's not relevant to the situation, then they will say so and consensus maybe doesn't go against you. Seeking to short-circuit discussion by saying "This is XXXX, which means no one can every remove it from an article" should not be ever used as a rationale. ] Not "is a reviewer who regularly reviewed book for the New Indian Express", which while it may be ''evidence'' that will convince ''outside people'' that the review should be included, is not by itself enough in the absence of consensus support. --]] 19:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::], I am here because I was ] that "This is not a review - go to RSN". So coming here seemed like a good first step to establish that including this review is a matter of consensus, rather than a matter of policy. (I'm familiar with dispute resolution, thank you.) Regards, ] <small>]]</small> 10:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::I mean, I'm telling you that I think the person who told you that was wrong, because reviews are not reports of factual information, so are not really subject to the same kind of analysis. But what do I know. Maybe the person who told you that knows much more about Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines than I do. Maybe I really am as worthless and stupid as everyone seems to think I am. Ignore me and carry on. Good luck, vaya con dios. --]] 11:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::{{smiley}} Thanks for your input. ] <small>]]</small> 15:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
	:{{reply|Jayron32}} I agree with you that reviews are opinions, and thus any published review is technically a "reliable source for the author's opinion" (assuming authorship can be authenticated, etc). Thus the determinative policies for whether a review ''should'' be cited in an article are ] and ].
	:That said, in determining how much weight should be given to a review we look, in part, at factors (expertise of author; form and place of publication, depth of review; whether it has been quoted by secondary sources, etc) that are similar to ones used to judge source-quality more generally. The regulars on this board have an interest in, and knowledge of, those factors. Therefore IMO it is useful for editors to be able to post queries like the one {{u|Jayen466}} did on this board (rather than, say, ]) and get some independent informed opinions. ] (]) 03:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
	::Thanks, ]. Coming back to this specific source, Meera Bhardwaj, the author of this review, is an award-winning journalist who was chief copy editor at '']'' at the time. She was one of the interviewees in a peer-reviewed academic study on Indian women in journalism. Hers is the most prominent review of the book available. I find it hard to see how anyone can argue in good faith that mentioning it in our article on the author is undue. This is routine sourcing that would normally pass without controversy.
	::You are aware that the man is taking the WMF to court over his biography. What a completely avoidable waste of money for both parties. He feels he is being picked on by editors here who are hostile to him because of his affiliation with the BJP, the party currently in government in India.
	::Judging by the evidence so far, starting with an ] filed by a now (block only appealable to ArbCom ...), and with Monty Pythonesque arguments like this review "is not a review" being brought forward on the talk page, I do understand how he came to feel he is being picked on.
	::Let me add that I have absolutely no interest in Indian politics. My interest is in the moral integrity of our BLP handling. I have a in this respect. Regards, ] <small>]]</small> 10:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::Again, I disagree; source quality is all about "can this statement in Misplaced Pages be verified by this source". That's what this board is supposed to be about. Insofar as Misplaced Pages says "So-and-so said blah blah blah" and we believe that the source in question can be trusted to report what so-and-so says, ] is met; the source is reliable enough for the purpose. If we take on every dispute at every noticeboard, it dilutes the purpose ''of that noticeboard''. The discussion in question is ''important to have'', but it's important to have ''elsewhere''. --]] 12:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
			:It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:. I'd be hesitant to use it for ] purposes. ] (]) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Hip in Pakistan ==
			::This is the terms its staff work under:
			::Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. ] (]) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? ] (]) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'd say unusable for notability purposes. I'd likely leave it off other pages unless it had something significant to say that better sources didn't. ] (]) 14:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Not an RS. ] (]) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Is “Zannettou, Savvas "A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitism". a reliable source for ] ==
	Is a reliable source for ]? To me, this seems to be a promotional website with no editorial policies that shows {{tq|a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}, with its being vague and refers to social media stats. However, {{u|Lillyput4455}} contends that it is {{tq|reliable critic page}}. '''] '''] 20:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	*Fails ] and ]. ] (]) 17:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
			I can’t find evidence it’s been published. ] ] 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Jerusalem Post unreliable for archaeology? ==
			:I'm not up for reading it right now, but it's been published, and the correct citation is: Zannettou, S., Finkelstein, J., Bradlyn, B., & Blackburn, J. (2020, May). A quantitative approach to understanding online antisemitism. In ''Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Web and Social Media'' (Vol. 14, pp. 786-797). Google Scholar shows where it can be accessed. If it's kept, the references to it in the Notes section should change "Savvas" to something like "Zannettou et al." ] (]) 21:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	See and . </nowiki> ] ] 17:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
			::I should add that the Zannettou et al. citations that currently exist in the article are preprints, which generally are not RSs, per ]. The other citation was also subsequently in conference proceedings. Conference proceedings might or might not be reliable sources for specific content, depends on the conference and the content. ] (]) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Vast majority of news websites are worthless for academia, you need expert sources for stuff like this. News websites can (Imo) provide evidence for notability of a find, but should not be used to support historical claims.] (]) 12:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	::The Jerusalem post article is probably not reliable, it attributes a view to "Biblical scholars" without naming them. I would probably say it is a fringe theory, unless there are better sources out there.--] (]) 13:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)		:::It's important to keep in mind that ''most'' of the preprints people link to as sources were eventually published; we just link to the preprints as courtesy links because they're usually what's available. PREPRINT even mentions this. --] (]) 15:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes, but in that case, you still need the correct citation for wherever it eventually appeared, and if there's a link to that final version in full, then you should link to the full final version rather than a preprint draft. In this particular case, the citations themselves were not for the final version, and the final versions are both available in full elsewhere. ] (]) 15:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I agree with StarTrekker… the question shouldn’t be whether the Jerusalem Post is reliable for archaeological information, the question should be whether ''any'' News media is reliable in that context. ] (]) 13:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
	:Byline on the JP article is ] ie themselves promoting themselves. Not reliable. ] (]) 13:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)		:What's the context for this question? Where is it being cited/do you want to be able to cite it? ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. ] ] 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	::This is true (as is the above, that we should never be using news for archaeology) but I also want to note that Jerusalem Post in particular has a befuddling difficulty with translating content it aggregates from Hebrew media, which has resulted in several completely false stories which remain on their site. is total nonsense, the original said that they now have the ability to midair refuel. was fixed after I complained but initially claimed falsely that a rabbinical court can just free women if it's been too long. I'm pretty sure there have been significant errors in archaeological translation also, though I can't think of an example right now. ] (]) 14:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
			:::Sorry; that's my bad. I was running on low sleep and shouldn't have been on Misplaced Pages, and I read your prose where you don't include a link but glazed past the header text where you did include a link. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	: {{u|Doug Weller}} Yes. Their coverage of archaeology-related topics is worse than most other mainstream sources. {{u|StarTrekker}} pointed out that nearly all news websites are bad for academic topics, but I believe that the Jerusalem Post is uniquely bad when it comes to archaeology. I say this as someone with only rudimentary knowledge of the topic. ] (]) 18:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
			:See https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7343/7197 ] (]) 15:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			Apologies, I missed another one, also apparently never published."Zannettou, Savvas, Tristan Caulfield, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Michael Sirivianos, Gianluca Stringhini, and Guillermo Suarez-Tangil. "On the Origins of Memes by Fringe Web Communities." arXiv.org, September 22, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12512." ] ] 08:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I provided a link to the published version of that one in my second comment above. The citation is Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018, October). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. In ''Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018'' (pp. 188-202). There's an alternate citation at the top right of the copy where it says "ACM Reference Format." ] (]) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Trójmiasto.pl ==
			::@] ACM is reputable, but I seem to have forgotten that we can use published conference papers, but not papers simply presented at a conference. Sorry. ] ] 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are ] in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. ] (]) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Sorry, I mean when is a paper submitted to a conference run by a reliable organisation an RS? When submitted? If published as part of the publication of the conference papers? ] ] 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::A paper that's been submitted to a conference should be treated like a preprint. A paper that appears in conference proceedings is more likely to be an RS, but that will depend on whether the conference is one that reviews all papers in a way that's similar to peer-reviewed journals, and — as always — on the WP content that it's being used as a source for (a paper can be an RS for some content and not for other content). Assuming that the papers do substantiate the WP text, I'm guessing that they're RSs (Google Scholar indicates that they've been cited over 200 times). ] (]) 16:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It is published, Conference proceedings of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 14. AAAI has been around since 1979 with respected associations. Submission to a conference is not sufficient to meet any standards. Acceptance by a reputable conference after peer review (some conference talks are invited and not peer reviewed) is a good indicator of reliability though not a guarantee (the conference paper may well be revised between acceptance and publication in a proceedings and even then might in the long run not be considered reliable). As it stands, I would say reliable for the use of Happy Merchant online unless other sources can be found undermining its reliability. ] (]) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I would consider a paper published in the proceedings of a respected conference a reasonably reliable source. If it was contradicted by peer-reviewed research or, even better, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of available literature I would give it a bit less due than those sources. But I'd say that yes, at its base, this looks reliable. ] (]) 16:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Thanks all. I'm really cross with myself for not checking on Google Scholar - ironically I've just done that with another paper. I would have saved you all a lot of time if I had done that. ] ] 18:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	Is a reliable source for articles about the ] area? It doesn't cite sources, however I still would call it a ] of information and I need an opinion from the general Misplaced Pages public. I am not trying to cite ther website in an article right now, but information about what is and isn't reliable still would be helpful. Thanks! :-) ] ] (<sup>]</sup>) 14:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 19:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1751745462}}
	::This is just a local news outlet and AFAIK it is not among those bought by ], a state-owned company, in 2021, so I'd believe that it is generally reliable about all local news subjects related to the Polish Tricity area, including politics. Could you please post the link to the article you have doubts about? ] (]) 10:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
			Should we be using articles from the Hawar News Agency, especially in relation to the (geo)political side of Rojava? This also includes articles in the scope of the Syrian civil war. It has ties to the SDF, which means there is a significant conflict of interest here; <s>I should also add that the YPG/YPD/SDF , which raises concern over its reliability.</s> I want to get community consensus before I do anything, especially because the article in question (]) is related to a CTOP. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:@] '''yes''' - it’s reliable for the ] area (and not only for the area), but it’s '''<big>not</big>''' reliable for WW2 history of Poland (1933-45) unless written by a historian. <small>(Right Szmenderowiecki? Why don’t you share a valuable ArBcom ruling link with the user?)</small> - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 14:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			:(Copying this response from the talk page of the ]:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It ''shouldn't'' be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in ''The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics'', ''The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts'', ''Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State'', and ''Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria''.<br>(The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as ‎ Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). ] (]) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Having read through the article you linked it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be: <br>{{tq|"In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."}}<br>As well as:<br>{{tq|"Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."}}<br>So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).<br>Hawar News Agency has some ] and would probably be covered by ]. Issues of bias (]) and opinion (]) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. ] (]) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that ] the reliability of ''Hawar'', I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --] (]) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:If we consider TRT sub-optimum in relation to Rojava and the Syrian war because of its affiliation to the Erdogan government (see above on this noticeboard), the same should apply to Hawar. It’s fine for reporting the statements by AANES/PYD/SDF or uncontentious facts, but it should always be attributed and triangulated for anything at all contentious. I’d rate it above Al-Masdar and below the SOHR for reporting facts about eg battles in the Syrian war, but like them is a weak source. ] (]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} from the ]: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the '''SDF-linked''' Hawar news agency said...". 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The difference between Hawar and TRT seems to be how they are treated by independent academics and subject experts; as far as I know, TRT has been repeatedly accused of spreading outright falsehoods (), whereas Hawar is seemingly deemed to be mostly reliable despite its connections to the PYD and SDF. ] (]) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Being censored is a ] issue and a reason to use a source with caution (with attribution for anything remotely contentious), but it doesn't automatically render them completely unreliable. The big question is whether they're yielding to pressure to publish things that are actually inaccurate rather than just one-sided. If not, they can still be used with caution - we'd want to cite better sources when possible and avoid giving ] weight to a source with a clear bias, but there's some advantage to having sources that are close to conflicts. And a major problem with removing sources simply for being subject to censorship is that it could produce systematic bias by removing every source from a particular region; I'm not familiar with the Syrian press specifically, but in other regions with similar censorship, there's still a difference between sources that carefully report as much as they can get away with and as accurately as they can within the restrictions of government censors, and sources that full-throatedly broadcast misinformation to support the party line. --] (]) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Campus Reform ==		== RfC: LionhearTV ==
			{{Moved discussion from|Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources#RfC: LionhearTV|2= Royiswariii, 19 January 2025 00:55 (UTC)}}<!-- ] 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740135721}}
			I want your comments about the reliability of LionhearTV, I can't determine whether it is reliable or not, on ], the Lionheartv is in the unreliable section, but, despite of that some editors still using this source in all Philippine Articles. So let's make a vote:
	I had been defending an edit to the page ] that quoted the subject making some controversial that gained ] in at least some circles. The subject is a public figure and the edit cited an article from the website and a YouTube video with . The edit included a direct quote from the subject so whether he said these remarks is not in dispute.
			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	Although it has an ideological slant, in my view Campus Reform ], and in the case of this particular news story, it is not engaging in gossip or the tabloid journalism that is condemned in the guidance on BLP articles. But what does the community think? Can a right-leaning website that issues corrections and lists its editorial team be a source on at least a case-by-case basis? ] (]) 15:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
	:So, the issue is not one for this board, which deals only with the reliability of things cited in Misplaced Pages ''in context''. Which is to say, ''does the source reliably verify what the Misplaced Pages article says''. This is not a reliability issue, since as you say "a direct quote from the subject so whether he said these remarks is not in dispute." We can reliably verify he said these things. THAT having been said, that doesn't mean that Misplaced Pages ''must'' include the quote. ] (bold mine) This is a matter of ], ] and all of that; this is the sort of thing that's determined on the article talk page by consensus discussions. There's no magic pill you can find to force the quote into the article, it needs to be agreed that the quote is relevant to the subject at hand; and that's not something that exists on a binary status. There's a sliding scale for these things; is he well known for these opinions, repeating them frequently in public fora and using his public status as a means to advance a position, or is this something he's mentioned about his own beliefs a few times, but doesn't make it a big deal? Is the position in the quote essential to his on ] in a Misplaced Pages sense, or is it an inconsequential part of his biography? All of this needs to be discussed on the article talk page if there is a dispute, to decide ''what'' and ''where in the article'' and ''how'' to cover such material, and the conclusion ''may even be'' to not include it at all; but it isn't an RS issue. --]] 17:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			] ] 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Britannica ==
			:'''Deprecate'''. The Philippines has plenty of ] to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. ] (]) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	I have used Britannica as a source in my articles, and when expanding new ones. But is is reliable, can I use it as a source? I have heard that the articles on Britannica are created by experts, but I don't know if that's true or not. I don't think I've seen Britannica be used as a source in other articles, I however have used it as a source before. ] (]) 18:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''': For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:
	: The most recent discussion is ]. Editors views on it's reliability seem pretty mixed. ] (]) 18:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
			::LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as and .
	::]. ] (]) 18:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
			::In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the , which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ] and ]. Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees.
	:Like both the discussion and the RSP entry above point out, ] sources should generally be preferred over ], and Britannica is a tertiary source. Though ] also points out that these sources can be helpful in determining ] weight for material to include. ] (]) 20:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
			::A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the ] talk page in September 2024 (see ]). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (]) and the ] (]). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about ], which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented, {{tq|It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.|quotes=yes}}
			::At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as '''unreliable''' on ] as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN.
			:<span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? ] (]) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It's immaterial on how we determine ]. What could be very important that other ] missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of ]. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. ] (]) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Option 3'''. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. ] (]) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)<br/>Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024)
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)<br/>Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)
			::These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)<br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024)
			::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024) <br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)
			::I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of ]. <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Option 3''' - As much as possible, LionhearTV and its sibling sites under the eMVP Digital should not be used as sources when more reliable outlets have coverage for a certain event, show, actor and so on. Even if a certain news item is exclusive to or first published in a eMVP Digital site, other journalists will eventually publish similar reports in their respective platforms (refer to some examples posted by AstrooKai). -] @ 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::What I fear in these kinds of low quality sources is that people will find something very specific about someone, e.g. "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group," and this low quality source is the only source that carried this fact, and since this it is not blacklisted, this does get in as a source, and most of the time, that's all that's needed. We don't need articles on showbiz personalities tracking their every movement as if it's important. Blacklist this. ] (]) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{hat|Discussion about moving RFC to RSN}}
			:::@], @], @], if you don't mind we can move this discussion to ] to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. ] ] 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::'''Support'''. ] (]) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::'''Support'''. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
			*'''Option 3'''It's a blog. That means ] applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for ] or under ] (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. ] (]) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is , and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. ] (]) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. ] (]) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 4''' Their reportings are obviously flawed and a per example above copypasting is a not a good look nor a good indication for "reliability" and it is often used in BLP, yikes. '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Victoria Arakelova ==		== Hatebase.org ==
			Is a reliable source? ] (]) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	Victoria Arakelova is particularly used as source for ] and other related articles, especially for the population estimates. After listing some of her estimates on the demographics of the Iranian provinces that Azerbaijanis inhabit, she ends up at "a comparatively safe figure of the Iranian Turkophone groups (i.e. Azaris, alias ― “Azerbaijanis”) ― 6-6,5 millions, maximum less than 5 % of the total population of Iran" <ref name="Arakelova">{{Cite journal|url = https://www.jstor.org/stable/43899203|jstor = 43899203|last1 = Arakelova|first1 = Victoria|title = On the Number of Iranian Turkophones|journal = Iran & the Caucasus|year = 2015|volume = 19|issue = 3|pages = 279–282|doi = 10.1163/1573384X-20150306|access-date = 18 September 2020|archive-date = 4 February 2021|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210204225107/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43899203|url-status = live}}</ref> Now, considering that this source is from the year 2015, the population of Iran was 78,492,208 in 2015. () When we divide 6 million (the lowest estimate) by this number, we get 7.64407 % of the total population, not "maximum less than 5 % of the total population of Iran." Moreover, the total population of each Azerbaijani-inhabited Iranian province that she based her estimate on apparently comes from the 2011 census. Then, Iran's population was 75,149,669 (, this is the site she cited), which is even less than 78,492,208. So, she definitely didn't do the calculations correctly. Does this still make her a reliable source? Because she is deflating the percentage of the Iranian Azerbaijanis for her population estimate by more than 50 percent, which I would regard as a clear manifestation of bias and the arbitrary nature of the article. I am currently on a rush, but we can also discuss later who she is, her tone in this article, and put all of this into context to reconsider her reliability. Thank you so much to anyone who reads and responds. ] (]) 02:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
			:Is there an ] for this? And/Or some context for the use case? ] (]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The percentage does seem like a mistake on her part. I don't think it makes it automatically not reliable. The question is whether her estimate is a fringe view (and thus should be mentioned minimally or not at all) or part of the spectrum of scholarly estimates. ]<sub>]</sub> 10:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
	::I followed Arakelova for many years and she is a mainstream academic researcher (though of course she is Armenian which somehow influences her views). ] (]) 10:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)		::I have checked and I can't find any previous discussion, hence why I opened this one. There is ] about the site. I intend to use it to expand list of slurs articles. ] (]) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::<small>I’m not making a statement on the source, as I’m not familiar with it .</small>Then this doesn’t require an RfC, just a normal source discussion, if you’re concerned about reliability. Do you mind removing the descriptor from the title? And best of luck! :) ] (]) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::@], I would like to say that her being Armenian isn't the main rationale that I'm using to claim her bias, because that would be ethnic prejudice, and I have added many sources from Armenians on controversial topics. Though, this piece sticks out due to personal actions. Just in the excerpt I provided, we can see questionable words such as "alias," as if this is a criminal case. @] has previously noted that she had posts including the phrase "безбашенного турка" ("reckless Turks"). When we consider the ], this may make these comments reasonable, but this also makes me think of a conflict of interest that she may have, which would explain the repeated mentions of politics in this work. ] (]) 15:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
			::::Okay, I just added it because I saw some of the other discussions had it. I am removing it from the title. ] (]) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::@], I wouldn't really regard it as just a mistake, when we put the whole paper into context as in my response to Ymblanter. She is able to calculate that if ] (with 3.1 million people) were 70 percent Kurdish, there would be "not less than 2 millions" of Kurds there (2.16 to be exact) but cannot correctly divide her estimate by the total population of Iran, which doesn't even require a full calculation, because it is obvious that it would be more than 5 percent when the population of Iran was never more than 100 million, which is also something she had access to and even included a link to in her paper. Coming to the question that whether her estimate is a fringe view, it is indeed an outlier among the other estimates on the Iranian Azerbaijani population, which starts from 10-11 million, when we peek at ]. So, it is not a part of the spectrum. ] (]) 15:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
			:::::That happens, don’t worry about it! Thank you! ] (]) 20:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Well, I've also looked at the sources in that article and to be honest it's hard to understand what is the scholarly consensus. The estimates vary widely (from 9 million according to Amanolahi to more than 20 million) and some of them refer to all Turkophones (Azeris, Turkmens and others) in Iran rather than just Azeris. Considering that Arakelova's estimate is published in a scholarly journal, I don't see much harm in having her numbers listed alongside the other estimates. However if someone does a careful analysis of the scholarly sources and shows that this is indeed a fringe position I wouldn't be against removing it. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
			:used in 4[REDACTED] articles, seems highly premature. use best judgement until it can't be resolved in an article's talk page between editors, and needs wider[REDACTED] community feedback. ] (]) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Just a note: Amanolahi's estimate comes from 2005, when Iran's population was slightly less than 70 million. Arakelova's estimate comes from 2015, when Iran's population was 78.5 million, though. So, the difference between the lowest estimate (I stand corrected) and Arakelova's would either be larger or not comparable.
	::::On a different note, regardless of what comes out of this discussion, is it okay to include the percentage she mentioned? ] (]) 22:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)		::I wish this were otherwise because it looks like a really interesting website but it uses user-generated content. Which is a problem from an RS perspective. ] (]) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::None of the uses are for anything other than Hatebase itself, and as the site was been retired since 2022 it's unlikely it will see much more use ('retired' as it's been closed to editing, all user data deleted, and may go offline at any point, so not quite closed but very close). As most of the supporting data is gone, and what there was was user generated, I don't think it could be used as an RS. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::@] I checked the scholarly journal. It has its own page: ] This journal is published by Brill Publishers in collaboration with the Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies (Yerevan) and was founded by Garnik Asatrian, who is the head of the center and the editor-in-chief of the journal. Arakelova is the associate editor, and the vast majority of her publications were published in this jorunal. () Asatrian and Arakelova are academicians in the same university, Yerevan State University, and even in the same department. So, it doesn't come as a surprise that the aspects of her article that make it possibly unreliable could have been ignored. ] (]) 22:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
	:Does anyone have any additional input? Should the faulty percentage that doesn't correspond with the author's estimate be removed? Would the source be considered reliable considering the aforementioned circumstances? ] (]) 21:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
			== LaserDisc Database? ==
	{{reflist-talk}}
			I'm working on adding citations to ]. I'm looking for a source that supports the sentence "Image Entertainment released another LaserDisc" . I've found the laserdisc in question on LaserDisc Database . Can I use it as a source? The "register now" box states that users can "submit" new Laserdiscs, which implies some editorial oversight compared to other websites with user-generated material (although it looks like there ). My other options are or interlibrary loaning the original Laserdisc. ] (]) 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	== World-Wire ==
			:The bottom of the page has {{tq|"Disclaimer: The data on this webstite is crowd-sourced..."}} and from the page you linked it's unclear what amount of checking is done before any submitted updates happen. Worldcat is the better option. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	In ], her date of birth is sourced to . World-Wire used to be a press/news release distributor () but appears to have transitioned to be a conservative news website providing "quality information content for Conservatives, politics, current events and affairs from USA and around the globe." . Any thoughts on the acceptability as a reliable source of the cited article or of world-wire.com as a whole? &ndash; ] (]) 03:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
			::oops, I missed that. Thank you for the advice. I'll use WorldCat if I can't find a news article. ] (]) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	:This falls under the ] part of the ] policy and would require the information to be "widely published" to be included. The world-wire "editorial policy" linked above appears to be boiler plate copy and paste that is in used on a large number of clickbait sites, see and as such it seems the site is very far from reliable by Misplaced Pages's standards. ] (]) 13:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
			== Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles ==
	== Whether ] by Austin Bessey is a reliable source ==
			Is reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
	At ] we are debating whether an SPS by Austin Bessey is a RS. I believe that this assessment boils down to 3 elements: 1. Whether Bessey is a ] for songs, 2. Whether his work has been published and 3. whether which is just 3 sentences about the song "]" constituted ]. Bessey asserts that he has "over 6 years directing and managing the music programming for the national Radio Disney and Radio Disney Country stations". As a college radio DJ in the 1980s, I imagine that a radio music programmers job in the 2010s (era of digital and streaming submissions) included determining which fraction of 1% of all music submissions for airplay would be included in the airplay rotation and how heavily they should be rotated. At this AFD, I am unable to get a concession that a professional music programmer for a national radio network constitutes a subject matter expert on songs. In regards to whether his work has been published, I submit that the fraction of 1% of the songs that he endorsed for airplay on the national Disney Radio networks are considered publications of his opinion of their quality and merit. Back when I was assessing whether works by relatively unknown up and coming acts such as ], ] and ] should be aired on our station in the 1980s, I presented my opinion on songs and albums that came in for consideration. If Bessey reviewed hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of songs in a week and wrote 3 positive sentences about one of them, that is a significant opinion. The fact that songs made the airwaves was a form of publication for the field of musical programming. The third consideration is whether a 2-sentence paragraph about a song and a 3rd sentence declaring it a landmark for the band constitutes significant coverage.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 06:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Not reliable SPS''' The exception for SPS as sources has two criteria:(1) Subject-matter expert and (2) previously published by an independent reliable source. He may or may not be a subject-matter expert, but I do not find any articles, reviews etc written by him published by independent reliable sources, only his own blog. ] (]) 12:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
	**For his field of music programming could one make the case that his endorsement of a song is published by its presentation on the airwaves?--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 15:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Focusing on the wrong policy''' - someone’s blog is always reliable for verifying that person’s opinion. The question is whether that person’s opinion is worth mentioning… and ''that'' is a question of DUE/UNDUE weight, not reliability. ] (]) 13:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:@] the question of reliability is important here because the article is part of an ongoing AfD as Tony said in their first sentence. They've been looking for sources to cover notability for the article, and they think this one is maybe just potentially questionable enough that it could get a pass, and that's why they came here. It's also why they posted the same question at ] this morning which this page should know about. ] (]) 12:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
			:Per their about page they are not a normal news source, but a promotional platform. Their articles, etc are likely based on press releases and information from the subject of the article. So they might be reliable as a ] source within the limits of ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Who? ] (]) 13:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	*I've made my case at the AfD, but could I point out here that Radio Disney had already shut down by the time Mr. Bessey had reviewed this song, so he was no longer working there (indeed, his "About" page makes it very clear that it was in the past tense) and so it cannot be in any way taken as an endorsement of the music he used to program at the station... he is reviewing it purely in a personal capacity as a blogger. ] (]) 14:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
			== Global Defense Corp ==
	== User only adding dubious links to many articles ==
			Global Defense Corp should be deprecated as it is a incredibly unreliable source which frequently fabricates information they are incredibly biassed against Russian technology to such an extent as to lose all objectivity here I will share just a small snippet of the blatantly false information they have spread over the years
	] who has been around for some years appears to only add what appears to be linkspam to articles - often when there is a perfectly reliable alternative source that can be used. Sources used are:
	* https://golfreviewsguide.com/
	* https://dailyhomelists.com/
	* https://dailyhomelist.com/
	Old edits also include:
	* http://www.bettingpro.com.au/
	I would welcome views on these sites and propose that they be blacklisted. <span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 12:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
			1. they've claimed that Azerbaijan using either an Israeli or Turkish drone was able to destroy a Armenian nebo-m radar which is impressive considering Armenia doesn't even have that radar or has at any point Displayed any interest in buying that radar there evidence for this is a footage of Azerbaijan destroying a p-18 radar and them claiming it's the nebo-m and they didn't just claim this once they've claimed it at least twice in two different articles.
	:Hi Velella, the recent edits done today was when I noticed broken links being used. Thanks for querying. ] (]) 14:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
	::So how should I interpret edit where you introduce link spam and give the reference your user name. Difficult to AGF with this? <span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 19:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
			2. in this article you can see a picture of the SU57’s internal weapons bays but what they don't tell you is that this picture is CGI at no point do they communicate this in fact they claim it's from the Sukhoi design Bureau even though it's not.
	:I agree this is obvious linkspam, I removed a few more instances of these links. GEMNCNY should be blocked and/or the urls blacklisted if it continues. ] (]) 14:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
			3. in this article they talk about how the S 400 range decreases against objects at low altitudes which is true but fail to explain that this is true for all radar guided Sam systems thanks to an effect known as radar horizon where objects at low altitudes are able to hide behind the curvature of the earth and therefore can only be detected at certain distances but not only do they not explain this to the reader creating a false impression that this is an issue unique to the S 400 but they even claimed that Turkey accused Russia of fraud because of this. which is weird for several reasons one Russia has at no point claim that the S400 range does not decrease with altitude but also because it implies Turkey believed the S 400 could defy the laws of physics they also have no source of this claim and no other articles on the Internet claim this.
	== Polarguidebook.com ==
			4. In this article they claimed SU57 lacks sensor fusion which it doesn't and then just ignore that low probability of intercept radar is a thing .
	There is disagreement about the credibility of https://polarguidebook.com in the ] page in relation to the claim " is widely considered to be the official flag of Antarctica and is the only one to be recognized by treaty members" from their article I personally consider this to be a credible source for two reasons.
			5. in this article they berate the S 400 for not intercepting Israeli F35’s in Syria but forgot to mention that Russia and Israel were long believed to have an agreement in the Syrian civil war to not engaged each other.
	1. The website seems to do its due diligence
			There bias is also evident in just in the words that they say frequently attacking Russian equipment with ad hominems such as cooling the S 400 ,another lame duck missile system, or starting there articles with stupid Russians or Russian equipment exposed. they also lack of any transparency no one knows who owns the website none of the articles say the names of the people that wrote them making the website Even more suspicious but despite all of this they are still frequently cited all the time on Misplaced Pages.
	* Their about page states "Everything on this site is backed by research and science with our resources referenced throughout. We have a strong editorial process with expert fact-checkers to ensure accurate and up-to-date information."
	* They have a dedicated fact-checker, Dr. Jackie Symmons, on staff.
			Sources
			1.https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/02/01/turkey-exposed-fatal-flaws-in-russian-made-s-400-surface-to-air-missile/
			2. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/11/rostec-nebo-m-radar-is-it-a-scam-or-propaganda/
	2. The claim in the article is corroborated by multiple sources
	* Vexillum, the journal of the ], , p. 4, 2021 (the article is behind a paywall)
	** "For the first time in history, national Antarctic programs, expedition teams, and other Antarctic organizations from around the world have collectively adopted a flag for Antarctica. The adoption of the flag, called True South, is the result of an international effort to promote cooperation and bring great"
	**Dr. Pavel Kapler, manager of the Czech Antarctic Research Programme “True South is designated to be a reminder that the stewardship of Antarctica is the privilege and responsibility of all of us.”
	**“Antarctica is a unique continent in which all the countries in the world live and work in the spirit of science, peace, and friendship. They all have their own flags, but their solidarity and collaboration is represented by the True South flag,” said Dr. Christo Pimpirev, Director of the Bulgarian Antarctic Institute.
	**Dr. Burcu Ozsoy, Director of the Polar Research Institute at the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, Marmara Research Center “Leaving our differences aside, let’s unite under the True South flag in order to explore Antarctica with science while protecting and promoting its unique beauty and nature.”
	* "There's this one flag that's fairly recent and somewhat official... It was actually really quickly adopted by various Antarctic nonprofits and expedition teams, so it's already been flown in camps and research stations and by fans around the world who've never even been to Antarctica."
	* "Several countries – including Bulgaria, Turkey and the Czech Republic, all of which have Antarctic research programmes – have already adopted the flag, and it is flown at several locations across the continent."
	* "The new flag of Antarctica is now recognized by National Antarctic programs, nonprofits, expedition teams, and individuals from countries across the globe."
	* "According to Townsend, it is the first Antarctic flag to be supported by any "
	<b>]]</b> 15:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
			3. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/12/28/russian-su-57-will-carry-four-missiles-in-the-internal-weapons-bay/
	:I would use another source. This site is just a bit amateurish. They've done a good job trying to build a publication, but you'll quickly notice that nearly all the content is written by the founder, which makes this more like a blog. There are other folks mentioned on the staff page, but there is no indication that they regularly contribute, as there are only a couple articles linked to these other people. There is also some Amazon affiliate linking going on, and AdSense, which indicates to me a young site trying to monetize, but isn't yet to the size where the editorial oversight is reliable. ] (]) 17:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	::Thanks! I appreciate how closely you looked at the source (I haven't been able to find the Amazon linking yet.) Do you think the source is okay to use in this specific context since the claims are corroborated by other, more reliable sources? Or do you think it's unacceptable to use for any citation? <b>]]</b> 22:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::@] Why not use the other sources if they're better? I feel like I'm missing something... ] (]) 22:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::Most likely because the Polarguidebook one is the only one to explicitly make the claim that the True South flag is the one and only "official flag of Antarctica", which the other better sources don't actually claim. User:NotAWittyFish is here hoping for a green light to overhaul the ] article contrary to an overwhelming talk page consensus that there is no official flag. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 23:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::I think @] just offered the context... I came here trying to resolve a dispute on the ] that's becoming increasingly hostile. In short, Vanilla Wizard did not feel any of the other sources were acceptable citations about the adoption and recognition of the flag either. I appreciate your input @] and have suggested a potential resolution on the article's talk page. <b>]]</b> 01:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks @] for providing the backstory that I was too lazy to look into myself. Nice to see everyone acting civilly in the discussion. Hope it stays that way. ] (]) 05:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
			4. Radar Horizon. (n.d.). www.ssreng.com. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.ssreng.com/pdf/Radar_Horizon.pdf
	== Is thetorah.com a reliable source ==
			5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82
	As in the edit I reverted here and similar by same new editor.</nowiki> ] ] 21:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
			6. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2022/01/24/sukhoi-su-57s-x-band-n036-byelka-and-n036l-1-01-l-band-radars-are-not-what-you-think/
	:Hmmm. I was not familiar before this, but the editorial staff and look fairly promising; I don't know if it has the sort of reputation for accuracy we look for in a reliable source, but I would say that's the way I would lean, at least as an initial reaction. That of course doesn't mean it is necessarily ] in any particular context, of course. Cheers. ] (]) 21:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
	::It is the least dogmatic Orthodox Jewish website that I have ever seen, and seems devoted to academic excellence. is coverage of its development from '']''. The author of the specific article in question has a PhD in Egyptology from the ] and is not even Jewish. I would consider this website a generally reliable source. ] (]) 22:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::Thanks all. ] ] 08:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::: {{Re|Doug Weller}} I'm not convinced. The article in question is an argument for the historicity of ]. The argument is made in a careful but completely non-critical manner; I would call it superficially scholarly. To see more clearly what the author is about, consider another of his articles "" The majority of modern scholars don't believe the Israelites were in Egypt at all. A scholar who seeks to refute this conclusion would start by admitting it exists but instead this writer pretends there is nothing to refute. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::@]@] do you still hold to your opinions? I can’t see it as reliable. ] ] 12:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::: I should add that some things on the site are probably citable. For example, I see some articles by ] who is /was the director of the Dead Sea Scrolls publication project. A serious top scholar. (I met him once.) I just think it is one of those sites which must be treated with great care and articles it hosts should be judged individually. Cullen328 is correct that it isn't as dogmatic as most Orthodox websites. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::Doug, while I don't personally love the site and I think Zero's caution about judging articles individually is well taken, going to first principles, I still believe it leans towards reliable. There's the big caveat of reputation, which could go either way and of which I am unaware, but yes, I am still generally with Cullen on this. Cheers. ] (]) 13:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::I think that there is a big difference between accepting a source as generally reliable for the etymology of a place name as opposed to the historicity of the Exodus. ] (]) 17:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::There ''should'' be a big difference, but when the place names in question are those in the biblical narrative and the solutions proposed are those that support the biblical narrative, it is reasonable to ask whether the cart or the horse is leading. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::I too have my suspicions about potential bias here, but that doesn't undo the basic indicia of reliability, and I think attribution is a better way to handle that issue. Moreover, as Cullen says, not all claims are equal. A potential etymology which doesn't have any real academic pushback (even if it is supportive of a certain reading) is necessarily going to be treated differently than a hypothetical claim that the Exodus started in 1224 BCE. As ever, reasonable minds can differ on the subject! ] (]) 00:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
			7. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/09/22/over-hyped-s-400-and-s-300-surface-to-air-missile-failed-to-detect-f-35i-adir/
	==RfC on inclusion of denials in BLPs, and on self-published denials ==
			8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from
	There is an on self-published rebuttals/denials taking place at ], and it may have implications for the ways WP:RS are used. Additional input would be helpful. ] (]) 03:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
			https://thearabweekly.com/when-israel-bombs-syria-russia-turns-blind-eye ] (]) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Do we use them? ] (]) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The S 400 Misplaced Pages page has 20 citations from them and the su 57 Misplaced Pages page has four. ] (]) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::* {{linksummary|globaldefensecorp.com}}
			::] (]) 14:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I agree that they're generally unreliable but I'm not so sure I'd chalk it up to bias rather than incompetence. They seem to be suggesting that the news they publish is a sideline to their core business of international security consulting... But they're spamming the cheapest ads on the internet alongside that content suggests that this is their primary income. To me it looks like a vanity site, I also suspect they are ripping stories off or using generative AI. ] (]) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. ] (]) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think the one thing that seems to be universally agreed on is that this is not a reliable source. ] (]) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I would agree, that regardless of whether it's bias or incompetence, it all adds up to unreliability. Cheers. ] (]) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Agreed that this is a very low-quality vanity site / ad farm attached to a consulting business. Definitely not reliable and it should be deprecated. - ] (]) 14:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Should we trust ] for statistics ==
	* Note that an RfC was opened before the one above, to determine which wording ] should include about living persons' denials of crimes or such sllegations. ]. ] (]) 04:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
			Certain pages about certain living subjects contain an infobox template that really emphasises view counts and subscriber statistics. However, that data is often sourced from ]. Here's what WP's page about Social Blade says;
	;10th November 2022 update
	Both RFCs were started without prior consensus on their scope or wording. One ran into an impasse (with editors disagreeing on what the options would actually mean if applied), and the other seems to have sputtered out. I've started a discussion to workshop a new RFC, with proper consensus on its scope & options, that would subsume both RFCs above. Everyone is invited to join us in workshopping it; '''the outcome of this future RFC may have very wide-ranging effects for all BLPs, and on our sourcing requirements for denials,''' so it's important that it reflect a wide consensus. ] (]) 08:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
			"An official YouTube Twitter account, @TeamYouTube wrote that "Please know that third party apps, such as SocialBlade, do not accurately reflect subscriber activity." Social Blade's Twitter account responded to that tweet, commenting "We don't make up data. We get it from the YouTube API. We rely on it for accuracy." Social Blade's community manager Danny Fratella suggested that YouTube content creators may notice subscriber and view count purges more due to a higher accessibility to data-tracking tools like Social Blade."
	==The "Russian Constitution"==
	There is agreement at ] that the Russian Constitution is a primary source.
			The question is should we trust it?
	Do editors here consider the Russian Constitution (Конституция Российской Федерации) (relevant section apparently ) and the Russian government's , reliable sources for the notion that territories in Ukraine are now constituent territories of Russia? This is for the article ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 10:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	:Of course not. All the source establishes is that the Russian government ''claims'' that the territories in Ukraine now belong to Russia. The fact that Putin's government makes that claim can be established through secondary sources, such as major newspapers, so there's no need to cite a primary source. ] (]) 10:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	:I don't think this is a reliability issue. The constitution is a reliable source for the statement "Russia considers X its territory." We should also say who controls the said territory and that it's considered Ukraine by nearly all other countries. ]<sub>]</sub> 10:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	::Normally I would agree with you Alaexis, as I agree with NightHeron that it essentially goes without saying. But another editor has claimed ] (in the 2nd para of {{diff2|1120876424|this long post}}), that {{tq|there's no other meaningful standard for determining the number of territories}} and {{tq|We could use these two primary sources on the federal subjects of the Federation}}. I agree with your view that any statement based on these sources would need to be framed as "the Russian government considers...", but am seeking more eyes on this. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 11:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	*Government websites containing codified law are reliable for the position of that government, so I see no problem with citing these webpages for their claim. The issue here is not reliability but how (and if) to add DPR and LPR to the list of these republics without equating these republics to those internationally recognised as part of Russia (Dagestan, Buryatia etc.). You should make it clear through secondary, reliable and independent sources that not all of the claimed territories are controlled by the Russians and that (almost) no one says these territories are Russian. I believe a good way forward is to have two tables, one for republics that are legitimately part of Russia and others that are not but are administered by the country. ] (]) 11:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:I also agree with this view, and that solution is what I advocate in the RFC on that subject. This specific discussion is about the lead of the article (see talk link in my previous comment). <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 11:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	* It'll be as reliable as any particular constitution, which are primary sources. On this particular issue, the last I read up on the matter the constitution mostly just listed the entities, and did not define much about the supposed new territories (eg. their borders), so the constitution is likely insufficient for even the Russian stance. I think Alaexis is right that this is not really a reliability question but a question of effective framing. There's not really an exact parallel given there is an active war. Looking around, for uncontrolled areas ] lists them and ] includes them in a different colour, and for controlled territories ] doesn't distinguish Mayotte and ] puts the Western Sahara territories into their own subsection. That said, there is an active war, so it seems inappropriate to note anything as strictly controlled, and the page remains subject to changing current events. ] (]) 12:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	:They are RS for Russia's claim, not for that claim being true (or even what they claim actually constitutes, geographically). ] (]) 13:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
			Plus, why do pages about gamers and vloggers place so much emphasis on what appears to be arbitrary, trivial information that is prone to fluctuation?]] 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Is indiantelevision.com a reliable source for an award win==
	This is the article concerned: Good to go? --] <small>]]</small> 11:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	:Is that award even notable? ] ] 19:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
	::It was notable then (the source is from 2005). Here is a report.
	::The Indian org giving the awards dated back to the days of radio but eventually ran into trouble. is a report from 2009 saying the RAPA awards would be cancelled for the first time after 33 years. I think it was downhill from then on.
	::The article also contains additional biographical detail of Sinha. indiantelevision.com is currently cited in over 700 articles so I would have thought it's considered reliable for statements of fact. I'm just double-checking with the community here because it's been a contentious article. ] <small>]]</small> 07:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
			:It is ] - I don't think ] applies since it is drawing its data out of an API but I'd say it's a marginal source. ] (]) 16:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The Indiatelevision.com article is a with two sentences added; one of which is Indiatelevision.com crediting Sinha for taking the Indiatelevision.com's scriptwriting course. I personally don't doubt the truth of those claims but that's not an independent source that establishes that they are ''worth'' mentioning. ] (]) 09:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
			::It certainly isn't a source that I would trust but it is frequently cited in certain articles to populate value statement parameters such as subscriber count, view count, like count etc in ]. My understanding is that ] sources shouldn't be used to verify value statements? ]] 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::His taking an indiatelevision.com scriptwriting course is a routine biographical detail of the sort we mention in the "Early life and education" section of any number of biographies. Why on earth would we not mention it here?
			:Prior discussions for reference; ], ], ], ]. The general opinion appears to be that it's marginal at best. Personally I doubt how reliable their data is, if it's available from the original source that should be used and if it's not available from the original source I wouldn't trust it. They also have 'rankings', which are worthless for anything other than the opinion of Social Blade. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	::The fact that an article is in part based on a press release in no way means that it is unreliable. If HBO publishes a press release saying the latest Game of Thrones spin-off has been cancelled, media outlets report on it, and then so do we. –
	::At any rate we seem to have established that we both believe the source to be reliable as to the facts described. Perhaps this is indeed all we can do here. Regards, ] <small>]]</small> 13:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
	*Why are we here? The issue is whether the award, conferred by Radio and TV Advertising Practitioners' Association of India, is ''notable'' enough to be accorded a mention which needs to be settled at the talk-page. ] (]) 16:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:What we are here for is to establish to your satisfaction that indiantelevision.com is a reliable source as to the facts described in this article. I take it this has been done. May I assume that going forward, you won't contend that indiantelevision.com fails ]? For your reference, it is currently cited in over 700 articles.
	*:(Also, just to be clear, ] is a concept that applies to article ''subjects'', not to article ''content''. ''Content'' is governed by ] and ].) ] <small>]]</small> 10:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::I did not ever claim the source in question to be unreliable. You won't get to include UNDUE content with these strawman arguments. ] (]) 11:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::You deleted that source, and the sentence sourced to it, in , with the edit summary "Rm unreliable sources + copy-paste of reviews."
	*:::For reference, here are Google Books links about the RAPA awards: ] <small>]]</small> 11:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	== TheArticle.com ==		== RfC: EurAsian Times ==
			<!-- ] 23:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740610876}}
	Hi, could I get an assessment on the reliability of this website? I haven't come across it before, or seen it cited in wikipedia. It's based in London, the main editor is Daniel Johnson, with articles by numerous writers. Specifically, can this be treated as a reliable source with respect to the reported death of ]? (https://www.thearticle.com/brian-eley-the-jimmy-savile-of-chess). There does at least appear to be some degree of editorial oversight here.] (]) 01:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
			{{rfc|prop|pol|rfcid=11A50DD}}
	:Both ] and ] apply here, so this would need multiple high quality sources. for TheArticle ("We check our facts and expect our journalists to do the same") does not seem to rise to the level of a "high quality" outlet. Did not find any history of them correcting previous errors either. The writer of the article, ], is a freelance journalist who previously had her work published by (quoting her article here:) "The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian, The Times, The Big Issue and others". But that this article by her appears in an unheard outlet is not a good sign. In my opinion, the article does not reach the "high quality source" requirement, and multiple high quality sources would be required for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 08:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the response. The chief editor is ], formerly of '']''. We can expect a conservative/right wing bias, but that shouldn't be relevant when it comes to recording someone's death. He was published in The Times, Telegraph etc so we can expect him to know his trade. Fiona Pitt-Kethley also has credentials as a journalist, and her article indicates she did her research (contact with the Lutheran pastor etc). Sure it would be better if it was published in one of the "papers of record" but I'm worried that we're still going to be saying Eley's alive 50 years from now, because no sufficiently "reliable" source has recorded his death. This is the best source we've got so far cause findagrave is obviously self-published. ] (]) 09:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::{{tq|I'm worried that we're still going to be saying Eley's alive 50 years from now}} considering that our article doesn't say that he's alive ''now'' I don't see that's really a concern. At worst we won't be saying that he's dead, and our readers will be capable of concluding for themselves that a man born in 1946 probably isn't still alive in 2072. We have articles on people who lived a lot longer ago which don't explicitly say their subjects died: Misplaced Pages hasn't fallen because ] doesn't give a date of death, and he lived 3500 years ago!
	:::I agree with {{u|Siawase}} that as this is a major claim about a living or recently-living person, we should look for the highest quality sources, and a single article in an obscure publication without an established reputation is not sufficient. The cost to Misplaced Pages for not explicitly saying that Eley has died when no major news outlets have reported it seems to be negligible; it would be much worse to wrongly report that he has died. ] (]) 12:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
			The (used to have its own article but it was apparently PRODed) is cited in several hundreds of articles, mostly pertaining to Russian military hardware and South Asian issues, but not exclusively. It was mentioned ] ] ] on this noticeboard but only on a surface level.
	*So... despite being run by an established journalist, despite the editorial oversight, despite the writers who are also established journalists, TheArticle.com is not considered reliable? And is[REDACTED] going to be the only site on the internet that doesn't acknowledge Brian Eley's death? ] (]) 10:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			In light of all this, how would you rate the EurAsian Times?
	== ] is a reliable source for charts ==
			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	]. EPI is not listed at ].
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			Thank you. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 22:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) <small>PS: it is the first time I create an RFC, I hope it is not malformed</small>
	See '''''' of '''].'''
			* {{linksummary|eurasiantimes.com}}
	Scroll down to the "Historical trend" section. There are '''2 graphs''' using the same 2 sources to create the graphs: the easily found record of US federal minimum wage increases. And ] values. The more recent graph from EPI is more understandable because it lists the actual peak value of $12.12 in 1968.
			- ] (]) 15:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Survey (EurAsian Times)===
	'''But one editor keeps removing the more recent EPI graph''' because he says ], the source of the graph, is an unreliable source. See more EPI graph info on the Commons:
	*''']'''
			*'''Option 2/Do not enter to RSP''' I’d tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I don't see a reason to make any RSP entry -- there doesn't seem to be a lot of RSN discussions to summarize or adjudicate and if it is in use hundreds of times then making a RSP entry at this point seems to be problematic. Cheers ] (]) 02:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	There is no problem with ''']''' because the chart sources and data are listed in the EPI article: '''.''' By David Cooper, Sebastian Martinez Hickey, and Ben Zipperer. Posted July 14, 2022. And: . "All values in June 2022 dollars, adjusted using the CPI-U in 2022 chained to the CPI-U-RS (1978–2021) and CPI-U-X1 (1967–1977) and CPI-U (1966 and before)." The data tab below the chart lists all the data used to create the graph.
			*'''Option 3''' Based on prior discussion at RS/N and ] I'd suggest this is a generally unreliable source. I don't think there's a case for deprecation though. ] (]) 15:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Discussion (EurAsian Times)===
	I think you would be hard pressed to find a more reliable source for data and charts they put out. EPI is run by economists. "Since 2021, the EPI has been led by economist '''], a former Chief Economist of the ].'''"
			* Previous discussions at ] (2024) ] (2023), and ] (2022). It looks like there's already consensus that it's unreliable and an RfC is not necessary. ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Yes, there is already strong consensus for its general unreliability (with just one dissenting editor in all of those discussions). I guess the only question is whether it should be deprecated, given its quite frequent use ] (]) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I agree that most opinions expressed about it were negative, but it felt a bit like shaky ground to be able to know if it could still be used for some specific things, be treated as generally unreliable, or to actually deprecate. That is why I wanted clarification before potentially going on a hunt. Sorry if an RfC was overkill for this one, but I figured that since it is used quite a lot it could be good to clarify. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 10:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Agreed. The EurAsian Times is a textbook ] site and is not generally reliable. - ] (]) 15:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Maybe there's a need for some general advice similar to ] but for websites that have the same type of journalism. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			== flightconnections.com ==
	You may disagree with some of the interpretations, but the data is right there. So it fits with '''].''' In the form of: "EPI uses this chart to claim such-and-such based on this data from these sources."
	--] (]) 02:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
			I wonder if flightconnections.com is a reliable source. Examples of it use are on and . In both cases ] asks for {{tq|airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet ]}}. I have doubt if flightconnections qualifies as reliable. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 02:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Perennial sources is for sources that have been brought up several times on the RSN, but a search for "Economic Policy Institute" only turns up this discussion. As the EPI is a political think tank and activist organization, I would consider it to be '''reliable only for its own opinion''', similar to the ]. It should not be used to verify statements of fact, and if it's used at all, it should be clear that it's only the opinion of the EPI. If you're trying to verify a fact or statistic, I suggest finding a more authoritative source. ] (]) 02:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
	::The facts are not in question. The chart is not an opinion. EPI is not being "used to verify statements of fact".
	::EPI just created a graph from facts. Lots of charts and graphs are found on the Commons from all kinds of organizations.
	::But they can't stay in articles if their data sources are not clear. Whether the organization is left or right leaning has not been important in my experience.
	::It's the data sources that matter, not the organization.
	::'''EPI has not been shown to lie about its sources for charts, etc..''' So it is a reliable source in that sense.
	::Same thing is true for the '''many charts, graphs, and maps created by editors.''' If one reads their user pages one clearly sees that '''most editors lean left or right or whatever.''' It's their '''sources that matter''' as to whether the chart or graph gets put in an article.
	::'''The graph is actually in the public domain.''' See: '''].''' I uploaded this public domain graph to the Commons. I am left leaning on most issues, independent on others.
	::'''So is the graph disqualified because I am left leaning?''' Of course not. Its data sources are what matters.
	::So '''] is a reliable source for charts. It lists its data sources.''' What more do we want from them? Or me? Or any organization or editor that creates charts and maps? --] (]) 08:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
			:I can't find any information about who runs the site or where it gets it's information from. There are quite a few articles promoting it or about how to use it, but that is unsurprising as it operates an affiliate programme. From a Google book search it has some extremely limited USEBYOTHERS (note several of the results are not reliable sources), but not enough to be meaningful. I couldn't get any useful results from Google Scholar. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	Here are the graphs from the article version:
			:I do see it as reliable. They are from one of the large brokers (likely either Cirium or OAG, I wish they said who) and simply providing a wrapper to explore that data, and selling ads and subscriptions to pay for the extremely expensive subscription the brokers charge. ] (]) 19:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	. By David Cooper, Sebastian Martinez Hickey, and Ben Zipperer. July 14, 2022. By ].</ref>]]
			::It can work at least as a starting point. It lists both charter and regularly scheduled flights. You can find the flight number of a given route and then cross-reference it on another source as well. --] (]) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	]. And inflation-adjusted dollars.<ref name="FRED-graph">. ], . Inflation adjusted (by ]) via the . Graph retrieved February 8, 2020.</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=History of Federal Minimum Wage Rates Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938–2009 |url=https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm |access-date=2020-02-09 |website=US Department of Labor |publisher=United States Department of Labor}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=January 2022 |title=Changes in Basic Minimum Wages in Non-Farm Employment Under State Law: Selected Years 1968 to 2021 |url=https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/minimum-wage/history |url-status=live |access-date=September 27, 2022 |website=U.S. Department of Labor}}</ref>]]
	{{talk refs}}
	--] (]) 07:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			== Pegging ==
	:The first graph has no y-axis units, which is a huge red flag when it comes to graphs. It appears that it is not ], which is incredibly misleading. This is exactly why we don't use information (even graphs) from activist sources. On the other hand, I see no immediate issues with the second one and think it could be quite useful. ] (]) 14:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::The ''first'' chart isn't to scale and has no y-axis, as {{u|Thebiguglyalien}} notes. As such, I don't see an encyclopedic use of the chart.
	::The second chart appears to be based off of ], which is to say that the data would appear to be delivered via the St. Louis Fed (even if BLS or another agency collected the data). It's unclear to me which dataset is being used as the inflation adjustment; is available through 2022 and is obviously the minimum wage used in the graph, . It's unclear to me what sort of adjustment is being used for the federal minimum hourly wage (my best guess is ). The graph verifies when I try to re-create it in FRED myself, so it checks out in this case.
	::In general, I think it's probably better to user FRED to actually make the chart; it would allow us to use more recent data than 2020 and it's fine under ] to do a basic inflation adjustment provided that it meaningfully relates to the sources discussing the minimum wage and real value of it.
	::In short, while the first chart is better avoided, the second chart is legit (though it's probably better to just get the chart straight from FRED and include data through 2022). — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 21:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			At this point, after educating people about pegging for the last 14 years, I do indeed qualify as an expert. I am the go-to person for information about pegging in the sex education world.
	{{unindent}}
	The EPI graph is to scale. It starts at the bottom in 1938. The graphs look slightly different because they have '''different starting years,''' and because '''different CPIs are used.'''
			perhaps be reviewed? I am the only sex educator I know of who ''specializes'' in pegging. I have taught countless classes since 2012 (in person and over Zoom) for beginners, equipment, and advanced pegging, and written many, many articles about pegging as well. Were they published in magazines or on websites that made me edit the crap out of what I'd written until it lost its meaning? No. Wouldn't play that game because the message was too important to me, and because they wanted free material.
	Having a Y axis would be nice but it was not necessary to the point EPI was trying to make in their article. A new graph could be created from their data (data tab below the graph). '''Y axis could be added''' to that new graph. I may try to find someone to do that.
			I am not a person of notoriety like Tristan Taormino or Dan Savage, but that does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about or what I put out into the world about pegging is just my 'opinion'. There have been no 'studies' on pegging and there aren't likely to be anytime soon, for obvious reasons.
	The 2 graphs are using different CPIs. The '''EPI graph is using multiple CPIs.''' See the EPI file description for the list of CPIs used. The '''FRED graph only uses one CPI.''' The FRED graph creation pages may offer more CPI options but I haven't had time to figure it out.
			Since when was the only measure of an expert their notoriety? I have gone down the rabbit hole of pegging and remained there. I have held space for all the different expressions of pegging during that time, which are numerous. I have advised hopeful and how to approach their partners, while also educating them about the (intensely) common misconceptions and assumptions about the sexual act, and so many more things that are a part of pegging. Masculinity, role reversal, communication, etc, etc.
	If you want your brain to hurt you can '''see all the different CPIs, etc. that can be used with the minimum wage:'''
	*. '''].'''
			I have helped countless couples find the best equipment for them, which is much more complicated and individual than a cheap strap-on and dildo. Educating interested people about pegging has been my mission for the last 14 years. Other sex educators have more surface knowledge about this sexual act - knowledge that can be gleaned from a simple Marie Claire article.
	The bottom line as I have said throughout is what data is being used. '''I see no deception from EPI.''' Economic Policy Institute is '''a reliable source for charts, especially since they provide their data.'''
			My apologies if I sound a little irritated. My intentions are good. Famous people are not the best sources, necessarily. In sex education circles I am widely known as the go-to expert.
	I agree though that the 2 graphs should not be used together due to the confusion to readers who see slightly different graphs for all the reasons mentioned.
			https://peggingparadise.com/ (my original website)
	Did some Google Image searches. Here is a good graph from ''']''' but I don't know what CPIs, etc. are being used because the article is hidden behind a paywall.
	*https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/minimum_wage_030121-01.png
	*https://fortune.com/2021/03/18/federal-minimum-wage-15-how-much-each-state-history-of-compared-to-other-countries-by-industry
	--] (]) 00:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
			https://www.theartofpegging.com/ (my educational and patron platform)
	== returning to ] with a different set of RS issues ==
			https://pegging101.com/ (pegging with no kink for the vanilla people)
	Above I brought forth a RS regarding this contested subject and have been convinced it should be accorded minimal weight and does not pass the test for RS. However, I believe that there are 3 RS. On a scale of 1-10 in terms of RS, many of the sources are 1s, 2s and 3s. However, I think I have 3 sources upon which a stub could be created that achieves ]. I don't think this subject is being treated fairly in terms of its presentation of RS in regard to the following three sources:
	#https://www.beyondthestagemagazine.com/surfaces-interview-september-2021/ - This (print magazine with an editorial process) is the main RS that provides coverage of the production of the song (Malibu in-home studio rental), reveals its debut performance details (the night before Lollapalooza and then widely at Lollapalooza), gives a source of quantifiable audience feedback (stream count). This source is independent of the subject and its information alone with corroboration from other RS should justify a stub.
	#https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/what-is-the-song-in-the-corolla-cross-commercial/ar-AAWXGtN - I think MSN.com is generally considered an RS and is independent of the subject. The depth of coverage that they provided on the subject would be considered SIGCOV without a doubt if they had gotten the story right. In this case they got the story partly wrong, but I think notability is largely conferred based on their coverage of the subject, regardless of whether part of their coverage is misleading. The problem is that they confused the pre-May 2021 use of the sound/slang term with the August 2021 song. The article I presented has fleshed out the details on this correctly. The story also neglects to mention that the Toyota commercial was a Winter Olympics ad campaign (also fleshed out with other sources in the article), but this is an unnecessary detail. IMO, what the article does present is a confirmation of the band and the name of the song in said Toyota commercial.
	#https://www.austinchronicle.com/music/2021-10-01/acl-fest-music-recommendations-from-close-to-home/ '']'' is by all accounts a ], although ] is close enough to ] that it borders on local coverage, they are independent of the subject and they present the most significant review commentary on the song that we have.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 20:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
	:https://www.allmusic.com/album/sheesh%21-mw0003585256/credits I think All Music is considered a RS for limited subject matter so I am not sure if that is true for the content it supports here.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 20:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
	:P.S. I am also not sure whether Ispot.tv is a ], but the two sources from that domain just provide color (as well as commercial debut dates).--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 20:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
			With Respect For All That You Amazing People Do,
	== Twitter Blue and verified Twitter accounts ==
			Ruby Ryder ] (]) 05:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Ms. Ryder,
	Currently, ] notes that {{tq|In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way}}. Recently, Twitter has made changes to what it means to be "verified" on Twitter, allowing any subscriber or ] to be marked as "verified". My understanding is that we can't actually verify that an account belongs to a particular person the account claims to be if it is "verified" ''by virtue of its subscription to Twitter Blue''. I would like to get input from other editors regarding how we treat Twitter accounts with the blue checkmark granted by purchasing Twitter Blue when we're applying ] and ]. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 02:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			:What would help here is if you could point us to either reliable, independent sources citing your work, or of you writing for publications that you don't publish yourself.... something that helps us see that, as you say, "in sex educations widely known as a go-to expert." I fully believe that you are.
	: "verified accounts" should only apply to those with legacy verification blue ticks, which can be distinguished from twitter blue blue ticks, see . ] (]) 02:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			:The problem with someone using your sources as a reference has to do with Misplaced Pages's rules on using self-published sources, which your websites, videos, etc, count as. We can use such sources as reference (if within some limits), but only if we can see that the creator is a ''recognized'' expert in the field... and by recognized, that means either cited by or hired to write on the topic by reliable sources. I know that it seems like your voluminous experience and the visible quality of your materials should count for something here, but alas it does not. I don't think we'd be expecting, say, the New York Times or the Journal of the American Medical Association in this case, just some recognizable source that takes such sexual matters seriously. It doesn't even have to be material that is online (although that would help.) Articles that quote you or recommend your sites or training services would really help. Can you point us to such citations? -- ] (]) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Legacy verification will be ending within a few months, . ] (]) 02:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			:I appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages editors cannot use their own judgement to assess the expertise of someone. There are people who research topics and work in a field their entire lives who become experts in those fields and publish their work on their own websites. But there are also pseudo-experts who do the same thing. Editors on Misplaced Pages are not allowed to use their own judgement to discern the difference between the two, but must rely on a third party to establish their expertise. If you have ever given an interview on pegging for a newspaper or a magazine, or had your website cited by a sexologist or another recognizable sex expert as a good resource on pegging, for instance, then that would allow us to recognize the reliability of your site for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: I mean, given Musk's fickle and erratic approach to operating Twitter thus far, I think the timetables on that unlikely to be set in stone. ] (]) 03:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			:Could you comment on and notify the article talk page you want to edit? We really cannot help without context around what changes you want to include.
	::::Still, we should plan for it. The current plan at Twitter is to turn every checkmark into {{tq|This account is verified because it’s subscribed to Twitter Blue}}. Even some legacy-verified users are now showing this after subscribing to Twitter Blue, so the transition has already happened to some. ] (]) 03:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::The obvious solution is just to remove "if they are verified accounts or". That said, no point doing that until it becomes necessary. ] (]) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)		:that conversation from 2017 is old. I have no clue if that is what Misplaced Pages editors believe today, nor the state of the article you want to change. ] (]) 19:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I am highly confident that ] is the main article on the topic. ] (]) 19:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::I was about to propose that exact change. And it is already necessary, since the point is that people can currently call themselves "Barack Obama" and buy a blue checkmark for $8. Twitter will ban it, given some time, but checkmarks are no longer sufficiant verification. I'll note that it never was, since it was possible (as Musk recently tweeted, and as I've long had second-hand knowledge of myself) to buy blue checkmarks if you have friends who work for Twitter. ] (]) 03:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			:::I would concur. ] (]) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::Agreed that this seems like the simplest solution. Verification historically ''was'' a method of confirming the identity of the account, so the "if they are verified" clause was always redundant anyway. ] (]) 12:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			:::Their comment wasn't asking which page the 2017 discussion was on (which is linked to), but was asking RubyRyder to leave a comment on the talk page of that article. ] (]) 20:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I don't think I'm alone in suspecting that Twitter itself might be ending in a few months. The reported two hours ago on an internal email Musk had sent to Twitter staff that {{tq|Elon Musk, warned that bankruptcy was a possibility}}. ] (]) 03:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			::::* Is the only reason we want to include this information because its from RubyRyder and it would be good publicity? or is there a specific bit of info that they want to include that is missing?
	::::Fair, but even ] is still around in a reduced form. In any case, Twitter collapsing a few months from now still leaves a few months where we have to deal with Twitter Blue granting bluechecks. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 04:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			::::* have they tried including it and seeing what happens? (see ]) Are regulars who wrote and watch the pegging article notified that this debate is happening?
	:::::I actually agree. We should swiftly find that Twitter is unreliable or at least marginally reliable if possible. Because they have apparently abandoned their editorial oversight for the Elon Patreon. ''']'''<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> 05:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			::::* This post seems mostly like rehashing and trying to start up an argument from 2017 for the sake of a debate. would like info on what we are doing here, exactly, and what the debate is?
	::::::Is Twitter not already broadly covered by ], and so inherently unreliable except for the ]/] criterion? I'm not sure they ever had editorial oversight. Abuse and spam prevention maybe, but not editorial oversight. In any case, adjusting the text for ] seems OK for now. ] (]) 05:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			::::] (]) 20:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::Given their recent changes, an exception or carveout should exempt ] since there are a bunch of verified "Real Elon Musks" running around now. At least until things calm down, a self-tweet from a verified account might just as easily be a scrawled note on a paper airplane thrown by a child. ''']'''<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> 05:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			{{Moved discussion from|Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_23_January_2025|2=Thank you for your response. I understand the reasoning. I was asked for other sources, and below I am listing well-known sexologists and people with letters after their name who have interviewed me on their podcasts.
	::::::::Aaah, yeah, I see what you mean now! Funny, I saw someone verified pretending to be ] earlier, with some dark humour take on the whole ] stuff.
	::::::::I would have said that the {{tq|alternative for people known for their Twitter presence is to use reliable third-party sources}} would have covered this situation, but then I recalled that some are leaving the site, and I would assume that those handles will at some point become available for ]. Unless we want to caveat that caveat with something like {{tq|and who have not been confirmed to have left the site based on reliable third-party sources}}? ] (]) 05:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			Cam Fraser - the Power and Pleasure of Pegging with Ruby Ryder: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0naA7WaumMhL1t5wE2vaj5?si=IFqLYzGzT_aQomGXWKvSww&nd=1&dlsi=3c896a210a7d4408
	:Legacy blue checkmark twitter accounts can be verified from archives prior to the Elon Musks takeover, via archive.org or similar ie . And while people can pick arbitrary display names for twitter accounts now, they cannot take over the url account names. It's also often possible to verify that a social network or blog account, on twitter or elsewhere, belongs to some entity because the official website for the entity links to external communication channels. ] (]) 08:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::As Hemiauchenia said above, for however long Elon Musk decides to allow it, it's easier to just click the blue badge and check that way. ] (]) 09:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::I don't have any issue with using archived verification, since that system was previously deemed reliable enough. I think the bigger problem in this is what to do ''going forward''. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 14:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*Should we just make a note in the RSP entry for Twitter (]) that you need to click on the verified badge to check if the account really is verified (or if the user just bought Twitter Blue) before using it as a source? For the time being, while there is still a way to check for "legacy" verification, I think it's still fine to use verified Twitter accounts for e.g. ] purposes. ] (]) 09:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:Assuming you can see that by clicking, agree. It seems unnecessary to declare all the cited "old blue" worthless if there's a reasonable way to tell them apart. ] (]) 12:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Pegging with Ruby Ryder:https://sunnymegatron.com/ruby-ryder-pegging-paradise/
	*It would be simpler and cause less conflict if we just said it is no longer an RS for information as an SPS. We have now a ton of fake accounts with blue ticks, and at some point (if we allow it) someone will argue "but it's a blue tick". ] (]) 12:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:Why not assume competence? Someone can argue it, but they'd never gain consensus. ] (]) 12:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::To save the time of getting consensus in the first place? ] (]) 13:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::Very much agree with this. I think we can grandfather old uses of Twitter, but for the moment, I think at least a moratorium is wise. Things seem to be changing so quickly that any coherent policy response here would be a quixotic endeavor. Cheers, all, and here's to those who sacrificed before us. ] (]) 13:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::The chaos continues. Twitter pulls the plug on Twitter Blue, subscriptions and paid-for verification blue checkmark no longer available. But what about those already set up and paid for? I think until this settles down we can't assume anything. ] (]) 14:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::: This is no official Misplaced Pages policy change we are debating in this thread so it's difficult to formulate a highly relevant response but just to touch on a few items above. The "old uses of Twitter" had all the same issues as the new uses of twitter. A bluecheck verification was done in a non-transparent and (according to many users) sometimes corrupt process where people paid for verification. Twitter is self published content, it's not an RS or it shouldn't ever be. The only times a tweet should appear on Misplaced Pages is as essentially a quote, showing it in a somewhat native format so it can be then discussed in an article. That has no bearing on the new twitter blue rules. It's either a real tweet or not a real tweet, regardless of who actually sent it.] (]) 17:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::::With all due respect, while I agree with most of your premises, I disagree with the outcome. Previously, though the process was certainly not transparent and tweets should only have been used as you indicate, there was a reasonable (perhaps not perfect) reputation that a person or entity with a blue check was who they seemed to be. Over the past 48 hours that has completely changed. As ever, reasonable minds may differ on the right response. Cheers. ] (]) 17:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::::Not sure how much you use twitter but there was actually ''more'' impersonation happening under the "old rules". In other words verified users using their designation to deceive. ] (]) 17:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::::::Can you point me to some evidence for that? Cheers. ] (]) 18:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::::::
	*:] currently explicitly lists Twitter as an acceptable publisher for SPS/ABOUTSELF content; I do not think that trying to override one of our core policies is the simpler approach to avoid conflict. ] (]) 16:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::the problem is they are used for quotes (usually in BLP's) by the person. In other words about self. If however they are not by that person (or entity) then it fails about self. ] (]) 18:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*We should treat a twitter account representing a specific real person or company, when and only when RS make that connection. ]] 14:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*People seem to be assuming that we just can't know who's who on Twitter anymore. That's a significant overreaction. We all still know @BarackObama is Barack Obama. We know @jaketapper is Jake Tapper. I didn't need to look those up; I know dozens of them by heart since I type them in Chrome every day. Many Misplaced Pages editors are familiar with Twitter, and know the BLP subject's official Twitter handle with certainty, since they've had the same handle for years. For cases where people are confused, a 3-second Google search will make it very clear what the real account is, either because it's listed on their official site, or plugged in interviews, or listed in their Google/Bing infobox, or has, say, 5 million followers (while an account created after the Twitter Blue changes from 4 days ago wouldn't have more than a few thousand). We're hugely overblowing the issue here. Just take ], change the wording so we don't imply a blue-check is ''100% always'' the correct account. The blue-check account is still 98% gonna be the correct one; not 50%, not 5%. Let's maintain a sense of proportion. Twitter Blue does not force us to deprecate self-published Twitter statements, which are in widespread use among celebrities (all those Apple Notes screenshots they post), and many public figures don't have the media reach of Obama (whose every statement becomes international news) or Tapper (who's among the world's most famous journalists); there's a reason we allow self-published statements from BLPs, why water that down needlessly? ] (]) 19:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:I certainly understand this argument, and in a personal way, completely agree. But as for Misplaced Pages use it trends a little too close to ] for my comfort, as it relies on "well, I know this handle is legit." As I say, in a personal way, I get it. But for me, Twitter used to be at least a reasonably reliable indicator of who was tweeting, and that reputation for accuracy has been lost at least temporarily. Put another way, I used to consider Twitter an RS for who was saying things, but I don't at the moment. All that said, happy to go wherever consensus dictates. Cheers. ] (]) 19:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::{{tq|and that reputation for accuracy has been lost at least temporarily}}
	*::Not to bludgeon, and I respect that view, but I'd like to clarify: is it blue checkmarks per-se that have {{tq|ceased to be a reliable indicator}} (I'd agree within reason), or is it Twitter as a whole? Good arguments have been presented for the former, but while I've seen some assert the latter, none yet have presented arguments; doing so would significantly strengthen that case. Cheers ] (]) 20:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::Well, again, speaking for myself, Twitter was only ever usable as a ], with the attendant caveats. The only thing on which we considered Twitter reliable was to tell us that verified accounts were who they claimed to be. You might be able to use a secondary source to cite a tweet from an unverified account, but I would have argued against citing the tweet itself even as an ]. So, my position would be simply that blue checks have lost their reliability, and Twitter writ large never had any (meant with no offense to the platform or anyone on it). Cheers. ] (]) 20:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::Agreed with this ''']'''<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> 21:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::My current reading is that blue checkmarks, by themselves, are no longer a ''per se'' reliable indicator. There are other ways of verifying that a Twitter account belongs to someone, such as a newspaper saying so, and I don't think that anything related to Twitter Blue affects this. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 22:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::Right. I'll note that we never used blue checkmarks as the sole indicator, and there's no reason to do so now either. They were never fully reliable; and anyhoo Twitter Blue is unlikely to significantly affect this, despite media sensationalism. ] (]) 23:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::Blue checks were pretty reliable before. For example, on politics articles, they often find an official Congressional photo and copyright notice from a social media account and upload those images to commons citing US-PD-Gov. We're going to have to be careful because if anyone can get verified on Twitter for $8 and post like the ] account apologized for regime change in 1954 or the ] account is making ] free for everyone, Misplaced Pages could also be hurt by the reckless actions of the Twitter company and its charismatic god-king. ''']'''<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> 23:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::::I actually made a factual mistake before, when I said that previously-verified accounts, who also subscribed to Twitter Blue, lost the original badge (and the {{tq|This account is verified because it’s notable in government, news, }} notice). I was wrong, celebrities and politicians who bought Twitter Blue still show the old notice. So thankfully we can still tell the difference (for now). I'd suggest we add an endnote to ] to explain how to do this: click on the blue check, and see if it says the above, or says {{tq|because it's subscribed to Twitter Blue}}. If anything changes, we can rediscuss, but I'd say that change is sufficient for now. ] (]) 23:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::::Support change to the RSP text for starters ''']'''<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> 00:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
	*How a subject releases information is irrelevant. They decide what their official channels for communication are, not us. Editors being sloppy and sourcing fake accounts is bad editing, not a Twitter problem. Also ] applies everywhere on Misplaced Pages and this conversation seems to be running a bit afoul as editors make this a proxy discussion about Elon Musk. 23:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)~
			Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Butt Stuff 201: Pegging & Vagus Nerve w/ Ruby Ryder: https://sunnymegatron.com/vagus-nerve-pegging/
	==RfC: The Economist==
	<!-- ] 23:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1671231685}}
	{{rfc|prop|rfcid=AAB6E4C}}
	What best describes '']''<nowiki/>'s news coverage of transgender topics?
	* '''Option 1:''' Generally ] for factual reporting
	* '''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply
	* '''Option 3:''' Generally ] for factual reporting
	* '''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ]
	]] 13:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			Smart Sex, Smart Love with Dr Joe Kort - Ruby Ryder on Pegging - https://joekort.com/ruby-ryder-on-pegging/
	Instances where the factual accuracy of covetage of transgender issues in reporting by ''The Economist'' include . ] (]) 19:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			Please let me know if you have further questions or if I can help in any way - and if there is a better way to respond to this conversation.
	:This seems to be trying to get a simple answer to a complex question. Reliability on a single issue (such as transgender) is not necessarily determined at editorial level, and could be down to the columnist. Transgender issues vary over social, legal and medical matters. We already have ] which does not regard the popular press as reliable sources for biomedical information, so to the extent that a transgender issue is biomedical, it shouldn't be used. The anonymity of articles in the Economist is a problem wrt judging the ]. -- ]°] 14:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	Bias is not an issue. ] (]) 15:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1'''. ] is well-regarded as a reliable source. No evidence has been provided that it is not.] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 18:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1'''. This is clear. I mean no disrespect to OP but it would be great to close at least two of these RfCs that are bound to be uncontested and are taking up quite a bit of space for the same discussion to happen three times. ] (]) 19:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1'''. Obvious and established. ''']'''<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> 19:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''' - as I noted for the two broadsheets listed below, the OP appears to have presented these filings devoid of context or Talk notifications in order to achieve quick SNOW endorsements that they can use as a cudgel in Talk discussions. Editors familiar with the coverage of trans topics by these three outlets are aware of the ways all three have placed their news coverage in the service of political campaigns to limit or reverse trans rights. This is most certainly a case where {{tq|additional considerations apply}}. ] (]) 19:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1'''. ] is a well-established magazine that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Per {{u|Colin}}'s excellent analysis, I acknowledge ] concerns on that editors would perceive it as a ] source (though I personally disagree). Further, ] should be preferred in medical areas. However, insufficient evidence has been provided to downgrade to additional considerations apply. '''] '''] 20:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1'''. This is a standard liberal ] based in the United Kingdom. ''The Economist'' seems to be generally reliable for factual reporting of news, even in politically fraught areas. That being said, no ] is ], so it cannot be used to support claims relating to human ], much in the same way that we should not use the ''Washington Post'' and ''The Guardian'' for claims relating to human biomedical information. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 20:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 3'''. One of ]'s executives is ]. Helen Joyce is the author of a book titled ], has said that trans people are "a huge problem for a sane world" and that they are all "damaged", and has advocated for preventing even adult trans people from transitioning. We know for a fact that Joyce is at least sometimes editorially responsible for their coverage of trans issues, because she was openly the emcee of . Because of this (and the general problems with ] trans coverage in British newspapers), I believe The Economist is not reliable on trans issues, as a major figure in their editorial process demonstrably holds strong fringe opinions on this matter. ] (]) 21:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:] is not a book published directly by ], but another book published by its executives. Could high-quality scholarly sources be provided that demonstrated Helen's reporting in news pieces is routinely inaccurate in relation to this topic? '''] '''] 21:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::I think the relevant argument is that her influence as editor had an impact on news coverage of trans issues by ''The Economist'' (the relationship between news and editorial in the UK being more like a ] than a water-tight compartment). ] (]) 21:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::I'm aware that you are compiling a list, so please ping me on Sunday once you get multiple sources directly criticising Helen Joyce's coverage instead of an assumption currently without much evidence. Many thanks! '''] '''] 22:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::{{tq|the relationship between news and editorial in the UK being more like a Blood-brain barrier than a water-tight compartment}}- we are asking about {{tq|What best describes The Economist's news coverage of transgender topics?}} Opinion pieces seem irrelevant, and contradict the consensus at ]. '''] '''] 22:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:*Just to note, Helen Joyce was an {{tq|executive editor for The Economist’s events business}} (whatever that means) since March 2020, and was a finance editor before that. She's not an executive, she's currently on a sabbatical, and she had nothing to do with the article being disputed here on WPATH.
	::She also had nothing to do with the series of editorials on trans identity that you link to (back then, again, she was Finance editor); she just wrote an article linking to all those editorials in one place; but didn't author any of them (each of them has a byline and an identified author).
	::I do obviously condemn her, but I don't agree that this remotely justifies downgrading The Economist. ] (]) 21:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:*Given that she's on unpaid sabbatical, and worked in the event space, I wouldn't say she's "a major figure in their editorial process". ] (]) 21:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:*:After the line {{tq|Helen Joyce is the Finance editor at The Economist}} it does indeed link to various other pieces by numerous other editors. I couldn't see evidence that those other linked pieces are inaccurate and severely misleading. Of course, ] is a rightfully critiqued book but it's published by {{tq|Oneworld Publications, Simon & Schuster}} per the WP page, not through ]. '''] '''] 21:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' A few sources I have found on the general issue with transphobia in the British press (not necessarily the Economist specifically):
	:* CNN:
	:* Paul Baker, a professor of linguistics: (NB: I'd like to find a peer reviewed version of either this or the original study but for now this is what I could find)
	:* Xtra:
	:* Them: (subtitle calls Britain's press "virulently transphobic")
	:* PinkNews:
	:* Gay Times:
	:* USAToday:
	:* Vice:
	:* Insider:
	:] (]) 21:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::Are you suggesting that we generally declare the press of the United Kingdom unreliable for coverage of transgender topics? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 21:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::{{ping|Red-tailed hawk}} {{ping|LokiTheLiar}} As I said below almost all of those doesn't relate to the sources specifically. E.g., the CNN piece critiques ] as {{tq|According to her analysis, in 2020 the Times and the Sunday Times published “over 300 articles, almost one a day, and they were all negative.” CNN has reached out to both newspapers for comment.}} {{tq|According to her}} means that it is expressing another journalist's opinion instead of the CNN editors directly criticising it. The other example lists to an essay/opinion piece as I said below. The piece you linked from ], a marginally reliable source for news, links to , {{tq|letters to the editor}}. Letters, commentary, and opinion pieces should be regarded per ], I don't think we should, in a RfC about {{tq|What best describes The Daily Telegraph's news coverage of transgender topics}}, link to pages criticising their opinion/commentary coverage. '''] '''] 21:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::{{reply to|Red-tailed hawk}} Unreliable per se, no: I'm sure there are some exceptions. But since this is clearly a systemic issue I don't see what we gain from tackling it on a paper-by-paper basis. I do think that because of the systemic problems with the UK press, we should stop assuming that UK newsorgs that are reliable generally are necessarily reliable for trans issues specifically, and instead require separate evidence of that. ] (]) 23:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::I won't do my usual breakdown here, but, similar to my detailed analysis of similar sources when it comes to the Telegraph discussion below, given my quick read of these links, I don't think they demonstrate any unreliability. ] (]) 23:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''': I don't see how the opinions of the events editor are relevant to editorial accuracy of the news division. The sources alleging transphobia in the British press cover accusations or of questionable quality. ] (]) 22:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1'''. Honestly I don't see the need for this RfC and I suggest a quick ]. ] (]) (]) 23:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:How can ] apply when the !votes are divided? ] (]) 00:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' I do think snowball applies to all three RFCs. ] (]) 23:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:Given the !votes for Option 2 and/or Option 3 in alll three discussions, I have no idea how you feel that ] might apply. ] (]) 00:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
			With respect,
	==RfC: The Telegraph==
			Ruby Ryder ] (]) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	<!-- ] 21:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1671224483}}
	{{rfc|prop|rfcid=899BB23}}
	What best describes '']''<nowiki/>'s news coverage of transgender topics?
	* '''Option 1:''' Generally ] for factual reporting
	* '''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply
	* '''Option 3:''' Generally ] for factual reporting
	* '''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ]
	]] 13:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			:I will quickly note that Sunny Megatron is an XBIZ Sexpert of the Year award according to our ] page, and is used as a reference elsewhere. ] is clinical director of The Center for Relationship and Sexual Health. So these aren't random peoplecasts. That does not establish, of course, what information you are to be cited for... and as others have, I suggest that you take the issue back to ] for fresh discussion. -- ] (]) 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Context: The Telegraph===
			::agreed. I think RubyRyder seems useful as an expert. their information could be used, if correctly attributed. ] (]) 23:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	Note that recent discussions in article Talk where questions have been raised about the coverage in question include several discussions visible at ], as well as on transgender medicine. ] (]) 19:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			:Thank you. These look like good sources. Ultimately the reliability of a source is dependent on the specific article text that it is being used to support, so your site still wouldn't be reliable to support a ], for instance, but it should be reliable to support general statements about pegging. ] (]) 01:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			== NationalWorld.com ==
	===Discussion: The Telegraph===
	*'''Option 1'''. This is a standard ] ] based in the United Kingdom. It seems to be generally reliable for factual reporting of news, even in politically fraught areas. That being said, no ] is ], so it cannot be used to support claims relating to human ], much in the same way that we should not use the ''New York Times'' and ''The Wall Street Journal'' for claims relating to human biomedical information.— <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 14:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	* This seems to be trying to get a simple answer to a complex question. Reliability on a single issue (such as transgender) is not necessarily determined at editorial level, and could be down to the columnist. The Sunday Telegraph has a different editor. Transgender issues vary over social, legal and medical matters. We already have ] which does not regard the popular press as reliable sources for biomedical information, so to the extent that a transgender issue is biomedical, it shouldn't be used at all. Of the three sources published recently, The Telegraph is the most problematic wrt transgender issues. Its editorial stance is strongly hostile to transgender rights. It publishes trans-hostile articles nearly every single day, and sometimes many on one day. As I posted elsewhere on the 3rd November, a glance at the previous day's news, 2nd November, produced for anti-trans articles:
	:*
	:*
	:*
	:* (if you read other sources on this, gender identity is one of many changes in recent diversity questionnaire, which affects all broadcasters, not just the BBC, but trans, and the hated BBC are the only ones to make the title of the Telegraph article).
	:Given the small number of trans people and the fact that we are in the middle of an economic crisis, political turmoil and a war in Europe, this does suggest the Telegraph has entirely lost its head wrt transgender. The Telegraph routinely uses the transphobic shibboleths such as "transgender lobby" and "extreme trans ideology" or "gender ideology". This is a newspaper that regards the mainstream medical profession as extremists. I think it should be regarded as a radically trans hostile publication and treated accordingly wrt reliability and weight. -- ]°] 14:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::So you're here to ] by getting rid of any source that disagrees with your personal opinion on transgender people. ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 15:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::] em, I'm not entirely sure what planet this accusation belongs on, but the one where I didn't create these three RFCs is the one the rest of us are on. Have you received your discretionary sanctions warning about this topic, because comments like that are an easy way to earn a topic ban. -- ]°] 17:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::{{re|Colin}} I'm here because I randomly got a notification from the feedback request service to comment on one of these three RfCs; I don't participate in transgender-related areas very often (though I'm ] from way back when due to participating in ]) and these sorts of discussions is part of the reason why.
	::::You said ] "should be regarded as a radically trans hostile publication and treated accordingly wrt reliability and weight" partially because "we are in the middle of an economic crisis, political turmoil and a war in Europe".
	::::I don't really see the point of these comments that say we should consider reliability of sources based on how many pro/anti-trans opinion pieces they publish. ] and ] are both ] and are both the definition of a reliable source.
	::::You've said in another comment in this discussion that "The real question is not whether the Telegraph consistently makes up untrue trans stories, but whether its coverage on the matter is more like a pamphlet from a hate group than reporting one might expect in a broadsheet newspaper." You're acknowledging that you're not commenting about the topic of the RfC, which is whether or not ] is reliable for factual reporting.
	::::The thing that virtually all pamphlets from hate groups have in common is that they're full of fabrications about a group they wish to defame. If ] is fabricating stories on transgender people and promoting false information such as the ] or the ], then say so. I don't see that here. ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 18:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::What you're missing here is the context of several protracted disputes about due weight with respect to the Telegraph and Times' reposrting on transgender issues. This RFC was started in response to one of those higher up on this page, so regardless of what the formal question reads, this is not just about factual reliability. There is also a connection between these two issues, as noted by {{u|Tamzin}} on ]: {{tq|a source focusing on something can be taken as a statement of fact regarding which their reliability is relevant: the statement "this is a thing worth discussing".}} ■&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;⇔&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;''';''' 18:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::No, it's not "regardless of what the formal question reads". This is an RfC. Those who create an RfC are allowed to choose the question, and it's expected that they choose a question that accurately reflects the underlying dispute.
	::::::Secondly, the onus is on you to provide this mysterious context if it is so crucially necessary for me to base my !vote on. Not just make vague references to something that happened higher up on this massive notice board.
	::::::If people are creating RfCs to inaccurately designate sources as unreliable because it gives an advantage in ] discussions, that's very concerning and I hope that's not what is happening here. ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 19:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::Why are you assuming that the RFCs were started by someone wishing to designate these sources as unreliable? On the SOC8 talk page, gnu57 has advocated for inclusion on material sourced from these and called them {{tq|top-tier, mainstream RS}}. ■&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;⇔&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;''';''' 19:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::{{re|Maddy from Celeste}} I assumed that because I presume someone starting an RfC on a generally reliable source wants to designate it as unreliable.
	::::::::Regardless, this is still a top-tier mainstream RS. And if this RfC was created in bad faith to gain an advantage in some dispute I have no knowledge of, then that's a larger issue. ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 19:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::I have linked some of the related disputes at the top of each source's section head. ] (]) 20:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::Actually, in addition to being a personal attack, ]'s claim about ] is deeply ironic. That linked guide ensures we represent "the balance of informed opinion" and show the door to people campaigning for fringe viewpoints in science and medicine. Hmm. If you read about WPATH in the BMJ, NEJM, Lancet and other mainstream medical sources, they are referred to as an authority, a collection of professional consensus, and their guidelines widely followed. Their guidelines, like those from NICE or the DSM are of course subject to medical disagreement and change over time. But they represent consensus medical opinion, which is the highest form of MEDRS. And here we have the Telegraph claiming the organisation is a "controversial lobby group" and their "extremist guidelines" are "widely discredited", quoting the words of an actual extremist lobby group (]) founded by a few random people with strong views but no actual qualifications. As the Telegraph reports, they want Scotland's only specialised gender identity clinic, part of that very mainstream healthcare service calld the NHS, to be closed down. Does that sound like a group and a newspaper who are trying to RIGHT GREAT WRONGS. Yup. If this was covid, we'd have blacklisted them long ago. -- ]°] 21:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::{{re|Colin}} Your point is meaningless since you seem to be conflating editorial voice and attribution. In the article you're referencing , ] doesn't actually call the ] guidelines "widely discredited". It uses ] to ] the opinion to ]. That means that ] is not directly endorsing this point. You're also not telling the entire truth on what that source is saying. The term "controversial lobby group" is never used in the article; the article calls WPATH a "controversial trans group". ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 21:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::The first and third pieces you've linked are clearly labeled as "comment" (i.e. ]). That guideline notes that {{tq|ditorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact}} (internal links omitted). Take that as you will.
	::The objection you're placing on the second piece's factual accuracy is... what exactly? Are you arguing that Morgan did not actually appear in court for crimes that occurred both before and after transition, or that ''The Telegraph'' misrepresented the criminal proceedings in some way?
	::The objection you're placing on the fourth article is a classic case of ]. If you read the literal first sentence of the article, the article notes that {{tq|The media watchdog is to start measuring how many trans and pansexual employees work at the BBC '''and other major broadcasters''' in a push to improve diversity}}. It also describes the granular data collection change practices regarding ethnicity/race and notes changes to data collection practices as it pertains to disabled individuals. You don't actually need to read other sources on this to get that information, so I'm confused as to if your objection is to simply the ] or if you think that something in the article is actually false. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 15:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::I didn't vote and I've already noted several times that I think this is trying to oversimplify a complex problem. The complex problem is of course editors who don't understand ] and who care not for your nuance about article type and who have in all the recent discussions said effectively that if the Telegraph, a newspaper of note no less, finds something important then we must include it. I listed the above articles merely to note that any national newspaper that thinks running four anti-trans stories of a Wednesday is a balanced and proportional way to report the day's news and events has lost its way. I think participants should be aware of the purpose their vote will be used for. The three sections were created in good faith but also in naivety that votes within this topic domain end up as much more than a popularity count to see how many on each side of the culture war turn up combined with the roulette wheel of opinions of random people on the internet. And as we've already seen above, this topic attracts personal abuse. The real question is not whether the Telegraph consistently makes up untrue trans stories, but whether its coverage on the matter is more like a pamphlet from a hate group than reporting one might expect in a broadsheet newspaper. A statement in our articles on trans issues sourced to the Telegraph is highly likely to be undue and incomplete in important biased ways. I think this is the wrong forum to deal with that, but it is where we are.
	:::What got us here is a debate about ] guidelines ]. And the Telegraph article is .
	:::*Our article on WPATH describes it as a "a professional organization devoted to the understanding and treatment of gender identity and gender dysphoria, and creating standardized treatment for transgender and gender variant people". The Telegraph describes it as a "controversial trans group" and cites critics (rather than, you know, actual doctors) who claim it is "little more than a lobbying group, set up to legitimise an extreme form of gender ideology".
	:::*Our article on the guidelines describe it as "an international clinical protocol" that "often influences clinicians' decisions regarding patients' treatment. While other standards, protocols, and guidelines exist – especially outside the United States – the WPATH SOC is the most widespread protocol used by professionals working with transgender or gender-variant people.". The Telegraph describes it as "extreme guidelines" and a "widely discredited treatment protocol". And there is much nonsense about the NHS "secretly use" these guidelines, as well as prurient content that I have no interest in repeating.
	:::So, no, I don't think we can use the Telegraph for sourcing this topic as their standard news reports, in this case by their Scottish Correspondent, are so rabidly frothing as to be on a different world. -- ]°] 18:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::: -- ]°] 18:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	Bias is not an issue. ] (]) 15:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::The "extreme guidelines" phrase is from a headline, as is "secretly use"; we don't use headlines from any source. The "widely discredited treatment protocol" is not a description made by The Telegraph; they very clearly attribute it to a representative of a campaign group (it's even in quotation marks). ] (]) 21:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not proposing we use those words so our guidelines on using them is not remotely relevant. I mentioned them because they reflect the paper's language they think is fit for describing mainstream medicine. Quotes or not, they only quote Trina Budge, who's medical qualifications are founder of anti-trans pressure group ]. ]°] 21:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::"they only quote Trina Budge"... this is also incorrect. They quote WPATH guidelines, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, an unnamed "senior clinician", a "probe" of some kind, the NHS, the Scottish Government... and Trina Budge. ] (]) 21:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' No evidence has been provided that this ] is unreliable/fabricates evidence. ] applies here as ] clearly distinguishes between opinion pieces and news reporting. A newspaper that reports true facts should be considered reliable. ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 18:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' and suggest SNOW closing this. If there is any question of an RS with unreliable coverage in one area, that needs to be first discussed and unresolved on talk pages before opening such discussions. --] (]) 18:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:The Telegraph's trans-related coverage has been discussed at length many, many times on talk pages. ■&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;⇔&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;''';''' 18:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::Then those cases should be brought up as evidence of why it should be changed. The three RFCs on this are all RSes in a broad sense so you will have to show with strong evidence that their factual reporting around trans issues is fundamentally bad (eg how the Fox News limits on politics and scientific reporting were determined to be bad). ] (]) 19:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:Or to put it another way, show some examples of them making stuff up, not bias, lies. ] (]) 19:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::Please see my above reply to chess. The RFC wording may be about factual reporting, but the underlying dispute fundamentally concerns bias and due weight. ■&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;⇔&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;''';''' 19:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::Which are not RS issues they are ] issues. This is solely about are they an RS, bias is not part of the equation, only factual accuracy. ] (]) 19:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::Please see my !vote below. There is a point beyond which one-sided coverage is essentially unreliable, and coverage of transgender issues by ''The Times'' and ''The Telegraph'' is far beyond this point. Otherwise there would not be critical scholarship addressing this coverage in particular. ] (]) 19:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::Wrt making stuff up, the WPATH and their Standards of Care are mainstream consensus guidelines by professionals in the field. The Telegraph writes like a covid crank, claiming they are extremist and discredited. This is simply not true in the medical profession, only among gender critical writers (none of which are experts in the field). Taking the same attitude, here's how the Telegraph would write about covid: "The so-called World Health Organisation, more like World Unhealth Organisation, released controversial guidelines on treating covid that promoted anti-viral therapy. Clinging to the extremist germ-theory ideology, they ignore ivermectin and injectable bleach. The NHS are leaving our children and elderly vulnerable to the death rays from 5G mobile masts." Thats what, as a MEDRS author and long-term WP:MED member, the Telegraph sounds like to my ears. -- ]°] 20:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::"here's how the Telegraph would write about covid"... to be clear, that's not how they wrote about covid, is it? ] (]) 21:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Option 2''' - the biases of this broadsheet in its coverage of transgender rights issues have been repeatedly noted in scholarly and other high-quality sources, which is pretty much the definition of {{tq|additional considerations apply}}. For example, concludes as follows:
	{{talk quote|The fact is that the trans community is so rarely given a platform in any form of mainstream media, that the “debate” surrounding their rights rarely includes trans people at all—as evidenced by the exclusion of trans voices in the articles from ''The Times'' and ''The Telegraph''. Hence, trans people are dehumanised and denaturalised as their identity is debated and used for political fodder.}}
	* I wouldn't mind if this filing were closed as premature, however, since the editor filing has not linked to any of the previously presented evidence or prior discussions on the topic, and this seems to be a "gotcha" filing intended to precipitate !votes from editors who haven't seen any of the relevant commentary and who would precipitate an ill-informed SNOW close that could then be used as a cudgel to insist that the coverage of trans issues by ''The Telegraph'' is unproblematic, when high-quality sources on the topic suggest the opposite. ] (]) 19:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:{{++}} ■&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;⇔&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;''';''' 19:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:] said about the ] and ] that:
	*::Findings reveal that pregnancy loss coverage reproduces essential and racialized notions of women as domestic, submissive, pious, and pure; reinforces problematic postfeminist rhetoric; and sensationalizes women’s grief in the service of profits. The main contribution of this study is the finding that journalists are perpetuating heteropatriarchal and post-racial ideology in service of the narrative of U.S. exceptionalism by framing miscarriage as an exclusively devastating experience.
	*:Now maybe it's possible that the NYT and WaPo are both racist and heteropatriarchal organizations that shouldn't be trusted on women's issues, or Feminist Media Studies is a rather biased journal. ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 19:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::Much as I don't want to encourage editors to free-base source criticism as a general rule, O will point out that the exclusion of trans voices is rather better-demonstrated in the article I linked than racist heteropatriarchy is supported in the article you linked. I don't believe anyone ought to be using one article's publication to discredit the other. ] (]) 20:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::{{re|Newimpartial}} If you don't believe in using one article's publication to discredit the other, what are we doing at RSN? This entire board is centered around analyzing reliable sources, but let's grab a pull quote from the very article you posted:
	*:::{{bq| this paper fills a gap in research on the “quality” newspapers, which are uniquely situated to manufacture the consent necessary for white supremacist capitalist patriarchy because their perception as the gatekeepers of “good” journalism and reliable news means that they are able to authorise certain worldviews and illegitimate others.}}
	*:::Does using the term "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" sound a little biased or ] to you? By that article, we may need to designate ] as being on the same level as ] given that both wish to uphold ] according to the source you've provided. Or maybe it's possible that ] exaggerates how extremist publications really are given that they just accused ] of supporting white supremacy. ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 21:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::Is it common practice at RSN to take one article a peer-reviewed journal has published and use that as an argument to deprecate all other articles pubished by that journal? Because that's what I meant by {{tq|using one article's publication to discredit the other}}.
	*::::And to answer your other question: using the phrase "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" does not work for me as a "gotcha" that discredits arguments made in that same article that do not depend on the existence of white supremacy or patriarchy. But clearly YMMV. ] (]) 21:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:*While I highly respect feminist media studies scholarship, and don't disagree with that paper's perspective (I'll note I'm trans myself, and very familiar with these arguments in general, though not with specific arguments about ''The Telegraph''), the paper states that it bases its analysis on {{tq| feminist critical discourse analysis}}. That's a branch of critical theory and critical literature studies, which I must point out {{strikethrough|is}} are rather {{strikethrough|fringe within}} radical segments of academia.
	::Part of my degree was in critical theory; all I can say is that it doesn't strive to be objective or "reasonable". I'm emphatically not ''criticizing it'': it's radical, as it very well should be, as its entire goal is to operate outside of societal narratives and cultural assumptions so it can effectively question them and bring new insights. But while it very much is credible, thoughtful scholarship, it would be a category error to see critical studies, as some kind of unbiased, neutral analysis, the same way that, say, scholarship about trans healthcare ''is'' neutral and unbiased. Critical studies fields are unabashedly radical, much to their credit, but we should be very mindful of how to use or interpret them.
	::To give a slightly off-topic but highly revealing example, several of my uni friends have degrees in both accounting and critical accounting studies (a fascinating field for which we lack a Misplaced Pages article); in the latter, they learned all the ways in which accounting is complete bullshit, relies on arbitrary delineations, and is largely corporate fiction. They went on to become accountants, and while their ''critical accounting theory'' (CAT) background gave them a sophisticated understanding of the assumptions underlying accounting, they still disagree with many CAT arguments, and practice accounting in a conventional, "orthodox" way. Critical studies are meant to provide "food for thought" and make us beetter people, but all my critical theory teachers kept reminding us that their field wasn't the end-all-be-all.
	::For those whose curiosity I piqued, there's a really good book illustrating the sometimes dead-end nature of critical theory arguments, whose name I forgot; I'll try to find it. ] (]) 20:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::All I will say at present is that I dispute that feminist critical discourse analysis is {{tq|fringe within academia}}, and point out that critical discourse analysts are far from being the only critics of coverage of trans issues by ''The Times, The Telegraph'' and ''The Economist''. ] (]) 20:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::{{yo|Newimpartial}} Much per {{U|DFlhb}}, I'm frankly unconvinced that a journal on {{tq|feminist critical discourse analysis}} is the be-all-end-all in terms of evaluating source reliability. And, even so, the quoted bit that you're taking is a critique related to the omission of transgender voices. While that might play a role in ], that is nowhere near the same thing as saying that the news organization is not reliable for the facts that it reports. Are you saying that the news organization actually makes factually incorrect reports here more frequently than we expect of a typical NEWSORG, or does it simply not incorporate transgender voices in its reporting as much as the author of the '']'' piece would like? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 20:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::Please see my reply ; I don't have time to provide additional sourcing today. ] (]) 20:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::To add to the concern about using that journal, even if we take the journal itself at its word, we should be including the Guardian among the sources of concern since they are stated to be heavily pro-trans-rights in contrast to the Telegraph or Times. Which would not be reasonable. I think editors should be aware there are biases here, but by no means these should move these papers out of being reliable sources. ] (]) 20:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::: That isn't what the article says about ''The Guardian'', Masem. ] (]) 21:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 2''' per Newimpartial. ''']'''<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> 19:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	**Comment: Unlike the Times of London and the Economist which might have a little bit of a lean or a POV but are reliable, there is copious ] of the Daily Telgraph that it is owned/influenced by political parties and advertisers to the extent that I feel option 2 is merited. It has promulgated Covid misinformation. ''']'''<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> 23:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 3''' per Newimpartial, since we're talking about their transgender coverage specifically, and their transgender coverage is where we have evidence of dubiousness. Option 2 for the Telegraph taken as a whole, with the additional consideration being that they are unreliable on trans issues. ] (]) 21:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:A few sources I have found on the general issue with transphobia in the British press (not necessarily the Telegraph specifically):
	*:* CNN:
	*:* Paul Baker, a professor of linguistics: (NB: I'd like to find a peer reviewed version of either this or the original study but for now this is what I could find)
	*:* Xtra:
	*:* Them: (subtitle calls Britain's press "virulently transphobic")
	*:* PinkNews:
	*:* Gay Times:
	*:* USAToday:
	*:* Vice:
	*:* Insider:
	*:] (]) 21:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::I checked , , , are general critiques that doesn't mention The Telegraph, could you elaborate? General critiques of the media doesn't seem to be evidence in downgrading The Telegraph specifically. Moreover, is a marginally reliable source. '''] '''] 21:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::The Telegraph is definitely part of the UK mainstream press which all these articles criticize. Also, picking out one of a list of nine sources as marginally reliable I don't think is a reasonable tactic. ] (]) 23:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::{{tq|The Telegraph is definitely part of the UK mainstream press which all these articles criticize.}} That you are inferring and drawing a conclusion not directly implied by the sources seem inaccurate to me. And by the way Vice is also marginally reliable. '''] '''] 23:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::Additionally, is a community piece, not a piece published by the staff or editorial members. Worth pointing it out IMO. '''] '''] 23:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' - I see nothing wrong with the Telegraph's coverage of transgender issues. Have they made any factual errors? I haven't seen any. ] (]) 21:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Option 2''' The Telegraph is occasionally factually incorrect about transgender issues, and always has a transphobic bias even in otherwise correct reporting.
	: From news sources
	:: They made false claims that Mermaids was under investigation by the charity commision.()
	:: Their coverage of transgender people is overwhelmingly negative (, , , )
	:: <s>They have used the slur "tranny" in a headline ()</s> (Removed because it is from Sydney not UK telegraph)
	:: Their headlines are often discriminatory transphobic clickbait (, )
	:: They frequently phrase things in terms of the "transgender debate" (see also, the ], the ], etc, when a demographic is a "debate" or a "question" things aren't going well) ()
	:: Their reporting on the NHS and trans rights was described by IPSO, their regulator, as innacurate and they were reprimanded for it. ()
	: From scholarly sources
	:: : {{tq|Applying a feminist critical discourse approach (Michelle M. Lazar 2005), I expose how hegemonic femininity is reproduced by broadsheets with an allegiance to the right-wing British Conservative (Tory) government—The Times and The Telegraph—to “other” trans identities and, therefore, justify discourses of anti-trans discrimination. }} (Thanks to {{noping|Newimpartial}} for bringing it up)
	:: : {{tq|Second up? This would be the story that the Cass Review – an inquiry into trans healthcare – has re-issued and doubled down on a recommendation it made a few months back, that the NHS wind up the Tavistock Clinic, at present the only facility in the UK providing support and healthcare for trans youth. Awful news for the trans community, you’d think, and the usual suspects were there to gloat. The Daily Telegraph unleashed at least four articles on the topic in two days. The Times went sensational, with a piece headlined “Tavistock gender clinic forced to shut over safety fears”. The all too predictable narrative: treatment of trans kids is speculative and wrong. And it is now being closed down for good. The problem is that this narrative was almost entirely false... The closure was broadly welcomed in the trans community, not least because the youth service is to continue, in the form of de-centralised local services. The exact solution that trans folk have been asking for since pretty much forever. About the only news outlet to report the story accurately was Pink News, under the heading “NHS Tavistock youth gender clinic to be replaced under sweeping trans healthcare reforms”. ...Bailey herself tweeted, saying: “I have lost my case against Stonewall.” Much rejoicing in the trans community. Which is why the mainstream media reported it as, er, a defeat for Stonewall! No, honestly. Fringe commentator Unherd reported “How Allison Bailey crushed Stonewall”. An interesting verdict, given that Stonewall was so comprehensively exonerated. The Telegraph went with “Barrister wins discrimination case against Stonewall”. Well, that was their first attempt, though after the inevitable complaints, they amended it to “Allison Bailey was unlawfully victimised for opposing Stonewall’s ‘trans extremism’, tribunal rules”, although the URL for the piece still reflects the initial headline.}}
	:: : {{tq|In the UK, ‘gender critical’ opinion pieces are regularly published in both left- and right-leaning outlets including The Observer, The Guardian, the Daily Telegraph and The Mail on Sunday. A Google search for articles on ‘transgender’ published in The Times in 2018 alone yields approximately 230 results, with headlines such as ‘Girl Guide leaders expelled for questioning trans policy’ and ‘Picking and choosing gender is demonic, writes churchman’. Multiple ‘gender critical’ events have also taken place in the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, hosted variously by Conservative, Labour and Scottish National Party politicians.}}
	:: : {{tq|During my first month of fieldwork, a public debate took place across numerous media platforms over the value and limits of free speech with respect to commentary on trans issues. A particularly inflammatory column by journalist Julie Burchill was published in the Observer, entitled ‘Transsexuals should cut it out’. The Observer’s editor rapidly pulled the piece and issued an apology following a wave of complaints from readers; the article was subsequently re-published in the Telegraph. I wrote: I find it utterly impossible to maintain any kind of objective distance from all this. The Telegraph’s actions genuinely hurt at a gut level. Part of this came from anger at the idea that they consider it so important to ensure that Burchill’s diatribe retains a high-profile media platform, but part of it also came from fear upon seeing the Telegraph’s reader comments. The comments were full of such powerful hatred. They would deny us our civil rights, our dignity, our access to medical care. (Fieldwork diary, 15 January 2013)}} (Auto-ethnographical perspective from a trans researcher)] (]) 22:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist
	::Some of your evidence are solid, others less so. it's worth noting that per ] headlines are automatically unreliable, so it's not relevant here. source you linked outlines that it's {{tq|right-leaning}}, reflective of ], and critiques some headlines, but this doesn't seem to be criticising it as unreliable. Moreover, one of the sources linked, Left Voice, {{tq|is a revolutionary socialist news site and magazine dedicated to fostering a sustained and strategic struggle against every form of capitalist exploitation and oppression.}} I'm unsure that a revolutionary site would also have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to be considered as ]. '''] '''] 22:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::When I checked the Reliable Sources Archives I couldn't find any discussions surrounding Leftvoice and whether they're reliable or not. I was unsure if it was considered acceptable or not but opted with innocent until proven guilty. However, I don't see how {{tq|a revolutionary socialist news site and magazine dedicated to fostering a sustained and strategic struggle against every form of capitalist exploitation and oppression}} directly implies it's unreliable. ] also covers that. If anything, revolutionary news sites have more of an incentive to accurately cover things than media controlled by the rich and powerful. Trotskyism aside, I've seen a lot of good factual reporting from them.
	:::In terms of ], the articles I cited also touch on how they use transphobic language throughout the article rather than just the headline, which I should have made more clear. Also, while headlines are generally unreliable, the fact that they use transphobic clickbait titles specifically points to an underlying issue of bias in the source in the topic area.
	:::For the source describing them as "right-leaning", the article discusses gender-critical bias in the media in depth and the bias and unreliablility of those positions, noting the telegraph as an example of a news publication that platforms them.
	:::Overall, I find the telegraph incredibly biased but not overtly wrong most of time. However, when it comes to transgender topics, we should note they have a history of transphobic bias and occasional inaccurate reporting on transgender topics. ] (]) 23:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::{{tq|When I checked the Reliable Sources Archives I couldn't find any discussions surrounding Leftvoice and whether they're reliable or not. I was unsure if it was considered acceptable or not but opted with innocent until proven guilty.}} There is no guideline whatsoever stating that undiscussed sources should be assumed to reliable. If so, should we assume an undiscussed blog to be innocent? {{tq|Trotskyism aside, I've seen a lot of good factual reporting from them}}- I don't think your personal liking of that source would result it to be reliable. Either show {{tq|a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} through editorial policies, or alternatively that the authors are subject-matter-experts, ] could be fine. Moreover, {{tq|For the source describing them as "right-leaning", the article discusses gender-critical bias in the media in depth and the bias and unreliablility of those positions, noting the telegraph as an example of a news publication that platforms them}}- this source you linked discusses {{tq|‘Gender critical’ accounts}} but I don't think generalising criticism on other areas to support this reference's occasional accuracy is the most convicing. '''] '''] 23:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::{{re|TheTranarchist}} As a note, this RfC is about the ], not the ]. The coverage about the is very clearly about the Australian tabloid. Please strike that line from your comment. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 22:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::{{ping|Red-tailed hawk}} A good catch. That refers to ], a low-quality tabloid. IMO the headline examples and the examples about the tabloid are irrelevant. Thanks. '''] '''] 22:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::I'll break down every news and scholarly source you give, and address the claims of factual unreliability:
	::*
	:::*Telegraph's claim that Mermaids was being investigated: that's not false. The headline calls it an "investigation", while the body of the article makes it clear that it's a "regulatory compliance case". PinkNews disputes that it's "a formal investigation". That's not a debunking, it's a semantic argument. The Telegraph's reporting was factual here.
	:::*The Telegraph's other claims (lack of parental consent, a Mermaids trustee speaking to a pedophile support group and then resigning) aren't disputed, and seem accurate.
	::*
	:::*This talks about "transphobic editorials" at the Telegraph. Nothing to do with their news reporting's factual accuracy.
	::*
	:::*This talks about "transphobic dog whistles" used by the Telegraph, and links to an opinion piece. Again, nothing whatsoever to do with factual reporting.
	::*
	:::*This piece condemns The Telegraph for op-eds, and for reporting on a politician's anti-trans comment. I'm unimpressed.
	::* and
	:::*Criticism of the headline isn't relevant, per ]. This RFC is solely focused on the factual reliability of article contents.
	::*
	:::*GayTimes criticizes one Telegraph op-ed; and one news article. The news article covers research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, commissioned to London's City University. The Telegraph ''attributes'' "fears" over "freedom of expression" to a few academics who describe being harassed; they don't make claims in their own voice, and I find no factual inaccuracies in the Telegraph piece.
	:::*Re: "the transgender debate" being equivalent to "the Jewish question": that's a highly offensive comparison. The Jewish question refers to Jews' right to exist. "Trans debate" was only used by Telegraph in the headline, so is irrelevant for our purposes. I'll note that "trans debate" usually refers to: 'what society should do when it comes to trans issues'. Calling it a debate is factual, and many people (including trans people & academics) disagree on how society should best accomodate trans people. That's not to say there aren't bigots, but to imply it's a genocidal dog whistle on par with 'the Jewish question' is utter bunk and worthy of condemnation.
	::*The IPSO report:
	:::*Now, we get to the meat of the matter. The Telegraph issued two news stories in print, which were combined into one article online. They were reported to the media watchdog by a trans advocacy group, for a factual inaccuracy about a legal matter (which was incidental to the story). They issued a correction.
	:::*IPSO found that the correction was made "promptly and with due prominence", and were satisfied by the Telegraph's response. Though IPSO sided with the advocacy group on one inaccuracy, they disputed the group's numerous other claims of inaccuracy in the article.
	::Now to the research:
	::* Montiel McCann 2022: I've already responded to Newimpartial above; I'll also note that as Red hawk says, it doesn't allege factual inaccuracies, just a "lack of trans voices" in media.
	::* Fae 2022: though it was published in a journal, that's an opinion piece, not a study.
	::* Pearce, Erikainen, & Vincent 2020: that criticizes opinion pieces in a single passing comment; not pertinent
	::* Pearce 2020: that's again about an opinion article.
	::So, while I'm grateful you provide many links, "there's no ''there'' there". ] (]) 23:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::The "transgender debate" is absolutely a dog whistle and it's an apt comparison. Quoting from the article on the ]: {{tq|The Jewish question, also referred to as the Jewish problem, was a wide-ranging '''debate''' in 19th- and 20th-century European society that pertained to the appropriate status and treatment of Jews. The debate, which was similar to other "national questions", dealt with the civil, legal, national, and political status of Jews as a minority within society, particularly in Europe during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.}} In regards to {{tq|calling it a debate is factual}}, that doesn't mean the fact there's a "debate" isn't an issue.
	:::In regards to {{tq|I'll note that "trans debate" usually refers to: 'what society should do when it comes to trans issues'.}}, one could say {{tq| the "jewish question" usually refers to: 'what society should do when it comes to jewish issues'}}. The key issues in the "trans debate" are usually things like: should the government legally recognize the existence of transgender people, enforce non-discrimination protections (especially in public spaces), or let them live in society with the full rights of other citizens.
	:::The use of "jewish question" in historical sources does not imply a source is calling for outright extermination any more than the "transgender debate" does. The issue is the larger cultural framing where the existence and rights of a demographic are posed as a debate or question that needs to be discussed.
	:::Sidenote, I have friends who are trans and jewish who have brought up the connection between the framings. Also seen trans and jewish accounts I follow make the comparison. Or is it still {{tq|utter bunk and worthy of condemnation}} when they say it? ] (]) 00:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::{{tq|I have friends who are trans and jewish}} I am both, and yes, it's condemnable. I'll stay high-level because this has nothing to do with the RFC, but: debates on the ''legal status'' of Jews, or trans people, involve discrimination. You said ''The Telegraph'' {{tq|frequently phrase things in terms of the "transgender debate"}}, and claim that's equivalent to the "Jewish question" (i.e. right to exist). The Telegraph was using "debate" (only in its headline, not in the article) to refer to the entire nationwide conversation between TERFS, trans people, and everyone in between; not to refer to a debate about trans people's legal status or right to exist, and not to refer specifically to TERFS. You were putting one of the UK's two newspaper of record on the same level as stuff like ''Der Stürmer''. I realize hyperbole is hugely present online, and that many of your friends may think like this, but I humbly suggest you take a step back from it and see if you really find it rational. ] (]) 00:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Option 1''' and a trout to the person who started this nonsense.] (]) 22:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1'''. I agree with the comment above. No evidence has been given to substantiate these RfCs. ] (]) (]) 23:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''', per my extensive (and time-consuming) analysis of the arguments provided for unreliability, which people can see above by searching my name. I do think ] applies here. ] (]) 23:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:How can SNOWBALL apply when the !votes are divided? Asking for a friend. :) ] (]) 00:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
			What do we think about being used for ]'s month of birth? Courtesy ping to {{yo|Diademchild}}.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	==RfC: The Times of London==
	<!-- ] 14:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1671199288}}
	{{rfc|prop|rfcid=3D07757}}
	What best describes '']''<nowiki/>' news coverage of transgender topics?
	* '''Option 1:''' Generally ] for factual reporting
	* '''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply
	* '''Option 3:''' Generally ] for factual reporting
	* '''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ]
	]] 13:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			:Based on ], not necessarily crap. ] (]) 21:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Context: The Times of London===
			:Remember that ] says full names or birth dates should be widely published by reliable sources and that the standard for inclusion isn't just verification. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	Note that recent discussions in article Talk where questions have been raised about the coverage in question include several discussions visible at ], as well as on transgender medicine. ] (]) 19:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			::Well, the article doesn't actually have a full DOB. Policy suggests "err on the side of caution and simply list the year". ] (]) 09:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::This section is about using this source to support the month. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Is this citation/reference using Answers in Genesis reliable for ] ==
	===Discussion: The Times of London===
	*'''Option 1'''. This is a standard ] ] based in the United Kingdom. It seems to be generally reliable for factual reporting of news, even in politically fraught areas. That being said, no ] is ], so it cannot be used to support claims relating to human ], much in the same way that we should not use the ''New York Times'' and ''The Wall Street Journal'' for claims relating to human biomedical information.— <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 14:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*As I said on the other two RFCs, this seems to be trying to get a simple answer to a complex question. Reliability on a single issue (such as transgender) is not necessarily determined at editorial level, and could be down to the columnist. Transgender issues vary over social, legal and medical matters. We already have ] which does not regard the popular press as reliable sources for biomedical information, so to the extent that a transgender issue is biomedical, it shouldn't be used. The Sunday Times has a different editor. The Times published which is strongly anti-trans but not as rabid as The Telegraph, such as their agreement that the fuss afforded to this issue is out of place in a world where we are at war and have an economic crisis, and they put the word "woke" in scare quotes. The Times recently published which was pro-trans rights. I'm not clear that this paper is unreliable but its editorial bias is clear and should be bourn in mind when determining the weight and balance in our articles. -- ]°] 14:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::A reminder that Editorials and op-Ed columns are ''opinion'' pieces, and are held to a different standard of reliability than strait news reporting. ''Opinion'' pieces are ''expected'' to be biased on the issues they opine about, so we use in-line attribution to indicate that they ARE just opinion. ] (]) 15:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::In general, we shouldn't be using pieces written by opinion columnists for claims of fact except for claims about the opinions of the columnist. Are you suggesting that we should be using editorial commentary from ''The Times'' in articles? In any case, what's that got to do with the reliability of its news reporting? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 16:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::I am aware of this. I cited the editorial to explain their editorial stance. -- ]°] 18:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::And…? How does their editorial stance impact the factual accuracy of their basic news reporting? ] (]) 20:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::This question is (partially) answered in my !vote below. I will add additional independent sources about the coverage in question when I am somewhat less pressed for time. ] (]) 20:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	Bias is not an issue. ] (]) 15:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1'''. One of the most reliable newspapers in the world. This has been a ] for two centuries and arguments that we should be counting the number of pro-trans/anti-trans editorials published by The Times don't carry water. The fact ] put the word "woke" in scare quotes is not enough to designate them as unreliable. ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 18:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' and suggest SNOW closing this. If there is any question of an RS with unreliable coverage in one area, that needs to be first discussed and unresolved on talk pages before opening such discussions. --] (]) 18:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:{{tq|If there is any question of an RS with unreliable coverage in one area, that needs to be first discussed and unresolved on talk pages before opening such discussions.}} Trust me, this ''has been discussed''. ■&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;⇔&nbsp;∃&nbsp;]&nbsp;''';''' 18:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Option 2''' - the biases of this broadsheet in its coverage of transgender rights issues have been repeatedly noted in scholarly and other high-quality sources, which is pretty much the definition of {{tq|additional considerations apply}}. For example, concludes as follows:
	{{talk quote|The fact is that the trans community is so rarely given a platform in any form of mainstream media, that the “debate” surrounding their rights rarely includes trans people at all—as evidenced by the exclusion of trans voices in the articles from ''The Times'' and ''The Telegraph''. Hence, trans people are dehumanised and denaturalised as their identity is debated and used for political fodder.}}
	* I wouldn't mind if this filing were closed as premature, however, since the editor filing has not linked to any of the previously presented evidence or prior discussions on the topic, and this seems to be a "gotcha" filing intended to precipitate !votes from editors who haven't seen any of the relevant commentary and who would precipitate an ill-informed SNOW close that could then be used as a cudgel to insist that the coverage of trans issues by ''The Times'' is unproblematic, when high-quality sources on the topic suggest the opposite. ] (]) 19:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' standard, reliable. ''']'''<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> 19:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' per the convincing analysis by {{u|Red-tailed hawk}} and {{u|Chess}}. This is an established newspaper of record, {{u|Newimpartial}}, I sincerely appreciate your willingness in settling this matter succinctly. Nevertheless, I would be interested if you could provide ''multiple'' scholarly sources instead of just one. I acknowledge that on transgender issues it has significant ] concerns per {{u|Colin}}, and while centre-right it is a ] source. Further, it is definitely undesirable for medical claims per ], but I do not see a serious claim that would push this to additional considerations apply. '''] '''] 20:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:When I have time, I will add sources.I regard this filing as an ambush, frankly, and have not brought the multiple sources I have read on this matter into an organized presentation suitable to post here - I am not confident that I will have time to do so before Sunday.
	*:The nature of the problem is that ''The Times'' and ''The Telegraph'' pursue their "gender critical" editorial objectives through supposedly "investigative" reporting, and compete with each other in offering this flavour of "red meat" to their readers. In site of this, editors such as gnu57 insist that reportage in ''The Times'' and ''The Telegraph'' is sufficient in and of itself to make an "investigation" ] for inclusion in[REDACTED] article text, no matter how misleading the information presented in the broadsheets may be and even if the supposed "issues" are not picked up outside of the echo chamber of discourse against transgender rights.
	*:To me this is a ''prima facie'' case where {{tq|additional considerations apply}}, and as previously stated I see the nature of the initial, decontextualized filing as an attempt by gnu57 to socially engineer a finding that, essentially, other considerations do not apply when they quite obviously do. ] (]) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::{{tq|The nature of the problem is that The Times and The Telegraph pursue their "gender critical" editorial objectives through supposedly "investigative" reporting, and compete with each other in offering this flavour of "red meat" to their readers. In site of this, editors such as gnu57 insist that reportage in The Times and The Telegraph is sufficient in and of itself to make an "investigation" WP:DUE for inclusion in[REDACTED] article text, no matter how misleading the information presented in the broadsheets may be and even if the supposed "issues" are not picked up outside of the echo chamber of discourse against transgender rights.}} If you could provide information from ] stating this, I'd be more than willing to have a look. Like I said, I acknowledge ] concerns, I'm not stating this source is better thnan ]. But this is a forum to discuss source reliability, not to criticise one editor's conduct. There are other venues more fitted for that. Until then, I'm thoroughly unconvinced, you could state that I'm biased... but I won't change my vote until you provide further evidence. Many thanks! '''] '''] 20:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::Which I do not have time to do until Sunday. ] (]) 20:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::If so, wait to comment until Sunday then, instead of vaguely complaining about others. Many thanks! '''] '''] 20:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::If my comments about gnu57's conduct in the objectives, absence of context and timing of these filings were vague, I apologize. I certainly did not mean for them to be. ] (]) 20:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::::No, I did not mean for this. You stated that {{tq|and as previously stated I see the nature of the initial, decontextualized filing as an attempt by gnu57 to socially engineer a finding that, essentially, other considerations do not apply when they quite obviously do.}} If you believe the OP statement fails the {{tq|brief and neutral}} requirement, you can post at ], which is the venue for poorly-constructed RfCs and for challenging RfC closes. If you would like to comment on another contributor's objectives or motives, discuss on their UTP or somewhere else. ] states the two points:
	*::::::{{tq|Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith of other editors' actions.}}
	*::::::{{tq|If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. A tag generally remains on the page until removed by Legobot or the originator. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met.}}
	*::::::I'm interested, are you stating that their RfC wording is inappropriate (which seems fine to me), or are you questioning their objectives and motives? If the latter is applicable, ] is not the venue, UTP, ANI, and other places are better suited for those complaints, but this is the venue to discuss reliability. Again, many thanks for your participation! '''] '''] 21:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::::In many cases, such as gnu57's previous filing concening LBC above, the filer links to discussions that prompted the filing at this venue. I am assering that this would have been appropriate in this case, and that the discussion was distorted in the first instance by the filer's decision no do so. Many of those !voting appear to have read neither the article Talk discussions on these sources' reliability in specific contexts, nor the independent secondary and academic commentary on this coverage, nor even the coverage itself. ] (]) 21:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::::::{{re|Newimpartial}} You can't just make vague references to article talk pages that supposedly have discussions on these sources and expect us to read them. That doesn't count as evidence. You're expected to post this "independent seccondary and academic commebtary (sic)" yourself to convince others. Not just handwave it that it exists, but you're unable to show it to us. ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 21:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::::::When. I. Have. Time. ] (]) 21:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC) <small>Typo fixed, btw. ] (]) 00:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
	*:::The frank problem here is that much of the British media has serious problems with transgender coverage. The two examples I'm familiar with off the top of my head are:
	*:::* The BBC's ] controversy, where the BBC published an article which interviewed several anti-trans sources without identifying them as anti-trans and without publishing any interviews from trans rights activists despite provably conducting them, where one of those sources about alleged sexual misconduct by trans women had been credibly accused of sexual misconduct herself, and where the only data in the article was a convenience sample survey produced and distributed by anti-trans groups. This rightly was extremely controversial, and the article has been amended several times, including by fiat from the regulatory body above the BBC.
	*:::* The Guardian, who are actually better than average here, got some on this issue.
	*:::(There is of course peer-reviewed data on the situation as well, but I don't have it on hand easily.) The problem here is that this general situation is hard to explain concisely, and further it's hard to connect this general situation to particular newsorgs. ] (]) 21:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::{{re|Newimpartial}} ] aren't an argument, and it's hard to rely on your assurances that you have "multiple sources" that you've read on the matter that you won't post here. ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 21:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::Many of those talk discussions on specific contexts raise concerns about ], not reliability. It is not mandatory for editors to read all of the discussions, you might be a ] who is extremely knowledgable with this topic, but that doesn't mean that other editors who haven't participated or read as many discussions as you have incorrect, invalid, or biased opinions. '''] '''] 21:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::Editors !voting on this discussion based on a general impression of the London broadsheets, and not having examined any of the reception/commentary on the coverage in question, are contributing little of note to this evaluation, I feel. ] (]) 21:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::{{tq|Editors !voting on this discussion based on a general impression of the London broadsheets, and not having examined any of the reception/commentary on the coverage in question, are contributing little of note to this evaluation, I feel.}} Like I said, if you should wait to comment until Sunday your claims would be much more convincing. otherwise, I don't believe others and I are {{tq|contributing little of note to this evaluation}}, but I could see your viewpoint somewhat. Many thanks! '''] '''] 21:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::::If I had waited until Sunday, this could been SNOW closed as "Option 1" (which might have been the point). ] (]) 21:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::I will post them on Sunday. I'm not responsible for the timing of this filing nor for the inclination from certain editors to issue a quick rubber stamp on a complex issue. ] (]) 21:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Reserving comment''' until stronger evidence of bias can be provided. I'm more familiar with the Telegraph than the Times, and so while I find the general claim plausible (as many British newspapers have problems with trans issues), I don't want to vote without evidence either way. ] (]) 21:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:Same; I'll wait until the option 2/3 side has had enough time to present sources. ] (]) 21:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:A few sources I have found on the general issue (not necessarily the Times specifically, although some of them are):
	*:* CNN:
	*:* Paul Baker, a professor of linguistics: (NB: I'd like to find a peer reviewed version of either this or the original study but for now this is what I could find)
	*:* Xtra:
	*:* Them: (subtitle calls Britain's press "virulently transphobic")
	*:* PinkNews:
	*:* Gay Times:
	*:* USAToday:
	*:* Vice:
	*:* Insider:
	*:] (]) 21:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::{{re|LokiTheLiar}} Could you highlight the ones that describe ] specifically as transphobic? This isn't an RfC on the entirety of the British media establishment; it's an RfC on The Times. ] (]) <small>(please use&#32;{{tlx|reply to|Chess}} on reply)</small><!--Template:Please ping--> 21:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::{{ping|LokiTheLiar}} {{ping|Chess}} One of the pieces critiqued by CNN is . But it's worth noting that it is a {{tq|weekend essay}}, an essay or editorial should be regarded as ]. I though this RfC is about its news coverage, not opinion/essay/commentary/editorial ones. '''] '''] 21:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::For what it's worth, the CNN piece is labeled as "analysis", which is to say that it's a ] itself. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 22:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::No, it's not. Or rather, it's reported by a CNN journalist and hews to the same editorial standards as . "Analysis" in this case does not mean "opinion" in the sense of persuasive writing, but rather that the journalist is not just reporting facts but attempting to interpret those facts. That's worth knowing but it doesn't make it at all an unreliable source: Vox does basically only analysis and they're green at ]. ] (]) 23:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::These articles are either a mix of opinion and anlysis, low-quality, or "X accuses Y of Z". This is certainly not enough to criticise a newspaper of record. ] (]) 22:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::I'm genuinely not trying to be mean about this but I need to ask: as this is your literal very first edit, could you please explain how you found yourself on a somewhat obscure policy page without ever having edited Misplaced Pages before? ] (]) 23:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::IP addresses change and there are plenty of long-term IP editors around. Why would this be my first edit? Was initiating a dispute resolution at DRN really your ? ] (]) 00:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1''' - and Im getting a bit concerned at the removal of sources for wrongspeak. Like it or not, this is a mainstream paper with mainstream views. Those views might not be the same as what one might wish they were, but as ever our goal here is to reflect the sources, not correct them. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
	*:Do you see any comments here advocating {{tq|he removal of sources for wrongspeak}}? I'm not seeing any. ] (]) 23:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:What's your response to the sources above about the bias of the British media in general on this issue? They demonstrably do not have mainstream views from an international perspective, as several other international newsorgs have reported on the fact that the UK media has a clear bias in this area. ] (]) 23:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::How could ] sources automatically be regarded as unreliable based on dubious "evidence"? {{tq|They demonstrably do not have mainstream views from an international perspective}}- sources that support this? '''] '''] 23:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::See above. Vice, CNN, and USAToday have all reported on the problems with the British media in general on trans issues.
	*:::Would people prefer if I launched a separate RFC on the British media in general? I notice people seem reluctant to draw conclusions about specific newsorgs from evidence about the British media in general, and I understand that reluctance. But I also really can't drop this point, because obviously if the mainstream media of a country is verifiably biased on an issue according to international media organizations, it's a big problem for our coverage of that issue. ] (]) 00:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::It's actually not USA Today- it is US News. You ought to get this fact right here. {{tq|See above. Vice, CNN, and USAToday have all reported on the problems with the British media in general on trans issues}}- simply asserting that Vice should be presumed as ] per your POV seems to be a stretch. '''] '''] 00:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:::::You are very much right about U.S. News vs. USA Today. My fault, while I was gathering sources I misread that.
	*:::::I also agree that Vice is yellow on ] and was not claiming otherwise.
	*:::::Now that those issues are out of the way, what is your opinion on the (green at RSP) U.S. News source and the (also green at RSP) CNN source? ] (]) 00:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::::The CNN source quotes media issues from several interviewees. One of its examples describe that {{tq|When it comes to trans rights “polling shows that the public isn’t necessarily as hostile as the media, but the media to lead the conversation,” Shon Faye, trans advocate and author of “The Transgender Issue,” told CNN. According to her analysis, in 2020 the Times and the Sunday Times published “over 300 articles, almost one a day, and they were all negative.” CNN has reached out to both newspapers for comment.}} This could be convincing to show ] but does not depict unreliability. Moreover, {{tq|Better political leadership is needed to counter the media narrative that trans people, particularly trans women, are taking resources away from cisgender women, Faye said}}- I don't see how ] could automatically fit into this "media narrative", there are a wide range of media in Britain, it didn't really explicitly call out the "mainstream quality-press", and might also refer to tabloids and mid-market papers. Moreover, it quotes article from The Times, but it is noteworthy that it is a weekend essay piece, which is commentary and falls under ]. Similarly, {{tq| They do not represent or reflect the views of U.K.-based feminists as a whole, and most U.K. based feminists reject their ideas and arguments, and consider them outdated or harmful. This does not mean they have no influence or impact, however. The trouble is that even though they are a minority, they are a vocal one, and they often have their views platformed by the media, including mainstream media.}} Stating that it is the view of others does not mean that US News is condemning ] for unreliability. Many thanks! '''] '''] 00:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
	*::::Vice just repeats the claims of the interviewees with attribution, which is not the same as Vice saying that there are issues. US News does not say what you claims it says about UK news, but has an interviewee say it. Same issue as with the Vice article. ] (]) 00:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1'''. I don't see the reason for these three RfCs. The proponent should have made the effort to provide clear examples of fabrication or inaccuracy - linking to talk page discussions with long walls of text is not helpful. ] (]) (]) 23:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*:The person who started these RFCs launched them, IMO, prematurely, because they are, IMO, attempting to trade on the strong reputation of the names of these newsorgs in general to have them all declared reliable before evidence to the contrary on this subtopic can be presented. ] (]) 23:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	*'''Option 1/2:''' Reliable sources may be biased. Also it seems in a previous discussion, a correction in an article was presented as evidence of unreliability, but the timely publication of a correction is precisely the opposite: evidence of reliability. ] (]) 23:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
			edit summary by IP ")apart from the cited website, the edit has nothing to deal with YEC. It simply attests, citing the Bible with a secondary source, that some verses of the Pentateuch mention Moses as its author "
	== Is Pantheon.world an rs? ==
			Oddly the text it presumably means to back it is all in the citation. ] ] 15:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Absolutely not a reliable source. In fact I'm somewhat surprised that Answers in Genesis isn't deprecated as a disinformation and pseudoscience source. ] (]) 15:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	Eg '''Sphinx water erosion hypothesis]] for this.. See and .</nowiki> ] ] 16:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:As it seems to use Misplaced Pages as a source no. ] (]) 16:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)		:Surely there are better sources for such a claim? ] (]) 15:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Taken from their "about" page -- {{tq|Pantheon is project that uses biographical data to expose patterns of human collective memory. Pantheon contains data on more than 70k biographies, which Pantheon distributes through a powerful data visualization engine centered on locations, occupations, and biographies. Pantheon’s biographical data contains information on the age, occupation, place of birth, and place of death, of historical characters with a presence in more than 15 language editions of Misplaced Pages.}} So, as Slatersteven says, I think that's a solid no. Cheers. ] (]) 16:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
	:It's just a simple scraper of Misplaced Pages/Wikidata, as noted. Similar to ], and not a RS in any way. ''] ]'' 21:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 15:55, 24 January 2025

Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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, 9
10, 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, 464, 465

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• 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.

Start a new discussion

---

RfC: NewsNation

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

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 .

Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. - Amigao (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. Frankserafini87 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 for non-UFO coverage, Option 3 for UFO coverage. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:34, 21 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)

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)

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

References

1. 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)

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)

"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)

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)

Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. Javext (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal so we can finish with and archive this, can we use those sources in anything other than the battle section? like the other sections that I've mentioned being deleted here #c-Abo_Yemen-20250108072200-GordonGlottal-20250107223800 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu

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

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)

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)

The vast majority of editors adding Geni as a citation for the primary sources it hosts are using those sources in exactly the way that is prohibited (i.e. they are using it as the sole supporting source for a statement rather than as background support for secondary sources). Even that's rare, as way way more people are citing it for its user-generated (often Misplaced Pages-based) "profiles" rather than whatever historical records are uploaded there. JoelleJay (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Deprecate. Really bad. Needs to go away.—Alalch E. 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Invalid RFC/No change - giving only options here that are highly negative is not a neutral stance. And there is no specific evidences shown or reason why this is even coming up or needs that all previous RSP should be declared invalid. (See discussions RSP discussions here ). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Why would we provide positive options when the overwhelming consensus already is that it is not reliable? There is absolutely no requirement that RSN RfCs be formatted with the standard options, especially when the aim isn't even to change the status quo GUNREL designation but rather to flesh out how we technically handle the source. And how could this possibly be declaring the previous discussions invalid, given that they all concluded Geni should not be used? The point of deprecating is to prevent new usage of the source, by warning editors who try to insert it that it's generally unreliable and tagging the citation if they go through with it. Geni is constantly being re-added by clueless people, deprecating would help a lot with cleaning it up. JoelleJay (talk) 05:11, 24 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)

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)

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)

Deprecate per ActivelyDisinterested.—Alalch E. 00:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• No Change - no entry to RSP needed and seems has been accepted. This just is not something that often comes up for question and seems has not been hard to figure out the nature of so it also does not need a RSP entry. Yet as can be seen by this search, it is used and that seems evidence that common view *is* de facto RS by usage. Really seems like just declaring all those edits wrong is not a useful thing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Editors using a source does not make it "de facto" RS... We have thousands of hits for pinterest and the like, and used to have thousands to the Daily Mail; that doesn't mean any of those are actually reliable. If you're objecting to the whole concept of RSP this isn't the place to do it. JoelleJay (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Usage has absolutely no bearing on reliability. Thousands of Wikipedians could be quoting from The Very Hungry Caterpillar, and that still doesn't make it de facto RS by usage for information on butterflies.

  This just is not something that often comes up for question It does. In Background: C Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy), I have indicated a long list of previous discussions on MedLands by Cawley, which has been going on for 15+ years (by now 17+ years). All this time, the conclusion that they reached repeatedly was that MedLands by Cawley was not reliable, but for a time it was thought that we could just gradually replace MedLands by other sources, and keeping MedLands template with a warning as a temporary measure until better sources had been found. However, that didn't happen, and the supposedly temporary measure became quasi-permanent until we agreed in the May 2023 RSN to no longer use the template or the website in any other way. And even after that, the website still gets used as a source by Wikipedians (usually new ones who were not aware of the previous discussions and the May 2023 decision). Deprecation is exactly what allows us to give editors a warning that it is not reliable, and to check out previous discussions and decisions, to prevent new usage. See also JoelleJay's response to your comment under Survey A: Geni.com. NLeeuw (talk) 09:15, 24 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)

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)

Deprecate. WP:SPS. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—Alalch E. 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• No change to either of these - seems this is referring to two different sources, both of which are somewhat widely used in WP and neither of which seems suitable for an RSP entry. Just not seeing sufficient case or benefit from any entry either. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  They are the same website; the old url is just broken now. And the fact that it is still being widely used is exactly why it needs an RSP entry and even more so to be deprecated... JoelleJay (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  somewhat widely used in WP. Again, usage has absolutely no bearing on reliability. This is English Misplaced Pages, not Wikimedia Commons. Just because a source is widely used doesn't mean it gets a free pass. NLeeuw (talk) 09:18, 24 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)

@ActivelyDisinterested Thanks for restoring the discussion from the archive; it evidently was not yet closed. It would seem that we've got a clear result though. Should I request a third party to formally close it with a conclusion, or how does this go with RfCs? NLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The {{RFC}} tag was missing, which would have added "DoNotArchiveUntil.." to the header to stop it from being archived. I've add the RFC tag which will list in for every to see (not just those to happen across it on RSN). I suggest waiting and seeing if any more comments come in, as they editors have taken part yet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• I don't see the point to this. I can see there being concerns about quality of niche sources, but do not see a reason why a RSP entry should be made or benefit for trying it. Why should the source choice of hundreds or thousands of editors at thousands of entries be disregarded ? How can they all be effectively replaced ? I'm thinking that their de facto opinion has to be given great weight and that all those cites would either stay or that holes would be made in the affected articles -- so any RSP entry seems just pointless or causing lots of trouble rather than making any improvement. Am I missing some magic wand or an urgent concern worth the trauma ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  These are all clearly user-generated and/or amateur SPS and therefore automatically unreliable, so the source preferences of the random drive-by editors adding it absolutely should be disregarded. I've removed thousands of citations to these and similar sites, they almost invariably support undue trivia and frequently BLPNAME violations (e.g. full names, birthdates, and birthplaces of non-notable minor relatives) that shouldn't be in the article in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  It seems to me that Markbassett is trying to have it both ways.

  • On the one hand, he claims that all three sources are niche sources; that there is no specific evidences shown or reason why this is even coming up; and that This just is not something that often comes up for question. So it's a small matter about niche sources that are rarely discussed (and rarely used?), and there is no reason to discuss it now and change their status, because it's not important enough.
  • On ther other hand, he claims that there is no that all previous RSP should be declared invalid (presumably he means previous RSN discussions on the source); that seems has been accepted, it is used and that seems evidence that common view *is* de facto RS by usage. Really seems like just declaring all those edits wrong is not a useful thing.; that are somewhat widely used in WP; and finally Why should the source choice of hundreds or thousands of editors at thousands of entries be disregarded ? How can they all be effectively replaced ? I'm thinking that their de facto opinion has to be given great weight and that all those cites would either stay or that holes would be made in the affected articles. So it's a big matter about widely used sources that have been discussed many times before, but there is no reason to discuss it now and change their status, because the usage of these sources in thousands of articles is too important and too impossible to be replaced by anything else.

  These two lines of reasoning are in contraction with each other. These sources can't be simultaneously niche but also widely used; rarely discussed but also frequently discussed at RSN before; and not important enough but also too important to have their status changed. The second argument seems to undermine the first, as evidence is given for how often these sources are indeed used, and that they have been frequently discussed before at RSN, and that the impact of the decision could affect thousands of articles. The second argument also seems to invoke WP:HARDWORK. Unfortunate though that might be, it may be the conclusion we sometimes have to reach about sources that have been frequently cited in the past, but have subsequently turned out to be (very) unreliable. NLeeuw (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Jacobin

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

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Jacobin (magazine)?

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

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Survey: Jacobin

• Option 2 I am opposed to the use of WP:GREL and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2/3, bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. And it was fixed. There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including User:Iljhgtn and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? Volunteer Marek 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    • You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

      You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

      No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

      I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we WP:FOC. I believe @Horse Eye's Back is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

      Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? Volunteer Marek 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error. Volunteer Marek 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I note the failure to provide the requested source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Right back at you. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    , your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that. Volunteer Marek 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

      Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over Jacobin publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for The Heritage Foundation which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation (and has a team of paid staff working around the clock to target, dox, and threaten Misplaced Pages editors)?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Mostly Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). Kind regards,

Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 (intext attribution) WP:RSBIAS and WP:RSOPINION cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. TFD (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1-ish Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major WP:NEWSORG. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that improves their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. Loki (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that Jacobin published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. Media Bias/Fact Check gives Jacobin a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the New York Times (1.4) and Washington Post (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2/3 While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes Jacobin. While Jacobin is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of Jacobin is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by Jacobin that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think Jacobin is "unreliable" per se, I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. Chetsford (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: Option 2: mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory. I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus. In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—blindlynx 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• 1 or 2, I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak option 2 per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. Strong oppose option 3, though, for somewhat obvious reasons. The Kip 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources. Volunteer Marek 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1, with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. Astaire (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of general reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2 position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" always apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to how likely we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1, it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as Reason (RSP entry). There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED are quite clear. 

Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has due weight for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a Bad RfC. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the previous RfC where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant use by others and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which doesn't needs to be rehashed. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated David Joyner (business executive) for deletion not long after the Killing of Brian Thompson, and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that Jacobin has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias."

I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that we spend a paragraph attributing it to falsely luring Americans into supporting an illegal invasion based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable New York and contain no obvious factual errors. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2, mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from CANZUK Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely. A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. Alaexis_¿question? 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. WP:GREL is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL. Notably, The Economist is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is WP:GREL. TarnishedPath 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You should probably read farther than the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

"The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• (Summoned by ping in this thread) Bad RFC / No listing just as in 2021. Or Option 2, it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as WP:RSOPINION. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but Jacobin is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 The current summary at WP:RS/P acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 WP:GREL already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a WP:NEWSBLOG. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. Silverseren 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? TarnishedPath 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• 3. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.

It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The NYTimes has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, here we've got Nature finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in BioScience, The Lancet Planetary Health, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the emotional hind-brain of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.

Which just strengthens my point, there're no blinders like ideological blinders, so its not so much a matter of how many fact-checkers you have as in how you maybe are presenting facts which, while individually true, are cherry picked or incomplete or out of context or one-sided or otherwise misleading. It might not even be intentional, exactly. Mind-sets are like that. Better to stick with Time or other people who are more into just blandly attracting a broad readership rather than with people who have points to make.

They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine. As long as we include the qualifier. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Herostratus: not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't all publications are completely reliable for their contents? If the News of the World says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the News of the World, the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we.

What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that in our own words because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for all races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. Herostratus (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the thing is our due weight policy says that due weight (noteworthiness) is apportioned based on the amount of attention given in reliable sources. I take that to mean opinion in generally reliable sources is worth reporting; opinion in generally unreliable sources isn’t. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not reliable for its own contents, having doctored its archives. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per WP:NEWSBLOG – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to Jacobin should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!

Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon (RSP entry), Townhall (RSP entry)). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with WP:WEIGHT. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement . So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. James Wolcott identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet (RSP entry) , Daily Kos (RSP entry) , Raw Story (RSP entry) , The Canary (RSP entry) , and the Electronic Intifada (RSP entry) .Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory Springee (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation 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. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:

1. Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
2. Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still. By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
3. THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK. By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 (note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the Claremont Institute but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)
4. The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy, Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.

So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. Springee (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. Springee (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is too biased to be reliable personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? Springee (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their About Us page states they offer socialist perspectives and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supporting radical politics and very explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism. Crossroads 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms are commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of Jacobin (magazine) notes the political diversity of contributors, incorporating "everyone from social democratic liberals to avowed revolutionaries", so I don't think either you or Simonm223 are wrong on this. Different people are gonna use different terms and apply different meanings to each of them.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. Where outside the United States are you talking about? The world where barely 20% of countries recognize same-sex marriage? Where sixteen countries have banned the burqa? Is it Japan, where the conservative Liberal Democratic Party has been in power since 1955? Or China, where a media outlet that is as critical of the Chinese Communist Party as Jacobin is of the Democratic Party would have long been banned, and their writers arrested? I think we all need a reality check here, especially if we want to represent reality in our articles. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing they probably had in mind specifically other western democracies, as it's common for European countries to have a mainstream Socialist Party with an ideology listed as social democracy (to name a few: Spain, Portugal, France, Albania, etc).

I'm comfortable speculating this is their argument because it's one that's often repeated in American progressive-left circles. This argument is usually presented as follows: Bernie Sanders is viewed as the furthest left one can go in America, the things his supporters want are not radical to other developed countries (paid time off, universal healthcare, etc), therefore what is far left in America is only moderately left elsewhere.

Not saying I entirely agree or disagree with that argument, either how Simonm223 phrased it or how I interpreted it. Just saying I think they had in mind comparable democracies, not the entire world.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

This has become a discussion about Overton windows rather than the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 2 - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be relied on (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like Jacobin that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like Quillette). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in Jacobin are more noteworthy than they really are. Crossroads 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Jacobin's raison d'etre is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. 2601:340:8200:800:30C1:6FF8:F57B:FCF8 (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  This is no more a good argument than it would be to state that the raison d'etre of X publication is to promote capitalism and the geo-political interests of the United States, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting.

  I could apply that faulty argument to shitloads of mainstream US publications that are currently considered to be generally reliable. TarnishedPath 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite Jacobin, but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of The Economist or Reason (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to Quillette, which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, here's some solid reporting by Jacobin on a hoax published in Quillette, revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of this past RSN discussion.) Generalrelative (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Additional considerations apply. As I indicated in the discussion above which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that Blackstone Inc. "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1. Our guideline on reliable sources is explicit that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. I may not personally love the political perspective of Jacobin, but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding Jacobin as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we expect from a reliable source; and B) a case where context matters, as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number was Information provided in passing, and we already know that such info occasionally may not be reliable, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the best sources. For a topic like Mark Fisher, looks like Jacobin is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try an article from the journal Urban Studies. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.Finally, when a piece published in Jacobin is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, per our guideline about opinion pieces in reliable sources. The Economist and The Wall Street Journal publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of The Economist, editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 or Option 2, long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the Reign of Terror was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. Just10A (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  For the record, the founder has said that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of The Black Jacobins, a book about the Haitian Revolution, not the French. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. TarnishedPath 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Black Jacobins is named so because the author analogizes the actions of the Haitians to that of the French Jacobins. It's just adding an extra step (not to mention that the word has a known meaning on it's face, so it's mostly irrelevant.). Regardless, it's clearly derived, and it's frankly silly to even argue semantics. Just10A (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing semantics. Your objection doesn't make any sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't inherently reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. Just10A (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  That is arguing semantics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  If that's your benchmark, then practically everything is arguing semantics, including this whole thread. "Jacobin publishes words -> what are the meaning of those words? (semantics) -> can we qualify those meanings as 'reliable?'" Clearly distinguishing factors, and I'm not interested in arguing semantics about the word "semantics" with you like a 12 year old. My vote's been explained, get over it. Just10A (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1/Keep the current RSPS summary I think a few people arguing for additional considerations are misremembering the current RSPS legend. Additional considerations doesn’t refer to things like weight, or bias, or that you need to attribute opinion pieces because those are all standard considerations that apply to all sources. The current RSPS summary already says (in part) Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'. I can't find anything that indicates that's not still a perfectly good summary. CambrianCrab (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1* Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. BSMRD (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1: Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1/2: generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Bad RfC As on 25 July 2021. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on our guideline for use of biased sources. In particular I found this 2019 assessment by the Columbia Journalism Review persuasive. Most recently this January 4, 2025 article from the Columbia Journalism Review cites a Jacobin article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find Jacobin worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow CJRs lead? The arguments seem to be (1) Jacobin recently issued a major retraction and (2) Jacobin has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to WP:BIASED. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like The New Criterion or The Atlantic Monthly. — Wug·a·po·des 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 or Option 3: Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. This is not a WP:NEWSORG. Its stated purpose is "to foster class consciousness and build the institutions that can tame and eventually overcome capital". Compare to the missions of the NYT: "We seek the truth and help people understand the world."; or the BBC: "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain". The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver reporting. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a Bad RFC because there's no reason for initiating it, I support Option 2 or Option 3 because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 – Jacobin may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that Jacobin isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like The Economist, Jacobin publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be better than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very bad RfC given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by Tayi Arajakate) and a complete lack of any examples of actual uses on Misplaced Pages where the reliability is questioned. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Misplaced Pages. An absurd reason to open an RfC. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Silver seren and Wugapodes (and thank you for providing actual reported information on their editorial process rather than speculation, heavy irony in this whole discussion). This whole saga is based on one correction? Really? Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Bias has plenty to do with reliability, or can. It's a worthwhile thing to take into consideration. Herostratus (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3/4: An encyclopedia should focus on high-quality, fact-driven sources. Not on ones that report the news with heavy political agendas, at least not without qualifying it. Using a highly politically charged source (of whatever political persuasion) inevitably leads to

1. Bias and lack of objectivity: Sources with extreme political leanings present information very selectively and often distort facts to support an ideological agenda. This can lead to biased or one-sided entries that undermine neutrality. It can also lead to including content that is not encyclopedic. See Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not.
2. Erosion of credibility: Misplaced Pages is expected to provide balanced, factual, and well-researched content. Reliance on politically extreme sources can damage its reputation as a reliable and neutral reference.
3. Misinformation and inaccuracy: Sources like Jacobin often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation.
4. Cherry-picking evidence: Extreme political sources may omit contrary evidence or fail to represent the full range of perspectives. This results in incomplete or skewed coverage. Critical context is lacking.
5. Harm to reputation of the field: Normalizing unreliable content can set a dangerous precedent here. Per Misplaced Pages policy, a fact worthy of entry in an encyclopedia would be covered by multiple reliable sources. It would be difficult to "counter" each instance of citing Jacobin with another source of equal repute but on the opposite political extreme covering the same story.

Further, Jacobin is mostly an opinion source. While it is not the worst source in the world, it hardly ranks among reliable sources. According to Ad Fontes Media, which monitors news value and reliability, "Ad Fontes Media rates Jacobin in the Hyper-Partisan Left category of bias and as Mixed Reliability/Opinion OR Other Issues in terms of reliability."

The goal of Misplaced Pages, which prioritizes reliable secondary sources, is to present information with a sense of detachment. There is no shortage of such sources, and those are the ones to use. --Precision123 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Well said. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Iljhgtn:. I'd also like to add that @Herostratus: put it nicely above: "If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it." --Precision123 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

That is also a good point. I imagine that is why as a standalone source it likely should not be relied upon for reliable reporting on the facts, but that maybe it could work to bolster a claim made already by another reliable source. Option 2 of "Additional considerations" is where I am leaning. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The OP @Feminist also spoke to this. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

1. All sources are biased, it's a natural part of human nature. This is covered by WP:RSBIAS, if that bias effects accuracy and fact checking then that needs to be shown by examples. Biased sources are not unreliable simply because of their bias.
2. People's opinions of Misplaced Pages are not a criteria for determining a reliable source.
3. Instances of errors or misinformation should be shown, saying they might exist isn't evidence that they do exist.
4. This is again covered by WP:RSBIAS.
5. This point relates to NPOV not reliability. Editors should take WP:DUE, WP:BALASP, and WP:FALSEBALANCE into account, but ultimately whether a source should be used is not the same as if a source is reliable.

-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Detachment is specifically not required of sources per RSBIAS "... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Precision123: did you employ ChatGPT or other LLM to compose this response? The structure is suspiciously similar to ChatGPT's writing style and your response is primarily platitudes with no specific examples or references to the specific policies undergirding RSP. Your sentence Sources like Jacobin often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation is especially LLM-like and makes the spurious claim that sources like Jacobin may use conspiracy theories which hasn't been brought up anywhere here. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I was going to comment on their lack of examples given for claims, but correctly assessed that someone else would probably do so. TarnishedPath 03:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It is an unfortunate aspect of LLMs that they generate nice sounding wording that has no understanding of Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2. They are an analysis/opinion magazine rather than a strait news source, so their pervasive bias has to be carefully considered when assessing its use as a source. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 Yes, we allow biased sources, but a source like this with explicitly declared bias that includes its title should be balanced against our NPOV policy, particularly. WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. In Perennial sources we reserved option 1 for the established reliable sources like BBC or Time magazine. Brandmeister 09:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  BBC as unbiased, hmm ... Hutton Inquiry, criticism of the BBC, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  And Time Magazine has never had a spicy political take either. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion: Jacobin

• Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Pings to @Feminist, The wub, Thebiguglyalien, Super Goku V, Simonm223, FortunateSons, Oort1, Burrobert, ActivelyDisinterested, Hydrangeans, Vanilla Wizard, Iljhgtn, Selfstudier, Horse Eye's Back, NoonIcarus, Harizotoh9, and Springee: who commented above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Additional pings to @WMrapids, David Gerard, Bobfrombrockley, Shibbolethink, Crossroads, Herostratus, Dumuzid, Aquillion, Gamaliel, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, BSMRD, Wugapodes, Ip says, King of Hearts, Chetsford, Tayi Arajakate, MPants at work, Jlevi, The Four Deuces, Grnrchst, Szmenderowiecki, Dlthewave, Jr8825, Thenightaway, Nvtuil, Peter Gulutzan, FormalDude, Volunteer Marek, FOARP, Sea Ane, 3Kingdoms, Bilorv, Blindlynx, Jurisdicta, TheTechnician27, MarioGom, Novemberjazz, and Volteer1: who commented in the 2021 RfC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames User:Mikehawk10 and User:Mhawk10) and the discussions that followed at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6 § Jacobin (magazine) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340 § Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a supervote, followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed.

Ironically, there can be no article about the book because it lacks notability. It was only reviewed in Jacobin. We are basically working to prevent things that will never happen. Under current policy therefore this source could never be used.

Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.

TFD (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RFC because we should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, but since we're doing this: Jacobin is clearly an opinion outlet, not a news outlet. We shouldn't be relying on them for statements of fact for that reason alone. FOARP (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also used by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks.

  That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way. Volunteer Marek 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right. Volunteer Marek 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at WP:VPP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? TarnishedPath 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade The Economist. TarnishedPath 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what Volunteer Marek was concerned about was WP:VPP. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not the case that a book review can only be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet the relevant wiki-notability standard. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation

Moved to WP:Requests for comment/The Heritage Foundation – Due to how large the discussion has become, and size constraints on the noticeboard, this discussion has been moved to it's own page. LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: TheGamer

OP has withdrawn the discussion. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 21:28, 18 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.

---

TheGamer seems to be either user-generated content, or slop listicles. Additionally, it seems to source it's content largely from dubious YouTube content, Reddit posts, or Twitter/X threads. However it is listed as a source in articles such as Flowey purely in relation to one listicle that ranks Flowey in relation to other characters. What is the reliability of this site?

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

Link to previous discussion

Kaynsu1 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not neutrally worded and brief as our information page about RfCs advises. I would also ask why the existing guidance about TheGamer available at the list maintained by WikiProject Video games isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about Flowey, as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at Talk:Flowey. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind then. I'll delete the info on the Flowey page that provides no encyclopedic value. The reason I proposed this originally was because TheGamer's content has gotten worse and more sloppy since 2020.Kaynsu1 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer

Is this sigcov , reliable for Draft:BRYTER? HelixUnwinding (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose LinkedIn profile references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. John M Baker (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. HelixUnwinding (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Pirate Wires?

Pirate Wires describes itself as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, as was done here? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.

Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. FortunateSons (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher Pirate Wires lists him as a senior editor? I just wanted to make sure PW was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. FortunateSons (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a case for BRD, but it seems like a reasonable option FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Invoking George Soros conspiracy theories to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not generally reliable, and I would avoid using this publication for claims about living people. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Words of the founder Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Pirate Wires should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered WP:GENREL unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's Mike Solana's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link Selfstudier provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously his personal thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that WP:OR and/or your own conclusion being reached? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering that comment and the fact that founder Mike Solana is the chief marketing officer of Founders Fund, Pirate Wires has a major conflict of interest with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-independent source with respect to all related topics. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Marginally reliable, there seems to be a pretty wide spread quality wise because they seem to allow their writer a loose leash. This means that some articles are very good and some are very bad. Personally I've found them solidly reliable for the more wonkish techy stuff but have a lot of issues when they start to cover politics or culture/society in general. Crypto seems to be the only blindspot within their otherwise area of expertise, their crypto coverage is just awful and should be avoided like the plague. When used I would attribute and I would strongly advise against any use for BLP not covered by ABOUTSELF. I agree that pieces by Solana should be treated as self published and that coverage by Pirate Wire is not to be considered independent of the Founders Fund. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Need context before coming to RSN

At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Per Slatersteven its founder describes it as a WP:SPS - it should be treated accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per Selfstudier apologies. I will strike above. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is not WP:SPS and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an WP:RS would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the shape of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a WP:RS, according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --Aquillion (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah by that criteria this is a SPS, one guys blog is still one guys blog even if they let their friends post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Usage in Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages

Is the Pirate Wires piece "How Misplaced Pages Launders Regime Propaganda" by Ashley Rindsberg a reliable source of claims for the Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages article? Rindsberg has published other content about Misplaced Pages on Pirate Wires, including "How Soros-Backed Operatives Took Over Key Roles at Misplaced Pages". — Newslinger talk 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It's at best, usable for the attributed opinion of Rindsberg only, but even then, it's obviously polemical and partisan. There's lots of right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages that I personally find disingenuous, but inevitably an article on "Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages" is going to have to include some partisan sourcing, but not framing it as fact is essential. I am unsure whether Pirate Wires is prominent enough a publication that it would be due to mention in any capacity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't even think its usable for that... Can't find anything that suggests that Rindsberg is a subject matter expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources in that article should have some leeway, as Misplaced Pages is obviously going to be criticised by such sources. But I totally agree with Hemiauchenia that framing is key. This is the opinion of a hyper partisan source, framing it as fact is wrong. Whether it should be included or not is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It is more or less a group

blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Misplaced Pages editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Both unreliable and WP:UNDUE. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree fully. Unreliable and undue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

almost certainly no. the article attacking[REDACTED] has falsehoods and even ignoring that and arguing its an opinion piece we could use with attribution , it goes at it from a very marginal POV … there are more useful opinion pieces from more reliable outlets out there.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

How is it used by others or is it even used by others? If sources have cited their work then I think we can as well. However, I would be very cautious about using it as an independent reference. Very cautious to the point where I would generally say no. Perhaps in a case where it's spot on topic (ideological bias of Misplaced Pages) but then only with attribution. Speaking generally, these sort of sources are always difficult as they may provide very good information but other than editors reading the text and using their own common sense, OR, etc, we don't have a good way to judge the quality of the output. BTW, this is also why I think "use with caution" may not be specific enough. Some sources are more like "use with caution but probably OK" while others are more like "use with extreme caution but there is probably a case where it provides more than about self content". Springee (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Pirate Wires itself is notable as it's had coverage in other notable outlets but its viewpoint about Misplaced Pages per se might not have been documented in RS yet. But I'm confused -- Why are some of these other media outlets' self-published viewpoints included without them necessarily being considered RS themselves? Manuductive (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The term self-published refers to sources without adequate editorial oversight, which includes most group blogs. Well-established news outlets are not self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Imo Having Misplaced Pages articles that discuss whether Misplaced Pages is reliable, biased, antisemitic, etc is silly. We're all too inherently conflicted as Misplaced Pages editors to give a sober assessment of these topics and what is/isn't due to include. These topics are best left to scholars. That said, Pirate Wires is a lot less established than these other publications you mention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Outright rejecting Pirate Wires because it's "right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages" and has "a very marginal POV" is the issue with WP:RSN that the piece is trying to critique. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

But it does affect WP:DUE weight (which requires balance between sources, and which is the real concern for something that, as a WP:SPS or a website with no reputation, would obviously be opinion at best.) The article already contains a large number of right-wing sources with a similar perspective; does this piece add anything to them? My feeling is that articles like this are subject to problems where editors try to do this nose-counting thing where they add dozens of opinionated or biased sources saying the same thing because they feel it's a really important perspective - but that's not how opinion is really meant to be used. If we have twelve sources that are fundimentially similar saying the same thing, they ought to be condensed down to a single sentence or so saying "a bunch of sources said X" (unless some of them are individually noteworthy on their own merits somehow, eg. if they're an opinion from a significant expert, but that obviously isn't the case here.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chess makes a perfectly valid point. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's being rejected because it's a random tech guy's blog - not because it's right wing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

One thing @Hemiauchenia said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because she's just some person with a megaphone. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, Ashley Rindsberg is a man. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Evidence has already been provided. In this thread. The founder brags about having no editorial board on twitter dot com. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Getting neither the gender "she's" nor the spelling "Ashley Rindberg" correct shows me you may not have looked into this very much. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh do stop. That's an awful lot to take from a bloody typo. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's a freebee for all the people looking to say Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias. This is what a reliable source accusing Misplaced Pages of a left-wing bias looks like: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793846 Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased Iljhgtn (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I should add that the Manhattan Institute was discussed previously here; the discussion was never closed or added to WP:RSP but by a quick nose-count the total unreliable + deprecate opinions outnumbered the "unclear" opinions almost two-to-one (and there were almost no people saying it was GREL.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

What game? I literally provided a source accusing Misplaced Pages both of left-wing bias and of bias against women at the same time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• We don't actually require an RFC for every individual dispute; and sources certainly do not automatically default to reliable. Just doing a quick nose-count in this discussion suggests that it's extremely unlikely that an RFC on Pirate Wires' reliability would support your contention that it is reliable - numerous issues have been raised, especially regarding its lack of editorial controls and its lack of the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that RS requires. We can pull it through an entire RFC if you really think it's necessary but I think your time would be better-spent looking for more clearly reliable secondary sources covering this, if you want it in the article. This would also turn things back to the more fundamental WP:DUE problem I mentioned above - this looks identical to dozens of similar pieces posted by people with similar opinions; given that it's published in what's at least a low-quality source compared to the ones already in the article, what makes this one significant enough to highlight? --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

For disclosure, I originally wrote the Mike Solana article. I think the answer is no to this question specifically, and similar questions generally.
Pirate Wires is an advocacy media outlet. Its writing is in a punchy tone -- a tech-ish form of gonzo journalism -- that blends opinion with explanatory reporting. They don't do spot news. So there's just no utility in using it for encyclopedia-writing.
That's not to say it's either good or bad, merely that it doesn't serve the limited purposes for which we use sources here. (It ran a widely cited interview with Jack Dorsey and I don't think anyone believes they made-up the interview. But if we need to cite that interview in an article it can be referenced to any of the numerous RS that, themselves, cited it through précis', versus Pirate Wires directly.) In any case, anything it publishes that is encyclopedic will be covered in a second, more conventional RS and we should reference the second source. Anything not referenced in a pass-through outlet is probably undue. Chetsford (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Respectful comment: This discussion would be more helpful if we focused on how reliable sources treat a specific startup news organization and less on original research and personal opinion. --Precision123 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

CEIC data

I often see this site being used as a source for country-list data. They appear to be professional, but I'm not sure if they're considered a proper secondary source. They do not appear to be the same CEIC as the one owned by Caixin, as they say they are owned by "ISI Markets". Wizmut (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. EEpic (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If in question use secondary sources. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Fantasy Literature

I see this source around a lot and I would like to have it settled for whether it is OK to use for reviews. It looks good to me and not promotional or any of the typical sorts of issues that plague these kinds of websites, but I am not sure, and I would like to know before I use it on pages, and sometimes books are cited to this at NPP and I am unsure how I should judge it. I would judge it as decently established but it looks to me to be straddling the line between online review publication and blog. It's used on about 160 already. Anyone else have any thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:. I'd be hesitant to use it for WP:N purposes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the terms its staff work under:

Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say unusable for notability purposes. I'd likely leave it off other pages unless it had something significant to say that better sources didn't. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Is “Zannettou, Savvas "A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitism". a reliable source for Happy Merchant

I can’t find evidence it’s been published. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not up for reading it right now, but it's been published, and the correct citation is: Zannettou, S., Finkelstein, J., Bradlyn, B., & Blackburn, J. (2020, May). A quantitative approach to understanding online antisemitism. In Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 14, pp. 786-797). Google Scholar shows a few places where it can be accessed. If it's kept, the references to it in the Notes section should change "Savvas" to something like "Zannettou et al." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I should add that the Zannettou et al. citations that currently exist in the article are preprints, which generally are not RSs, per WP:PREPRINT. The other citation was also subsequently published in conference proceedings. Conference proceedings might or might not be reliable sources for specific content, depends on the conference and the content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind that most of the preprints people link to as sources were eventually published; we just link to the preprints as courtesy links because they're usually what's available. PREPRINT even mentions this. --Aquillion (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but in that case, you still need the correct citation for wherever it eventually appeared, and if there's a link to that final version in full, then you should link to the full final version rather than a preprint draft. In this particular case, the citations themselves were not for the final version, and the final versions are both available in full elsewhere. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What's the context for this question? Where is it being cited/do you want to be able to cite it? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry; that's my bad. I was running on low sleep and shouldn't have been on Misplaced Pages, and I read your prose where you don't include a link but glazed past the header text where you did include a link. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

See https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7343/7197 GordonGlottal (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed another one, also apparently never published."Zannettou, Savvas, Tristan Caulfield, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Michael Sirivianos, Gianluca Stringhini, and Guillermo Suarez-Tangil. "On the Origins of Memes by Fringe Web Communities." arXiv.org, September 22, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12512." Doug Weller talk 08:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I provided a link to the published version of that one in my second comment above. The citation is Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018, October). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018 (pp. 188-202). There's an alternate citation at the top right of the copy where it says "ACM Reference Format." FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion ACM is reputable, but I seem to have forgotten that we can use published conference papers, but not papers simply presented at a conference. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are published in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean when is a paper submitted to a conference run by a reliable organisation an RS? When submitted? If published as part of the publication of the conference papers? Doug Weller talk 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

A paper that's been submitted to a conference should be treated like a preprint. A paper that appears in conference proceedings is more likely to be an RS, but that will depend on whether the conference is one that reviews all papers in a way that's similar to peer-reviewed journals, and — as always — on the WP content that it's being used as a source for (a paper can be an RS for some content and not for other content). Assuming that the papers do substantiate the WP text, I'm guessing that they're RSs (Google Scholar indicates that they've been cited over 200 times). FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

It is published, Conference proceedings of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 14. AAAI has been around since 1979 with respected associations. Submission to a conference is not sufficient to meet any standards. Acceptance by a reputable conference after peer review (some conference talks are invited and not peer reviewed) is a good indicator of reliability though not a guarantee (the conference paper may well be revised between acceptance and publication in a proceedings and even then might in the long run not be considered reliable). As it stands, I would say reliable for the use of Happy Merchant online unless other sources can be found undermining its reliability. Erp (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I would consider a paper published in the proceedings of a respected conference a reasonably reliable source. If it was contradicted by peer-reviewed research or, even better, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of available literature I would give it a bit less due than those sources. But I'd say that yes, at its base, this looks reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'm really cross with myself for not checking on Google Scholar - ironically I've just done that with another paper. I would have saved you all a lot of time if I had done that. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hawar News Agency

Should we be using articles from the Hawar News Agency, especially in relation to the (geo)political side of Rojava? This also includes articles in the scope of the Syrian civil war. It has ties to the SDF, which means there is a significant conflict of interest here; I should also add that the YPG/YPD/SDF heavily censor narratives critical of theirs, which raises concern over its reliability. I want to get community consensus before I do anything, especially because the article in question (Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria) is related to a CTOP. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

(Copying this response from the talk page of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It shouldn't be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics, The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts, Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State, and Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria.
(The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as ‎ Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). Applodion (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Having read through the article you linked it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be:
"In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."
As well as:
"Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."
So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).
Hawar News Agency has some WP:USEBYOTHERS and would probably be covered by WP:NEWSORG. Issues of bias (WP:RSBIAS) and opinion (WP:RSOPINION) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. CMD (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that question the reliability of Hawar, I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

If we consider TRT sub-optimum in relation to Rojava and the Syrian war because of its affiliation to the Erdogan government (see above on this noticeboard), the same should apply to Hawar. It’s fine for reporting the statements by AANES/PYD/SDF or uncontentious facts, but it should always be attributed and triangulated for anything at all contentious. I’d rate it above Al-Masdar and below the SOHR for reporting facts about eg battles in the Syrian war, but like them is a weak source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: "Misdirected US strike killed 18 allied fighters in Syria" from the Associated Press: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the SDF-linked Hawar news agency said...". 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The difference between Hawar and TRT seems to be how they are treated by independent academics and subject experts; as far as I know, TRT has been repeatedly accused of spreading outright falsehoods (such as here), whereas Hawar is seemingly deemed to be mostly reliable despite its connections to the PYD and SDF. Applodion (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Being censored is a WP:BIASED issue and a reason to use a source with caution (with attribution for anything remotely contentious), but it doesn't automatically render them completely unreliable. The big question is whether they're yielding to pressure to publish things that are actually inaccurate rather than just one-sided. If not, they can still be used with caution - we'd want to cite better sources when possible and avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to a source with a clear bias, but there's some advantage to having sources that are close to conflicts. And a major problem with removing sources simply for being subject to censorship is that it could produce systematic bias by removing every source from a particular region; I'm not familiar with the Syrian press specifically, but in other regions with similar censorship, there's still a difference between sources that carefully report as much as they can get away with and as accurately as they can within the restrictions of government censors, and sources that full-throatedly broadcast misinformation to support the party line. --Aquillion (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: LionhearTV

Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources § RfC: LionhearTV – Royiswariii, 19 January 2025 00:55 (UTC)

I want your comments about the reliability of LionhearTV, I can't determine whether it is reliable or not, on New Page Sources, the Lionheartv is in the unreliable section, but, despite of that some editors still using this source in all Philippine Articles. So let's make a vote:

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

Royiswariii Talk! 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Deprecate. The Philippines has plenty of WP:RS to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:

LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as DailyPedia and Philippine Entertainment.

In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the RAWR Awards, which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ABS-CBN and GMA Network. Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees.

A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the Bini (group) talk page in September 2024 (see Talk:Bini (group)/Archive 1 § LionhearTV as a reliable source). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 52 § Lionheartv) and the WP:RSN (Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 452 § LionhearTV). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about SMNI, which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented, It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.

At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as unreliable on Misplaced Pages:New page patrol source guide#The Philippines as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN.

AstrooKai (Talk) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? AstrooKai (Talk) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

It's immaterial on how we determine WP:RS. What could be very important that other WP:RS missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of WP:RSSELF. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 3. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. Borgenland (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:

1. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)
   Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024)
2. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)
   Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)

These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:

1. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)
   Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024)
2. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024)
   Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)

I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of churnalism. AstrooKai (Talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 3 - As much as possible, LionhearTV and its sibling sites under the eMVP Digital should not be used as sources when more reliable outlets have coverage for a certain event, show, actor and so on. Even if a certain news item is exclusive to or first published in a eMVP Digital site, other journalists will eventually publish similar reports in their respective platforms (refer to some examples posted by AstrooKai). -Ian Lopez @ 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

What I fear in these kinds of low quality sources is that people will find something very specific about someone, e.g. "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group," and this low quality source is the only source that carried this fact, and since this it is not blacklisted, this does get in as a source, and most of the time, that's all that's needed. We don't need articles on showbiz personalities tracking their every movement as if it's important. Blacklist this. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about moving RFC to RSN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@AstrooKai, @Borgenland, @Howard the Duck, if you don't mind we can move this discussion to Noticeboard to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. Royiswariii Talk! 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Support. Borgenland (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Support. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). AstrooKai (Talk) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3It's a blog. That means WP:SPS applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF or under WP:EXPERTSPS (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is Fashion Pulis, and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 4 Their reportings are obviously flawed and a per example above copypasting is a not a good look nor a good indication for "reliability" and it is often used in BLP, yikes. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hatebase.org

Is hatebase.org a reliable source? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there an WP:RFCBEFORE for this? And/Or some context for the use case? FortunateSons (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I have checked and I can't find any previous discussion, hence why I opened this one. There is an article about the site. I intend to use it to expand list of slurs articles. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not making a statement on the source, as I’m not familiar with it .Then this doesn’t require an RfC, just a normal source discussion, if you’re concerned about reliability. Do you mind removing the descriptor from the title? And best of luck! :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I just added it because I saw some of the other discussions had it. I am removing it from the title. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That happens, don’t worry about it! Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

used in 4[REDACTED] articles, seems highly premature. use best judgement until it can't be resolved in an article's talk page between editors, and needs wider[REDACTED] community feedback. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I wish this were otherwise because it looks like a really interesting website but it uses user-generated content. Which is a problem from an RS perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

None of the uses are for anything other than Hatebase itself, and as the site was been retired since 2022 it's unlikely it will see much more use ('retired' as it's been closed to editing, all user data deleted, and may go offline at any point, so not quite closed but very close). As most of the supporting data is gone, and what there was was user generated, I don't think it could be used as an RS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

LaserDisc Database?

I'm working on adding citations to the home media section of King Kong (1933). I'm looking for a source that supports the sentence "Image Entertainment released another LaserDisc" . I've found the laserdisc in question on LaserDisc Database here. Can I use it as a source? The "register now" box states that users can "submit" new Laserdiscs, which implies some editorial oversight compared to other websites with user-generated material (although it looks like there may be just one editor). My other options are worldcat or interlibrary loaning the original Laserdisc. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The bottom of the page has "Disclaimer: The data on this webstite is crowd-sourced..." and from the page you linked it's unclear what amount of checking is done before any submitted updates happen. Worldcat is the better option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

oops, I missed that. Thank you for the advice. I'll use WorldCat if I can't find a news article. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles

Is airplaydirect.com reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Per their about page they are not a normal news source, but a promotional platform. Their articles, etc are likely based on press releases and information from the subject of the article. So they might be reliable as a WP:PRIMARY source within the limits of WP:ABOUTSELF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Global Defense Corp

Global Defense Corp should be deprecated as it is a incredibly unreliable source which frequently fabricates information they are incredibly biassed against Russian technology to such an extent as to lose all objectivity here I will share just a small snippet of the blatantly false information they have spread over the years

1. they've claimed that Azerbaijan using either an Israeli or Turkish drone was able to destroy a Armenian nebo-m radar which is impressive considering Armenia doesn't even have that radar or has at any point Displayed any interest in buying that radar there evidence for this is a footage of Azerbaijan destroying a p-18 radar and them claiming it's the nebo-m and they didn't just claim this once they've claimed it at least twice in two different articles.

2. in this article you can see a picture of the SU57’s internal weapons bays but what they don't tell you is that this picture is CGI at no point do they communicate this in fact they claim it's from the Sukhoi design Bureau even though it's not.

3. in this article they talk about how the S 400 range decreases against objects at low altitudes  which is true but fail to explain that this is true for all radar guided Sam systems thanks to an effect known as radar horizon where objects at low altitudes are able to hide behind the curvature of the earth and therefore can only be detected at certain distances but not only do they not explain this to the reader creating a false impression that this is an issue unique to the S 400 but they even claimed that Turkey accused Russia of fraud because of this. which is weird for several reasons one Russia has at no point claim that the S400 range does not decrease with altitude but also because it implies Turkey believed the S 400 could defy the laws of physics they also have no source of this claim and no other articles on the Internet claim this.

4. In this article they claimed SU57 lacks sensor fusion which it doesn't and then just ignore that low probability of intercept radar is a thing .

5. in this article they berate the S 400 for not intercepting Israeli F35’s in Syria but forgot to mention that Russia and Israel were long believed to have an agreement in the Syrian civil war to not engaged each other.

There bias is also evident in just in the words that they say frequently attacking Russian equipment with ad hominems such as cooling the S 400 ,another lame duck missile system, or starting there articles with stupid Russians or Russian equipment exposed. they also lack of any transparency no one knows who owns the website none of the articles say the names of the people that wrote them making the website Even more suspicious but despite all of this they are still frequently cited all the time on Misplaced Pages.

Sources 1.https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/02/01/turkey-exposed-fatal-flaws-in-russian-made-s-400-surface-to-air-missile/

2. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/11/rostec-nebo-m-radar-is-it-a-scam-or-propaganda/

3. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/12/28/russian-su-57-will-carry-four-missiles-in-the-internal-weapons-bay/

4. Radar Horizon. (n.d.). www.ssreng.com. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.ssreng.com/pdf/Radar_Horizon.pdf

5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82

6. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2022/01/24/sukhoi-su-57s-x-band-n036-byelka-and-n036l-1-01-l-band-radars-are-not-what-you-think/

7. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/09/22/over-hyped-s-400-and-s-300-surface-to-air-missile-failed-to-detect-f-35i-adir/

8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from https://thearabweekly.com/when-israel-bombs-syria-russia-turns-blind-eye Madnow2 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Do we use them? Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The S 400 Misplaced Pages page has 20 citations from them and the su 57 Misplaced Pages page has four. Madnow2 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• globaldefensecorp.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Amigao (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that they're generally unreliable but I'm not so sure I'd chalk it up to bias rather than incompetence. They seem to be suggesting that the news they publish is a sideline to their core business of international security consulting... But they're spamming the cheapest ads on the internet alongside that content suggests that this is their primary income. To me it looks like a vanity site, I also suspect they are ripping stories off or using generative AI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. Madnow2 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the one thing that seems to be universally agreed on is that this is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I would agree, that regardless of whether it's bias or incompetence, it all adds up to unreliability. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that this is a very low-quality vanity site / ad farm attached to a consulting business. Definitely not reliable and it should be deprecated. - Amigao (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we trust Social Blade for statistics

Certain pages about certain living subjects contain an infobox template that really emphasises view counts and subscriber statistics. However, that data is often sourced from Social Blade. Here's what WP's page about Social Blade says;

"An official YouTube Twitter account, @TeamYouTube wrote that "Please know that third party apps, such as SocialBlade, do not accurately reflect subscriber activity." Social Blade's Twitter account responded to that tweet, commenting "We don't make up data. We get it from the YouTube API. We rely on it for accuracy." Social Blade's community manager Danny Fratella suggested that YouTube content creators may notice subscriber and view count purges more due to a higher accessibility to data-tracking tools like Social Blade."

The question is should we trust it?

Plus, why do pages about gamers and vloggers place so much emphasis on what appears to be arbitrary, trivial information that is prone to fluctuation?𝔓𝔓 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It is WP:PRIMARY - I don't think WP:SELFPUB applies since it is drawing its data out of an API but I'd say it's a marginal source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a source that I would trust but it is frequently cited in certain articles to populate value statement parameters such as subscriber count, view count, like count etc in this template. My understanding is that WP:PRIMARY sources shouldn't be used to verify value statements? 𝔓𝔓 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Prior discussions for reference; Aug 2021, Jan 2024, June 2024, RFC June 2024. The general opinion appears to be that it's marginal at best. Personally I doubt how reliable their data is, if it's available from the original source that should be used and if it's not available from the original source I wouldn't trust it. They also have 'rankings', which are worthless for anything other than the opinion of Social Blade. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: EurAsian Times

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

The EurAsian Times (used to have its own article but it was apparently PRODed) is cited in several hundreds of articles, mostly pertaining to Russian military hardware and South Asian issues, but not exclusively. It was mentioned a few times on this noticeboard but only on a surface level.

In light of all this, how would you rate the EurAsian Times?

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

Thank you. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 22:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) PS: it is the first time I create an RFC, I hope it is not malformed

• eurasiantimes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

- Amigao (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Survey (EurAsian Times)

• Option 2/Do not enter to RSP I’d tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I don't see a reason to make any RSP entry -- there doesn't seem to be a lot of RSN discussions to summarize or adjudicate and if it is in use hundreds of times then making a RSP entry at this point seems to be problematic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 Based on prior discussion at RS/N and WP:NEWSORGINDIA I'd suggest this is a generally unreliable source. I don't think there's a case for deprecation though. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (EurAsian Times)

• Previous discussions at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 458#Eurasian Times (2024) Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 399#The Eurasian Times (2023), and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 389#EurAsian Times (2022). It looks like there's already consensus that it's unreliable and an RfC is not necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, there is already strong consensus for its general unreliability (with just one dissenting editor in all of those discussions). I guess the only question is whether it should be deprecated, given its quite frequent use BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that most opinions expressed about it were negative, but it felt a bit like shaky ground to be able to know if it could still be used for some specific things, be treated as generally unreliable, or to actually deprecate. That is why I wanted clarification before potentially going on a hunt. Sorry if an RfC was overkill for this one, but I figured that since it is used quite a lot it could be good to clarify. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 10:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. The EurAsian Times is a textbook churnalism site and is not generally reliable. - Amigao (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe there's a need for some general advice similar to WP:TABLOID but for websites that have the same type of journalism. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

flightconnections.com

I wonder if flightconnections.com is a reliable source. Examples of it use are on Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport. In both cases WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT asks for airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE. I have doubt if flightconnections qualifies as reliable. The Banner talk 02:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't find any information about who runs the site or where it gets it's information from. There are quite a few articles promoting it or about how to use it, but that is unsurprising as it operates an affiliate programme. From a Google book search it has some extremely limited USEBYOTHERS (note several of the results are not reliable sources), but not enough to be meaningful. I couldn't get any useful results from Google Scholar. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I do see it as reliable. They are buying the data from one of the large brokers (likely either Cirium or OAG, I wish they said who) and simply providing a wrapper to explore that data, and selling ads and subscriptions to pay for the extremely expensive subscription the brokers charge. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

It can work at least as a starting point. It lists both charter and regularly scheduled flights. You can find the flight number of a given route and then cross-reference it on another source as well. --Precision123 (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Pegging

At this point, after educating people about pegging for the last 14 years, I do indeed qualify as an expert. I am the go-to person for information about pegging in the sex education world.

Could this conversation about the veracity of my 'opinions' in 2017 perhaps be reviewed? I am the only sex educator I know of who specializes in pegging. I have taught countless classes since 2012 (in person and over Zoom) for beginners, equipment, and advanced pegging, and written many, many articles about pegging as well. Were they published in magazines or on websites that made me edit the crap out of what I'd written until it lost its meaning? No. Wouldn't play that game because the message was too important to me, and because they wanted free material.

I am not a person of notoriety like Tristan Taormino or Dan Savage, but that does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about or what I put out into the world about pegging is just my 'opinion'. There have been no 'studies' on pegging and there aren't likely to be anytime soon, for obvious reasons.

Since when was the only measure of an expert their notoriety? I have gone down the rabbit hole of pegging and remained there. I have held space for all the different expressions of pegging during that time, which are numerous. I have advised hopeful givers and receivers how to approach their partners, while also educating them about the (intensely) common misconceptions and assumptions about the sexual act, and so many more things that are a part of pegging. Masculinity, role reversal, communication, etc, etc.

I have helped countless couples find the best equipment for them, which is much more complicated and individual than a cheap strap-on and dildo. Educating interested people about pegging has been my mission for the last 14 years. Other sex educators have more surface knowledge about this sexual act - knowledge that can be gleaned from a simple Marie Claire article.

My apologies if I sound a little irritated. My intentions are good. Famous people are not the best sources, necessarily. In sex education circles I am widely known as the go-to expert.

https://peggingparadise.com/ (my original website)

https://www.theartofpegging.com/ (my educational and patron platform)

https://pegging101.com/ (pegging with no kink for the vanilla people)

With Respect For All That You Amazing People Do, Ruby Ryder RubyRyder (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Ms. Ryder,

What would help here is if you could point us to either reliable, independent sources citing your work, or of you writing for publications that you don't publish yourself.... something that helps us see that, as you say, "in sex educations widely known as a go-to expert." I fully believe that you are.

The problem with someone using your sources as a reference has to do with Misplaced Pages's rules on using self-published sources, which your websites, videos, etc, count as. We can use such sources as reference (if within some limits), but only if we can see that the creator is a recognized expert in the field... and by recognized, that means either cited by or hired to write on the topic by reliable sources. I know that it seems like your voluminous experience and the visible quality of your materials should count for something here, but alas it does not. I don't think we'd be expecting, say, the New York Times or the Journal of the American Medical Association in this case, just some recognizable source that takes such sexual matters seriously. It doesn't even have to be material that is online (although that would help.) Articles that quote you or recommend your sites or training services would really help. Can you point us to such citations? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages editors cannot use their own judgement to assess the expertise of someone. There are people who research topics and work in a field their entire lives who become experts in those fields and publish their work on their own websites. But there are also pseudo-experts who do the same thing. Editors on Misplaced Pages are not allowed to use their own judgement to discern the difference between the two, but must rely on a third party to establish their expertise. If you have ever given an interview on pegging for a newspaper or a magazine, or had your website cited by a sexologist or another recognizable sex expert as a good resource on pegging, for instance, then that would allow us to recognize the reliability of your site for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. Photos of Japan (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you comment on and notify the article talk page you want to edit? We really cannot help without context around what changes you want to include.

that conversation from 2017 is old. I have no clue if that is what Misplaced Pages editors believe today, nor the state of the article you want to change. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I am highly confident that Pegging (sexual practice) is the main article on the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I would concur. Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Their comment wasn't asking which page the 2017 discussion was on (which is linked to), but was asking RubyRyder to leave a comment on the talk page of that article. Photos of Japan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Is the only reason we want to include this information because its from RubyRyder and it would be good publicity? or is there a specific bit of info that they want to include that is missing?
• have they tried including it and seeing what happens? (see WP:BRD) Are regulars who wrote and watch the pegging article notified that this debate is happening?
• This post seems mostly like rehashing and trying to start up an argument from 2017 for the sake of a debate. would like info on what we are doing here, exactly, and what the debate is?

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2025 – Thank you for your response. I understand the reasoning. I was asked for other sources, and below I am listing well-known sexologists and people with letters after their name who have interviewed me on their podcasts.

Cam Fraser - the Power and Pleasure of Pegging with Ruby Ryder: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0naA7WaumMhL1t5wE2vaj5?si=IFqLYzGzT_aQomGXWKvSww&nd=1&dlsi=3c896a210a7d4408

Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Pegging with Ruby Ryder:https://sunnymegatron.com/ruby-ryder-pegging-paradise/

Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Butt Stuff 201: Pegging & Vagus Nerve w/ Ruby Ryder: https://sunnymegatron.com/vagus-nerve-pegging/

Smart Sex, Smart Love with Dr Joe Kort - Ruby Ryder on Pegging - https://joekort.com/ruby-ryder-on-pegging/

Please let me know if you have further questions or if I can help in any way - and if there is a better way to respond to this conversation.

With respect,

Ruby Ryder RubyRyder (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I will quickly note that Sunny Megatron is an XBIZ Sexpert of the Year award according to our XBIZ Awards page, and is used as a reference elsewhere. Joe Kort is clinical director of The Center for Relationship and Sexual Health. So these aren't random peoplecasts. That does not establish, of course, what information you are to be cited for... and as others have, I suggest that you take the issue back to Talk:Pegging (sexual practice) for fresh discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

agreed. I think RubyRyder seems useful as an expert. their information could be used, if correctly attributed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. These look like good sources. Ultimately the reliability of a source is dependent on the specific article text that it is being used to support, so your site still wouldn't be reliable to support a medical claim, for instance, but it should be reliable to support general statements about pegging. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

NationalWorld.com

What do we think about NationalWorld.com being used for a living porn star's month of birth? Courtesy ping to @Diademchild:.--Launchballer 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on National World, not necessarily crap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Remember that WP:DOB says full names or birth dates should be widely published by reliable sources and that the standard for inclusion isn't just verification. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, the article doesn't actually have a full DOB. Policy suggests "err on the side of caution and simply list the year". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This section is about using this source to support the month. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Is this citation/reference using Answers in Genesis reliable for Mosaic Authorship

edit summary by IP ")apart from the cited website, the edit has nothing to deal with YEC. It simply attests, citing the Bible with a secondary source, that some verses of the Pentateuch mention Moses as its author " Oddly the text it presumably means to back it is all in the citation. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not a reliable source. In fact I'm somewhat surprised that Answers in Genesis isn't deprecated as a disinformation and pseudoscience source. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Surely there are better sources for such a claim? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment