| Revision as of 04:41, 25 April 2023 view sourceElKevbo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers125,810 edits →RfC: downgrade Fox News for politics?: RfC reopened: a project-wide RfC that will have as large an impact as this one should remain open for much longer than 3 days← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:18, 11 January 2025 view source Mike Christie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors70,546 edits →Discussion: The Heritage Foundation: 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 = |
|counter = 463 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchivSee = 1 | |minthreadstoarchivSee = 1 | ||
| |algo = old(5d) | |algo = old(5d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | }} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | ||
| {{not a forum|subjects unrelated to the reliability of sources for encyclopedic content}} | |||
| <!-- | <!-- | ||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| 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 18: | Line 16: | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |||
| == More on the reliability of BtVA == | |||
| == RFC Science-Based Medicine == | |||
| The Anime and Manga Wikiproject ]. Can the perennial sources list stop calling it reliable now? ] (]) 15:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussion top|There is a general consensus that at least some articles on this site can be considered self-published, and substantial disagreement over whether the site's editorial control is adequate, with even some partial supports acknowledging that material on the site may not be substantially reviewed if reviewed at all. As such, material from this site should be used with caution, probably with attribution, and should not on its own be used to support negative or controversial content in BLPs. Particular articles from the site may still be reliable on the basis of self-published sources by experts; those should be considered on an individual basis. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC) }} | |||
| :Do you have a link to the discussion where the reliability was discussed? The most recent such discussion here, concluded that it was reliable. While such discussions don't have to happen here; they need to happen ''somewhere'' and if there is a new consensus, we all need to see what discussion came to a new consensus. --]] 15:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 02:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736474472}} | |||
| ::Near as I can tell, the discussion is in ] and consists of two users. It's from more then a decade ago and as mentioned has only two participants, including the person who asked if it's a RS. --] ]/] 16:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per ] and also per ], an older discussion in a less-broadly-attended corner of Misplaced Pages cannot override an existing consensus which was ''established later''. If Eldomtom2 wants to start a new discussion over the reliability of the website in question, they can feel free to do so, but unless and until someone does that, it appears the March 2022 discussion is the prevailing one.--]] 16:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The second one is a red link. ] (]) 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's a blue link if you're browsing from before 2015. After The Fracture happened and Dr. Nixon broke the timeline with her first trip we deleted it. When there's a timeline collision we sometimes get people from 2008 linking to it when we try to warn them about the snakes. --] ]/] 21:26, 2 February 2037 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Don't tell people about the snakes. It destabilizes the time loop and every time it happens we have to revdel the entire 2040s. ''']'''×''']''' 10:54, 9 April 2051 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It won't be if you go back in time and fix it. --]] 13:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have made multiple attempts at starting discussions here and they have failed to receive attention.--] (]) 21:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that there was a well attended RfC for it here less then a year ago. It seems the community here largely doesn't feel like it needs to be reopened at this time. Is there something that's changed about the source in the last year, or do you just disagree with the conclusion? Because the former may catch more discussion but the latter is likely to elicit crickets if editors don't feel anything is substantially different to when we did this before. --] ]/] 06:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I disagree with the conclusion. It was waved through with little investigation.--] (]) 22:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm sorry, are we looking at the same RfC? I would like to draw your attention specifically to Compassionate727's fairly exhaustive dive into their structure and editorial methods. That is exactly the the type of examination we expect around here, and it did seem to hold quite a bit of weight with participants. If you were talking about a different RfC that's understandable, but if you meant the March 2022 one and think there was 'little investigation' then I don't think you are quite on the level. --] ]/] 06:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If you think it was an "exhaustive dive" you can think that, but I don't think "they say they have some sort of standards (that they won't clarify) that they apply to user submissions" is good enough to say something is a reliable source.--] (]) 20:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Just want to point out that WP Anime does consider Behind the Voice Actors to be reliable in most circumstances. You would see this if you actually read the entry at ]. ] (]) 00:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::It actually says "Roles and lists that are not check-marked (covered by a screenshot), despite being listed under that actor, cannot be used", which means that BtVA is unreliable, since the only thing it is considered reliable for is providing screenshots of the primary source that is a show's credits.--] (]) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Is the blog ] in whole or in part, a ]? ] (]) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Rfc on Irish Central == | |||
| <!-- ] 09:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1683104485}} | |||
| {{rfc|prop|rfcid=A2313D0}} | |||
| We use this website in a number of articles.. Its own article was deleted via ]. My latest encounter with this was at where it uses a reliable source to push the idea of Egyptians in Ireland by using it alongside a fringe video. I think at best this should be classified generally unreliable. ] ] 08:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Meh. People shouldn't be using a light news source for such material in any event. Do you have evidence that the website willfully or negligently has a habit of publishing known falsehoods, or is this one story (which shouldn't be used in any event, even if it covered things that weren't WP:FRINGE, because this is not that kind of source) the only thing that makes you want to eradicate the source from Misplaced Pages? --]] 11:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]There's this:]. See ]. claims ancient Irish culture was polygamous and implies gender equality, but see ] (maybe some but not much polygamy). No time for more, sorry. ] ] 16:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Like I said, it's a light reading source. The "Kennedy-Lincoln" coincidences are a cultural meme that predates the internet by some years, I remember it from the 1980s for goodness sake, so much so that we have the ] article. As I said, the source ''shouldn't be used'' in places where obviously better sources do, but that's not special to this source that makes it different from other fluffy listical-y websites. There's thousands of such websites, and I'm not sure this board's resources are well spent discussing each and every one. Go ahead and remove the bad uses, ] means you don't need permission to do so. It is not the sort of thing that we need to have a formal vote on or anything like that. Self-evidently bullshit articles can be removed from Misplaced Pages ''without'' any prior permission or discussion about the publisher of those articles. --]] 16:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Comment for context: Note that a ] that Science-Based Medicine is considered ] and not considered ]. See ] for more details at ]. ] (]) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Adding Stacker to list of reliable sources == | |||
| :{{strikethrough|], is there a reason that you chose not to list this RfC on the Maths, science, and technology list? If not, would you mind adding that topic area to the RfC template? Thanks,}} ] (]) 19:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 00:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1683590605}} | |||
| ::Never mind, Raladic added it. ] (]) 20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfc|policy|rfcid=CBA7E70}} | |||
| Should be added to ] as a reliable source? ] (]) 23:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ===Responses (Science-Based Medicine)=== | |||
| is a newswire and "storytelling platform" focussing on data-driven journalism. The Editor-in-Chief is Micah Cohen, the former Managing Editor of ]. Their "full-time newsroom includes over two dozen data journalists, editors, and writers who have worked with and been published in leading national publications." | |||
| *'''Not SPS''' - Per the previous RfC, there seems to be no reason to rehash this. The editorial practices of SBM show that they do not act like an SPS and that has not changed since the prior RfC. So there appears to be no reason to deviate it from it now. What is the rationale for this repeat RfC other than to try to discredit it? SBM is one of the watchdog media that help keep ] science out of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' {{summoned by bot}}, @] has there been in discussion of this on this noticeboard since the last RFC? '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| For more information see: | |||
| *:OP created different RFC here: ] which was closed as a bad RFC as it was not neutral and editors pointed out the lack of RFCBEFORE on a reasoning of why this needs to be rehashed. Given that that one was just closed and now this new one was immediately opened again without any RFCBEFORE discussion, it similarly appears to be looking for a problem without information as to why this RfC is here without any new evidence that should change the established consensus of the community. ] (]) 03:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| *:There was a discussion from a few years ago listed on RSP that seemed very mixed as to whether SBM is a SPS ] (]) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Their | |||
| * '''SPS'''. Per what they wrote on their site: "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" If people are able to publish directly, by themselves, without being reviewed, then that meets the definition of SPS and we need to treat it that way for BLPs. Noting that this only means that it can't be used for direct statements about living people, but can still be used for statements about the truth (or, more often, otherwise) of views held by living people, the views of the authors about living people, and statements about fringe theories themselves. - ] (]) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Their | |||
| *:You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight - {{tq|After careful review, the editors of SBM decided to retract this book review. Because we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness, occasionally corrections need to be made post-publication. In this case we felt there were too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science, and leaving the article up would not be appropriate given the standards of SBM.}}, so this looks like exactly what you'd expect from a non-SPS. You basically just made the case why they are not an SPS. ] (]) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * This report and interview on | |||
| *::In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - ] (]) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 23:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::"''As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs''". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. ] (]) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as ]. ] (]) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! ] (]) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::This just seems like sealioning but here you go... ] (]) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You have linked to several articles by ]. Where does it claim on those articles they are self-published? David H. Gorski obviously reviewed those articles, he is listed in the link you cited below as the other editor. There are two editors so this isn't self-publishing. ] (]) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). ] (]) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::The website says "''SBM is entirely owned and operated by the ]''" . So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella . This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. ] (]) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. ] (]) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology . My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! ] (]) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --] (]) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::Thanks for the correction. The dude looks young for his age, fooled me. ] (]) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::So between Jay, Steve, and Robert Novella it seems that we have a lot of relatives here. ] (]) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::What is your source for the organization having 25 employees? ] (]) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::{{Ping|Psychologist Guy}} you've claimed three times that the organization currently has exactly 25 employees... It is the core of your argument, but I don't think its true and I can't find it anywhere online... So how are you getting that number? ] (]) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. ] (]) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::::Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. ] (]) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::::::::{{Reply|Psychologist Guy}} Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. ] (]) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #::::::::::::::::I have contacted someone who should know about this; hopefully they get back to me and I can let you know what the current figure of their employees is with documentation if possible. ] (]) 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #:::::::::::::::::{{Reply|Psychologist Guy}} it has been a week, did you find out anything useful? ] (]) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS''' This isn't a self-published source, the articles are reviewed before being published by an editorial board. The four current editors are: Steven P. Novella, David H. Gorski, Kimball C. Atwood, Mark Crislip. Guest editors can submit articles to the website, all of which are reviewed before publication. Critics of SBM are jumping a single retracted article that this is an SPS. Seems like a bad case of cherry-picking. There is no good evidence this is an SPS. '''Update''' There are two editors not four my mistake. The publisher is the ]. ] (]) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That doesn't match what is currently on their website, they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. ] (]) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. ] (]) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? ] (]) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. ] (]) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. ] (]) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by ], it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. ] (]) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The New England Skeptical Society, of which Novella is founder and president. ] (]) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Their own statement was "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" Given that, it is clear that in at least some cases, people can publish directly on SBM without being reviewed before publication. - ] (]) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''', seems to be pretty cut and dried at least when it comes to Novella's pieces (remember SBM claims to be a blog, its generally presenting personal opinions... When its two expert editors want to publish their actual work they do not publish it there but in real journals). I would also note that this discussion should include the sister blog NeuroLogicaBlog. If anyone wants to disagree with me they can lay out what editorial checks and balances would apply to Novella. ] (]) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. ] (]) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. ] (]) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own . There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. ] (]) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Is it two or several? ] (]) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:(How) does the following factor into your assessment that it's an SPS? In their of "Why Dr. Harriet Hall’s review of Abigail Shrier’s ''Irreversible Damage'' was retracted," they note that "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing," and that they "have mechanisms of quality control" for articles that are posted without prior review, including "clarification in the comments" and "corrections to the original text of the article." Their about outside submissions says in part "The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using an informal peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a 'rough and ready' peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission." ] (]) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. ] (]) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I was asking ], in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for ] as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." ] (]) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::With Quackwatch we came to a similar position - articles published by the editor are self published, but articles on the site by other authors are not. I'm ok with something similar here. The only problem is that all they say is "trusted authors" can post directly. I would read that as safe to assume people who do not regularly have articles posted on the site would not be trusted, but it doesn't say only the editors are trusted to publish without prior review. Thus there may be some gray area between the two. - ] (]) 21:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The others are more a grey area for me, most of what we are currently using on wiki is pieces by Gorski and Novella... And we have discussions elsewhere about some guest authors like Harriet Hall not producing work of the same quality/rigor as Gorski and Novella. Its a bit of an odd situation, normally the editors are not also the authors and even when they are they're normally not the primary and most reliable authors. Its made extra odd because most of the editors/authors are subject matter experts so usable under EXPERTSPS no matter where we come down on general reliability. ] (]) 03:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS'''. It's a group blog with some guest authors. Having multiple contributors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Having guest authors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Retracting a post does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. This language in ] is particularly relevant: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". As a pro-SBM editor argued in the aborted RfC, the need for SBM in Misplaced Pages is to enable wikivoice accusations of "grift, fraud and quackery" ''that cannot be sourced otherwise''. In other words, the reason this group blog has been elevated to a reliable source is to work around NPOV. - ] (]) 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) ] (]) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::That is a direct quote from ]. - ] (]) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. ] (]) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If you have a problem with WP:SPS the appropriate venue is ] - ] (]) 21:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment'''. Do some people !voting here have a connection to the source? I see one editor referring to Steven Novella as "Steve" and another who may be affiliated with the New England Skeptical Society. I have seen some surprising interpretations of WP:COI in the past so I'm not sure if this is important, but thought it was worth noting. - ] (]) 18:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:That is also a great point and worth investigating as part of any close here. Looks sus at the very least... ] (]) 01:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. I personally think this source is fine to use on BLPs, but there is no way to honestly read our (convoluted, strange) SPS guidelines and not come to the conclusion that it is one. It is a small group of people most of whom publish without prior review on a blog. That they make arguments we like does not make it not a blog. ] (]) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. It's a group blog, but still a blog. Group blogs are specifically called out on ]. As noted above, SBM "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness". The fact that they later retracted one article doesn't negate that the norm for "trusted authors" (probably including regulars, and definitely including the owners of the site such as Gorski and Novella) is to publish without any editorial review of the author's work. Hence, it is clearly by and large an SPS. | |||
| :The claim that we need this to not be an SPS to effectively fight fringe and quackery is often made but I've never seen it backed up with an example of a fringe topic whose Misplaced Pages article would become credulous to pseudoscience without it. There are plenty of published and even academic sources that stuff like homeopathy is pseudoscientific, quackery, etc.; we are perfectly capable of sourcing something like "John Smith is an advocate of homeopathy, a pseudoscientific practice" in just about any case it is needed. SBM being an SPS also doesn't preclude its use in cases of ], as pro-fringe sources themselves are often SPS or otherwise poor. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The ] article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. ] (]) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's no shortage of reliable sources establishing that the germ theory was a huge advance in medicine and that we have basically incontrovertible proof of it for maybe thousands of diseases. | |||
| ::: - ] (]) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But using any of those sources to draw conclusions about the specific claims of a particular germ theory denialist would be ]. ] (]) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Reliable SPS'''</s> - can be used to describe fringe theories proposed by people as discredited or as quackery, including on a bio... should not be used to describe people themselves as quacks. ] (]) 00:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Partial SPS''' - saw some of the info of arguments below from CoffeeCrumbs, and FactOrOpinon. I think the partial peer-review for some articles is... frustrating for a direct answer, but if there is peer-review on an article, it should stand as non-SPS material. ] (]) 01:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS''' - We see at ] that an SPS has clear rules and restrictions, such as not being used '''ever''' for a ], absolutely '''never'''. Some seem to be arguing that this obvious SPS should for some reason be granted an exception to the clear language of "'''never'''" and should be allowed on biographies of living persons in some cases (or in many). There are many reasons why that is not allowed generally, but we have now learned that this source is essentially the soapbox of primarily only ''two individuals'', and most importantly, is not part of a media outlet or organization or inclusive of any external (or even further internal vetting). No, rather, it is a '''blog'''. An SPS '''blog'''. One perhaps run by scientists, two scientists, but a blog, nonetheless. Again, quoting directly from WP:SPS, "{{tq|'''Never''' use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.}}" So here we have this source, which is obviously beyond ] a blog and a self-published source, we must then at the very least clarify that it absolutely must not be used in any circumstances for BLPs going forward, by the fact that it is so clearly a SPS.] (]) 00:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Partly SPS and partly non-SPS''' - The site makes it clear that some authors can publish without prior review. I consider their articles to be self-published; for example, I put Steven Novella's articles in this category. The site also says that other articles undergo prior review (e.g., "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing"). I consider the latter to be non-self-published. Examples of authors who clearly aren't regular article authors there and whose articles presumably underwent prior review: and . For some articles/authors, it's not clear to me whether they fall in the SPS category or instead in the non-SPS category. ] (]) 03:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * It seems that posts by some established contributors are self-published (as shown by links above), while guest contributors are not. So the answer to whether SBM is an SPS or not is 'yes'. '''SPS and not SPS'''. Certainly the idea that it's fully SPS has no basis. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS''': As noted by other contributors, SBM openly acknowledges that it often publishes content without prior peer review. Consequently, this makes it a self-published source (SPS), with the opinions expressed representing those of individual authors. Like any other SPS, its use requires caution, especially in articles about living people or controversial topics, where ensuring accuracy and neutrality is critical. ] (]) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey === | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This isn't to say Stacker is or isn't a good source. Instead, we simply don't have enough discussions about it. It should still be handled on a case by case basis with no presumption that it is or isn't acceptable for what ever specific claim it is being used for. ] (]) 23:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:My hope was to have that discussion here. This was not just intended as a vote. I have now split this into a Survey and a Discussion section to make that clearer. ] (]) 23:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * Agree with Springee. This is not how RSP works. If it turns out that there are multiple discussions about Stacker in the future, those discussions will resolve if, how and when it is listed at RSP. At this point there isn't even a single dispute, let alone a perennial dispute A RFC is not the correct path to RSP. ] (]) 01:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:"For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, '''or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard'''." (]) | |||
| *:I think it is significantly more efficient to establish a source's status once, instead of discussing it several times before coming to a result. Why have multiple discussions when one will do? ] (]) 01:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I think that's a bad way to handle RS questions. First we need to remember that no source is considered always reliable and few are considered never reliable. Second, we really need to be looking at a case by case basis. One of the big issues with the RSP page is it leads to a level of gaming where it becomes important to get this site listed as "green" vs "yellow". Certainly a passing mention at the bottom of a "green" article is more important than a well crafted discussion in a "yellow" article. How dare an editor would try to use a yellow article to show that my green article is wrong! Also, people tend to think "green" means DUE vs just, "generally reliable". Part of the benefit of having multiple discussions about specific uses of a specific source is we get a better feel for the source over time. We also avoid the case, where just a few discussions result in a "conclusion" that is then enshrined in the RSP list. Personally, I think the standard should be at least 5 discussions but certainly not when we don't have any previous discussions. ] (]) 02:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Further, there is no actual dispute over the use of the source in any article. I can find only one article in which it is currently being used as a reference. There is zero context for an RFC. ] (]) 02:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''', not only has there not been enough discussion on the site, but they don't have a page of their own and are known for making listicles and sponsored content so it fails to pass ]. ] (]) 03:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' I am bothered by the use of this discussion board and of RSP to "pre-approve" a canonical list of sources. It is not intended for such. This board is to resolve ''genuine disputes'' over the use of a source, not really a place to get something preemptively approved or preemptively banned. Apply the criteria at ] and decide for yourself if using any particular source (including this one) is appropriate. --]] 16:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion === | |||
| * '''Support''' this only because I was confused by searching for Stacker in the chart at WP:RSP and hitting only Stack Exchange. Don't know if anybody else would have the same problem. I'm not impressed by the site's content but only by the editor, Mr. Cohen. -] (]) 15:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:RSP is not a canonical list of sources. It only list those which have generated repeated controversy (they are perennially discussed). --]] 16:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS for reviewed articles''' They directly state they have editorial peer review for a number, if not most, of their articles. And only a select few don't go through that process (though appear to have after the fact review, considering the retraction, so even that seems to be in question). I will note that this appears to be yet another attempt by ] pushing editors to try and remove skeptical debunking media from negatively covering their fringe topics. Par for the course attempt, honestly. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: PrivacyTools.io or PrivacyGuides.org websites reliability? == | |||
| *:It's a day that ends in -Y.... ] (]) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 20:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1683662519}} | |||
| *:If we can't tell what is and isn't peer-reviewed and what is SPS material, is that not a problem? ] (]) 11:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfc|sci|pol|soc|rfcid=F2DF3DD}} | |||
| *:And how we will determine which articles have been reviewed? Also note that editorial review and ] are different things and they do not appear to make a claim of peer review. ] (]) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Which of the following best describes PrivacyTools.io or PrivacyGuides.org technology articles? | |||
| *::Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a '''blog''', they are a '''''trusted''''' blog." ] (]) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Poor editorial control is a matter of reliability, but all matters of reliability don't have to be decided by classifying a source as self-published. It's accepted that other sources follow their stated editorial practices, and noone has shown why that shouldn't be the case here. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS for reviewed articles''' They've got editors, which sets it apart from a standard SPS. Those articles that could be self published are still reliable for most purposes anyway, since they are from subject matter experts. It is also worth noting that while it should not be used for biographical details in general, even if this were to be considered a SPS that would not rule it out for comments on science, medicine, or the reception of fringe ideas, even when those ideas happen to appear on an article with a person's name at the top. - ] (]) 18:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS''' by virtue of having either pre-publication review or the possibility of editorially imposed retraction. A source that is truly ''self-published'' wouldn't have either of those. ] (]) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 1: Generally reliable | |||
| * Option 2: Additional considerations apply | |||
| * Option 3: Generally unreliable | |||
| *'''Partial SPS''' It's a bit awkward since they do so much good work, but "our own editors, however, have earned the privilege of publishing articles without prior review, since they have a proven track record," is extremely concerning. What they describe as an editorial process for these articles, saying that "if any concerns about accuracy, fairness, or completeness come to our attention, we deal with them in a number of ways," is just not enough. The job of an editor is checking before, not just maybe cleaning up after "if," so I would have to say that the articles by their own editors have to be considered '''SPS''' until they revise this. Things they actually do vet ''before'' putting up, I consider as being subjected to an editorial process, however. ] (]) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Disclaimer: I may have previously cited either or both of these. Mea Culpa. | |||
| *'''Generally not SPS''', though additional scrutiny for articles by Gorski and Novella may be appropriate. Essentially per ]. I'm also frankly not impressed with this RFC, and the manner the proposer starts these discussions in general. Said discussions are not {{em|quite}} up to the point of disruption, but I would nonetheless heavily suggest that they seek advice as to the drafting of their statements and formatting of their proposals and whether adequate prior discussion has taken place, from one of the other editors supporting their point of view. ] (] • ]) 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Summary: '''Option 3: Generally unreliable''' for both. | |||
| * '''SPS''' A group blog posting guest postings is still a group blog, and still self-published. Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella, whose blog it is), previous claims to having a robust editorial process seem unconvincing. There is no consistently documented publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and this source is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. ] (]) 16:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Background: As far as I know, neither website has been discussed here previously, but PrivacyTools was previously mentioned (by me) to support a different source. Privacy Guides is a "fork" of Privacy Tools circa 2021. There was ] in 2019, result: Delete. Oddities: The PrivacyTools article creator, ], was blocked for puppetry. The only Keep came from ], who requested Draft restore in 2021 ], and has recently worked on ] (with declared COI). They also cited Privacy Guides to add critical comparative statements (negative towards CalyxOS) to ] and ], and cited or mentioned PrivacyTools or PrivacyGuides elsewhere: ], ]. Privacytools.io has been cited a few times. Summary: Both websites are group (or individual) blogs (and advocacy sites) without evidence of editorial oversight, and as such are unreliable. -- ] (]) 19:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as , and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. ] (]) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * A RFC seems unnecessary. Of the articles in which it shows up on Misplaced Pages per the search lined above, one article references a blog, another references Reddit, the third uses it as an external link, not a reference, and the fourth is a false hit - the reference is actually to a similarly-named site on Harvard.edu. Clearly the blog and the Reddit references should be removed. The external link isn't an issue. There isn't really a live question as far as I can tell. ] (]) 20:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am responding to suggestions that some sort of allegedly robust editorial and accountability process makes it not an SPS, which I think is a nonsense. | |||
| *:Reaching consensus on the sources and nipping future problems in the bud is one option. Procrastinating until later is another. The other article issues have been fixed. -- ] (]) 17:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::My favoured definition of SPS is: if it isn't traditionally published (book, newspaper, journal) or something directly comparable structurally, it is an SPS. That is in line with USESPS since it considers virtually all websites to be self-published. It is narrow, yes, but it is also consistent across media. It is also not a reflection on reliability in other ways, as SPS vs GREL are two different concerns. | |||
| *::I think the "self" in "self-published" causes much confusion, as does the consideration that "publishing" is the mere act of putting information online. A publishing company is more than a person who vets content and presses a button to place material on a website. If we consider something not self published simply because the person who writes it has to go through another person before it is published, that means celebrity social media accounts where an intern reports to a manager aren't self published, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing (ie, virtually nothing is self-published by that standard). | |||
| *::I consider "science based medicine" to be a publication as a whole rather than something that can be approached article-by-article. There is no distinct, separate, traditional publishing entity, as with a newspaper, a book, or an academic journal. The owners and editors are all the same, and that they solicit other people's content to add to their own publication which they entirely control still makes it their own self-published publication, in exactly the same way as any blog with guest posts. | |||
| *::I know there are difficult edge cases to the whole "what is a traditional publisher" model, but I don't think a group blog like SBM is even close to that, and considering it to be one (because editors want to use it to make BLP claims about quacks) has turned into a slippery slope IMO. ] (]) 10:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. ] (]) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::] is '''policy''', <u>not an essay</u>. It is clear '''policy''' that '''<u>blogs</u>''' like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs <u>at a bare minimum</u>. ] (]) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I said "'''USESPS''' is an essay, not a policy" (emphasis added). It seems that you're confusing ] (which as I noted is an essay) with ] (which is a policy). People clearly have different opinions about whether SBM is wholly SPS or only partially SPS, and if the consensus of this RfC is that it is only partially SPS, then the part that isn't SPS can be used for statements about living persons despite identifying itself as a blog. Also, the BLP policy is for statements about living persons, wherever they occur, but AFAIK, RS expert blogs can be used for DUE statements about non-persons, even if that statement appears in a biographical article. BLPSELFPUB is also an exception. ] (]) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I'm aware. We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them. When I raised this weeks ago I asked what I was missing, and it turned out I wasn't missing anything except a massive intractable tarpit. I think none of it is obvious. Your objection here is understandable depends very much how you interpret "author", "publisher" and the work being published, and a narrow definition restricted to natural persons means any source with two people can be argued to be not self published. But to me it remains obvious that for a self published book in which my friend writes the foreword, their content is still self published even though I acted as "editor", and I don't see a difference between a self published book with multiple contributors and a group blog with multiple contributors. And the trouble is a lot of the discussions about how we classify X or Y revolve not around what they are, but about how we want to use them, which makes it ever more messy. Personally I would like to see clarity on *why* BLPSPS exists, and define the standard clearly there, because that would inform what sort of sources are acceptable in BLPs, which is really the nub of the matter. BLPSPS feels like it might once have been shorthand for "a source who's probably had the lawyers look it over before publishing it", but that's just my impression/speculation. Absent BLPSPS, the question of whether sources like grey literature or SBM are SPS or not is largely moot. ] (]) 11:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. ] (]) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Yes, most local and hyper local news outlets are in fact self-published. ] (]) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Not SPS for reviewed content. Where content is clearly reviewed, definitely not SPS. Where we’re not certain, treat it with extra caution. By the way “blog” and “SPS” are not synonyms. Blog is a format that can be edited and published by reputable organisations, as with eg The Conversation or perhaps the SPLC’s Hatewatch. ] (]) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I would agree with you that your two examples are not SPS, however I have seen people argue the contrary in both cases. ] (]) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Everything in ] is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per ]. I also don't believe that '''any''' of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." ] (]) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this '''<u>blog</u>''' are considered '''reviewed''', and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. ] (]) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That argument is ]. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone ''needs'' to make, but ] overrides ]. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. ] (]) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling ] a guideline). ] (]) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of ] that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using {{tq|self-published sources as third-party sources about living people}}, but that fails to apply in two different ways. ] (]) 23:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::How does "fail to apply in two different ways"? ] (]) 01:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There seems to be a lot more than that which is pertinent, that whole section for example is pertinent not just that one sentence. Many of the "not SPS" arguments also seem to be based on ]. As for it somehow not applying you've lost me, gonna have to explain. ] (]) 07:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''', several editors seem to claim something along the lines of "since Science-Based Medicine is 'reviewed' it cannot be a SPS". This claim would benefit from some proof, ideally other secondary sources validating this claim, and not just the very same source saying that it does so. Alex Jones might claim that he is reviewed and reliable etc. That claim by itself does not make it so. Also, I am not saying that Science-Based Medicine is anything like AJ in terms of reliability etc., and to be clear, this RfC is not about reliability, it is just on whether or not the SBM source is an SPS, which I think it pretty obviously is. ] (]) 01:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models: | |||
| *:# Book publisher: External authors submit book outlines and sample chapters; if selected, the publisher contributes substantially towards editing (including ] if necessary), designing, and marketing the book. The author pays for none of this and expects to get paid (at least if sales exceed a minimum threshold). If the publisher rejects the book, then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher. | |||
| *:# Newspaper: The publisher/publication hires editors and journalists. The editor assigns stories (to internal staff) or commissions them (among freelancers; alternatively, editors may accept external pitches, in the book-publisher model). The journalists write the stories; the editor and publisher/publication representatives decide whether to publish what the journalists wrote. If an employee instead of a freelancer, the journalist expects to get paid the same even if the article is ] (not published). If a freelancer, and the piece doesn't run, the freelancer is free to sell it to a different publication. | |||
| *:# Peer-reviewed journal: The (usually for-profit) publisher or (usually academic) sponsoring body creates the publication and hire editors. External authors submit whole papers; editors send the papers for external review and use that information to decide which ones to publish. The authors usually pay for publication, but this is understood to be akin to volunteer work on all sides, with the money usually coming from a third-party grant rather than the author's own funds. If the journal rejects the article, the author is free to submit it to another journal. | |||
| *:I wonder if any of these models feel similar to how you imagine SBM to work. ] (]) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I have in a sandbox. I wonder whether people would find that comparison useful in, say, ]. ] (]) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I do not think any of the above apply to SBM, but I'd like to see you perhaps write up a few methods for what clearly SPS look like, and then we could compare to the above, and determine which SBM most closely resembles. Again, if you write stuff, then you are the publisher, that is by definition "self-published", which is very often the case even if not always for Science-Based Medicine...even by their own admission! ] (]) 14:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I don't think defining none self-published sources are the ones we give a free pass because of our social-culture background is a good way to define them. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. The website describes itself as a blog. According to ] blogs are considered SPS. In addition, SBM publishes unknown proportions of articles without prior editorial review. Therefore, SBM could only be used with attribution, because it is impossible to tell which articles passed editorial review and which did not. ] (]) 17:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:@], WP:SPS says {{xt|"...self-published material such as...personal or ] blogs (as distinguished from ], above)...are largely not acceptable as sources"}}. Are you sure that this isn't a ]? They have an ] and a ], which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with ], too. ] (]) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "{{tq|These '''may''' be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, '''but use them with caution''' because '''blogs''' may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.}}" ] (]) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want ] to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. ] (]) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per ] we are advised to {{xt|use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process}}. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. ] (]) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Exactly. ] (]) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Use with caution and statements of opinion are covered by other parts of the guidelines, separate from SPS. Whether a source is self-published or not doesn't mean it's reliable or unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Mostly SPS'''. It seems to be the Novella and Gorski show. That doesn’t make it unreliable for topics in which they are recognised experts - neurology for Novella and oncology for Gorski, apparently. That would make them reliable reviewers of any guest content on those topics too. But outside their domains of expertise, they are just blogging. Expertise in one domain does not imply expertise in another - and sometimes it’s quite the opposite, in that smart people who are accomplished in their niche start to think their opinions on everything else are equally robust (looking at you, Elon). ] (]) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS'''. Editorial oversight is insufficiently verifiable nor independent enough to call this something other than self-published. ] (]) 19:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''SPS''' It seems their peer-review is only for new contributers, the staff is volunteer and they explicitly say that they like to avoid as much editing as possible. There also doesn't seem to be much of editorial indepencence from the owner (New England Skeptical Society) which is an advocacy group. Especially troubling is that the Executive Editor is also the President of NESS. NESS also has two other members of the Novella family on the board. That makes three of the five board members from the same family. This is no what oversight should look like. The group of writers is also small and probably know each other well and are of course, ideologically similar. ] (]) 11:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>Partial SPS</s> '''Partly unclear, partly not SPS''' As discussed above, it isn't clear which articles by Gorski and Novella have been reviewed and we should probably lean towards treating those ones like ] just to be safe. They do, however, have a very clear review policy on guest articles (see ) which states {{tq|volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which '''at least three of our editors evaluate the submission'''}} (emphasis added). That's pretty obviously not self-publishing. I do want to note though that this type of discussion would really benefit from more consensus on what an SPS is. Maybe some more experienced editors should consider drafting a big RfC to revise SPS with more detail on what it means in practice (probably after ARBPIA5 is over so admins have more time to focus on it)? ] (]) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Reply|CambrianCrab}}The main problem is that they currently only have two editors (one being the managing editor), so we can be relatively sure that they do not follow that policy becuase it requires a minimum of four editors to follow (the managing editor and at least three others). ] (]) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Exactly. ] (]) 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good catch on the number of editors, I missed that the other ones had retired/passed, but I don't really think that makes it SPS since articles are still getting reviewed. Imo, it's a red flag in terms of ''reliability'' that either the list of editors and/or review policy is out of date, but no impact towards whether or not it's ''SPS''. ] (]) 02:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See and that is interesting because I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I think that it could be reasonably argued that SBM is reliable, but that there is no case at all that it is somehow not SPS. When there is <u>one</u> person in most cases writing something and then just directly launching it to the internet on a blog, that is self-published. Which we have no way of knowing if these <u>two</u> editors even check one another, so it is very possible that frequently this is exactly what is happening. However, how different is it really when there are only <u>two</u> editors from one checking on anything. That is practically and definitionally a self-published source by every possible measure for evaluating whether or not a source as SPS or not. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? And again, even if that is true, if there are only two editors doing the "reviewing", that is not due diligence, that is back scratching and ]. ] (]) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To be clear, I don't think SBM is unreliable, just that outdated pages would be a red mark towards reliability. Whether or not pages or up-to-date has nothing to do with if something is self-published. | |||
| :::::I don't really follow the rest of your argument. {{tq|We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed?}} Yeah we generally take sources at their word on their own policies unless we have reason to question it. SBM is a relatively long-running and well-known outlet run by experts in the topic area. I don't see any reason we should think they're lying about their policy. ] (]) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Those are fair point, review is review and it seems that at least some are seemingly getting reviewed. ] (]) 19:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Not SPS'''. What someone means by "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" is "these writers aren't dumbasses and we trust them" with an implied "if an issue is found after the piece is out, we'll put out a correction", not "these people are infallible and we will never correct them because reasons".  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 21:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:So they are essentially "Not SPS" because they claim to sometimes not be SPS. Got it. ] (]) 01:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:The purpose of oversight is due diligence, not dumbass detection. ] (]) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Partly SPS and generally unsuitable for contentious topics on Misplaced Pages.''' While SBM is valuable for some scientic topics, it self-described as blog with inconsistent editorial oversight, allowing authors like Novella and Gorski to pubish without review. Gorski, who often takes strong positions, is a polarizing figure, and his articles often reflect a bias and lack of nuance. For controversial topics or biographies, more neutral and independently vetted sources would better meet Misplaced Pages standards. ] (]) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''' As I've said before on previous RfCs, this is explicitly a self-published source. ] (]) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not SPS unless Gorski and Novella wrote the piece''': SBM is one of the best sources for coveraging ] and ] activism we have <small> and I'll note ''some'', certainly not all, wanting to make it a SPS tend to have, at best, a ] attitude </small>. Simply put, there is editorial oversight of contributors. We don't know if there is for Gorski and Novella, and should act accordingly and treat them as subject matter experts outside BLPs, but we do know that there is for other contributors. I'm somewhat concerned with the shape of this RFC - we have longstanding consensus that SBM is a reliable source and not an SPS. Instead of challenging that, this RFC was opened to challenge specifically the SPS designation in a seemingly roundabout way to question it's reliability. | |||
| : I also want to note that per ] {{tq|In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed.}} - so while I still maintain it's not an SPS, the standards for ] allow non-peer reviewed sources on fringe topics as long as they're reliable, so an SPS designation should not, unless we ''also'' agree it's not reliable, be used to go a purge of its use. ] (]) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''No''' due to editorial oversight. ] <small>(])</small> 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Given that the editors have stated that they do not provide oversight on all contributers prior to publication, this does not seem to be universally true. - ] (]) 09:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''' I think it's important that the arguments about whether Science Based Medicine is SPS or not are removed from our own assessment of the topics they’ve covered, otherwise we infuse topic bias on a process matter and risk floating away from the core question of this RfC. SBM is SPS simply because of the lack of editorial oversight and independence needed for subject matter of medicine.--] (]) 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: WION == | |||
| {{archivetop|result=Hatted for ] of disruptive sockpuppet editor. This does not preclude a good-faith editor starting a separate discussion if one is seen as needed - ] (]) 12:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| Following these previous discussions from ], and ], what is the reliability of ] ({{duses|wionnews.com}})? | |||
| *'''Not SPS''' when it's "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" it means that you have to become a trusted author first before you can publish without prior review, i.e., the editorial oversight comes from becoming a trusted author. ] (]) 01:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1:''' Generally ] for factual reporting | |||
| *:Editorial oversight means reviewing content prior to publishing to ensure the content being published is factual, etc. It's not about who the author is, it's about the substance of the content. ] (]) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply | |||
| *::Are you suggesting that if I write a letter to the editor of some local newspaper, and it is published, then the newspaper is a SPS? ] (]) 03:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3:''' Generally ] for factual reporting | |||
| *:::@] If it was published without review? Yes. A website that published unreviewed content is not a publisher, it's a self-publishing platform. ] (]) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ] as in the ] of the '']''? | |||
| *::::Are you suggesting that the editors of the local newspaper basically do nothing? ] (]) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="font-family: Segoe Print;">]</span> <span style="font-family: Segoe Print;">''']'''</span> 04:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I think you are using the wrong analogy. If you can publish directly, based on your own decision to publish, without anyone else reading or vetting your writing before it appears, you are self publishing. If an editor checks the material and approves it before publication, it is not self publishing. SBM allow some editors to publish without checking or vetting the material before it is published, as you akcnowledged, so in those cases it is an SPS. - ] (]) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey === | |||
| *::::::At the very least anything written by Gorski and Novella there seems to be strong consensus that at minimum those articles are very clearly SPS. In other cases, I think it is dubious at best, since Gorski and Novella run the show and whether or not any real "editorial review" is happening on this blog appears to be very, very much in doubt. The analogy of a "local newspaper" and a ] is not actually analogous, and it is weird that an exception was ever carved out for this blog for it to somehow not be considered SPS. Thankfully it appears as if a new consensus has emerged as a result of this RfC in favor of SBM now being considered SPS, or at minimum, anything published by Gorski or Novella absolutely is without a shadow of a doubt SPS. ] (]) 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option 3''' I looked at the comments on the two links you provided and they seem to be advocating that it's unreliable due to it's political connection to India, and the evidence they gave seems to back it up. I took a peek and it doesn't look too bad (I mean, about the recent North Korean nuclear missile over Hokkaido thing, it seemed to be stating mostly true stuff, although I did notice a lot of articles about India, Pakistan, and that kind of stuff. I'd say option 3, although I am open to changing my vote to option 2 if new evidence suggests the source's reliability. <span style="background:#000dff; padding:2px;">''']]''' </span> 01:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{reply|Bilby}} That's where we disagree. By letting you publish directly, the editor is saying they trust you to write content that doesn't need to be edited - and that means it's not SPS. In fact, one could argue it's a higher bar than having to read and vet the writing. ] (]) 09:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::By publishing directly, it is by definition self publishing. By being trusted to publish directly, it means you are seen as reliable. The two are not mutally exclusive. - ] (]) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:We are all making assumptions about "what it means" because SBM is not transparent enough about its editorial policies. It pales in comparison to journals that tackle many of the same topics. This is precisely why it's SPS. ] (]) 16:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thats right. This "Not SPS" argument is without merit. SBM is not a journal, it is a blog and is 100% SPS. ] (]) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind. ] (]) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Are you suggesting that they post "bogus content"? If not, how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote? ] (]) 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::"Bogus content" is related to an argument about reliability. Which some contributors to this RfC have mistakenly believed is part of this discussion, it is not. This RfC is on the question of whether or not SBM is SPS, which it so obviously is. Therefore, my response was simply reframing that we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all, instead, we are simply discussing whether or not the "editorial review" which some allege occurs at SBM (with scant evidence), is done by the very same people who publish content (Gorski and Novella). | |||
| *::::::Given the self-publication by Gorski/Novella, which evidently is what happens, then the source is a self-published source, and "bogus" doesn't even enter into the conversation. Or at the very minimum, any article published by SBM by Gorski/Novella ought to 100% be considered SPS. ] (]) 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Banedon wrote: "If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind," and you responded "If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks." | |||
| *:::::::As best I can tell, you did not respond to my second question, so I'll ask it again: If , how is your comment at all '''''responsive''' to what Banedon wrote''? | |||
| *:::::::Just so you're clear, the current ] "self-published" explicitly refers to reliability. When you say "we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all," that's not entirely true. It's relevant to whether some of the content on the site is '''not''' self-published. ] (]) 01:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::You've moved the goal posts, Banedon is arguing that none of the content on the site is self-published. ] (]) 01:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I know that Banedon's !vote was "Not SPS," but I interpreted Banedon's comment to Iljhgtn (who claimed that SBM is "100% SPS") as a point about outside contributors to SBM (outdated description ). Maybe I misinterpreted. ] (]) 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::I think in the case of Gorski and Novella there is absolutely no question that it is SPS, but I am more and more wondering how much "editorial review" actually happens even in other cases. From the link you provided if we review, "{{tq|How to submit a guest article: '''Anyone is welcome to submit content to ScienceBasedMedicine.org, regardless of credentials'''. We’ll publish anything '''we think is interesting''', relevant, well-written, and, above all, scientifically sound. ('''The less editing we need to do, the better.''') The '''volunteer editorial staff''' looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission. Please embed citations as weblinks rather than footnotes or endnotes, it saves us a lot of time. How to submit a guest article for publication on SBM Submit your article by email directly to Dr. Gorski (SBMeditor@icloud.com), the managing editor . If he thinks it has potential, he will distribute it to the editorial staff for further consideration. '''Please note that none of the editors are paid for our work on SBM''', '''and most of us have demanding day jobs.''' That means that, '''more frequently than we would like, the process is less than optimal''' and not as fast as writers (or we) would like. (For instance, if Dr. Gorski is working against a grant application deadline, you might not hear for a while, '''because trying to keep his lab afloat trumps his extracurricular activities on SBM.''')}}" There are claims that "at least three of our editors evaluate the submission", but again, I don't trust this, but beyond that, this only applies (if they even do it) to guest submissions, which can be Gorski may post even if he just thinks its "interesting" and "The less editing we need to do, the better" (all well and good, but again, doesn't sound like much "editorial review" is happening even in the case of guest submissions... But again, that is only part of the discussion. The other part that has overwhelming consensus at this point is that anything from SBM authored by Gorski or Novella is SPS. ] (]) 03:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::No offense, but you just posted a bunch of text that once again didn't answer my question. Here it is again: If , how is your comment at all ''responsive to what Banedon wrote''? | |||
| *:::::::::::I'm not looking for your personal opinion about SBM, as you've already made that clear in your many comments. I'm not looking for your opinion about the RfC consensus. I'm trying to understand ''your response to Banedon''. ] (]) 04:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::His comment was, "{{tq|'''If you can write in your own article''' with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind.}}". I was not in any way focused at all on the "bogus content" aspect that you are laser focused on, I was refuting the fact that obviously I, Iljhgtn, cannot get stuff published on their page, but that if I could sure, it would not be a self-published source perhaps. Though it is a ridiculous point he made and that is why I am citing the direct text, instead of offering opinion. If that does not answer your query then I am exasperated and we can both just move on from this odd reading comprehension and/or semantics confused discourse we've been having. ] (]) 04:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Yes, I think we're talking past each other, and it's fine with me for both of us to step away from it. ] (]) 14:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::But you're not Gorski or Novella, are you? That kind of renders the entire point moot. Obviously ''you'' can't publish bogus content, because you're not trusted, ergo, there is editorial control and it is not SPS. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Contributions by the editors are SPS'''. Definitely contributions by Gorkski, Novella, and the other listed editors are clearly ] by both the letter and spirit of ]. By the letter of ] I don't think contributions by other people are SPS but I do have serious doubts about the editorial policy, and thus the overall reliability, of SBM if they're allowing the editors to regularly publish articles without fact-checking. ] (]) 02:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Not SPS'''. This is a web publication of the ], not the personal vlog of ]. ]. The premise that organizations publishing stuff written by members of their organizations amounts to self-publishing seems like it can't help but lead to something like, "the LA Times publishes stuff written and reviewed by members of the LA Times so the LA Times self publishes itself". ] (] | ] | ]) 08:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society whose leadership overlaps with that of the blog and is largely restricted to a single family, the Novellas. The same man, Steven Novella, is in charge of both so there is no independence here that would make it not self published. I would also note that if the Washington Post ever fired all its professional staff and started hosting stuff by Jeff Bezos and his buddies we would treat it as a SPS. ] (]) 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Did you consider the editorial that Bezos wrote in the Post (re: his decision to block the Post's endorsement of Harris) to be SPS? ] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, but note that we already treat editorials and opinion pieces as SPS so its a bit of a moot point. ] (]) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::That's news to me. Are you saying that an editorial or opinion piece cannot be used unless it either falls under EXPERTSPS or BLPSELFPUB? ] (]) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Its a bit (some would say a lot) wider than that because ] also applies. ] (]) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I don't understand how ABOUTSELF comes into play, since an editorial / opinion piece is typically representing the view of a single person, though I guess it's occasionally written by more than one, as with something from an editorial board. But even assuming that ABOUTSELF is in play, that says "'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we cannot use an opinion piece or editorial in the NYT to make a statement —attributed to the author(s) — about a living person whose relationship to the author(s) is third-party. If that's the case, I think there's a lot of WP content that's in breach of this. ] (]) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::There might be some (wikipedia is full of violations of any rule you care to name), but most of those uses are as primary (under aboutself) not as third-party sources. ] (]) 22:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Whether it's primary is distinct from whether it's self-published. Many opinion pieces are used as third-party sources for attributed opinions about living people. Here's an example: in the ] article, the text "Following the January 6 Capitol attack, ], who had initially resisted calling Trump a fascist, announced that the label now seemed necessary," sourced to opinion piece by Paxton, which is a third-party source for a statement about Trump. Are you saying that you think that text must be removed because the source is SPS? ] certainly doesn't say that all opinion pieces should be treated as SPS. ] (]) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::You argue they're amateurs and unqualified to write the coverage that they do; that doesn't on its own bear on whether they're self-published or not. I've limited the scope of my !vote here to concluding they aren't self-published. Whether they are a reliable publication that isn't self-published or an unreliable publication that isn't self-published is a different question. As for Novella heading NESS and ''Science-based Medicine''—um, well, yeah, duh. The latter is an organ of the former. I'm not aghast that the editor in chief of the LA times runs the LA Times, or that ] ran ]. ] (] | ] | ]) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society. The LA Times is owned by ], the editor in chief of the LA times is Terry Tang. A book by Alfred A. Knopf Sr. or ] published by Alfred A. Knopf would be considered SPS for wikipedia purposes, that isn't groundbreaking thats totally normal. ] (]) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::To add to this, being an editor and running an interest organization are (and should be) two very different roles. I can't imagine the director of the National Association for People that Can't Edit and Hate Editorial Integrity (NAPCEHEI) would make a good editor in chief for the org's publication. ] (]) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I said, {{Tq|You argue they're '''amateurs'''}}; you said, {{Tq|'''No''', I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an '''amateur''' society}} (emphasis added). I'm not seeing how I've mischaracterized what you believe about their qualifications when you immediately repeated it. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:There is a distinct difference between the ''LA Times'' and SBM in that it would appear as if at SBM just Gorski can write something or just Novella and then publish it. That is different that the LA Times or other non-SPS in that those have editorial review by other staff. These staff are known and are publicly verifiable as they have | |||
| *:At minimum, it must be acknowledged that material written by Gorski and Novella is SPS. For the record, that is also not saying it is not reliable (as several commenters above continue to be confusing), <u>just that Gorski and Novella work from SBM is SPS.</u> ] (]) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Forbes.com is owned by Forbes Media LLC. Because it is owned by a company, does that mean we should not regard it as self published? In the case of Forbes.com it is not the ownership that matters, but the ability of people to publish directly as contributors without editorial review. With SBM, I would argue that it is also not the ownership that matters, but whether or not people can publish directly without editorial review. - ] (]) 22:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Forbes.com includes content both from Forbes staff and from Forbes contributors. So some of the Forbes.com content is SPS and some isn't. ] (]) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Presumably, that is because the Forbes staff material is published under editorial control. It is not the ownership that decides if something is an SPS, but the process by which material becomes available after it has been written. - ] (]) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::That was my point, as it seemed you were claiming that we should regard all of Forbes.com as self-published. Why did you conclude that the subset of SBM material that does undergo prepublication editorial review is nonetheless SPS? ] (]) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I've never assumed that material on SBM that undergoes editorial review is SPS. My only concern is that the argument that the publication belongs to the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not SPS, is not sound. I think you can reasonably argue that some material published by SBM does not under go editorial review prior to publication, and that some material is therefore self published, or you can argue that all material undergoes pre-publication editorial review, and therefore SBM is not an SPS at all. But I don't think you can argue that SBM is owned by the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not an SPS. - ] (]) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I should have been clearer. I was asking because in your Dec.6 !vote, you said that you consider SBM to be wholly SPS (or at least, you didn't qualify your SPS response). ] (]) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::I think I have been fairly consistent, but to explain my reasoning: it is clear that trusted authors are allowed to self publish on the site, but what is not clear is who these authors are. We khave been assuming that this means the editors can publish directly, and we have assumed that guest contributors probably can not, but we do not know if all guest editors are not trusted enough, nor do we know where the authors that sit between those two come. Given that, rather than say "partial SPS" but not know who is self publishing, I think it is safer to say "SPS" but realise that there may be exceptions. From a BLP perspective I prefer to errr on the side of caution. - ] (]) 07:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''SPS''' A group blog where the participants can publish without review is a SPS, even if it calls certain people editors and sometimes deletes things (if that were the standard, even much of ''social media'' wouldn't be a SPS, because sometimes those sites have deleted stuff like COVID misinformation). I also do not think accepting occasional outside submissions consistutes "review" to the degree those posts become not-SPS. Nor do I think being "published" by an organization the blog authors *also* control consititutes sufficient independence, as some have claimed. I think sometimes the authors can be cited under the WP:SPS subject-mattere expert exception, but only in the ''specific'' area of their academic speciality (e.g. neurology, surgery and oncology, family practice medicine) but not in other areas. - ] (]) 15:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussion bottom}} | |||
| == RfC: Bild == | |||
| * '''Option 3 for now, without prejudice to a new RfC in a year or so. If independent experts appear on WION, I see no problem using them, with attribution.''' They do separate news and opinion. I could not find a corrections policy. I could not find any evidence that a wrong article had been corrected. I spot checked a few articles and did not see anything that was obviously wrong. I looked around for ] and found very very little, though they are referenced by , which itself lacks much of a footprint. I don't see evidence that they have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, lack of fact checking, or inaccuracy. I don't think they meet ] yet. But they seem to be newish, so I think it would make sense to check back in a year or so. If this gets listed at ], I request that the temporary nature of this assessment be noted. Furthermore, it is possible that input from a user who has a high degree of familiarity with ] might change this assessment. ] (]) 19:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736895671}} | |||
| * '''Option 3''' maybe '''4''', although the latter is probably not necessary at this time. The news channel isn't too new, it was established around 2015-16 as an international channel by ] (which also runs ], its various derivatives and the websites India.com and ''DNA India''; all of which have a very poor reputation). The channel just hasn't managed to get sufficient traction with their intended international audience and the company in general is faltering, so secondary coverage on their reporting will be somewhat sparse. In terms of its content, it isn't too different from its sister outlets, only the target audience, area of coverage and presentation is different. | |||
| What is the reliability of the German tabloid ], including its website Bild.de? | |||
| # Generally reliable | |||
| # Additional considerations apply | |||
| # Generally unreliable | |||
| # Deprecated | |||
| ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Responses (Bild) === | |||
| *'''Option 3/4''' Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, , routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation) {{tq|Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers.}} ... {{tq|The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary}}... EDIT: another quote {{tq|BILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.}}} ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 , as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic ] (]) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that ] is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3/4'''. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--] (]) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3''' at least, and I wouldn't say no to '''4'''. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for ] material; if they claimed something as simple as {{var|X}} number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3''' I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. ] (] • ]) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3/4''' Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people''' it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and ''allegedly'' breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. <small> Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable </small> ] (]) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2, provisionally''', since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''', I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 4''' Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Misplaced Pages project. ] (]) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''', there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – . But see my comment in the discussion section below. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' per ActivelyDisinterested. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per ] would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. ] (]) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3/4''' per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. ] (]) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:it's ''snowing 3'' ] (]) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3/4'''. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --] (]) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3/4''': Tabloids usually fail reliability. It seems this one is no different. ] (]) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Option 3/4 (depending on whether anyone can make a case that there's some e.g. ABOUTSELF use we would still want them for — but I doubt we should be using them 1,800 times, as Hemiauchenia says we are at present) per Aquillion and Hemiauchenia; as RSP says, a reliable source "has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction"; ''BILD'' has the opposite reputation. ] (]) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (Bild) === | |||
| :I had commented on it in the previous two discussions back in 2020-21 and I'll more or less stand by my comments that it is generally and quite thoroughly unreliable. Although I wouldn't use the exact terms I had used back then, I'll still say that they are linked to the ruling party (the chairman of their parent company is ]) and they very closely toe the government line, making them functionally non-independent. I had also ] for unreliability back then and I'd just add to that with a few more points below: | |||
| Bild is currently used over 1,800 times on the English Misplaced Pages per {{duses|bild.de}}. It is already currently listed on RSP as "generally unreliable". This RfC was prompted by a discussion at ], where a user questioned the lack of participation in previous discussions. ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I asked the initial question at WT:RSP since I don't like when we classify sources based on vibes. So I'll play the role of the devil's advocate. I have very little knowledge of the German media landscape and I'm open to arguments in both directions. The sources provided by u:Hemiauchenia make two claims: | |||
| :*During the Covid-19 pandemic, in reaction to the coverage by international news outlets on government response and the extent and impact of the pandemic in India, they made allegations of "media bias" and "targeting", while claiming that the "western media" was censoring coverage of the pandemic in their home countries to the point that there was "nothing on the news wires" and that only WION was bringing the coverage in these countries as "everyone else has chosen not to" which we know is . This is in line with their general MO and they frequently make similar retorts to reporting by the international press on the deteriorating state of affairs in India on matters such as political repression, press freedom, etc. This kind of behaviour doesn't align with them being a journalistic enterprise. | |||
| * {{tquote|articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary"}} - this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities | |||
| * In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes . ]<sub>]</sub> 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated): {{tq|From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.}} | |||
| :*They had once that they were in a partnership with Deutsche Welle. This brings into question whether even its claims about itself can be relied on. | |||
| ::If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. ] (]) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@], I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks! | |||
| :::::These are the key points from the foreword | |||
| :::::# articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers | |||
| :::::# BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples | |||
| :::::# is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze | |||
| :::::# A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer | |||
| :::::# A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable. | |||
| :::::I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed? | |||
| :::::In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very ] source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not really sure what is meant by {{tq|classif sources based on vibes}}, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. ] says {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}, as does ] multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. ] (] • ]) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the {{duses|bild.de}}, most of them belong to the first category. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Nigerian newspapers == | |||
| :*With respect to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, there also seems to be a subtle alignment with Russian propaganda as well. For example, they had quoted a which included views of Americans on the Russian state but they , a term that wasn't used in the original source at all and is a charge of prejudice against Russians frequently used by the Russian state and its propaganda apparatus.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Burrett |first=Tina |title=The Routledge Companion to Political Journalism |date=2021 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-367-24822-2 |editor-last=Morrison |editor-first=James |language=en |chapter=Putin, partisanship and the press |doi=10.4324/9780429284571-16 |editor-last2=Birks |editor-first2=Jen |editor-last3=Berry |editor-first3=Mike}}</ref><ref name="jdpz">{{cite journal |last1=Darczewska |first1=Jolanta |last2=Żochowsky |first2=Piotr |date=October 2015 |title=Russophobia in the Kremlin's strategy: A weapon of mass destruction |url=https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/pw_56_ang_russophobia_net.pdf |journal=Point of View |publisher=] |issue=56 |isbn=978-83-62936-72-4}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Robinson |first=Neil |date=2019 |title=“Russophobia” in Official Russian Political Discourse |url=https://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/deeuropa/article/view/3384 |journal=De Europa |language=en |volume=2 |issue=2 |doi=10.13135/2611-853X/3384 |issn=2611-853X}}</ref> | |||
| :<span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 22:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Gravitas is clearly a pundit-based opinion show, making it unreliable, regardless of how one views the underlying outlet. ] (]) 16:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::It looks like that but it isn't; ''Gravitas'' is identified as a news programme (see ; the website section of it describes itself as ) and the host mentioned in the specific episode above (not a pundit or talk show host) at that time. It's more of a feature/exclusive news segment where they break stories (such as in the example) or report on the biggest story of the day. | |||
| :::In fact, Indian news channels don't really have a concept of "pundit-based opinion shows", instead there are "debate shows" which fills a similar space. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 18:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ] has nothing about Nigerian newspapers, but references a project-list of them which seems rather too optimistic. It seems to me that these newspapers are filled with completely unreliable promopieces. You can see ], where a completely unknown Nigerian/French person supposedly got a US-only award from President Biden. Not a single source outside Nigeria confirms this, there seems to be no reason at all why she would have received this, but it got reported by , , , , ... | |||
| {{reflist talk}} | |||
| We had similar issues with e.g. ], ], and probably many others which I can't find as easily. | |||
| === Discussion === | |||
| :@] you have not formatted this to be a formal Request for Comments. If you want to do that take a look at the help page here: ]. Also pinging contributors from the two earlier discussions: @] @] @] @] ] (]) 20:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, I {{oldid|Reliable sources/Noticeboard|1148887872|changed this link}} to {{url|wionnews.com}}, but {{url|wion.com}} what I requested is incorrect. <span style="font-family: Segoe Print;">]</span> <span style="font-family: Segoe Print;">''']'''</span> 22:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Both the links are wrong, the correct one is {{duses|wionews.com}}. is someone's blog it seems, unrelated to this and wionnews.com is only a redirected link. I'll leave a comment on this news publisher in a while though I'm curious, what prompted this RfC? <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 22:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::FYI, ] has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of ] <nowiki>:</nowiki>3 ] (]]) 12:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers which routinely publish such completely unreliable promo pieces as articles? ] (]) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| : The problem is that if you deprecated these newspapers, there'd be basically no usable Nigerian sources left, which hardly seems good in terms of attempting to fix Misplaced Pages's coverage biases. I do agree that it is standard practice at a lot of Nigerian newspapers to run effectively undisclosed promotional material, and it seems good to note this somewhere on RSP, but I think deprecating them outright would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ] (]) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says {{tq| realised that their top quality journalism or influential columnists alone weren’t going to win the battle for eyeballs. Enter “viral content” and clickbait headlines. Press releases were repackaged as news stories, fact-checking and verification became redundant. Aanu Adeoye says, “the traditional gatekeepers of journalism (newspapers) in this country don’t give a hoot about the quality of what they’re churning out daily.” In a few years, stories from Nigeria’s top newspapers looked as hurriedly written as stories from blogs. It had become a game of who could break the news the fastest and who could churn out the most news. Nigerian traditional media beat the upstarts at their own game and occupied spots at the top of Nigeria’s most visited websites. But the true cost of this pyrrhic victory was quality control.}} If even mainstream Nigerian newspapers can't be trusted as factual sources then it's not clear what Nigerian sources can be trusted. ] (]) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I really don’t get arguments like this one. How does it help Misplaced Pages to use unreliable sources from countries with more limited media landscapes? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::One of Misplaced Pages and the WMF's goals is to be "diverse" and to lessen systemic bias to western nations. Limiting coverage to Western liberal democracies will obviously prevent that. ] (]) 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::How does it help the English Misplaced Pages to eliminate practically all English-language sources for about 1 billion English-speakers? There's not an easy answer, here.--] (] | ]) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Much of the editor population vastly underestimates how much of our reader base comes from these regions of the globe. | |||
| :::Formally deprecating sources is a last resort for widely misused stuff like the ''Daily Mail'' (arguably part of the issue there was the perceived credibility of a mainstream Western paper subject to strict British libel laws). Simply following and enforcing existing P&G should address the issues adequately. | |||
| :::Furthermore, if one of these Nigerian papers were to come under new and improved management or ownership, I doubt WP would take notice with any real celerity. | |||
| :::] (]) 00:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a problem with virtually every newspaper published in Nigeria and India. We cannot simply deprecate all news from two of the largest English speaking countries in the world. Or, we could, but we would get called very racist for doing so. ] (]) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which ''don't'' have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. ] (]) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. ] (]) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. ] (]) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? ] (]) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. ] (]) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It still has a disparate impact in a racially biased manner. ] (]) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No its not, it is based upon lack of truth, no one here has raised race once apart from you. ] (]) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Whatever the ''intention'' banning the entire media ecosystem of a developing country of 230 million people (plus India's 1.43 billion because we would ban them for the same reason) and making our encyclopedia irrelevant to large swathes of the non western world would have a biased ''outcome'' - doesn't matter the intention if it gets you the same result. Is that a sacrifice we are willing to accept? Because if so we need to stop pretending we have any interest in "combatting systemic bias". ] (]) 11:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, in my opinion it hasn’t been shown that reliability issues already aren’t being handled at in a nationally disparate manner. ] (]) 00:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::if these sources want to be accepted as reliable on Misplaced Pages, they should give up their practice of publishing paid news and writing puff pieces for anyone willing to pay. - ] (]) 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If we are going to be banning every single news source of a country of 230 million, then we should be very aware we are doing it. And possibly throw out all the project's virtue signaling over countering systemic bias along with it, if we decide to go that route. ] (]) 10:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::We should allow perpetuation of misinformation on Misplaced Pages because it would be racist not to? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (] or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. ] (]) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Should we do the same and ban all news from India? ] (]) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We should ban all shitty sources. If that wipes out all of India’s news (I’d sure be surprised) then yes. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can't see how it would be preferable to have our coverage of non-Western developing countries be dominated by propaganda, paid-promotion, tabloids, and un-fact-checked reports... ] (]) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No one is suggesting an either-or dichotomy. We should start by enforcing existing policies with regard to usage of these sources on a case by case basis. Mass deprecation was merely an impulsive suggestion someone made somewhere above, and would self-evidently be overkill unless all other options had been exhausted, which they haven’t. Cheers, ] (]) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this claim should be presumed true but not notable. The PVSA award is given out annually by any number of authorized NGOs to their own volunteers without any US government involvement, and it does come with a form letter in the president's name. Ononiwu apparently received hers from Innovate Africa Corp. There's no reason any US press to write up such a thing, and there doesn't seem to be a public database of honorees. Note however that Ononiwu should not have been eligible for the award because she's not a US citizen or permanent resident. I guess these newspapers went along with exaggerating the award's prestige, but I don't see it as a major problem for reliability on facts. ] (]) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it could be worth writing some guidance along the same lines as ], though I'm not sure it rises to the point of a general deprecation yet. ] report might also be helpful in developing such guidance. ] (] • ]) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As with WP:NEWSORGINDIA Nigerian news sources are full of undisclosed advertorials. It's a common practice, so editors need to be cautious with anything that uses promotional language. Their use for establishing notability needs to be seen in a similar light. | |||
| :Formally deprecating all Nigerian news media just isn't an option, in the same way deprecating all India news media with the same issue isn't an option. I would support changing the language of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it highlights the same issue in other countries not just India. I doubt this is an issue limited to those markets, and one that will likely become more of an issue everywhere with the difficulties newsedia currently face. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I recall at least one instance of them churning out AI generated puff pieces e.i and . Oddly enough Daily Times NG is listed as a "generally reliable" source for Nigerian topics at ].- ] (]) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Fox News summary judgment == | |||
| :There's evidence that their promotional articles aren't reliable. But I've yet to see anyone present evidence here that other kinds of news from these sources are unreliable. Does anyone here have evidence of that? If not, I don't see why we'd deprecate these Nigerian news sources in their entirety, and instead I support Hemiauchenia's having added "Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability" to RS/P, perhaps adding something like "especially for promotional news articles." ] (]) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Since the PROMO issues seem to be localized particularly to biographies, perhaps we could have guidance similar to what we use at NCORP that calls for heightened Nigerian source scrutiny re: independence when it comes to BLPs. Deprecating them just for BLPs might also be an option. ] (]) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I refuse to comment on the instances that led to this proposal because they can happen on a platform with the format adopted by Misplaced Pages. However, I oppose the proposal to deprecate all Nigerian newspapers on English Misplaced Pages. Applying a blanket judgment based on issues with a few outlets among many is unjust and undermines Misplaced Pages's inclusivity. Nigeria's media landscape, shaped by its diverse population of over 500 languages and 300 ethnic groups, plays a critical role in democracy and accountability. | |||
| :"While no media is flawless, treating all Nigerian newspapers as unreliable disregards their contributions and efforts to uphold global standards. Media reliability concerns exist worldwide, yet discussion of this nature is sensitive and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through blanket exclusions. Adopting this precedent ensures fairness and avoids marginalizing voices from the Global South. | |||
| :"I recommend individual evaluations of Nigerian newspapers, involving local expertise and ongoing monitoring, to maintain Misplaced Pages's mission of inclusivity and accuracy. A nuanced approach will preserve diversity and strengthen the platform's credibility."] (]) 02:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Yes banning falsehoods is a sacrifice I am willing to make, be they from White people black people, or yellow people. As I said about Fiox and the Daily Myth, if you do not want to be accused of telling lies, there is a simpler solution, do not tell them. This is my last response here with a firm '''not reliable'''. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind, but it has to be proof and not emotive appeals to (so-called) fairness. ] (]) 11:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I read two caveats around published data on Fox's knowing promotion of the Big Lie raised in the last RfC - that it was court filings, not established facts, and that it was from opinion sources, not news. ]. Summary judgment has been granted in part to Dominion (https://www.npr.org/2023/03/31/1167526374/judge-rules-fox-hosts-claims-about-dominion-were-false-says-trial-can-proceed). The arguments that this was either opinion or accurate reporting of notable claims are both rejected in the judgment (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885-dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment). It is clear from the facts established that the problem was ''not'' opinions, or ''reportage'' around a false narrative, but provably false statements of fact. | |||
| :{{tq|1=or yellow people}}<br>Uhhh.... ] (]) 18:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Obviously meant as in "persons of any color, including colors in which persons don’t exist" and not a reference to the antique Western epithet for East Asians <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's not "obvious", even to those of us who have interacted with Slatersteven enough to presume he wasn't intending to use a racial epithet. ] (]) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm against this. Nigerian sources, like all sources, are entitled to be evaluated one by one. ] (]) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In the Karen McDougal lawsuit, Carlson's (successful) defence was that no reasonable person would take anything he says seriously - very much the Misplaced Pages consensus that has governed use of Fox as a source for some time. The judgment forestalls that argument. Whether they were uttered with ] remains a question for the jury, as it relies on their assessment of the state of mind of the various individuals involved, but this distinguishes the Big Lie from the habitual use of hyperbole by opinion hosts. | |||
| ===Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)=== | |||
| I've gone ahead and created a new section covering Nigerian news organisations at RSP ]. It's a bit stubby at the moment but it's at least a start. ] (]) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It's also bigger than the opinion shows, regardless of whether anyone would mistake them for news. We now know that when ] cut away from a White House presser in which Kayleigh McEnany aired Big Lie claims, Raj Shah notified senior Fox News and Fox Corporation leadership of the 'Brand Threat' posed by Cavuto’s action. Cavuto is a news anchor, not an opinion host. When Jacqui Heinrich, a reporter, tweeted "top election infrastructure officials there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised", Carlson texted "Please get her fired Seriously… What the fuck? I'm actually shocked… It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It's measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke." Heinrich then deleted her tweet. Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott wrote to Lachlan Murdoch: "It's a question of trust the AZ was damaging but we will highlight our stars and plant flags letting the viewers know we hear them and respect them" and "We can fix this but we cannot smirk at our viewers any longer." | |||
| ::Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. ] (]) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not saying that their judgment is poor or that Nigerian editors are inferior in any way, but that there are issues with Nigerian press across the board, such as low press freedom that is very different from say, news sources in Western Europe and North America, which should be kept in mind with evaluating their content. ] (]) 21:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I encourage you to engage with folks at ] as you develop guidance on Nigerian media. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I second this. I conversion about Nigeria WP should not be done without Nigerians editors involvement. Just because you found something wrong in some sources that doesn’t give you the right to assume all is bad. I can literally give you examples of where , in 2024! So let’s listen to these editors as they are more familiar with these sources. ] (]) 07:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Reliable sources can churn out a lot of rubbish once in a while. No matter what anyone says, the likes of Vanguard, Guardian, Daily Times, Punch, Daily Independent, The Sun, etc, would always be notable relating to general issues about Nigeria. Some weeks back, a state in Nigeria held their governorship election. These media houses in question were the source of verified information about the election. When a political appointment is made by the president, it is the same media houses that Misplaced Pages editors would use to establish the claim. If we make them unreliable, it means we are putting an end to Nigerian contents on English Misplaced Pages. These media houses will dish out promotional materials whenever they want and we can do nothing about it (it is business for them). All we can do as Wikipedians is to speedy norminate articles for deletion if they are not notable to be on the Wiki. The major issue we are having now is a result of a loophole in the notability criteria. GNG should not be used '''ALONE''' to establish notability. ] (]) 10:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This shows a Fox exec team determination to steer its content to what the viewers wanted to hear (because they were deserting Fox for NewsMax) rather than objective fact. With hindsight, this was obvious the day they sacked Chris Stirewalt for correctly calling AZ for Biden. ] ''et. al.'' described exactly this dynamic in ''Network Propaganda'' - in my view it has always been a "when, not if" thing. We have been working on the basis that Fox's obvious dishonesty applies only to opinion programming, but I would suggest that we now have sound evidence that - at least since 2020 - it also infects editorial policy, and that ''this is acknowledged by those responsible''. Notwithstanding the "boiling frog" problem of the creeping radicalisation of Fox leading to endless RfCs after each new outrage, it would be a mistake to think that 2023 Fox News is the same beast as 2019 Fox News. It's not. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 22:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::If these media houses(e.g The Daily Times) are churning out AI generated puff pieces then we should indeed add a cautionary clause in the guideline that care must be taken when using these sources to establish notability, especially at venues such as AfD. - ] (]) 12:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Can we set a cutoff point where it clearly turned unusably bad? (I mean, I'd concur that Fox was launched in bad faith, but ...) - ] (]) 23:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :GNG still works. The sources have to be independent. What this means is that in the case of Nigerian media, it's tricky but necessary to try and determine if a particular report is independent of the subject.--] (] | ]) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::2016 for sure, when they became the personal press for the Trump Administration. ] (]) 02:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Judging articles on a case-by-case basis is something we (Nigerian editors) are already doing and believe it or not, we’re doing a damn good job at it. Deprecating these sources means that articles on Nigerian topics would be deleted in batches——thousands, if I might add——and this doesn’t necessarily reflect the systemic bias we are supposed to be fighting. | |||
| :::The least contentious point would probably be after the Arizona call, since that appears to have been the catalyst for a conscious decision by management to publish knowing falsehoods more widely than the opinion shows in order to preserve audience share. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 10:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :There are tells that give off a sponsored/paid article and every Nigerian editor in good standing already knows this and by this, I vehemently disagree with Hemiauchenia that Nigerian editors are not able to distinguish a reliable source from an unreliable source. | |||
| ::::While I'm on the record as saying they were already unreliable, the Arizona call strikes me as the most obvious inflection point, yes, since coverage here seems to show that after that, the distinction between news and opinion largely started to collapse as the owners panicked and gave news hosts like Bartiromo the green light to spread outright falsehoods in non-opinion venues. --] (]) 20:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, I think sometimes, what we consider as “poor journalism” (in the Western standard) are just Nigerian journalist (correctly) using ] to write articles that it seems like it is promo. This does not mean that undisclosed paid journalism does not happen but sometimes, we confuse the two. So, this is me opposing any form deprecations as this will have unintended consequences. Best, ] 12:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :No. The problem here was the talk shows, not the news reporting. Additionally, what if Fox decides to be more careful going forward? As with the previous discussions, the problem element is already viewed as not reliable. ] (]) 10:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have ] that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - ] (]) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|what if Fox decides to be more careful going forward?}} Then that remarkable and entirely hypothetical event would be worth a new discussion. {{tq|the problem element is already viewed as not reliable}} The issue is precisely that we have the court evidence it was not confined to one element, per the above - ] (]) 11:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], uhm, if Indian editors did so, someone took the liberty of doing it for us (]): ]; no one is opposing it. Best, ] 16:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{tq|The problem here was the talk shows}} - that seems to be specifically untrue. The entire issue here is that there's increasing evidence that the news side is subject to pressure to avoid contradicting the talk shows, and in some cases has ''also'' published falsehoods, which makes it equally unreliable. In particular, Bartiromo, whose statements at the center of the case, was classified by Fox as a ''news anchor'' at the time. From (linked above): {{tq|Prior to Dominion's claims that Fox was defaming it in late 2020, the network classified Bartiromo as a news anchor, not an opinion host.}} Or in more detail , {{tq|But the difference with Bartiromo is she identifies as a news anchor, as she indicated in her testimony.}} She was one of the ones most vocally spreading claims that Fox knew was false; and she was doing it as news, in her capacity as a news anchor, not as opinion. --] (]) 20:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::It ''was''. And then it changed. Evidence in this case very clearly shows executives responding to demands from the opinion side that the ''non-opinion'' side of Fox stop "disrespecting" viewers by giving them accurate information. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 23:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :A thing to keep in mind is that '''every''' source that is a for-profit company is going to be thinking along the same lines as Fox, in that they will focus and adjust how it presents the news to keep their audience happy and thus maintain and/or gain new subscribers. This is not to say that the NYTimes operates as heavily biased as Fox did in the years in question, but we do have to keep that in mind. A more "obvious" example is the Wall Street Journal, which, ignoring its editorial board, still favors news that impact the wealthy, and thus tends to be more right-leaning than other news sources. Pure objective news coverage is dead because there's no market for that type of coverage. | |||
| :Yes, what Fox did here is a problem for us in how we use them, but lets be clear that some of its actions at the core are those other sources readily follow as well. ] (]) 22:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::This sort of spurious equivocation between Fox and the NYT is a ''common'' pro-Fox talking point on RSN, and it isn't any more convincing this time around - ] (]) 10:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I clearly pointed out that what the NYTimes may do compared to what Fox does is definitely not equivalent in terms of impact on current bias, but simply that we should never pretend this doesn't happen at works like the NYTimes. They have a paying audience which they serve first and foremost over neutral news coverage, and while their neutral coverage really hasn't taken that big of a hit from it, its still there in the sidelines (eg their writing on trans rights has left much to be desired). ] (]) 12:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We have concrete evidence here of Fox News' malfeasance, there is no such equivalent for the NY Times. {{|we should never pretend this doesn't happen at works like the NYTimes}} is just you handwaving as what you imagine to exist. False equivalence. ] (]) 12:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm not trying to say we need to take action against the NYTimes because there's no evidence they have done it purposefully or with malfeasance, or at the scale Fox has. But this should remain a guiding factor when evaluating sources in the future, that most news organizations have a commercial motive that they have had to adopt since the 2000s to keep alive. Most of the time, that may only become apparent in small parts of their coverage, but in the case of Fox, the evidence is clearly against their use of favoring the readers' interests rather than journalistic integrity. ] (]) 12:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::NYTimes investigative reporting brought down Eliot Spitzer, New York’s Democratic governor; derailed the election campaign of his Democratic successor, David Paterson; got Charles Rangel, the Harlem Democrat who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, in ethics trouble; and exposed the falsehoods that Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, another Democrat, told about his Vietnam service. Fox and the NYTimes don't belong in the same paragraph. ] (]) 13:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There is no such thing as an utterly unbiased source; but ] covers a more narrow and specific sort of bias - obviously if you consider every source equally biased then the policy becomes useless; I don't think there's any room to seriously entertain people who argue that the entire mainstream media falls under BIASED. But either way, with both sources that meet the threshold of BIASED and those that do not, there are still ''reliable'' sources - ones that don't allow their biases, such as they are, to taint the accuracy of their coverage. And then there are some ''unreliable'' sources, where a source's biases lead them to eg. allow their news anchors to publish intentional falsehoods because it advances some institutional agenda In those cases, the bias is a noteworthy component of their unreliability because it suggests that the problem is institutional and systematic. Obviously the coverage here suggests that Fox is the latter. (An obvious caveat is that I believed that previous coverage already adequately established this; but this makes it glaringly obvious that they do not maintain the separation between news and opinion that some people in previous RFCs hoped they did.) ''That'' is not something that is common among the mainstream media, hence why this lawsuit is making such a splash. --] (]) 20:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| It is true that Nigerian news outlet like their Western counterparts (RSBIAS?) do publish opinions, promotional and advertorials like reliable news without explicitly marking them as much. In fact, this has long history in and it is mostly associated with UPE editors who want to create contents for their gain. | |||
| ::I'm afraid it is true that the media are all biased, some much more so than others. But what happens with a 'reliable source' is they go in for ignoring inconvenient truths and things their audience don't like or doing a bit of spin rather than sticking in outright lies. Outright lies puts them definitely in the not reliable camp. ] (]) 11:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::See "Network Propaganda" by Benkler ''et. al.'' There is asymmetric polarization in US media. Liberal-leaning media (e.g. MSNBC) will lose viewers if they publish ideologically preferred but factually inaccurate content. As the filings and the summary judgment show, Fox, an exemplar of right-wing media, has the exact opposite dynamic. Customers will desert if given factually information that is ideologically unacceptable. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 23:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::: "Customers will desert if given factually information that is ideologically unacceptable." Great, an ] in action. I will not not speculate what is their brand of a ] is, but we have established that Faux News can no longer claim that it is "reliable for statements of fact". ] (]) 04:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Yet, deprecating Nigerian sources is not the solution. It will definitely do more harm than good to the visibility of the most populous black nation on earth. This means that we would have no reliable source to either curate or create contents. This is just an indirect way of saying that Nigerian content is no longer acceptable on English Misplaced Pages. This is because reliable sources are the backbone of contents creation. | |||
| :What new information do we have now that would change the non-consensus from just after Dominion released these messages? The summary judgement seems to be based on statements made by the commentary shows. Where is the new information that says the news programs are releasing false information? This would seem just to support the status quo conclusion we already have. We don't have a problem with people excessively relying on Fox News as a RS for contentious claims. ] (]) 13:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Prior to this discussion, we have been sending a lot of articles with promotional sources to ]. This is what we can do from our end. We can neither stop people creating them nor stop the media from doing their business. | |||
| ::No, you missed a key point of the coverage. Maria Bartiromo, who was the source of some of the defamatory claims at issue, was classified by Fox as a news anchor at the time, not a talk show host. (See , {{tq|Prior to Dominion's claims that Fox was defaming it in late 2020, the network classified Bartiromo as a news anchor, not an opinion host}} - or in more detail , {{tq|But the difference with Bartiromo is she identifies as a news anchor, as she indicated in her testimony.}}) Fox has retroactively taken to calling her a talk show host, but I'm sure that you understand that from the perspective of our policies, that makes things even worse - it means that Fox doesn't maintain a clear distinction between news and opinion, which resolves one of the key issues that previously blocked us from reaching a consensus on their unreliability. If Fox themselves is inconsistent on whether Bartiromo is a news anchor or an opinion host, and if she was saying false and defamatory things while they were calling her a news anchor, then clearly that suggests that we can no longer reasonably split Fox into news / opinion sections - if they're not making a clear distinction, then they have to be judged as a whole. Likewise, failing to distinguish between news and opinion is one of the textbook indicators of an unreliable source, ''especially'' when they have someone who is notionally on the news side publishing what the network as a whole knows are deliberate falsehoods. --] (]) 20:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Did we treat her commentary as need reporting or as commentary? Can you show examples where FN is being used inappropriately? ] (]) 20:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::With all due respect Springee, I don't follow the logic here. Why would we need existing examples of inappropriate use? Does lack of evidence for inappropriate use mean that all future uses are ''per se'' appropriate? Entirely possible I am missing something. Cheers. ] (]) 20:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The evidence doesn't show that FN's news reporting is unreliable. It shows that the talk shows are clearly not reliable. We already say FN political and science reporting is use with care/discretion. Do we have examples where that caution hasn't been followed? If not, what is the issue? What about the previous RfC is no longer valid? ] (]) 21:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Incidentally, I think it would be hard to find an example where I introduced (vs argued that an existing reference is acceptable) Fox as a source. I'm not sure I ever have. ] (]) 21:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm certainly not accusing you of doing so--but Aquillion has introduced an argument above as to why we can't simply rely on the talk/news distinction anymore; I find it persuasive. You may not, but you haven't really addressed it. Cheers. ] (]) 22:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Did we treat the person in question as an anchor or as a source of commentary? I presume we already put her in the same bucket as Carlson thus already not a RS. ] (]) 23:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The problem is that the network itself equivocated on her role, meaning (at least for myself and Aquillion) that the division has become at least somewhat porous. To me, that's enough--we have an admittedly unreliable opinion side which (again, to me) is not clearly cordoned off from news, and thus I think the entire operation is presumptively unreliable, but as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. ] (]) 23:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :"{{tq|In the Karen McDougal lawsuit, Carlson's (successful) defence was that no reasonable person would take anything he says seriously }} -@]" | |||
| :Not really. ] (]) 07:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :'''"Please get her fired Seriously… What the fuck? I'm actually shocked… It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It's measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke."''' | |||
| :I'm still not really understanding what the allegation of wrongdoing is here. I see this quote repeated on this noticeboard a lot as evidence that Fox intentionally lied about the 2020 American election, but I have never seen anyone explain how. I have also seen editors reproduce Carlson's quotes regarding his hatred of Trump, as well as his negation of Sidney Powell's claims regarding Dominion, seemingly as evidence of Fox's lying. It's also not clear to me what these facts have to do with Fox's credibility--the latter even seems to evince Fox's credibility, since Tucker Carlson attacked Powell's Dominion-Venezuelan voter-fraud theory both in private, and on his show. ] (]) 07:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tucker Carlson, a high profile star and stockholder, was demanding that fact-checking of Trump's big lie should stop, because viewers were deserting Fox for OANN and Newsmax, and it was hurting the stick price. This would not happen in a legitimate journalistic enterprise. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 17:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's clearly untrue, because How does it fit your theory that he attacked some claims of voter fraud, but not others? And are you honestly saying that no "legitimate journalistic enterprise" does not care about stocks or ratings? ] (]) 07:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No legitimate journalistic enterprise would continue to report what it knew to be false information because doing so would hurt its ratings or its circulation or its stock price. A news source with journalistic integrity would bite the bullet, issue corrections, and then take whatever '''''non-journalistic''''' steps were necessary to bolster its ratings, circulation, or stock price. I suppose there are those -- such as the folks at Fox News -- that think that the other course of action is acceptable, but they clearly don't really understand what journalism is supposed to be about. ] (]) 08:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What exactly is the claim that they knew to be false information, but promoted anyway? I often see it claimed that it was Tucker Carlson's assertion, in private, that Sydney Powell's claims were false. But he also asserted that they were false publicly, on the Fox News channel. There is no contradiction there. When Carlson said that Heinrich should be fired for saying that "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised", this does not contradict his attacks on Powell, which were never private or hidden from the public in any way. The two claims are not equal, and can only be connected tendentiously. | |||
| :::::If '''A '''alleges that '''B''' ''specifically'' did not steal the election, and '''C''' alleges that the election was ''not stolen at all'', and '''A''' attacks '''C''' for saying so, that does not mean that '''A''' has contradicted themselves in any way whatsoever. ] (]) 09:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Also, there is currently a section at ] tagged ] notifying reviewers and editors of caution in dealing with Nigeria sources. This alongside thorough analysis of Nigerian sources should drastically reduce the promotional articles and create a better future for Nigerian contents on the English Misplaced Pages.] (]) 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I've believed that Fox should not be considered a reliable source for quite a while, but just to be very clear about this I do indeed believe that this new evidence is relevant and that it establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that they fail our standards for being a reliable source at least dating from November 2020, if not earlier. ] (]) 02:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :We cannot disregard Nigerian sources entirely. Yes, there are issues with some outlets, such as publishing promotional content or reworded press releases, but this isn’t unique to Nigeria. Even in countries with established media systems, there are sources that can’t always be trusted. The solution isn’t to write off all Nigerian sources but to evaluate them individually. Some articles might be biased or promotional, and we can avoid those. However, there are also credible reports and investigative pieces from Nigerian media that meet our standards. By treating each source on a case-by-case basis, we strike a balance, avoiding systemic bias while ensuring the content we use is reliable. A blanket approach would only create more gaps in coverage, which isn’t what we want for Misplaced Pages. And as {{u|Reading Beans}} mentioned, we Nigerian editors are already doing a good work judging sources on a case-by-case basis. ''''']''''' ] 17:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ], the only keep argument is based on just the above "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?". This is why they should not be acceptable because content is being created (and defended) using dubious sources (on the very grounds those sources are being defended here, false allegations of racism or false balance). ] (]) 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Such a statement from a suspected UPE with limited knowledge around ] and ] shouldn't hold water let alone be used as a basis or argument for the deprecation of an sources of information. The volunteer are doing enormous tasks to ensure content that doesn't meet the English Misplaced Pages standard is nominated for deletion. ] (]) 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Just as a brief addendum to my colloquy with Sprringee above, this is very much my take, and for me, the date of the 2020 election is as good a cutoff as any (though I can see arguments for earlier). Cheers, all. ] (]) 02:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Slatersteven}}, like already stated above, every sources presented in an AfD discussion is analysed carefully. FYI, majority of !delete votes there are Nigerian editors and the only keep !vote there being the paid creator (whom I suspect of UPE). If you can get a deletion discussion where a non-notable article was kept and defend with unreliable sources, I would appreciate it. Like the examples shown, the unreliable of the published articles were always pointed out and the articles were (correctly) deleted. Best, ] 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I generally agree with the above takes, but I would propose March 15th (the beginning of covid lockdowns and close to the beginning of serious campaigning for the 2020 election) as the cutoff date. ] (]) 14:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::No. No. No. my friend, @], I have told you ever and anon that this editor is not into UPE. So STOP THE SUSPICION and even voicing it out. It is affecting the reviewing of my articles. It is a blessing in disguise that my article brought this intense discussion. My take away from here is the guide being created for Nigerian sources and the caution I will employ in future creations. ] (]) 18:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::If some solid justification could be provided, I wouldn't be opposed to that either. But, the current evidence seems to weigh mostly on events post-election. | |||
| :What I'm seeing in that AfD, and in the others mentioned that all ended in deletion, is editors using their own good judgement to deal with this issue. Hopefully the new advice at NEWSORGNIGERIA will help encourage other editors to use the same caution. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I personally feel like if not November 2020, there just shouldn't be a cutoff date: some of the issues with Fox have been long-standing and while it definitely seems to have gotten notably worse in November 2020, issues revealed in this court case do seem to bear on their editorial policy in general. It's not clear to me, for instance, that Fox ever made a clear internal distinction between opinion and news. ] (]) 20:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :], if someone argues "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?", the response should be "no, we don't. We're rejecting notability based on these specific Nigerian articles, because (a) the articles being used to assert notability all focus on a single "event," (b) the articles are extremely similar and might have been content farmed, especially since they seem overly promotional (e.g., it's not a "prestigous" award, it's solely based on number of hours volunteered and being nominated by a relevant organization), and (c) US government info about the award makes it clear that she's not eligible for that award (as she's not a US citizen or permanent resident), which means that ''these'' articles aren't reliable for ''this'' content. But the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do ''you'' have evidence of the latter? ] (]) 23:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah. There's no clear cutoff date because Fox has literally always been like this - ] (]) 21:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which is what Im did say, more than once. To me met with stonewalling "but that's racism" comments (and still am), at which point if the best argument you have is emotive, I have to assume you have no others, thus Im assume its an accepted problem with them. And as this is about "reputation for fact-checking" and the best argument is "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism"...well I have to assume they dio not have said reputation.] (]) 10:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::While I may empathize with that sentiment, I wouldn't condone going back further unless it is also backed by RS, which may or may not be possible. The 2020 "Big Lie" Dominion debacle is documented, and therefore something every ''reasonable'' editor (regardless of their persuasion) ''should'' be able to agree on. It's conceivable that this event may have a domino effect that creates doubt that goes further back in time, but it requires RS and we definitely should start at 2020. ] (]) 02:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, but I'm not sure what the referent of "them" is in "Im assume its an accepted problem with them." | |||
| ::::::This is a change that would require a new RfC. ] (]) 10:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::As for the rest, my argument ''isn't'' "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism." My argument is "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable ''doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable''. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do '''you''' have evidence of the latter?" You still haven't presented any evidence that articles from Nigerian news media are ''generally'' unreliable. Either you have evidence for that or you don't. ] (]) 14:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I wouldn't be against an RfC, but this seems to be a policy issue, and RfCs do not supersede policy. ] (]) 14:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] ]. ] (]) 11:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's not a policy issue. WP:V is policy. A blanket view that FN is or isn't a RS in some given subject area is not a policy question. Additionally, this would be trying to supersede a recent and very well attended RfC. ] (]) 14:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Did you actually read those articles? Neither one makes any mention of any of the Nigerian news outlets identified in the OP. The BBC piece is about ''new'' websites "established around the time of Nigeria's general elections in February 2023." The SSRC piece is about "the spread of disinformation and ''how social media has only furthered this spread'' by providing new, fast-moving arenas for confirming and amplifying such false information" in Nigeria, including uptake by traditional news media, while noting that "The increasing threat to democratic institutions posed by disinformation is a ''global phenomenon''." ] (]) 14:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::This falls under the umbrella of WP:V, ie the reliability of a source, "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. In Misplaced Pages, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source". To paraphrase Aquillion, FN does not maintain the separation between news and opinion that some people in previous RFCs hoped they did.] (]) 14:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Vangaurd and The nation ]. ] (]) 14:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I am disappointed that you are arguing for FNC. Coverage of this case very clearly shows that the opinion side ''drives'' policy. Notional news anchors were coerced into following the demands of opinion host (and stockholder) Tucker Carlson. Whether this was out of concern for financial impact or personal ideology is largely irrelevant. | |||
| ::::::::"This story is part of a series by the BBC on disinformation and fake news - ''a global problem'' challenging the way we share information and perceive the world around us," where this particular article focused on the "spread of fake news in Africa" by looking at how five false stories — one each from five African countries, including Nigeria — was picked up by some news media in those countries. Yes, "The Nation and the Vanguard, both published stories with a very similar theme" to one of those false stories, but absolutely nothing in the BBC article suggests that Nigerian news media are ''generally unreliable''. Is there any country globally where the BBC couldn't write an analogous report? For example, another BBC in this series is "How President Trump took 'fake news' into the mainstream." ] (]) 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Recall, Fox News is largely the result of Roger Ailes, a media advisor to Nixon, setting out to ensure that no future Republican should be forced to resign after being found out criming. The only person who would see this as anything other than "broken by design" is Mary Poppins. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 23:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You have it in reverse, we judge a source on its reputation for fact-checking, I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not, it down to you to show they do, We do not judge sources based upon how local editors will police pagers, but on the sources alone. ] (]) 13:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Remember, those are claims made by Dominion selectively releasing information. We don't know the opposing side's version of events. In all of this I don't recall seeing anyone claim the news side was proving bad content. The talk side may have driven what they wanted the news side to focus on but that isn't the same as false information from the news side. Combine that with the lack of evidence that editors are using Fox disruptively and the fact that we already say use with caution and I don't see an issue that needs to be fixed. ] (]) 23:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{tq|I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not ]}} No, you haven't. Nothing you cited says anything about their reputation or suggests that they're ''generally unreliable''. If you believe that something you cited provided evidence of ''general unreliability'', please quote what you have in mind. {{tq|it down to you to show they do}} I haven't claimed that they have a reputation for fact-checking, so I have no burden to prove that they do (and more generally, if you want me to show something that I've said is true, just quote it, so we're both clear about the claim in question). What I said is (again): "the fact that ''these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable'' doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are ''generally unreliable''. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter." Fram proposed "to formally deprecate these newspapers," and you responded with "a firm '''not reliable'''." Since you're claiming that they're ''generally unreliable'', you have a burden to show that they're ''generally unreliable''. ] (]) 14:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::To expand on this, Misplaced Pages has an issue in that, instead of deciding to use sources on a case by case basis we often resort to blanket decisions. In general those decisions are more favorable to sources on the left vs right. This can result in a skew in our articles. As an example, take the indictment of Trump by DA Bragg (or any of the other potential cases against Trump). In articles on those cases we presumably want a range of legal analysis/opinions on the way the law is being applied to the facts in question. If we only cite news sources on the left we risk having only analysis that left leaning audiences. It's easy to claim this is just a case of the right not picking good sources. However, take someone like ]. In most cases if we are reporting legal opinions/analysis on a subject and Dershowitz offers one, it's probably DUE. It certainly comes from a one of the absolute top US legal scholars. However, sources like CNN don't ask him to come on. According to Dershowitz, most sources on the left no longer talk with him because he defended Trump during his first impeachment. This means in the end we may not get balanced coverage of the legal opinions on a topic because we have decided that sources that carry opinions that are more likely to appeal to the right are not reliable and thus can't be included. I think that is a serious blind spot in our neutrality. I certainly can see the issue if we were to pack Biden's article with every negative thing reported by Fox. However, if we have an article about the legality of something the president or Congress etc is trying to do then we are doing a disservice to readers if we remove Dershowitz'z opinion from our list of "reactions" simply because his views were part of a Fox vs CNN interview. ] (]) 00:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I finally dug up an old AfD comment I'd made after reading a bunch of literature on Nigerian sources:{{pb}}Nigerian newspapers in particular are well known to on paid advertising. {{tq|Professor Omenugha describes a similar trend in the print media: “In the newspapers, the so called specialised pages of the property, IT and computer businesses and finance pages are prime examples of commercialised spaces. The point is that no attempt is made to let the audience or readers know that these spaces are paid for and they end up holding them as sacred as they would news”.}} {{tq|Some journalists also work as paid consultants to politicians and businesses thus threatening professionalism. AIT’s Amarere says it is demeaning to journalism as “some of the concerned journalists now work for companies through which they obtain jobs. They cover their track by saying they are staff of this or that company and run offices outside the newsroom. In this situation it is difficult to balance profession with commercial interest”.}} "Awards" issued by media are also considered corrupt. {{tq|“The awards are not free, they are for money and anything that comes with a prize has implications”, says Olumide Adeyinka-Fusika, a lawyer. “If a newspaper names a bank as the best bank of the year and the bank is later indicted for corruption, that newspaper will not be willing to publish the story because that will be like passing a vote of no confidence on their own judgement”.}} ] (]) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Please reduce the verbiage. <s>I already commented on your Dershowitz analogy.</s> And I was polite enough to not include that highly regarded legal experts disagree with him with increasing frequency. And your claim that no one on the left will speak with him is unsourced and imaginative; and your comment that {{tq|we are doing a disservice to readers if we remove Dershowitz'z opinion from our list of "reactions" simply because his views were part of a Fox vs CNN interview.}} is also unsourced. Frankly, I don't see why you keep talking about him. Are you saying that only Fox, of the massive news sources, will say anything about him? If that's true, wonder what the reason is. ] (]) 00:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Here are some other references: {{pb}}{{tq|For example, such practices as pack journalism by beat associations of journalists which operate like cartels, the payment of protection fees by reputation managers of institutions, the granting of awards of dubious credibility to non deserving individuals and organisations are some of the ways in which corruption manifests in the media.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|Even though over 64 % of those sampled believed that acceptance of any form of gratifications was unethical, over 75 % of the<br>journalists engage in corrupt practices with impunity. More than half of the 18 media outfits covered by the study are indifferent to certain identified corrupt practices in their organizations.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|Adewale (2008), in his "The Rot in Nigerian Journalism Is Much Deeper Than We Thought" cited a controversial statement by Graham Greene to back up his position thus: "A petty reason perhaps why novelists more and more try to keep a distance from journalists is that novelists are trying to write the truth and journalists are trying to write fiction". This embarrassing irony aptly describes the state of Nigerian journalism and journalists in particular.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|In its mildest form, press releases are published almost verbatim. Reporters either have an agreement with the government media men and are ‘settled’ with money, or threatened they will not be paid what is known as ‘qua”, or ‘mobilisation”. Some papers don’t pay salaries, and journalists have to make what they can on commission. In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men. Newspapers have a straight conflict of interest, they are financially reliant on political adverts, full-page colour hagiographies to governors and other political players. Last year, one paper alone took an estimated £270,000 in advertisements on one edition from supporters of former military ruler Ibrahim Babangida, celebrating his birthday.}} ] (]) 01:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{od|:::::::}}Please check the time stamps. The edit above (00:06, 19 April 2023) was the first time I mentioned Dershowitz and predates your first comment on the subject (13:22, 19 April 2023). ] (]) 00:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: |
::::::I think we need something similar to ] for Nigerian media as well. - ] (]) 03:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::@] the "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome" is an auto-expiring link that doesn't let anyone else use it. Could you provide a better link/where you found the original link? ] (]) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Specifically re. Dersh, people won't ask him for his opinions as a legal scholar because he flushed his own reputation down the toilet. | |||
| :::::::Clicking the link from should work. ] (]) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::His lawsuit against CNN for "ruining his reputation" by accurately reporting his actual words, failed, because he'd already said that his reputation had been ruined by the Epstein allegations. | |||
| ::::::All seriousness aside, {{tq|In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men}} - those powerful men should just buy the newspaper or hell even a whole media empire to rebroadcast their personal opinions. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We're not in danger as a project from not hearing Dersh's hot takes on anything. He was a respected legal scholar, he's now a hack, and nothing he says can be taken at face value. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 17:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I was pointed to this discussion by @] after a similar discussion when I ran across ]. It does seem like much of Nigerian media simply writes whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay for. It seems like these sources should simply be banned except in cases where it is clear that the article was not purchased. ]] 00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I know this is a bit off topic but, to set the record straight, the lawsuit failed not because the judge ruled Dershowitz wasn't defamed. It failed because he wasn't able to show that CNN's actions met the ''actual malice'' standard . CNN didn't accurately report his words when they truncated a quote and then suggested Dershowitz said something he specifically did not. {{pb}}From the ABA Journal article, {{tq|''Dershowitz claimed that a shortened clip and CNN news commentators falsely suggested that he thought that a president could do anything—including illegal acts—as long as a president thinks that it is in the public interest. Dershowitz had actually argued that a president can’t be impeached simply because he takes action based on a desire to be reelected, if a president thinks their reelection is in the public interest. But Dershowitz had also said a president can be impeached if they did something illegal, regardless of their motive. Dershowitz complained that CNN should not have taken out this sentence in edited clips: “The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were some way illegal.”''}}{{pb}}Also from the article, {{tq|''... while actual malice wasn’t established, the facts did show “foolishness, apathy and an inability to string together a series of common legal principles” on CNN’s part, Singhal said.''}} ] (]) 16:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{ctop|unhelpful ChatGPT wall of text}} | |||
| :::::::::Then he wasn't defamed under the legal definition. And, I agree with all that Guy posted. But then, why would we want to get into a legal argument here. Not our job. ] (]) 16:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::My humble take and summary from these deep debates: | |||
| ::::::::::Yeah, I just feel the need to pipe in very briefly about Dersh -- he is obviously notable and his opinions might well be notable, but he is very much an outlier on many things (a statement with which I believe he would agree), and so we have to be careful about according him too much weight, as that might be ] in some circumstances where he is alone or part of a very small group in the legal academy. Cheers. ] (]) 16:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::'''Analysis of Nigerian Newspapers as Sources for Misplaced Pages Articles''' | |||
| ::::::::::Guy said CNN accurately reported his statements. The judge disagrees. ] (]) 17:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The reliability of Nigerian newspapers as sources for Misplaced Pages articles—particularly in Biographies of Living People (BLPs)—has ignited considerable debate within the Misplaced Pages editing community. A complex interplay of skepticism regarding the veracity of these sources and the recognition of systemic biases in coverage dynamics has led to high-stakes discussions. This report delves into the characteristics of Nigerian newspapers that contribute to their portrayal as unreliable, as well as those that underscore their potential value as information sources, and the broader implications for Misplaced Pages's commitment to inclusivity and diverse representation. | |||
| *Given that we already say don’t use the talk shows, and already strongly caution editors about using Fox for certain topics (especially politics and science), I really don’t see a need for this. ] (]) 11:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::'''Characteristics Leading to Distrust''' | |||
| **Given how the sort of editor who adds Fox as a source observably behaves, we clearly do - ] (]) 13:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Nigerian newspapers often face criticism for their propensity to publish promotional content, undisclosed advertorials, and sensibly sensationalized reporting. This trend raises significant concerns regarding the integrity of journalism in the country. A primary issue is the commercial influence on editorial decisions, wherein advertising dollars can lead to the suppression of unfavorable stories or the propagation of misleading information to satisfy financial backers. | |||
| **:Can you show an example of this? Honestly, this comes off as a bit of a character attack/personal attack against unnamed editors. ] (]) 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::High-profile examples, such as the case of a female personality—where numerous Nigerian news outlets reported unverified claims regarding an award from America—underscored the media’s failure to provide corroborative sources from outside Nigeria. Such instances not only reveal a troubling trend toward questionable journalism but also invite closer scrutiny of the claims made by various outlets. | |||
| **::Editors that ignore RS in favor of a particular POV would be the example here. ] (]) 14:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: | |||
| **:::Again, do we have examples of this? If not then the existing RSP entry works fine. ] (]) 14:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The environment fostered by these publications has seen a shift toward prioritizing clickable, viral content over factual reporting. This prioritization can obscure quality journalism and make it increasingly difficult for both editors and readers to discern credible information from misleading narratives. Such practices contribute significantly to the stigma that Nigerian newspapers face in the eyes of the Misplaced Pages community. | |||
| **::::If you look at articles regarding Trump, the 2020 election, the Biden's, the Clinton's etc... you will probably find some edits of this nature. ] (]) 02:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::'''Reliability in Context''' | |||
| **:::::Can you provide links to any examples? I don't follow those topics and honestly, try to avoid them. ] (]) 03:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::While there exists a notable trend of unreliable reporting among many Nigerian newspapers, it is critical to contextualize this within the broader media landscape of Nigeria. Not all publications succumb to dubious practices; several outlets continue to uphold high journalistic standards, successfully publishing well-researched investigative reports and reliable coverage of current events. For instance, reputable newspapers often play an essential role in reporting on significant political developments, including elections, thereby contributing positively to public discourse. | |||
| **::'''Seconded.''' This seems like a reach. ] (]) 06:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::From the perspective of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for sourcing (specifically WP:RSNP), engaging in a case-by-case assessment of sources is pivotal. This approach emphasizes the necessity for editors well-versed in the Nigerian media landscape to identify which sources maintain their integrity and contribute substantively to Misplaced Pages’s mission. A blanket rejection or deprecation of all Nigerian sources would, therefore, overlook the valuable contributions that some publications make, ultimately hampering the representation of Nigerian voices in global discourse. | |||
| **:I agree that we do, and copious evidence of problem attempts to use Fox have been provided. I also agree that it would be great to establish that Fox is generally unreliable starting in 2020 even if prior to that remains as status quo. ''']'''<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> 18:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::'''Recommendations for Misplaced Pages Editors''' | |||
| **::Can you share some example links? ] (]) 18:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::1. '''Develop Specific Guidelines''': Create detailed guidelines akin to those for other regions, such as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. This document should articulate the acceptable use of Nigerian sources while pinpointing common issues like promotional materials and the nature of reporting practices. Such clarity will assist editors in evaluating sources effectively. | |||
| **:::Here's a recentish example ''']'''<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> 18:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::2. '''Engage Local Expertise:''' Encourage the involvement of Nigerian editors in determining the reliability of local sources. Their unique insights can significantly enhance the community's understanding of the nuances of language and reporting styles prevalent in Nigeria. | |||
| **::::What's the issue? It seems like a reasonable add. It seems reasonable to use Fox as a source for an attributed POV. Unless your perspective is that any political content cited to Fox is unacceptable, a view not supported by the last RfC. ] (]) 19:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::3. '''Enforce Critical Scrutiny''': Emphasize the importance of thorough evaluations of articles from Nigerian newspapers, particularly regarding BLPs. Editors and reviewers should be trained to recognize promotional language and ensure the use of independent, verifiable sources. | |||
| **:::::Looking into your example a bit more, it was added once then removed. How is that an issue. There was no edit warring and, right or wrong, the content didn't make it to the article. Honestly, this is a very poor example of a "problem". ] (]) 19:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::4. '''Adapt to Changes in Media Landscape''': Continuously monitor and research the evolving landscape of Nigerian media, documenting improvements in journalistic integrity and the emergence of new, credible news organizations. This ongoing reassessment will allow Misplaced Pages policies regarding sourcing to adapt in line with current practices. | |||
| **::::::This seems to be going off-topic quickly, and the goal posts seem to be moving. The discussion here is about the recent summary judgement against FN, and how that relates to it's assigned level of reliability. To reiterate, as far as this discussion is concerned, what unnamed editors are doing with FN is less relevant than ''what FN has been doing''. If anyone wants to discuss editor behavior, maybe start a separate discussion somewhere else, otherwise it may be hatted, as it seems fairly off-topic. Cheers.] (]) 19:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: 5. '''Maintain a Balance in Coverage''': While it is essential to prioritize accurate information and avoid systemic bias, it is equally crucial to reflect the diverse perspectives from non-Western countries. Dismissing all Nigerian sources could marginalize important voices, undermining Misplaced Pages's mission of being a comprehensive encyclopedia. | |||
| **:::::::What goal post is shifting? I asked where the use of Fox was problematic. The diff offered doesn't support the view that Fox is being used problematically. It does relate to the overall question since any change to RSP entry should include some indication that we are fixing a problem. ] (]) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Finally, the integration of Nigerian newspapers into Misplaced Pages remains a multifaceted challenge that requires a balanced approach acknowledging both their shortcomings and their capacity for delivering credible information. By applying informed scrutiny and developing nuanced guidelines, Misplaced Pages can adeptly navigate the complexities involved in sourcing from Nigerian media while committing to enhancing its inclusivity and representation in global knowledge sharing. ] (]) 18:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **::::::::Springee, this noticeboard (and discussion) is about reliable '''sources'''...not reliable ''editors''...] (]) 00:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That's not "your humble take", that's a bloated ChatGPT-generated regurgitation of this discussion. ] (]) 21:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{cbot}} | |||
| **:::{{Od|**::::}}A Fox RSP entry does exist, and that entry needs to contain accurate information on how Fox should or should not be used in the future. The subject of current or past editor behavior is unnecessary to that discussion. I believe DN was requesting that we all simply drop that topic. ] (]) 05:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' pretty much everything has already been said; the news media in Nigeria seem to be in the habit of puffing everyone and everything. As with the Indian news sources, we almost have to evaluate each news story on a case-by-case basis. We can keep Nigerian sources, but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability. The sources in the country are in the habit of puffy reporting, we just have to learn to use them. ] (]) 01:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **::::An earlier comment was that the use of FN has been problematic. I asked for examples and none were provided. ] (]) 05:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'd be ok if we create a policy similar to the NewsOrgIndia ... We allow the sources, but to be taken with a grain of salt. ] (]) 01:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:::::None were provided? I think you are . After an example you requested was given to you, you dismissed it stating "Unless your perspective is that any political content cited to Fox is unacceptable, a view not supported by the last RfC.". From a certain perspective, you provided a brand new example in this very discussion. ] (]) 08:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::See ]. What did you mean by “…{{tq|but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability.}}”? Best, ] 05:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **::::::Again, that isn't an example of a problematic addition. It infact was a perfectly reasonable use. So, no, you are wrong. No examples of problematic use of FN have been provided. ] (]) 10:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:@]'s addition of ] is helpful but the link to the unvetted WikiProject list is not, in my opinion. It lists, for example, ] as "reliable" which is the publication I ] which seemed to have drawn the conclusion to disregard promo and use with caution. It also lists pretty much every newspaper which reported inaccurately sparking this thread as "reliable" | |||
| **:::::::Its reasonableness is disputed, and it substantiates an existence of a disagreement on the usability of Fox for such issues. Our current RFC closure indicates that Fox should be used with caution and possibly not used for controversial political topics, and that it should not be considered a high-quality source. Since policy and guideline already urge multiple high-quality sources for controversial statements and issues, this would not be usable. But, your disagreement proves that Fox should be downgraded since editors are still trying to wiggle it in for issues where it shouldn't be used. ''']'''<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> 17:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Beyond the issue of promo, "Nigeria is one of West Africa’s most dangerous and difficult countries for journalists, who are regularly monitored, attacked and arbitrarily arrested, as was the case during the 2023 elections." ]] 10:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **::::::::Your argument is circular. It pre-supposes that any use of Fox for political content is a problem. So you show an example of someone citing FN and proclaim it proof of a problem. However, your argument is based on the false premise that any use of FN is ''by definition'' problematic. That premise conflicts with the "use with caution" RfC closing. By your thinking any use of a yellow source is problematic thus proof that source needs to be downgraded. The burden is on you to show that this example, your example, illustrates a problematic use. An editor added an opinion of the Heritage Foundation reported by Fox with all the required attributions, I presume in good faith (do you think they acted otherwise). Another editor decided it was UNDUE and removed it. Where is the problem? Are you going to suggest any time anyone adds verifiable but arguably UNDUE claims that the source is now problematic? That would at least be logically consistent with your claims here. ] (]) 21:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::@] What sort of opinionated and unstructured comment did you just make? What do you mean by "unvetted WikiProject list"? Do you, by any chance, know the efforts I and few other editors who are Nigerians have put to bring up that list? Please be careful when making comments, especially when the topic has to do with one you're not entirely familiar with. As far as I am concerned, you cannot call a list which I have put efforts in contributing to "unvetted", the comment is not only unreasonable but also incorrect. | |||
| **::::::::Do you believe it is acceptable to use FN for politics? ] (]) 21:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I couldn't locate the thread you linked but whatever you brough up there are your opinion. I know the efforts I have been putting at AfD when it comes to Nigerian sources. Be careful, please, with all due respect. | |||
| **:::::::::Per the RfC closing yes. Use with caution is not the same as don't use. ] (]) 22:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::In a more general note, this thread is not going anywhere, '']'' is a reliable source of information whether anyone "who is not a Nigerian" likes it or not, in fact, any source listed in the WikiProject as reliable is indeed reliable. The Herald, Guardian, New York Times, and other UK or US papers all publish nonsense piece as well, no one is permitted to call Nigerian sources unreliable because there are only a few Nigerian editors? I can't tell. I guess when this thread was initiated it was thought that there'd be no editor to oppose. SMH. ] (]) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:::{{Od|::::::}}I never said all claims are UNDUE or Fox is UNDUE by definition, it just so happens that most of the time editors want to use it to launder right wing propaganda. ''']'''<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> 00:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The link they are referring to has been archived, see ].<br>In regard to {{tq|who is not a Nigerian}} There are many non-Nigerians who don't agree with the comment that started this thread. I both support and encourage projects to maintain there own sources lists, as they most likely to have knowledge of that particular area, but they are subject to ] and so from to time discussions like this will happen. The net result of this discussion has been ], which only writes down the advice that has been given in many other discussions. | |||
| **::::But you presented that specific diff and said it was evidence of a problem. A single example of FN being used, with no evidence of edit warring etc, without some sort of explanation why it was totally unreasonable to have been ever added doesn't support your case. It might actually be a perfect example but you would have to say why. ] (]) 00:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::If any editor wants to discuss a particular source they believe has issue outside of what's already covered by ] I suggest they start a new section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:::::I '''second''' everything Springee has said. | |||
| *::::@] last time we discussed This Day, you pointed out that they . Currently, top of the advertorials is . As you noted, there is no indication on the article that this is an advertorial and it looks like a normal news item. . | |||
| **:::::@], your comment about moving the goalposts is very curious. @] commented that "{{tq|Given how the sort of editor who adds Fox as a source observably behaves, we clearly do}}" You, @], seemed to support this, writing that "{{tq|Editors that ignore RS in favor of a particular POV would be the example here}}", and that "{{tq|If you look at articles regarding Trump, the 2020 election, the Biden's, the Clinton's etc... you will probably find some edits of this nature.}}" When there seemed to be a paucity of evidence for such edits, you commented "{{tq|This seems to be going off-topic quickly, and the goal posts seem to be moving}}", not seeming to acknowledge that it was you who had moved the goalpoasts. When Springee, reasonably, responded to this about-face with confusion, you condescendingly wrote "{{tq|Springee, this noticeboard (and discussion) is about reliable sources...not reliable editors...}}, " despite the fact that it was @] alleging that there was a problem with "reliable editors", not Springee, and that you were encouraging David Gerard's position, not attacking it. '''It's all well and good that we return to talking about Fox itself, and not the editors that use it,''' but I don't think this about-face should go unnoted. ] (]) 06:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::How can this be a reliable source when advertorials are completely indistinguishable from reporting? ]] 15:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** "In most cases if we are reporting legal opinions/analysis on a subject and Dershowitz offers one, it's probably DUE." It depends. I would suggest that we should avoid Dershowitz's legal opinions on ] cases involving minors, since he has been accused of "misconduct"" in such cases since 2015, and he is accused of having non-consensual sex with minors in his own right. ] (]) 04:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Because otherwise it would result in the making all news organisations in multiple countries completely unusable, and it wouldn't be limited to India and Nigeria. Such undisclosed advertorials are common in a lot of countries, and will likely become more common not less due to the changes effecting news media across the globe. It wouldn't help to improve the encyclopedia by saying that such vast swathes of the news media are generally unreliable, and in many ways that isn't a fit description for the sources. They are reliable for many things, but not for the promotional nature of these advertorials. | |||
| **:The person who made that claim recanted . ] (]) 05:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::As has been said before the AfDs show that noone is being fooled. Editors are correctly spotting when this is happening and acting accordingly. Promo content being added to Misplaced Pages is certainly not an issue limited to these countries, just look to all the reputation management companies found elsewhere. | |||
| **:Dersh's legal opinions are not what they were. Very much not. He is now a pariah, by his own admission, and no reputable source calls on him for his legal views, again, by his own admission. He sued CNN for it (and lost). ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Ultimately it's what effect should be had. We don't want those advertorials being used to add promo content to Misplaced Pages, that is achieved by ]. So do we need to class all those news media organisations as generally unreliable, will that help to improve the encyclopedia? I very much doubt it would. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *The talk shows of the likes of Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, etc are already unreliable. This does not really change anything... ] ] 20:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Are they? How are they being spotted? For example, see ] - there are many sources here but every single one of them appears more dubious than the two advertorial examples linked above. For an active AfD, see ]. It was moved out of drafts by an editor who is now blocked and the editors voting keep simply insist that the sources are reliable without any evaluation. ]] 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Fox News Rating === | |||
| *:::::::(Pinging you is difficult) Let me be blunter, you deletion rationale in that AfD {{tq|Sources all appear to be ]}} is not only unappealing but also vague. Why? you simply said that "ALL" of them are NEWSORGNIGERIA without telling us what analysis you did that made you come to that conclusion. I figured since we're not doing anything in-dept here, it would make sense to also tell you, since this area is my expertise, that the subject clear-cut passed GNG. If you did any analysis and showed it, then we'd be discussing what you analysed and not something else. ] (]) 18:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Looking at ](excluding politics and science) the rating is currently green and considered reliable, while ](including politics and science) is white with no consensus. Given the RS provided by ] at the beginning, I feel both of those ratings need to be reexamined at the very least, and possibly downgraded. ] (]) 19:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I do not get the impression that advertorials are regularly passed off as real news in countries with strong protections for journalism. What the academic papers I linked earlier were emphasizing is that Nigeria has a striking systematic problem with unethical journalism that goes beyond what is seen in respectable broadsheets (the "brown envelope syndrome" being one example) and appears to affect ''all'' major outlets. The last link talks about an egregious political advert for Babangida's birthday that ran in the ]—listed as generally reliable—and characterizes the newspapers as being ''reliant'' upon such revenue sources. Some of the other journals note that several newspapers don't even pay their journalists; surely at least those should be considered generally unreliable? ] (]) 02:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I would agree regarding the political coverage… but not on the rest. Their coverage of mundane news is fine (example: their reporting on things like tornadoes or hurricanes is probably MORE reliable than the other cable outlets, since they can draw from local affiliates for information). ] (]) 20:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Not sure why you're responding with so much emotion. It would be better to discuss this dispassionately. Your reply doesn't actually explain why a publication like This Day, which publishes disguised promotions, should be viewed as reliable. @] also provides very compelling evidence above which has not been rebutted. ]] 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Forgive me if this is something obvious to US based editors, but would the point on affiliates not equally apply to other affiliate based stations with news divisions like NBC, ABC, CBS, etc? ] (]) 20:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Maybe the rather emotionally charged use of "unvetted" to describe another editors work had something to do with it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::So, my reply is emotional to you, and you think I am dispassionate, lol. I'll entirely ignore this your comment. ] (]) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| People may defend ], but when I see that e.g. The Nation is considered "generally reliable" but publishes (with a byline!) e.g. pure promo drivel (used in a new article here, not something I went looking for especially), then it is hard to take that list or the defense of it seriously. It turns out to be (at least in part) a copy of a four year old article from the Vanguard, not some actual journalistic effort by the Nation, but how could one tell? ] (]) 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *As was mentioned above, any change like this would require a new RfC. I don't agree that the issues associated with their talk shows warrant a change to their news reporting. ] (]) 22:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *<strike>'''Oppose blanket ban'''.</strike> The proponents of the ban have failed to actually demonstrate that ''all'' Nigerian newspapers have ''always'' been unreliable. As far as I can see, the evidence presented does not, for example, give any indication that the Lagos Daily News or the Daily Times were unreliable in 1925. In fact, they do not even appear to have been mentioned. , actually cited above, claims that the quality of Nigerian newspapers was better before the internet. , also cited above, only applies to the South-West geo-political zone, and not the other five geo-political zones (something not mentioned above). We need to take one newspaper at a time, and we need to look beyond the last five minutes. ] (]) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{EC}}Only some of the issues are related to the talk shows. And I'm tired of asking when the news shows are on since nobody seems to watch them, whenever they are on. Seriously the "news" media defamation case appears to be the largest lost in history, and an hour after, the Fox News site had a huge article at the top of the main page suggesting someone in the Biden administration cheated in the 2022 election for what was actually a minor infraction in front of a small audience as opposed to KelleyAnne Conway's multiple, widely seen public infractions for which there was no penalty. But, this is all pointless. ] (]) 00:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * |
**There has been no proposal to blanket ban all Nigerian Newspapers, so you are bold opposing a strawman. ] (]) 10:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ***Expressions such as "isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers" do look like proposals for a blanket ban. Everyone else in this thread seems to think that this is a proposal for a blanket ban. If you are not proposing a blanket ban, perhaps you should rephrase your comments in grammatically and semantically correct plain language that other people can actually understand. Anyway, in view of the statement that there is no proposal for a blanket ban, I have struck my !vote. ] (]) 12:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::This was already provided at the very beginning by ] and ], which it seems you dismissed, seemingly without actually reading the parts that mention it involves news anchors and EXECUTIVES. It goes all the way to the top including , who quickly took to calling news anchors "hosts". There is undeniable evidence FOX news intentionally blurs the lines between opinion and fact for years and years. How is any reasonable editor able to ignore this well known fact? Here are the diffs... ....] (]) 19:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *** FWIW, I too, interpreted it as a blanket ban, and it's clear from people's comments that many other people did as well. Glad to know that that's not what you meant. ] (]) 16:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I have asked multiple times when is this "regular reporting" and no one responds, presumably because no one watches it. Is Kurtz one of them? He stated two days ago he was ordered not to talk about the case. Is that news? ] (]) 00:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *The “regular mundane reporting” occurs on programs such as: “Fox News @ Night” with Shannon Bream (airs at midnight), “America’s Newsroom” with Dana Perino and Bill Hemmer (9 - 11 AM), “America Reports” with Sandra Smith and John Roberts (1 -3 PM), and “Special Report” with Bret Baier (6 PM). There is also some mundane news reporting during the morning “Fox and Friends” show… but morning news tends to be superficial no matter the network. | |||
| *That said, I suspect the real issue for Misplaced Pages isn’t what gets broadcasted on air (and when), but what gets written and published on their website and app. After all, that is what is usually cited here on WP. And I do have to agree that their web site sucks… it over hypes the sensational and partisan stuff, and buries the more mundane stuff. ] (]) 01:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:This keeps coming up again and again ...... it has been decades since Fox News has been this way. Are Americans not taught about this sort of stuff in school? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 01:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *: "I feel both of those ratings need to be reexamined at the very least, and possibly downgraded." I would support downgrading their reliability in matters of politics. But we haven't heard whether their coverage of science is equally bad. And frankly, I don't see why would editors cite a television network in a topic which it rarely covers. ] (]) 05:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::I have a feeling FOX NEWS' stance on CLIMATE CHANGE is totally accurate (snark).] (]) 05:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree that given the longstanding but increasing extent and extremity of the issues, and of other RS' reporting on them, "{{tq|For politics and science Fox News is considered marginally reliable}}" needs to be revised downward ''at least'' after 2020. This isn't a matter of guessing what the court case might have found in the future, but of acknowledging what RS have said, including about things that came out in relation to the case or which the court already did determine. (And "should the existing RSP entry on Fox continue to list them as reliable for politics?" is something we can and should determine based on whether Fox is reliable, not based on Misplaced Pages editor conduct, ''pace'' the one editor asking for examples of the latter.) ] (]) 10:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *] is right. The key words are "any reasonable editor". Those who are still in denial need to really think about how anyone can still consider them "reasonable editors". IDHT behavior is tiring and disruptive. | |||
| *Here are the '''stark facts: Fox News fact-checkers were threatened and news staff blocked from covering the whole story, with the knowledge of the top brass.''' Fox News has a problem in maintaining their obviously false claims that they are a news agency. No, they are a propaganda agency. They fail the most basic of requirements for being considered a RS. | |||
| *This lawsuit will not change anything. They will just be more careful to not libel companies, but will still tell lies. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 20:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm sorry but that sort of thinking is deeply flawed. The idea that any editor who might consider citing fox is, by your definition, not a reasonable editor is really problematic. Reasonable editors can disagree and reasonable editors can evaluate sources on a case by case basis. ] (]) 21:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *: I did not say that. I am thinking of any editor who continues to defend Fox. In every discussion about Fox here, we find the same little group of editors who never change their tune. They always use the same arguments to defend Fox, even in the face of the indefensible. They are learning nothing from the history of Fox News and its consistently serious deviations from journalistic norms. It was never intended to be a normal journalistic news source. It was and is an extension of the GOP and only serves the GOP party line. That's why Roger Ailes created it, and he always defended Nixon and his unethical behavior. It's okay for a source to be openly and honestly related to a political party, but Fox News is deceptive about that issue. That's a problem. | |||
| *: I definitely agree that reasonable editors can disagree, but around here they are supposed to learn, to know how to vet sources for reliability (a CIR issue), to show a ], and to not sit entrenched in one POV and be unmovable regardless of what RS and other editors tell them. They know when to give up their opposition to progressive information and change their mind. They know when to drop out of the discussion when their opposition to progress is disruptive. That's why we have ]. It recognizes that even experienced editors can slide into unreasonable behavior because they are not learning and progressing. We expect editors to demonstrate a positive learning curve and to give up their conservative and regressive ways of thinking that block progress here. Continued defense of Fox News is disruptive. Period. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 16:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I would support RSNG in that I would support projects creating source lists. How specific sources are listed on RSNG is first a matter of discussion at the project level (as the list is only at the project level), and RSN if there is no agreement there. This is the same for all project level lists. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ====Fox News folded and now has to pay Dominion $787,500,000==== | |||
| See - - - ...] (]) 00:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ===Brainstorming RfCs=== | |||
| :You listed NPR, PBS, NBC, and AP news sources -- but not Fox News. Google shows dozens of stories in RS. For humor value, read the Fox News story . Although released after the result of the suit, it doesn't say it was resolved. It only says that some of Trump's allies and legal staff made false statements, not Fox. It says nothing about Fox or about the settlement. And the Fox News site looks like a tabloid with three anti-LGBTQ stories and headlining Biden's income. Fox is not a reliable source. ] (]) 00:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| It is clear that referring to the overly optimistic ] is not a good approach to determine the current reliability of some Nigerian newspapers. If we were to reconsider the status of e.g. ], to list it as e.g. "generally unreliable", what question should be posted in an RfC? Should we first try to find a cut-off date (i.e. "no longer generally reliable from year X on")? Are the above examples and reports sufficient, or is more needed? Or would it be easier to change ], correcting "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability. Wikiproject Nigeria has assembled a list of sources that they consider reliable/unreliable: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources." to "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability and verifiability", adding "verifiability" and removing the link to the project-based list? ] (]) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::As if we needed further evidence: they are even lying to their audience about having lied to their audience. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I think correcting WP:RSNP is a good start, simply by undoing which there clearly wasn't agreement to add. ]] 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :A key point here is that we cannot treat any of the reported evidence as being true or what it may seem on paper because the court did not rule on it, and it does not appear to be in the settlement terms that Fox has to agree to admit to lying. Thus, all that evidence that Dominion casted that got discussed here is really hard to do anything with without putting our own prejudices in place. All we know is that they still likely should be avoided for political and science news (as they are now) but little else we can extrapolate from that. --] (]) 01:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::What to include or not include on the RSP (outside of the results of discussions at RSN) are probably best discussed at the RSP talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really? So Fox News just paid $800 million because they thought they were going to win? I can't tell if you're joking or oblivious to the irony of what you are suggesting. ] (]) 01:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::It was ]ly added without discussion, though, so I've removed it for now as a first step. --] (]) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They folded most likely to avoid having a whole bunch of questionable details of their operation bubble to the forefront, including details from Murdoch, etc. While Fox will have to pay a lot of money, this is a win for them in terms that they ''appear to'' get scott free with their current news ethics and practices, since this case goes down without any judgement. ] (]) 01:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would suggest that editing the section be done this way. RSP is no different from any other page, edit, discuss on talk page, then third opinion or noticeboard. Exact wording in the section doesn't immediately necessitate an RFC unless there is unresolvable differences of opinion. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would suggest against one RFC to cover all the sources, unless there is a very specific question about the sources (more specific than 'are they reliable?'), as it will likely result in a train wreck. | |||
| :If the issue is just to add 'and verifiability', or removing the project link, I would suggest ]. Consensus is first built through editing, and the RSP is no different in that matter. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whatever way the discussion goes it, I suggest an RFC should be in a completely new section. RSN gets overloaded, and this section is already very large. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Absolutely. ] (]) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have been reading old RfCs about unreliable medias to reference. Many of these discussions start with a blanket question. For example: "Is ] | |||
| :# Generally reliable | |||
| :# Additional considerations apply | |||
| :# Generally unreliable | |||
| :# Deprecated" | |||
| :From there, editors can make their own arguments so if there should be a cut-off date for reliability. I think we can start with the more egregious media with examples and those who do not view them as unreliable should make the argument for why and when they should be considered reliable. ]] 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the TechCabal article is correct, then Nigerian newspapers were better before the internet. This might not apply to ], which began publication in 2001. One of the earliest accounts of "brown envelopes" dates to the ] (1979 to 1983): . On a search of Google Books, I found no references to "brown envelopes" in Nigeria in any book published before 1983. I found no more than 8 such references in books published before 1990, and 5 of those were from 1989: . In the absence of further evidence, I think we could take 1979 as a complete cut off point. Even after that, the evidence is not unequivocal. The study from 1984 says that ] journalists may not be as corrupt as journalists are depicted: . And the claims of bribery during the Republic seem to relate more to government journalists, than to independent newspapers. The sources also suggest that ] was more reliable. ] (]) 19:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] / ] == | |||
| :::Unfortunately, this lawsuit was never about righting the wrongs (i.e. the right-wing Lie Machinations) of the Nov 2020 elections. This was only ever about a corporation protecting its shareholder value against another corporation's malfeasance. ] (]) 01:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We still have to figure out how this may affect their reliability on Wiki. Fox paid to end the suit, so they obviously lied. The evidence in the case already shows as much. They continued to push The Big Lie to the bitter end. I don't see how any reasonable editor here can be expected to ignore this, or continue to put faith in reports by FN after such an obvious capitulation.] (]) 02:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{green|Fox paid to end the suit, so they obviously lied.}} is not a stance we can take. We may want to believe that as much as we want, but there's going to be no legal resolution to that matter. --] (]) 02:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That is completely ignoring the evidence in the case. Do you really expect editors to keep treating FN as reliable after this?] (]) 02:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's like saying a certain RS citation can't be used because some random authoritative figure didn't get a chance to give their opinion on it. ] (]) 02:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Courts determine legal liability, not reality. You can live in a world where O.J. Simpson is innocent and Bruno Hauptmann guilty, if you like, but that's not the world in which I reside. Reliable sources and commentators have already weighed in on many things found in discovery in this case. Determinations by a court of competent jurisdiction should certainly be taken into account, but "no legal resolution means we must pretend it didn't happen" strikes me as unhelpful. ] (]) 02:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm hundred percent with you re "courts determine legal liability, not reality" but that also means that the outcome of this particular case by itself should not have much bearing on the status of FN. As always we should see what RS make of the evidence and summary judgement and follow them. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::ETA: Apologies for ruminating on the fly, but I think it is categorically false that there is no legal resolution to the matter of whether Fox lied. That factual issue was completely disposed of by way of summary judgment. It ''was'' decided. The jury could not have found otherwise (indeed, the issue could not have been argued). To quote the judge, it was "crystal clear" that "that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true." That is from p. 43 of . Now, we can split hairs, I suppose, and say that perhaps the falsehoods were inadvertent, but that strikes me as a bit sophistical. Anyway, I will cease blathering now. Cheers, all. ] (]) 03:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I will agree that you're right, the summary judgment does say Fox lied, but only about their commentary about DVS. A lot more about why Fox News should be downgraded further in the prior discussions were based on additional "lies" that were found in DVS's evidence but not directly tied to DVS (such as Fox not wanting to lose viewers). Because these fall outside the bounds of what the summary judgment gave, and now will remain only evidence (and no verification of truth or not), we have to be careful to take those all as fact in determining Fox News' status. I'll stand that what we have now (unreliable for politics and science, and definitely not anything from their talking-head shows) remains as best consistent with the knowledge from this trial. ] (]) 03:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Apologies for sort of doubling up on Loki below, but I am still a bit confused (honestly, that's me more than anything else). I would certainly agree that we can't take Dominion's allegations as "true" for any Misplaced Pages purposes. But certainly we can take note of reliable sources commenting upon things that came out in discovery? ] (]) 03:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@]: Fox News is ''not'' currently {{tq|unreliable for politics and science}}. From ]: {{tq|For politics and science, there is consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable}}. ] (]) 04:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Absolutely not true: if it's reported as true in reliable sources, we can rely on it, even if a court did not actually judge it to be true. Notably the court actually did judge several of Dominion's claims to be true already in summary judgement (and that's a major reason why they settled). | |||
| ::It's also not totally clear yet that Fox did not have to admit fault of some kind. ] (]) 03:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Whether or not Fox News is reliable should be determined by conclusions published in reliable sources, not by our own. CNN settled with Nicholas Sandmann, while the SPLC settled with people they accused of Islamophobia. Having to settle libel cases is of course evidence of unreliability, but whether it is conclusion is a determination for which we should look to expert opinion. | |||
| ::So far, the majority of RS I've seen (above) all seem to come to the consensus that FOX not only lied, but knew they were lying...and did it anyway.] (]) 04:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, both The Washington Post and SPLC took steps to correct the record, something I think noteworthy in the reliability context (especially as to the Post, which did so before the suit). If Fox news does nothing more than the statement released in the immediate aftermath of settlement (yet to be determined, obviously), I would say the record remains uncorrected, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. ] (]) 04:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do they say that Fox actually lied or simply that Fox hosted external commentators who they internally doubted (in stronger terms). Given this was a legal case it's always important to be clear about what has actually been shown etc. As an aside, Dershowitz's take on the case (self published on YT) is interesting. On one hand he questions some of the judge's actions. My understanding is he feels the judge was wrong to declare findings of fact (a task that should be left to the jury). However, he also felt that there is likely more to the case that is publicly known. The feeling being that the potential avenues for appeal were strong based on both the preliminary rulings and the feeling that damages on this scale would be very hard to prove (did any states drop vote counting contracts)? He suggests this might mean Fox had more that they wanted to hide but that is purely speculative. ] (]) 04:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Springee, I would invite you to read the for yourself. And while it is quite true that in most cases, juries decide facts and judges decide law, motions for ] are filed incredibly often in common law jurisdictions. In fact, I'd say it's very difficult to find a civil case without them. Now they are not granted nearly as often as filed, but there was nothing remarkable or unusual about the judge's decision here--which is not to say, of course, that it can't be disagreed with. Cheers. ] (]) 05:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is certainly some good context to go along with that . Ultimately I don't see this really changes things since we already said Fox talk shows/commentary are not reliable and that was the heart of this issue. ] (]) 05:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I thought the heart of the issue was that the news reporting, not just the talk shows, was specifically omitting facts and publishing blatant lies without retraction relating to the topics at hand at the pushing of Murdoch and Fox executives? It's funny, I see multiple people pointing that out to you in discussions above. Strange you would still be pushing such an inaccuracy after having been repeatedly corrected. Almost as if you have an immense bias in trying to ensure Fox News isn't considered unreliable, as all of your arguing in this thread seems to indicate. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::First, the accusation is totally uncalled for. As I previously mentioned I don't think I've ever actually added FN as a source (reverting what appears to be an incorrect removal excluded). Second, not publishing or over/under emphasizing aspects of a story is not the same thing as publishing false information. Anyway, since you say I've been corrected, please show the diff and what sources are provided. I do have a bias in this. I have a bias against totally throwing out sources. I think that goes against the spirit and text of WP:V as well as WP:RS. Using Fox with caution (warranted) is not the same as saying we can't use Fox. This is especially problematic in cases where we cover the views of legitimate experts on a topic. Many of the news sources seem to focus on experts who share their perspectives. See my recent Dershowitz hypothetical. ] (]) 05:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|I don't think I've ever actually added FN as a source (reverting what appears to be an incorrect removal excluded).}} I find no difficulty in believing this claim, simply because appears to focus on removing content and reverting edits (I say this not as a criticism—plenty of content needs removing—but merely as a neutral characterization of your style). Your claim is, however, unresponsive to the allegation that {{tq|you have an immense bias in trying to ensure Fox News isn't considered unreliable}}, because whether or not you have a bias in favor of Fox News being a reliable source is totally separate from whether or not you personally choose to add Fox News as a source to articles. (But I must note that your personal bias is irrelevant to the question of whether Fox is reliable.){{pb}}In response to your request for {{tq|the diff and what sources are provided}} that {{tq|corrected}} your assertion that {{tq|we already said Fox talk shows/commentary are not reliable and that was the heart of this issue}}, I will provide an example. ] you claimed that {{tq|The problem here was the talk shows, not the news reporting the problem element is already viewed as not reliable.}} David Gerard and Aquillion both responded directly to you, explicitly refuting your claim and providing sources: see ] and ]. In particular, Aquillion demonstrated that Fox News has blurred the line between news and opinion, which you apparently did not contest. I hope these examples suffice to fulfill your request.{{pb}}Finally, you also say that {{tq|I do have a bias in this. I have a bias against totally throwing out sources Using Fox with caution (warranted) is not the same as saying we can't use Fox.}} I think I agree with you on this point, but your position is not in opposition to the users questioning the reliability of Fox as a source. As far as I can tell, no user in these discussions has argued in favor of {{tq|totally throwing out}} Fox News. The focus has been almost solely on Fox News's ''political'' coverage, and it is my impression that users are on the whole entirely open to {{tq|Using Fox with caution}} in that area. Many of them are simply convinced that Fox News is in fact less reliable (in this area) than it has previously been believed to be. ] (]) 07:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::David Gerard's reply was related to a speculative forward looking question so it doesn't address if our existing rating already covers this issue. Aquillion's reply shows that Fox News listed Bartiromo as a news anchor (and still does ) but it does so for her own shows which look like talking head shows rather than news reporting. Would we have considered ''Mornings with Maria'' news reporting or commentary? Given it was a talking heads show I think this would fall into the same bucket as Carlson et al which we have already said is generally unreliable. I don't think the it has been shown that the news programs (the shows we would view as news reporting, not commentary) were compromised. Why does this matter? Take the ] article where there are sections talking about legal analysis and commentary. Given Alan Dershowitz's expertise, would it seem reasonable to include his perspective in the section? We have the legal opinions of people picked by other news sources. If someone added Dershowitz via, as an example, this Fox interview , should it be retained or not? Many editors already treat Fox News as a remove on site if the topic is even remotely political. Is that approach reasonable in my hypothetical case? What if Dershowitz gave the exact same content to MSNBC, would we then consider it acceptable? wp:RS tells us we really should be considering the claims in question, not just the source. However, over time this has evolved into a game of "do we collectively agree with that source". That doesn't make for better articles in the end. ] (]) 11:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The Dershowitz example is interesting. Just this morning, CNN had a Republican insisting that after slavery, Blacks got full freedom because of the Second Amendment. Craziest concept I've heard on a news program in ages. Of course the anchor heavily challenged the concept. Would have Fox? So yes, it matters on what program Dershowitz is a guest. ] (]) 13:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The thing about Dersh is that, years ago, his opinions on legal questions were respected and often worthy of inclusion. That is very much no longer the case. So the only reason we would need to discuss him is in response to RS reporting of something he did. I would never use the primary source for that anyway. So we lose nothing by not being able to cite Fox for some statement he made on their shows. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 17:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I agree, Dersh is firmly on the lunatic fringe at this point, not a respected academic and legal thinker. So this example really proves the opposite. ''']'''<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> 22:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Any evidence of this? Where are the scholars who are claiming his legal analysis and understanding of the law is no longer accurate? When did this change occur? Surely this is something we would have covered in is BLP. ] (]) 23:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{od|:::::::::::}} the fall from grace is real. ''']'''<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> 23:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::From the Politico article, "''Maybe the question isn’t what happened to Alan Dershowitz. | |||
| ::Maybe it’s what happened to everyone ''" Two of the article are just op-eds that are mad he was willing to defend Trump. If this is the best you have it's very weak. ] (]) 00:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You say that {{tq|David Gerard's reply was related to a speculative forward looking question so it doesn't address if our existing rating already covers this issue.}} This is an inaccurate characterization of David Gerard's comment. David Gerard replied directly to your statement that {{tq|the problem element is already viewed as not reliable}} by saying that {{tq|The issue is precisely that we have the court evidence it was not confined to one element}}. David Gerard's comment ''does'' {{tq|address if our existing rating already covers this issue}}; it argues that our existing rating is outdated because newly available evidence demonstrates that the problems are broader than they were once thought to be.{{pb}}With regard to Bartiromo, you say {{tq| I don't think it has been shown that the news programs were compromised.}} Yet you simultaneously say that {{tq|Fox News listed Bartiromo as a news anchor}}. What is your criterion for identifying something as a news program? ] (]) 18:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Fringe fringe and more fringe ''']'''<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> 23:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I think we are missing something here. Yes, we must be very careful about what we print in mainspace. But, we are allowed to make our own judgements on reliability of sources for use in Misplaced Pages. We don't need a court of law for that. ] (]) 10:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don’t disagree… but… I think we need to make those judgements on a more granule level - on a case by case basis. We all know that source X can be unreliable for statement Y, yet reliable for statement Z. We can apply this to Fox. | |||
| ::As a community, we can determine that FN is unreliable for its coverage on Dominion, yet we can also deem it perfectly reliable for its coverage on other stories… a massive warehouse fire in Detroit or a flood in Texas. | |||
| ::We need to resist the temptation to throw the baby out with the bath water. ] (]) 12:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think part of the problem is that everything is political these days. A flood or fire is caused by Biden's "woke" policies, or Rothschild space lasers. What came out of the recent case is that Fox management believes keeping their viewers happy is more important than facts. ] (]) 13:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::We should be basing such decisions on clear evidence that the source is bad for us. EG for the Daily Mail, it was pushed hard to be classified as unusable, but only got consensus to be that way when multiple documented cases of falsification and made-up information were demonstrated. Here, we can use the case to definitely keep Fox News out of any political story, and strengthens why we don't ever want to see opinions from Tucker and the other talk shows on here, but that doesn't speak to the rest of Fox News in other, more general news departments. ] (]) 12:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am unconvinced by the distinction. I believe we are creating a distinction here for Fox that we would not for almost any other ]. If the San Francisco Chronicle was found to have lied knowingly and repeatedly at the direction of the editors about a particular topic, would we really say they're still reliable for reporting on other topics? Or would we just toss the whole source? ] (]) 18:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::The general news departments of Fox News took their direction from the big bosses in terms of what to cover in terms of their priorities on the 2020 election lies, that is what the Dominion case summary judgment finds. ''']'''<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> 18:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::We should ditch the over-generalizations that are inherent in such listings. Actual reliability is context specific.....expertise and objectivity ''with respect the the text which cited it''. Also remember that in Misplaced Pages this isn't just about wp:ver. It ripples through into using wp:NPOV to POV an article, to suppress coverage of one side of political issues, in this case by far the largest news organization which covers that "side" <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Problem is, Fox doesn't cover that one side reliably. Fox broadcasts lies -- for years. And is it actually a "news organization" just because it says it is? And don't other news organizations cover both sides? ] (]) 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, in the US that era is unfortunately long gone. The major medias are now all at least partially advocates or tilted towards for one side or the other. And they under cover, over cover or fail to cover things and angles accordingly. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 18:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's really not the case, but for the sake of argument, if it were the case, we should deprecate all of the corporate news media in the USA. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, NPR, ABC, NYT, WSJ .... I'd say they're all reliable except FOX. I hadn't heard that WSJ was on the chopping block. Do you consider WSJ tilted? ''']'''<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> 19:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::With regard to making {{tq|over-generalizations}}, in my opinion, {{tq|We should ditch the over-generalizations}} that you just now made in your comment. These are very broad, very absolutist assertions that are not particularly helpful to the question at hand. Do you have sources to support your position? ] (]) 19:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I know that claim is constantly made by the extreme right. I don't see it. CNN has Republican guests every day. The NYTimes has performed embarrassing investigating of Democrats. Both have had critical articles of the Biden administration. With the wealth of news sources, I cannot accept the idea that only Fox can be used for right-wing (extreme in many cases) angles. Besides, it sounds like you are saying we should start using Fox for politics and science, unlike most everyone here. ] (]) 20:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ====Why does FOX News get a free pass on Politics and Science? Do we do this for all news outlets?==== | |||
| *Um… responding to whoever created this sub-header… we say to NOT use Fox for politics and science. Which is the opposite of giving them a “free pass”. Perhaps you meant something else? ] (]) 20:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Could the assertion be that we're giving Fox a free pass by separating its politics and science coverage and assessing it separately from its coverage on other topics? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 20:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:: But that's not exactly special, and it happens for other outlets, too (e.g. ], ], ] vs ], ], ], ]). Distinctions get made when they have value, and my list would be longer when those were made without using separate entries. - ] (]) 19:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Many of those are time-based, which is a different situation: we're not trusting editors that are unreliable for one topic to be reliable for other topics if we say that the reliability of a source has declined over time. The remainder have some very concrete reason why their unreliability in one area would not spill over to other areas. Buzzfeed News is a separate organization that just happens to be under the same brand as Buzzfeed's clickbait content, for instance. ] (]) 20:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:You claim that {{tq|we say to NOT use Fox for politics and science.}} This is not entirely accurate. {{tq|Fox News is considered marginally reliable}} with regard to politics and science. It is not considered unreliable. ] (]) 20:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::oops...Sorry It looks like my signature didn't take on mobile. I see now that these rules seem to apply to many sources, and for politics it kind of makes sense, but a major news network not being reliable for SCIENCE seems like an extremely egregious line to cross from a standpoint of RELIABILITY. | |||
| *::What other major networks are considered generally reliable, but not for SCIENCE? | |||
| *::Not being reliable for reports that involve SCIENCE seems like a huge issue. If it is politicizing something that is supposed to be as fairly mundane as science in order to appeal to an audience that doesn't care about empirical research or ], then why would anyone be surprised when they cross the line into plain old journalistic reports? They seem to cater EVERYTHING around a biased political viewpoint. It has been documented that Fox News has been pushing scientific falsehoods for years. See and . The list goes on and on... ] (]) 02:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I think it would be fine to use Fox as a source for anything that does not intersect with either politics or science. I doubt they lie about sports results (though even that would not surprise me at this point). ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 17:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The problem is, what doesn't ever interact with either of those things? We know they're not reliable on business or law news either because they're lying about this case. Sports isn't completely apolitical: what if Colin Kaepernick decides to try to make a comeback? Do you really trust Fox to report on that accurately? ] (]) 19:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::For that matter, you can't trust them on anything involving race or LGBTQ; both of which arise often in sports. And they did spend months lying about gas prices. ] (]) 20:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::They never lied about gas prices. You keep making that claim and it's wrong each time you do it. ] (]) 21:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::They never lied on gas prices. It was infographics that at a casual glance biased the data to make it look more severe, but the text data 100% matched up with their source (a reputable one). Tha/ type of problem falls info the "93% of statistics are made up" realm that all sources do even if the simple text numbers are fine. ] (]) 21:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Is there a link to this infographic and the story about (alleged) lying abut gas prices? ] (]) 21:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Oddly, no. But I documented here for months. Over 100 times it was updated near the top of the page with a number double the actual average price of gas, higher than any state average, claiming as a source AAA which never had any such numbers. Again, I'm not suggesting using this in the article -- only for our own evaluations. ] (]) 21:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::It was discussed at length in the last RFC. ''']'''<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> 22:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::The text stated "Average Price" and the only number statically displayed was about double. If you were on a non-mobile device, you could see accurate numbers by state by hovering your mouse over a state. But, the one number that you could see without effort was higher than any state. The text stated that the source was AAA, a reliable source; but AAA had no such number anywhere on the displayed url. Interestingly, they did not link the url, so you had to take extra effort to see it was a lie. This was a lie repeated with a different wrong number each day. This number was of enormous importance to tens of millions of Americans and fit FN's claim that inflation was the fault of Biden's "woke" policies. If you believe this wrong number was a technology problem, as Springee repeatedly claimed with no evidence; then their carelessness is beyond anything I would consider RS. And all sources' statistics are NOT grossly incorrect 93% of the time. ] (]) 22:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Again, you were wrong then and wrong now. It was a script error that didn't auto adjust the color scale as gas prices changed. Contrary to your repeatedly incorrect claims, it was not falsely presenting the average price of gas. ] (]) 22:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::That is not correct. It clearly advertised a number that was not correctly calculated, and was significantly higher than any gas price in any state. ''']'''<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> 22:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::A.) This has NOTHING to do with the colors. B.) You are just making that up. You have zero evidence of anything about any script. It stated "Average Price" and then had a number which was higher than the average in every single state. And this number was nowhere at the AAA page cited. If this was a "error" reported in a prominent spot for over 100 days; we shouldn't trust them to report the time of day. ] (]) 22:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::No, you were wrong then and you are still wrong. The issue was a color bar on the side of the screen that didn't scale correctly as the averages changed. It was a simple scripting error that you tried to claim was a big conspiracy to mislead readers. ] (]) 22:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *{{od|::::::::::}}I think I can see where you're coming from with this "scripting error" hypothesis. It is, however, a red herring. Earlier, you said that the infographic {{tq|was not falsely presenting the average price of gas}}. I believe this is an inaccurate statement, and I will provide a concrete example.{{pb}}. On the right side is the infographic in question. The only value displayed there is $6.309. If you hover your cursor over the map, you will see individual state averages (which appear accurate) and another value will pop up on the low side of the color-bar: $3.963. . The average gas price given there is $3.901; moreover, no state average even approaches the value $6.309. There is an apparent discrepancy here, one that I think justifies to a great extent the claims made by Objective3000. I encourage the reader to open up both these links and compare them. ] (]) 00:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:This was all discussed last time O3000 complained about this script error. Please note that the plot is a heat map with relative values across different states. Now notice that the key for the heat map is almost all red. That would suggest to anyone who say has experience creating such tables/plots in things like Matlab that the key is not scaling to the updated data in the table. As an example consider this heat map (with gas prices that look very low) Now consider what the key would look like if a script error said the minimum price (on that plot) was $3/gallon. It would show red from end to end. One of the common mistakes amateurs make when doing things like FEA studies is looking at the auto generated color map and ignoring things like the actual strain limits of their material. Yeah, this looks like a scripting error, nothing more. It also never says the price in question is actually an average. O3000 was wrong before and is still wrong now. ] (]) 00:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Your point is somewhat undermined by the rather obvious fact that an accurate bar would have had 5.324 at the right hand end, and the red and blue shaded sections of the bar would have been roughly even sizes. Any assumption of good faith on Fox's part in making an error like this is squarely in Mary Poppins territory. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 16:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *{{od|::::::::::}}ARRRRGH: | |||
| *:I have never said anything about any bar or scaling. Why do you keep claiming this? | |||
| *::You keep talking about a "scripting error". What are you talking about? I have been in the IT field for well over a half century and lectured on IT in five continents and this is an absurd statement with zero evidence. What is the name of the script? Why do you keep repeating this? What is your evidence? Has FN ever once claimed this -- or are you simply making it up? | |||
| *:::I said absolutely nothing about a conspiracy theory and request that you strike this accusation as per ] and ]. | |||
| *::::] (]) 00:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Because you keep claiming the number on the bar was meant to be the average gas price. The key doesn't say that and the fact that the key is almost all red vs scaled to show what all the different colors actually mean further supports this. Has FN ever said that $6 number was the average price of gas? Was there ever a time when the average US gas price was that high? Perhaps if you were in some area of data analysis instead of what ever you did you might see this mistake rather than claim Fox is trying to lie about the average price of gas. ] (]) 00:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::The number shown appears nowhere. It is an error, but not one of a heat map or a color scale or a scripting error. It's just a wrong value shown and is incorrect, and not excusably so. It happens to be incorrect in a way that creates the idea of $6 gas: when in fact gas never got anywhere close to $6, anywhere at all. ''']'''<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> 00:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::At least you agree it's an error. I hope you can also agree that the bar graph that is meant to be the key to the heat map is screwed up since it doesn't show any of the cooler colors. Perhaps because I have experience creating and working with plots like this I recognize it for what it is, an error. I guess some people might be fooled into thinking it is trying to claim gas is $6/gallon but that is not the same as the claim that Fox spent "''months lying about gas prices.''" That was O3000's claim. ] (]) 00:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::As I have explained before, I also present daily charts on financial volatility on web sites, including Bloomberg and NASDAQ. I would be extremely embarrassed if I was off by a small fraction and would apologize. This cannot happen with an RS for over 100 days. So, either they lied or are incredibly incompetent in a manner that happens to fit their political narrative. Either is non-RS. In any case, you are making this all up. You have zero evidence that this is some error. Zero. We have had this discussion over and over and you continue to claim something about which you have no knowledge. ] (]) 00:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::So you are backing down from the lie claim? ] (]) 00:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Stop make false statements. I did no such thing. ] (]) 00:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{tq|if you were in some area of data analysis instead of what ever you did}} Actually, I am and upload realized volatility numbers to Bloomberg and NASDAQ after every business day. You need to stop these comments. Tell me, what is anyone reading their site supposed to think this number means? The number is nowhere on the cited page, and the only text says Average. How can you trust this as RS? And, it's even higher than the high in any state. In any case, a number changing every day important to tens of millions of viewers that is always grossly incorrect, rather a lie or mistake, makes is just one example of the fact they are not RS. ] (]) 00:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::So you are saying it's not a lie now? You are accepting that is an error in the code now? I mean if you want to say it was a stupid mistake sure, I agree. But you called it a lie. ] (]) 00:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *{{od|:::::::::::}}Can you two stop? You're not convincing each other, and neither of you is going to defeat the other with some rhetorical flourish. ] (]) 00:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:As you likely know, the purpose of discussion on such pages is often not to convince the other person as it is impossible. It is to present your view, which cannot be done without clarifying your view in the light of false statements about your views or facts by another. ] (]) 00:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::This back and forth isn't doing that. Please stop it. ] (]) 01:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I absolutely said no such thing. I said even if. It is pointless to discuss this with you. Strike your false statements and stop ]. ] (]) 00:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Ah, you spotted my point ;-) Yes, the right has made *everything* a political purity test by now. W took action on climate change. Imagine the 2024 Republican candidate running on tackling the biggest single problem facing humanity today. Or even admitting that schools should teach accurate US history, and absolutely not teach creationism. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 16:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I don't think much has changed. Fox News may be broadly OK for national and local US news stories, but its political coverage has a history of pandering to its audience. This was true even before the Dominion saga unfolded.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 19:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Used for many claims throughout pages for CBM movies, such as ], ], ], and ], including those which are otherwise unverifiable like Victor von Doom appearing in the first or that Spider-Man was supposed to appear in ] but was cut. | |||
| === How long === | |||
| How long are we going to entertain false balance and political axes to grind on this? There should be a critical mass of support to downgrade Fox for politics based on what has been revealed about Fox and Dominion lies. The case was settled yes, but the discovery revealed factual information in RS. This information is damning and adds to the already considerable record on Fox that has been revealed in muliple RFCs, which is conveniently forgotten by a significant contingent along political lines every time it comes up. Well, let's draw a line then. Downgrade to generally unreliable starting in 2020. ''']'''<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> 23:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :If you want to start an RFC to see if said critical mass exists by all means. I dont necessarily disagree with you, but the above section is not going to come to anything. What you need is an RFC '''and''' to not have editors responding to any vote they disagree with so that the discussion does not get so unwieldy that no sane person wants to close it with a consensus for anything. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :: Not yet another Fox News RfC, please, and this is coming from the person who opened the 2020 one. The current status quo of considering Fox's coverage of politics questionable is fine. We don't need another month of this noticeboard being clogged up and then having to get somebody to spend a lot of their time assessing the consensus. Maybe we can have another RfC in a year or two, but it's too recent since the last one. ] (]) 23:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would normally agree with you on it being too soon, but there seem to be material differences between then and now. And we're clogging up this noticeboard now anyway. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::Too soon? Isn't that a bit like ], ie a way to ignore recent events and maintain ]? Lord forbid we clog up the notice board with discussion regarding ...so far. I honestly empathize with the cynicism, but that doesn't mean I go around telling people to just ignore it and "stay the course" like at a climate change summit. ] (]) 03:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If we just had a discussion and it attracted a large amount of participants, and there has been no material change in the circumstances then it is unreasonable to ask people to do it again, thats just editing by attrition. While here I agree there are some material differences, no TOOSOON is not just a way of maintaining the status quo, its also a way to avoid generating needles animosity within what is supposedly a collaborative community. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::I think I see your point, thanks for the response. ] (]) 18:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't want to start a new RFC if we are constrained to the usual 4 point format. I'd start an RFC, downgrade to red for politics only, yea or nay. If people don't think that RFC is fair or neutral enough even though I think it's the obvious only meaningful point of contention, then let someone else start it. Currently, the status quo for politics is yellow, which indicates marginal reliability, but not general unreliability. This might, in practice, be kind of the same thing because people only seem to want to add controversial things that end up being unreliable - on the other hand, people who oppose any change to the status quo on Fox, then still act like Fox is ''already'' red for politics. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Pretty much this. Stop talking here. Wait 3-6 months so the community has some time to recharge their arguing about Fox batteries, then try a highly structured RFC with word and reply limits. At the very least, everyone who's added more than 1000 words to the above discussion should just disengage. ] (]) 23:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, the above discussion may seem a pointless waste of time. But, Fox is the mostly viewed news source. As a result, it is constantly brought up as a source on numerous articles, where such lengthy discussions repeatedly take place because no one can point to a decision that it is not RS and just use one of the other innumerable sources, many with Pulitzers and other awards. So, as huge and silly as the discussion above may be – it is nothing compared to the sum of all other discussions on so many article TPs. At some point, reality must prevail to reduce the sum of timesinks.. Isn’t that the point of this page? ] (]) 01:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :It's starting to feel like truth is becoming more of a popularity contest than a measure of rule and policy. If this is the way Wiki is headed, it will fail in it's endeavor. ] (]) 02:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I really do not see why his claims is so widely allowed and accepted as fact, even though he is undoubtedly more reliable than random blogs or posts on Twitter he's still a journalist making claims without evidence. I would like to establish here definitively if we continue to site theinsneider.com as a source, as we currently do in many articles. ] (he/him • ]) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===RfC: downgrade Fox News for politics? === | |||
| <!-- ] 20:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1685131409}} | |||
| :I did a Google News search and when other outlets report his stuff it is described as a rumour or "reportedly". He is also described as a "scooper". I don't think most of that should be used on Misplaced Pages because of NOTNEWS. Rumours about media that haven't been released yet aren't even news yet. Does he say that he got his info from a source? Then it should be attributed to that source. It also looks like a SPS. So everything sourced to him should be attributed, but even then it probably shouldn't be used. ] (]) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Should we downgrade ] to "generally unreliable" for politics starting in November 2020? ] (]) 19:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Right now, much of what is sourced to him is just taken as face value, for example Doom is listed in the cast for the Fantastic Four movie without clarification that it's based off a claim by him. My changes to remove such information from the pages were undone, so there seems to be some ambiguity if he is currently accepted as a RS. ] (he/him • ]) 18:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ====Fox poll==== | |||
| :For any stories about named people (e.g. casting), ] would probably bar use of this source, since he's self-published. His record on this is at best mixed from a quick search. For example, he reported that ] would be starring in a new Johnny Depp film, which was swiftly denied, kept posting that it was true, and then a few months later, ] was announced as the co-star. | |||
| *'''Yes''', deprecate Fox News starting in November 2020 when management redoubled their efforts to portray falsehoods as truth. ] (]) 19:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I did some digging and apparently he made a recent post, copied here, , in which he says {{tq|This may speak to my own reckless vanity, but I’d rather be wrong sometimes than sit on 100 accurate stories and stand idly by and watch as Nellie Andreeva breaks every single one of them. Yes, it’s nauseating to get a story wrong — seriously, it makes me sick to my stomach — but it’s an even worse feeling when you don’t report something and then get beat by the competition.}} If that's his attitude to reporting, then it would probably be best if we don't use him for non-BLP subjects as well. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''', based on the new evidence given. ''']'''<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, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've removed everything that clearly failed ] and tried to beef up non-BLP uses of this (e.g. filming dates, projects in development) with better sources that cite his work. Honestly most reputable don't really cite him and hedge by using "rumoured" or "reportedly" and cannot corroborate. Definitely not an ideal source and probably runs afoul of ], especially if not picked up by better sources citing him at all. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' ~ '']''<sup>(]|])</sup><small>]</small> 19:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' but I would go further back than November 2020. I don't think they've ever been reliable for politics. – ] (]) 19:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes, but back to the beginning, not just 2020.''' "{{tq|For politics and science Fox News is considered marginally reliable}}" needs to be revised downward. In keeping with the very reason Roger Ailes created Fox News, they have never been a RS for politics or science. There should be nothing positive left to say at WP:RSP. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 20:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' - I would actually prefer they be graded as generally unreliable across the board (at least since November 2020), but to my mind, an overreaction here is preferable to the status quo. Cheers. ] (]) 21:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The lawsuit is further evidence that the talk shows are are red sources. It did not provide evidence that Fox's new reporting and provided false information. Additionally, no evidence has been provided that the current use with caution rating is not effective as Fox is already rarely cited. The last RfC was just 6 months back and had significant participation. The current rating is fine especially since case by case should be the standard we use rather than a blanket block which is what is being proposed here. ] (]) 21:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *: about how "serious news anchor" ] tried to reverse the network's call of Arizona for Biden in the 2020 election, saying it should be "put back in 's column", even though it never was to begin with. {{thumbs up}} – ] (]) 21:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Thanks for including that source. Peer review is present six times in our description of ] for a reason. If someone as strong as an on-air anchor at a network insisted that Arizona be "put back" in Trump's column and nevertheless Fox News refused to do it, meaning, the correct outcome was maintained by Fox News, an outcome manifestly contrary to their editorial stance and with a clear potential hit to their bottom line, that means that their peer review system worked. This is what we expect from a reliable source, and therefore the article you linked demonstrates support for an "Oppose" vote. ] (]) 21:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::: ], that decision to call Arizona for Biden is actually an example of the exception to the rule and seen as a mistake from which they sought to recover by doubling down on election lies. That was seen by Fox News as a mistake and loudly complained about by the rest of Fox News hosts and management. After that, they put all their efforts toward recovering from the damage caused by that correct decision. Viewers immediately fled from Fox News and turned to even more extreme right-wing sites. The internal messaging at Fox revealed in the Dominion case shows they all considered that to be a fateful and very harmful action. It was not a "correction", but seen as an "error" from which they sought to recover by lying even more. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 23:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I tend to agree. Mathglot's argument seems to quite a bit, as you've pointed out from RS that have not recently been successfully sued for ''defamation damages''. Not to mention the upcoming Smartmatic lawsuit, which hasn't even begun. If FOX loses again, would that still not change your view, Mathglot? Any anchor, journalist or news outlet and still call themselves journalists, anchors or news outlets...The question is not whether it is "journalism" or 1st amendment speech... The question here is if it should affect FOXNEWS status as ], and currently there are about 787.5 million reasons, and counting.] (]) 01:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Fox News was the first network to call Florida for George W Bush in 2000, which was of monumental importance given the closeness and eventual recount. Who made the call for Fox? – ] (]) 22:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::The other networks followed four minutes later. Breaking news frequently contains errors, no matter how professional the network. ] (]) 20:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak yes''' - I HATE all generalizations and am very wary of saying that any media outlet is unreliable for “politics”… that is just too broad a scope for my taste. I would much prefer a narrow it down further to a more defined scope. I would definitely agree that “Fox is not reliable for their coverage of the 2020 US presidential election and it’s aftermath - especially their claims about Dominion.” | |||
| *That said, given that I thought we ''already'' said that Fox was unreliable for politics, I can’t object to doing so now. ] (]) 21:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes, provided it is time-limited, ending no later than the end of 2024.'''- Paying $780 million, or whatever the exact amount is, is not a good sign, to say the least, and a timed downgrade is appropriate. BUT I would '''oppose an indefinite downgrade''' as it would amount to disparate treatment. For example, the NYT was never downgraded for their lies here, which are uncorrected to this day. In light of the need to avoid disparate treatment, we need to have a definite ending, and I think a full US election cycle is enough. And has a single academic publication involved in the COVID-19 debate taken notice of the fact that academic input from the People's Republic of China is censored by Xi Jinping? ] (]) 22:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{cot|back and forth somebody else thinks is not needed}} | |||
| *: ], you write "uncorrected to this day". That article has two corrections. The New York Times (a real news source) and Fox News (a GOP propaganda source) live in separate universes, and to try to compare them is just plain wrong. | |||
| *: As far as time-limited goes, that ignores the fact that the problems are not exclusive to the election cycle, but existed before and will continue to exist. Fox will just be more careful not to libel a company, but will continue to tell election lies and any other lies necessary to retain their Trump base. There is a reason . Chris Stirewalt, Chris Wallace, Shep Smith, Gretchen Carlson, Julie Roginsky, Carl Cameron, Bill Sammon, Stephen Hayes, and Jonah Goldberg, etc. left for good reason. They were never allowed full freedom to be real journalists, and that will not change. When Fox's own fact checkers get threatened and news hosts get silenced, Fox News fails to meet our minimum requirement for a RS. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 17:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::The big lie in the article was that ] had the evidence to take the ] to the jury. That was a lie when it was written. It remains one today. The most recent archive of the article I am aware of is here. I see a single, minor correction, which has no bearing on the big lie. Other lies followed from the big one. Based on what criterion do you argue that the Fox lie was "propaganda" while the NYT lie was not? ] (]) 18:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::: ], do you have links to our article content about that aspect of the incident? There should be RS there, and I'd like to read about it. | |||
| *::: Otherwise, comparing Fox News with other RS is a fool's errand, as Fox News does what is right as an exception to the rule, whereas other RS commit errors as an exception to the rule. | |||
| *::: The prudent course with Fox News is the same as when dealing with Trump: Fox News comes nowhere close to being a RS. With the knowledge and approval from the top down, their own fact-checkers are threatened and news hosts are blocked from reporting the facts. They fail (that's the news desk) our minimum requirements for all other RS. Why make an exception for Fox? -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 23:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Our article content? Not other than what I gave above. The most thorough source I am aware of on the Duke case is the book ''Until Proven Innocent'' . A widely-read blog by one of the authors repeatedly covered the NYT, for example here and here. I can't agree with an attitude that assumes that certain sources are always lying. ] (]) 00:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::: Yes, our article(s) on the topic, as it's safer than to depend on one source. Of course, if there's nothing else, how strong is the case that the NYT is still lying? Please point me in the right direction. What article(s) do we have? Is it only the ]? Whatever, the point still stands that with Fox, it is the rule, not the exception, that they are generally unreliable, whereas with RS it is the opposite. | |||
| *::::: There are certain people and sources that are generally untrustworthy, so much so that one should always be suspicious of them. Trump literally, not hyperbole, can't say 3-5 sentences without there being some form of deception or manipulation. Fact-checkers have measured it and counted how often he engages in deception. It's that bad. Fox News has such a strong agenda that they are in the same boat. They are forced from the top to stick to an agenda, facts be damned. Being around someone like Trump, or listening to a source like Fox, just corrupts one's sense of what is true or false, what is right or wrong. One misses out on so much information that normally lets one know when they are lying that one's whole worldview changes for the worse. One's moral compass gets skewed. It's generally pretty obvious when editors get their info (I would say almost "any" info) from Fox News. They end up defending them and don't understand why other editors still criticize Fox. They don't realize they've been sucked into that fringe bubble. It's better to only stick to RS and never listen to Fox. It's not enough to say one should avoid the talking heads. No, it affects the news side too, much against the wishes of some of the real journalists. That's why so many of them have left. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 03:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::OK, time to play "substitute one thing." Here it is: ''The NYT has such a strong agenda that they are in the same boat. They are forced from the top to stick to that agenda, facts be damned.'' The agenda: ''white males bad''. So they supported an effort to railroad three white males for a rape that never happened. Plenty of people were sucked into a bubble where the Duke three were "guilty". And the NYT is still "reliable". ] (]) 04:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::I would point to the fact that The New York Times afterward reckoned with and Fox has not done so, and their statement in the wake of settlement merely acknowledged that the judge's rulings existed. Cheers. ] (]) 04:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|And has a single academic publication involved in the COVID-19 debate taken notice of the fact that academic input from the People's Republic of China is censored by Xi Jinping?}} Yes, see Abazi, Vigjilenca (2020), "" in the ''European Journal of Risk Regulation''—it discusses the censorship of medical whistleblowers. Better examples may exist; I did not look very hard. Interestingly, this tangent is completely irrelevant to the topic of the RfC. ] (]) 00:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Glad to hear that at least some journals have noticed. I do believe that we have double standards and that's a problem. I therefore believe this "tangent" is relevant. I would be more comfortable with a Fox downgrade now if there had been a previous NYT downgrade in the wake of the lies I mention above. You are welcome to differ with one or more of these opinions. But the way these RfC's work is that everyone gets to have their say in their own little section. ] (]) 00:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::To be honest, I meant to undo my comment for being superfluous, but it edit-conflicted with your reply. I think your initial comment stands perfectly well on its own, and I have not added anything productive to this RfC. Would you mind if I collapsed my reply and the subsequent comment chain? ] (]) 00:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| *'''Yes''' - But confining the rationale exclusively to how Fox has misrepresented reality since November 2020 really misses the point. In 2001, after 9/11, I was appalled at how Fox's quest for ratings not only drove its own coverage but how its success at poisonous warmongering drove other major channels to replicate that grotesque and dishonest approach to the news. Here's a good example from the NYT about how Fox affected public opinion, and hence, public policy.<ref>, '']'', Jim Rutenberg, April 16, 2003. Retrieved April 21, 2023.</ref> Ironically, the Times itself joined the odious ratings contest by regularly printing absolute "weapons of mass destruction" rubbish by ] on its front page. It pushed ], for example, to hire ] while it fired ] and ] who had too energetically sought to tell the truth. (Ironically, MSNBC hired ] and ] to provide "balancing" conservative voices.} ] (]) 22:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:So in effect, you're blaming other outlet's poor editorial practices on Fox? I don't think this is exactly the best point. Assuming that Fox did affect other news outlets, shouldn't that be more of a testament to the unreliability of those said sources, since they were so easily driven to replicate Fox new's practices just to pursue ratings? - ] (]-]) 22:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes, and''' I would also support downgrading Fox to generally unreliable in general. Last time this came up for an RFC, I believed that there were sufficient problems with Fox's reporting to downgrade them at that time, and I continue to believe that. The fact that there is a smoking gun now doesn't mean that Fox was reliable before.] (]) 23:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' - This has a long history, going back to Australia, the UK (where Murdoch’s phone hacking scandal likely cost over $1 billion), and now the US where Roger Aisles, media consultant for US Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, and Mayor Rudy Giuliani, was hired as CEO. The house of cards is falling and there is no reason that WP should be under the collapse. There is a wealth of news sources from around the world with Pulitzer prizes and other awards. We have no shortage of sources. How can we use FN as a source and claim reliance on our five pillars? BUT, it must be at least politics, science, economics, race, religion, LGBTQ, most anything else including sports and entertainment as they include race, religion, LGBTQ, etc. ] (]) 01:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' No question from this narrow period (2020 onward, politics only) that Fox cannot be anywhere close to reliable from their news desk. I would generally add as a footnote that for most other areas not covered by the RSP entry for Fox, that WP editors tend to look for better sources before resorting to Fox as the source, but that doesn't mean Fox is unusable on WP. --] (]) 01:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes'''. The problem isn't confined to opinion - {{tq|Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch admitted under oath that they all promoted false claims about the 2020 election, which he believed was fair. But the difference with Bartiromo is she identifies as a news anchor, as she indicated in her testimony.}}<ref>{{cite web|accessdate=2023-04-22|title=Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo is front and center in Dominion's defamation suit|url=https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-03-09/fox-news-anchor-maria-bartiromo-dominion-defamation-suit-murdoch-trump-election-2020-carlson|date=9 March 2023|website=Los Angeles Times}}</ref> See also . Even before this, {{tq|there are scholars who reject the idea that Fox should be considered a news source at all, claiming instead that it should be considered something more akin to propaganda}}; and in 2021, the same source for the above summary describes it as {{tq|...a source of information that embraces a highly partisan perspective with inconsistent commitments to the accuracy of their reporting...}}<ref>{{cite journal|first1=A.J.|last1=Bauer|first2=Anthony|last2=Nadler|first3=Jacob L.|last3=Nelson|title=What is Fox News? Partisan Journalism, Misinformation, and the Problem of Classification|url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19312431211060426|journal=Electronic News|date=2021|issn=1931-2431|pages=18–29|volume=16|issue=1|doi=10.1177/19312431211060426}}</ref> A summary of the (still ongoing) Smartmatic lawsuit states that {{tq|Fox News aired thirteen reports either explicitly stating or implying that Smartmatic played a role in stealing the 2020 presidential election}} and notes, again, that people making these claims were presented by Fox as news reporters, not as "opinion mouthpieces."<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Michael|last1=Conklin|title=The Real Cost of Fake News: Smartmatic's $2.7 Billion Defamation Lawsuit against Fox News|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/udlr47&id=25&div=&collection=|journal=University of Dayton Law Review|date=2022|pages=17|volume=47}}</ref> It seems difficult to argue that a source whose reporting has the sort of academic coverage described here can reasonably be said to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that ] requires. I'd also be strenuously opposed to an expiration date; coverage makes it clear that they've had systematic problems from the start, even if things have gotten worse, and there's no particular reason to think it will ever get better - certainly not within the baffling single-year window that a few people have inexplicably advanced. In the unlikely event that Fox somehow changes its entire direction and business model, we can start a new discussion to re-evaluate it then, but the idea that it could go back to ] automatically is a total nonstarter. --] (]) 02:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' with the following '''Suggested Specifics''': | |||
| *:'''Extent''': The deprecation shall include strictly '''political news reporting''', but not opinions, interviews, and commentary by Fox employees or guests, for which, however, Fox can be quoted as a ''matter of record only'', e.g. "XYZ said abc on FoxNews yesterday ." | |||
| *:'''Begining''': The deprecation should start with any and all political reporting made by Fox on the date of the November 20,2020, election, and go forward to the present. Setting a date earlier than that would only result in seriously chaotic conditions; going forward, best leave this as a task of ''replacing'' with better sources, as the opportunity arises. | |||
| *:'''Ending''': Fox News remains one of the most watched medium in the United States. An indefinite deprecation is a step that probably should be taken with significant and somber consideration, i.e. we should not get carried away too much on the basis of recent news. We should have a ''time limit'', upon whose ending the status of Fox as a deprecated source should either be revoked or indefinitely extended. The year 2024 suggested by ] looks about right for this. I suggest revisiting the deprecation, if it presently comes to pass, on '''Saturday 30, 2024''', which is the last day of the month of the next U.S. presidential election. | |||
| :-] (]) 10:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes, thoroughly''' - Fox was started as a political propaganda exercise from the beginning - ] (]) 14:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' They have been unreliable in this regard since well before 2020. Obviously nobody should be using them as a source on the 2020 election, the January 6th insurrection, or voting machines, we know for a fact that the people right at the top of the networks' chain of command willinglt particpated in spreading false information, their willingness to do so suggests they are totally unreliable as a source of information relating to politics. ] (]) 16:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' Fabrication is a no no. ] (]) 17:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Is this a proposal to ''deprecate'' or ''downgrade to generally unreliable''? Those are subtly different as per ]. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 17:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think "downgrade to generally unreliable" was clearly what was meant, @] is using the non-jargon common meaning of "deprecate," but perhaps he wouldn't mind updating the section header text to be consistent to avoid confusion. ''']'''<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> 17:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Agreed with Andre. ] (]) 18:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yes, "downgrade" is clearer. ] (]) 19:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes.''' Downgrade to unreliable, but not just for politics and not for a limited time frame. We shouldn't trust a source willing to knowingly lie to the public as being reliable at any point in time on any topic. They have demonstrated a lack of credibility as a source of information.] (]) 19:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Absolutely'''. There's nothing new about Fox "News" being propaganda. Hell, that was the entire point of the documentary '']'' twenty years ago. And despite the equivocations and hemming and hawing, the idea that there's a distinction between news and opinion shows, or between the TV channel and the website, is and always has been nonsense. The Dominion case proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. The entire operation is rotten to the core, and has been since day one. ] (]) 19:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Honestly, Id go further than this, if you can find something only in Fox then in my view it probably is not true, and almost certainly is misleading. But for the question as posed, '''yes'''. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Yes''', deprecate politics coverage after 2020. Also all of its other coverage. And after 2016, or 2012, or 2008, or 2000, or all they back to 1996. Whatever it takes. Fox News was founded as an alternative to perceived liberal bias in media, so it's been tainted from the beginning. Deprecate it all. ] (]) 21:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * {{strike|Downgrade only for politics. Do not deprecate the entire website as they provide reliable sports and weather coverage. However they are unreliable in politics. ] (]) 23:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)}} {{small|struck block evasion ] (]) 23:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| *'''No - stick to status quo'''. There is no good reason to depreciate this source - this RFC is mainly about the settlement story on voting machines. The left wing news sources have had to do settlements over defamation cases recently too such as and Washington Post had to do the same in 2020. The current status quo already deals with these issues. Aside form the nightly commentators, general news reporting from Fox is reliable - as many mentioned in the last RFC last year .] (]) 01:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' for a downgrade to generally unreliable. It's been clear that Fox News has deceived and lied to its viewers for some time now, and as such should not be considered reliable. ''']''' (] | ]) 09:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *FYI I've listed this at ]. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 12:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes'''. ] ] 17:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' - Whereas ] cites defamation settlements regarding the ] as proof of misconduct at other outlets, Fox News was forced to settle over lies on the fundamentals of the ], a far more significant event, told over a far longer period. Besides the specific falsehoods highlighted in the court case, the editorial policy of focusing on viewership over fact-finding clearly disqualifies Fox News as a reliable source, at least until the Saturday, November 30th, 2024 date suggested by ]. ] ( ] ) 17:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''', '''from the very beginning'''. This isn't a new thing that we're all pretending to be shocked is happening; this is fundamental to the network and has been so well-known for ''decades'' that primetime flagship shows in Fox's entertainment division have gone to the well more than once to make fun of of the news division; as ] said in 2010, "]". It's time for us to stop pretending. ''']''' (]) 18:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' and backdate so the stuff can be removed by script. It would be highly subjective to try and determine when it started to become unreliable, so best to backdate and remove. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 20:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' also support downgrading Fox to generally unreliable '''if more evidence''', showing cause to do so, is . Why is no one that surprised? Conceivably, we have been worn down over the to just accept that FOX NEWS knowingly at seemingly levels, from the top executives and "hosts", including the Murdochs, to the journalists and anchors, that almost no laymans and few seasoned editors seem to be able tell the difference between. Once caught, FOX quickly just moves the goal post....It's been done so many times it's no wonder even probably can't tell the difference themselves. Some might also feel the need to that they did this at the risk of American democracy, at the very least according to ]. Reasonable editors are rightfully bothered by these developments. How could we so cynically advocate for "," much like what FOX NEWS currently seems to be doing? It is likely because we have failed to regularly reexamine the question of where to , to prevent harm to ourselves and others. Unfortunately, FN will ''likely'' stonewalling and obfuscating in order to continue to muddy the water between . ] (]) 23:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| In the future it would be appreciated if you notified other editors of such a discussion rather than going on what I would describe as a deletion rampage, making dozens of edits to remove a source that is widely deemed to be reliable. Sneider clearly meets the SME requirement at ], he is a long time film and entertainment journalist whose work has previously been published by various reliable sources. The fact that he is now self-publishing his reporting does not now make him unreliable, which is what the wording at SELFPUB caters for. If you take issue with specific claims he has made or the wording of specific claims then the place to discuss those is at the talk pages of the articles in question, not here where the majority of editors will never see it. - ] (]) 09:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No''' The complaint by Dominion appears to be against Fox News Channel hosts, not Fox News reporting. Statements by talk show hosts are not considered reliable. Also, there is considerable movement of talk show hosts and others between the networks, so they are equally guilty in their talk shows. ] for example who achieved fame for '']'' which claims that modern U.S. liberalism has its roots in Italian Fascism, a claimed widely debunked by actual historians, left Fox and now contributes to CNN and MSNBC. He was actually interviewed about the book by CNN host ], who later moved to Fox. Meanwhile, the notorious Fox News host Tucker Carlson previously worked at PBS, MSNBC and CNN. ] (]) 20:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :*TFD, I absolutely respect your opinions on this, and I also believe this is something where people can, in good faith, come to differing conclusions. That said, I feel like this argument is too clever by half. Which hosts on other networks spread easily debunked lies about Dominion? Could it be that other networks have stronger safeguards in place to prevent occurrences like this? And it is interesting that you choose Jonah Goldberg (for whom I have no great affection), because his own claim was that he left the network because of Apologies for the interruption. Have a nice evening. ] (]) 21:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :*It's quite possible the reason for the confusion is due to the fact that FOX NEWS very likely isn't ]......{{tq|"Lying in the press is unethical but does not necessarily strip liars of the protections provided by the First Amendment. There is an exception to this: the defamatory lie, one that injures a person or organization’s reputation. That is what got Fox News sued...Anyone can claim to be a journalist, irrespective of their actual function. Any business can claim to be a news organization. Functioning irresponsibly in either role is largely protected by the First Amendment and is therefore optional."}} - ''Associate Professor of Journalism, American University.'' ] (]) 00:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::* ], we agree, but for ]'s sake I'll point out that while "stronger safeguards" are what keeps normal journalists from making egregious errors, with Fox News there does not exist ANY type of safeguard that would work because this is a "feature" not a "bug" type of thing. It was knowingly and deliberately perpetrated on viewers to keep them from running away to OANN and Newsmax, which they did immediately after Fox called Arizona for Biden. Fox New had always been lying to viewers, but when they for once told the truth, they immediately paid the price, so they returned to doubling down on lying to viewers to get them back. | |||
| ::: When Fox News' own fact checkers sought to correct outright lies, they were threatened and the NEWS division hosts were blocked from touching the matter. This has been going on for years, but the Dominion lawsuit just brought our attention to it. All those private communications revealed that every single person at Fox News, top to bottom, knew Trump's election lies were lies and that Biden won, yet they repeated those lies to audiences to keep them at Fox. That's not an "error" or "bug", that's a malicious "feature" that no "stronger safeguards" can prevent. | |||
| ::: There is a reason so many good journalists have left Fox News. So to sum up the problem, it involves the whole gamut of people at Fox News, including the NEWS division, because it comes from the top. They all know what's true, but deliberately lied to keep their viewers from fleeing. The outcome of the Dominion case just means they'll be more careful not to libel a company but will keep on lying and keeping vital information from their viewers. That's how they have always rolled. That's why Fox News exists. It was created to operate that way by Roger Ailes. | |||
| ::: ''"The complaint by Dominion appears to be against Fox News Channel hosts, not Fox News reporting."'' is a red herring. The problem exists, not because of the NEWS hosts, but because everything at Fox News, including the NEWS division, is controlled from the top, and the NEWS division is not supposed to function like an honest news service. It must follow the party line, dictated from the top. So good and honest journalists in the NEWS division are often prevented from covering certain topics and are required to lie to viewers. For many of them that is just too much and they leave. What we're left with is a Fox News that is still defective to its core. It fails the bare minimum (fact-checking itself) we require of all other RS. Why make an exception for Fox News when they do not intend to allow fact-checkers to do their job? -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 22:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Obviously the other networks' hosts did not lie about Dominion because they tend to lean Democratic, but they also broadcast misinformation such as when Glenn Beck approvingly interviewed Johnah Goldberg about how modern American liberalism derives from fascism. Beck also continually presented the views of the conspiracy theorist ] and wrote an introduction to his book about how the New World Order controls the world. While Beck was there, CNN also had as host the nativist ] whose virtually sole topic was "illegal immigration," claiming that Mexicans were responsible for most of America's problems. False reports of the ] were carried on numerous mainstream news outlets. Similarly, ] was extremely biased against the accused (who were innocent), with CNN talk show host ] arguing the prosecution case night after night. | |||
| ::::All major U.S. news media of course misled the public in supporting the false claim that Iraq was behind 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction and for years that America was winning in Iraq and Afghanistan. The even had their reporters ] with the U.S. Army, which is highly controversial to say the least. | |||
| ::::Major media also misled the public in claiming the ] was a "conspiracy theory" although it is now considered a possibility, even if remote, and the FBI now says with low confidence that is what happened. CNN also had on night after night the now disgraced ex-governor of New York, ], presenting him as being on top of the covid pandemic even while he was ]. His brother, who was a talk show host at CNN, was helping Andrew defend himself in the media against sexual misconduct allegations. | |||
| ::::The reason journalists can so easily move between Fox and other cable news is that they are similar. They both have relatively reliable news programming telling people what actually happened and relatively unreliable talk show hosts telling them what they want to hear. | |||
| ::::I disagree that Fox News should be considered unreliable because its talk show hosts are. As I mentioned, they often go back and forth between networks and are not considered reliable sources anyway. ] (]) 01:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am happy to leave it there and agree to disagree. Have a good week. ] (]) 01:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :*TFD, you have a point, but I think you're missing the broader picture. You're right that there is a difference between individual journalists and the network as a whole. For example, ] committed extreme journalistic malpractice, but that doesn't mean the New York Times as a whole is disreputable, same with ] and CBS News. However, when the network as a whole is staffed with so many of those disreputable figures, particularly at the top, then it can only be expected that what is pumped out through the TV outfit bleeds over into other divisions, which is what is proved both with this lawsuit and the decades of grounded and fundamental criticism. ] (]) 02:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' Fox News has been spewing misinformation for decades about politics. ~ 🦝 ] (he/him • ]) 21:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I have notified editors at ], ], ], ], and ]. I think that should cover all the articles impacted so far by this discussion. - ] (]) 09:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes for anything relating to American elections and specifically how they are carried out, retain status quo for everything else''' - the lawsuit highlights that Fox is unreliable for claims relating to US elections, with them basically admitting that they let stories air in regards to the election narrative, even when many knew that the stories are dubious at best. However, I don't see that this is enough to affect talk show hosts (who are already essentially deprecated and who this lawsuit primarily targeted), and the website (which in spite of the claims made by @], there is an unequivocally an undeniable difference in, especially in regards to non-political stories). I especially don't see how we should be deprecating non-political stories, which are fairly mundane and more comparable to the rest of the MSM. The lawsuit further indicates primarily that the talk show hosts are unreliable and as for the website, indicates that anything relating to 2020 US elections is probably fabricated, and that material relating to future elections in the United States at least on the federal level probably shouldn't be trusted either. However, most other political stories more mundane in comparison; just exaggerated and sensationalistic, and probably should just retain a yellow for being analyzed on a case-by-case basis, sort of similar to the ]. I also agree with @]'s statement that while yes, nearly a billion dollars is a big deal, using defamation lawsuits (or in this case, attempted lawsuits) to deprecate sources, is opening the floodgates for a massive, unwieldy, and generally bad precedent (for example, the multi-hundred million dollar lawsuits that CNN and the WaPo endured and settled with relating to the ]). If Fox news is to be entirely deprecated for politics, then '''deprecate until Decemeber 1, 2024''', after the month where the US election occurs, for the aforementioned reasons. - ] (]-]) 22:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :For a lot of these pages, the relevant policy isn't ], but ], since the InSneider is self publishing reporting about living people (e.g. A didn't role B, C got fired because of D, E might be in F). BLPSPS is a bright-line rule and while ] exists, superhero movie rumours isn't going to justify that. This is especially true when non-selfpublished exist to cover the same claims or when ] applies. | |||
| *'''Yes'''. If Fox didn't treat "news" and "opinion" differently, as became clear as a result of the lawsuit, then why should we? Downgrade politics and science coverage to 3/red/unreliable, downgrade all other news coverage to 2/yellow/caution, and downgrade their talk shows to 4/darkred/deprecated. —] (] | ]) 23:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :For example, your revert at ] restored The InSneider when the material in the sentence is already fully supported by the already cited ] piece and your revert at ] restored material alleging very specific allegations of sexual misconduct with young men that is corroborated by independent sources . I've reverted the latter given the serious BLP issues there. | |||
| *'''Comment''' - We are rather quickly nearing ]. For better or worse, the RfC topics were narrowed to politics, media, the arts, and architecture -- not including science, for example, or race and LGBTQ. One might argue that they are part of politics, but what isn't these days and that's not how the topics would be selected. Not suggesting they be added now as, perhaps, it makes sense to proceed piecemeal. Just means that we won't bring in folks interested in climate change, anti-vaccination, Gensex, CRT, {<small>are Jewish space lasers included)</small> and such that in normal days wouldn't be considered politics. Not making a suggestion -- just a comment. ] (]) 01:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :It's less of an issue when the BLP-connection is less direct such as when it's talking about a film production in general (e.g. G starts filming in H, I was delayed to J, K is in development at L), but even SELFPUB recommends replacing with better sources when possible and I highlighted some reliability issues with Sneider above. | |||
| *:Just wanted to briefly chime in to say that I agree with both your general analysis and sense of where we are headed, but when we're talking about such a major source (the most-watched cable news network in the United States by far), I think we really should err on the side of caution by leaving things open for a long time and inviting as much comment as possible. Cheers. ] (]) 01:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I have also notified ] since this touches on BLPSPS. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think the fairest way to resolve this is to let this RFC tick for at least about another week, and then if it's still in ] territory close it. Then open a second RFC for Fox News's political coverage prior to 2020 and a separate third one for Fox News's coverage prior to 2020 in general. | |||
| :I think you are forgetting that there is a very big distinction between Sneider's pieces written for Collider and other RS and those he written on his own blog. He speculates much more and gives unverified, evidence-free information on his blog than he does when working with publications, and he isn't impeded by an editor or journalistic oversight in his own website. | |||
| *:I see there's a fairly large number of people here clearly saying that they want to go further than just a downgrade from 2020 onward, definitely more than people who explicitly oppose such a thing, but there's also enough people being vague about it that I don't think we'd be able to clearly say there's a consensus right now. ] (]) 04:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :If you want to see ''proof'' that Sneider has made false and provably false claims on his own website before, then there's of all the time he has made false claims thanks to the people at the subreddit for Marvel spoilers. Among the falsehoods he has promoted on his site include that the Fantastic Four movie would start filming in March, that Adam Driver was cast as Doom, that Jack Quaid was cast as Johnny Storm, and that Tom Holland was going to appear as a full role in Across the Spider-Verse. Sneider should be used in articles ''only'' when he is writing for reliable sources, otherwise we are inviting unsourced and oftentimes completely imagined speculation on our pages. ] (he/him • ]) 18:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' Fox News repeatedly spreads lies and then claims that it's not actually news to get out of liability for that. It's news only in branding. The recent court judgement and settlement show clearly that they are a propaganda network and not reliable for politics. ] (]) 02:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh wow, so he's basically correct about 2/3 of the time. Not terrible, I guess for online postings, but this would seem to fall well-short for ] purposes, much less making an exception for ]. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes. And''' not just since 2020 (they've been unreliable for some time, at least 2016 if not earlier), and not just for politics (also science/medicine, e.g. climate change and covid). We should indicate, at a minimum, that '''"additional considerations apply" to citing Fox for ''any'' contentious topic''', in addition to them being unreliable for politics. As others have said above, we don't give any other source anywhere near as much leeway as a few people keep trying to give Fox: if any other source was this intentionally inaccurate, we would consider that source suspect ("additional considerations apply", if not "unreliable"), not go "well, they lie about politics ... and science ... and medicine ... but there's no reason to think they're anything other than reliable for most stuff!" We should acknowledge they're unreliable for politics, and science / medicine, and say caution or "additional considerations" apply to citing them in general. ] (]) 03:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think we should be letting some people from a Reddit community dictate what they think is true or false to determine notability on this encyclopedia. I understand Sneider gets a bad rap from some people and in the press, but he does qualify as a ] in the field of entertainment news. I am subscribed to his newsletter and Sneider does a pretty good job clarifying what he is actually reporting from what are his own opinions and beliefs. A lot of what he says in his newsletter tends to be blown out of proportion or taken out of context, and not everything pans out in the film industry. For the Sydney Sweeney thing, I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart and thus, Cruz came onboard, not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading. A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions (because they get ad revenue from major companies involved) but Sneider has a good track record of reporting on industry details, deals, and events as they are in progress, which goes for the Fantastic Four castings and Black Widow. I have been working on adding third-party sources for some of his recent newsletter issues being cited to help make verifying his reports easier, though this takes time. I do not agree with removing his published articles from Collider, Variety, or his newsletter outright as we cannot disregard a source simply because ] or you don't believe in it. We go by ], and report all the facts as presented, which is how an encyclopedia ought to be. I have not found any instances to my immediate recollection where editors cited a Sneider report only for it to be proven intentionally wrong or misleading. The Madame Web report was not disputed or debunked, and the recent reports of Superman and Beyond the Spider-Verse have since been clarified as a matter of semantics, not actually being intentional false news reporting on Sneider's part. A lot of what he says is regurgitated through aggregators and social media which tends to be less reliable or transparent than what he actually says in his newsletter or on his podcast The Hot Mic. I would not go as far as to say Sneider's newsletter reporting is "speculation", as he is an independent working journalist with 20+ years of experience in this profession. He knows his stuff but gets a lot of bad publicity from his social media activity and because some of his reporting hits a nerve with select communities. I would consider him a reliable source, but with clarification needed to specify when he is making an educated guess or providing an opinion alongside what he is reporting from his industry sources. ] (]) 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' The revelations that emerged in the Dominion lawsuit make it very clear that lying Fox propagandists are in charge there, and that top management sides with lies instead of facts, and defers to the demands of the propagandists instead of siding with the occasional Fox journalist who attempts to tell the truth. A network that says that ] is somehow a legitimate journalist can be trusted with nothing. If Fox News sometimes tells the truth, then certainly we can easily find a far better source to cite for verification. Their pernicious lies, after all, far exceed any genuine journalistic scoops. ] (]) 03:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, because @] questioned what Sneider's sources are, I suppose it ought to be explained that every journalist gets their information from sources. These individuals are usually people who work within the industry they are reporting about, so they are often talent agents, managers, PR workers, producers, involved creatives in a production, etc. who have first-hand information and provide information as a tip to a journalist. Most of these sources prefer to remain anonymous, so we cannot just find who his sources are to verify their tips. That's just not how this industry works. Filming schedules and castings change all the time, so to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a ] and ] concern because no sources said these were absolutely false, and if you have any reliable sources saying Sneider specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report, that should be presented rather than just going off of some editors' opinions of a controversial figure. ] (]) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *To the question as asked, '''yes''', obviously: it is a matter of public record. For AMPOL in general, without a ''terminus ante'', also '''yes''': there will always be stronger sources for anything factual they reported. ] (]) 04:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Anonymously-sourced reporting obviously can be used in RSs, but you're not really making a strong case for reliability and encyclopedic quality by defending Sneider with {{tq|to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false,}}. In respect to the Holland thing, it's not a good look to be confidently stating things about major casting at the tail end of February 2023 that then don't pan out upon release in at the end of May that year. Maybe he was right at the time, though no one else has corroborated this from what I can tell, but even then he would've published too early given he was ultimately wrong. | |||
| *'''Yes''' deprecate Fox News since it was founded and not just for politics. ] (]) 04:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report}} would meet the standard for defamation of a public figure, but it isn't the standard for assessing if a particular source is reliable or a good indicator of if something is encyclopedic. If someone gets a lot of stuff wrong in good faith, they're still not reliable, especially in ] situations. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No''', clearly biased political poll. One major incident makes it suspect, sure, and if it happens again then a better argument could be made. But the settlement was made with the intention of owning up to a rather large mistake.--] (]) 06:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, using anonymous sources is common in journalism, but is not standard. The standard is to cite their sources. Sure, NYT and WaPo don't always follow their own guidelines on anonymous sources. Usually such guidelines involve mentioning that the information is from an anonymous source and giving clues as to the credibility of the source. When including information from anonymous sources, wikipedia should follow suite. If the NYT cites a "source close to the president" for a claim, the wikipedia article should also mention a "source close to the president" So how much info does Sneider give? | |||
| ** ], this is not about one major incident, but it was this incident that once again confirmed what we have complained about for years. They lie and do not fact-check. As far as this incident, it wasn't a "mistake". It was deliberate and prolonged. It revealed that when fact-checking goes against the party line, the bosses threaten the fact-checkers and block the NEWS division from accurately reporting the matter. The "mistake" (in the eyes of Fox News hosts, management, and viewers) was when they called Arizona for Biden. They did the right thing for a change, and it was shocking to the world. Normal people were amazed that for once Fox News was honest. To Fox News viewers and Trump sycophants, it was a grave "mistake" and they immediately left for OANN and Newsmax, as they weren't interested in facts, but only wanted to hear positive things about Trump. Fox News noticed they were hemorrhaging viewers and immediately went into damage control mode by threatening their own fact-checkers, blocking accurate NEWS coverage, and doubling down on election lies, while continuing to tell all the other lies they have always told viewers and still tell them. Fox News is not a real "news" channel. It's a propaganda channel with a huge agenda, and that's the way Roger Ailes intended it to function. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 16:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also, information should be verified. This might involve asking another source if they object to the publication of the information. Also, really, the studio should be asked to comment. If there is not a comment from the studio or a line saying that comment was sought, then best practices have not been followed. | |||
| *'''Of course we should.''' Duh.—] <small>]/]</small> 07:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The idea that Sneider is a SME is questionable. The reporting in question seems to be a matter of insider knowledge not expertise. Basically, people are leaking the information to Sneider or gossiping to him about who will get the part. ] (]) 15:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes, absolutely''' - it's a no-brainer. Roger Ailes created FN as a propaganda outlet, after all. ] (]) 08:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::FYI, we are also not here to be ]. It is completely acceptable to note what an SME reports about an industry topic they have been covering for two decades now. The reports should be judged on a case-by-case basis to determine if Sneider has ever actually intentionally made any false or misleading statements and passed them off as a report directly by himself, and not by sheer opinion or a lack of or misunderstanding of the filmmaking process and journalistic procedures. ] (]) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Yes''', same logic as ], and the same treatment should apply. Indeed all Murdoch outlets should have a cautionary rubric because ] is his business strategy. --] (]) 09:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even if he is 100% correct (which he isn't), none of his tweets and InSneider reports can be used per ] to verify anything about living people since they are self-published. There's presumably no issue with his work in non-self-published sources with editorial control like Collider, but for the self-published stuff in respect to living people (e.g. castings, cut scenes, staffing), Misplaced Pages has a bright line rule against it. The only stuff that is even allowed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for self-published stories would be for instances where it's being used for stuff that is general enough to not really implicate BLP (e.g. filming schedules, runtime, episode length). -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''', they have admitted lying, they played all kinds of games before finally settling. They no longer have a reputation for fact-checking, they have a reputation for telling lies. Note as well we have been discussing this for years, with a gradual downgrading of Fox, this is not some Knee jerk reaction based upon recent news, rather recent news has confirmed what many of us have argued for years, Fox News tells lies. ] (]) 09:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The whole sum of BLPSPS is that no self-published blogs may be used. Sneider's publishing is via a newsletter and is part of his job as a journalist. In what ways are his newsletter reports violating any core and basic BLP policies or how are they of a major concern to it beyond the X-Men '97 allegations. A lot of journalists nowadays are posting on their own outside of major trades or news organizations because those options have become more prevalent to do so. Anonymous sourcing is also how all journalists operate, so if we say journalists who post on their own cannot be cited as reliable sources for doing their job without disclosing their sources and having a company watch over them, that sets a very bad precedent for the freedom of the press and what we actually allow to be included, let alone mentioned, in this encyclopedia. If it applies to Sneider, it ought to apply to all self-published journalists and newsletters, and I don't see how that could go well. ] (]) 06:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's a misreading of BLPSPS, which says: {{tq|Never use self-published sources—'''including but not limited to''' books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—}} (emphasis added). Unless there's a clear organizational structure (e.g. ]), most newsletters are little more than self-published blogs. There's tons of great journalists with their own newsletters that I think are most likely reliable that I would love to cite (though Sneider may not be one of them), but BLPSPS is crystal clear on this front and for good reason. If you want to start a new discussion somewhere (here, ] ], etc.) on whether we should move to a case-by-case basis for journalistic SPSs, you can do that, but until then BLPSPS is policy and can't be overridden by ]. Don't really care about the anonymous sources issue, since that is an accepted norm for journalists. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Not all of the instances of Sneider's reports are about people themselves. They are primarily about the Hollywood projects which naturally involve people's jobs and castings. I fail to see how a technicality should prevent us from using a decent source at all. If the issue is of verification, find a third-party source verifying the report. This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. ] (]) 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{tq|This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that.}} The InSneider can be separately assessed for reliability for any claims not about living people, but as ] makes clear in the first sentence, it applies regardless of if the article is a biography or not, so the fact that Sneider is cited on movie articles is immaterial in respect to ]. | |||
| ::::::::There's been multiple discussions on this noticeboard about Substack and other newsletters involving much more prominent journalists than Sneider and the consensus has always been that BLPSPS bars their use in respect to living people unless the publication has editorial oversight and a reputation for reliability (e.g. ] , ] , ] , in general ) | |||
| ::::::::I don't object to the underlying facts per say if they are indeed verifiable through third-party sources. I did try to find non-self-published sources that independently corroborated what Sneider reported, and replaced InSneider with them when I did. I only removed when I was unable to do so. ] makes it clear that the onus to restore material removed for BLP issues is on those who want to restore it to do so in a policy-compliant way, which seems unlikely since nothing in this section has challenged the individually self-published nature of InSneider. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you for your lengthy examination of Sneider as a reliable source. I think a potential compromise that I hope the editors here could agree on- is to restructure all current citations to his self-published website so that it clearly states that it is journalist Jeff Sneider reporting. The example on ] that spurred me to open up this discussion in the first place, for example: | |||
| :::{{tq|Additionally, the character Mole Man is expected to appear, and Robert Downey Jr. is expected to appear as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.}} | |||
| :::could be reworded to: | |||
| :::{{tq|Journalist Jeff Sneider reported in 2024 that the character Mole Man is expected to appear, as well as Robert Downey Jr. as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.}} | |||
| :::This would be done for every single citation that uses his personal site. I see your arguments defending his inclusion as a verifiable source, but I also feel as the central issue here- that a lot of pages take him at face value as equivalent to official news from Deadline or Marvel Studios themselves, should still be rectified. We could also add him to the RS list as a source that can be used in the articles ''with attribution only.'' | |||
| :::Thoughts? @] @] @] ] (he/him • ]) 05:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For anything that involves stories about living people, this would be BLP violation, attribution or not, since The InSneider is a self-published source and that's barred by ]. If no other sources are writing about it besides a self-published report from Sneider, that's a good indicator that we shouldn't include it on Misplaced Pages. Attribution for stuff like "Mole Man" might be okay depending on Sneider's reliability and how tied that is to a specific actor in the text. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I support attribution being applied to Sneider's reports, and most of the instances where his reports are used already do this in prose while third-party refs are being added to them. The BLP violation reads to me like a bit of a stretch with semantics itself and could probably be re-evaluated when it comes to journalists reporting as part of their job. Reporting on allegations should not be a reason to be barred as a source when major news outlets do the same. ] (]) 06:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tq|Reporting on allegations a reason to be barred as a source}} is a straw man. Major news outlets have a reputation for fact checking and reliability, while Sneider has had multiple confirmed reports not pan out. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Which ones have not panned out? ] (]) 07:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sweeny, Lindelof, and Holland make at least three incorrect reports in approximately a year. If I did more spot checks from the spreadsheet, there would probably be more. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Again, not everything in Hollywood pans out. That does not mean the reports were false. Unless other independent sources confirmed they were false, you are assuming they were not true, which draws into some dangerous POV issues here on your apparent bias. I have asked you to provide sources which confirm Sneider's reports were false, and you have provided none of the sort. ] (]) 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Lots of stuff in all kinds of different fields don't pan out. However, if a source often reports things as confirmed and they don't pan out, there's a reliability/jumping the gun issue and its starts falling into unencyclopedic ] territory. The end result is that Sneider either misjudged how correct the story originally was or how likely that status quo was going to remain. If you look at the Deadline and Variety archives, they only reported on certainties in respect to the Sweeey/Holland/Lindelof stories (i.e. Cruz hiring/nothing/hiring and departure). | |||
| :::::::::Genuine question, does Sneider ever issue corrections/retractions or do retrospectives on why he got stories wrong? Obviously sometimes reliable sources get it wrong, and the proper thing to do in that case is to issue corrections/retractions. | |||
| :::::::::I think I've seen only even heard of Sneider once before (when the X-Men '97/Beau DeMayo story was happening) so to accuse me of bias is wild when you've created a position where it is functionally unfalsifiable that Sneider could ever be wrong. If it pans out, he was correct. If it doesn't, he was correct but things changed afterwards, despite in many cases no reliable sources backing up his original story. Sneider isn't important enough for something like the ] or an an actual reliable source to investigate his methods and he uses anonymous sources (which isn't an issue in and of itself) so it's essentially impossible to prove if any of his reports are false in a way that would satisfy you. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I think that is an argument for waiting until things are officially announced, before putting them in the article. The problem isn't Sneider, but the kind of reporting that he is doing. He is reporting other people's predictions. He also isn't a SME. He is a reporter that chases leads and reports what may be hearsay or leaks or outright lies by his sources. He is reporting on Hollywood, after all. ] (]) 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{reply to|HadesTTW}} I just saw that you pinged me in this message. I agree that a good resolution here would be to add Sneider to the RS list as an SME for entertainment reporting as long as he is attributed, and potentially with the caveat that his self-published sources should be replaced with non-self-published sources if available. - ] (]) 15:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You can spot check the examples used and some definitely seem to hold up as poor reporting. Besides the Holland/Across the Spider-Verse example I discussed above another one I spot checked was this comment made March 9, 2023, in which Sneider says it's 100% confirmed that ]'s Star Wars film would be coming out in December 2025 film. On March 21, 2023, Lindelof's departure is announced. | |||
| :::{{tq|I am subscribed to his newsletter}} Can you confirm if the quotation from the post I cited is correct then? It matched the title of this post from InSneider and it went unchallenged in the thread and seemed to match the style from what I've found. | |||
| :::{{tq|not everything pans out in the film industry.}}, {{tq| I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart...not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading.}} and {{tq|A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions}}. I don't think Sneider is maliciously creating false reports or anything, but if he's reporting too early on things that aren't confirmed yet while the major trade publications are reporting when it's certain, that does not bode well for his reliability nor for the encyclopedic value of his coverage (]). | |||
| :::{{tq|removing his published articles from Collider, Variety}} Pretty sure no one here is suggesting that. The main issue is ] and then reliability as a ]. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sneider's report and those quotes are correct from his newsletter. I have no idea what "thread" you are referring to, but a lot can change and happen in the 12 days between Sneider saying Lindelof's film was confirmed for that release and when Lindelof ultimately exited the film. That's just how Hollywood, and all of business, pans out. You can't seriously hold that against Sneider to say his statement is false when Disney's Star Wars films have pretty much languished with ] issues for years. Even major trades report on projects in early development and when directors or writers are in talks. That's just what the trades do. They report on the production process, which is always in flux. ] (]) 07:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you for the confirmation. I copied the quotation from a Reddit thread from a film podcast subreddit which I linked in my comment above. I dealt with how the other trades operate and the issues with using Sneider for the truth of what he's reporting above, so I won't repeat them here. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{OD}} | |||
| <br> | |||
| Alrighty, I wrote the below on ] and I'm copying this below. | |||
| '''Jeff Sneider being used as a source in Hollywood reporting'''.<br> | |||
| *'''Question''': Much of this RFC is focused on Fox’s coverage of the 2020 presidential election and their claims about Dominion. And I agree that Fox’s coverage of that was extremely unreliable. But… does this unreliability translate to their coverage of '''all''' political topics? For example, did they show the same bias and engage in the same false reporting when covering the various 2020 House, Senate or Gubernatorial races? I guess what I am asking is this: Are we making a broad generalization based upon one (admittedly egregious) specific case? Are there other instances? ] (]) 11:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Jeff Sneider's reports, found in his ''TheInSneider'' blog and also ''Above the Line'', have been covered in several other reliable sources. | |||
| *:Blueboar, just to answer your question for myself, I guess I am a bit skeptical of sources in general. For every mistake we know about, I assume there are several we don't know about or at least near misses. This was, as you say, an egregious case about basically their single biggest story over a prolonged period of time. Now, it's entirely possible (perhaps even probable) that their other reporting is sourced better than to a time traveler who speaks to the wind--but how can we know for sure? If they were willing to engage in this conduct over this big a story, what lines can we safely say they would draw? That's why I come down as I do, but as I like to say, reasonable minds may certainly differ and I am happy to go with the wisdom of consensus. Cheers. ] (]) 14:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| His career besides his self-published blog: He has had two notable tenures at '']'', and in between those two tenures, he had a stint at '']'' covering the film industry. This is confirmed , with information on his tenure at ''Variety''. '']'' also as Senior Film Reporter, and says he did work at '']'' before his venture into trade publications, and at one point he contributed reports for '']''. | |||
| *'''Yes'''. To answer User:Blueboar, ] lists 23 discussions, not counting the RFCs. A random clickthrough of recent RSN archives shows numerous unlinked threads about something shady Fox News has done, often through opinion makers. In this clear instance, case discovery has demonstrated beyond a doubt that even at the very highest levels of management, even THEY don't believe what they've been broadcasting. I urged deprecation last RFC. ] (]) 12:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Well… good news for those who hate Fox because of Tucker… he just got fired. So… perhaps they are turning over a new leaf? Whatever is decided in this RFC, we will need to re-assess in a year to see if they have improved. ] (]) 16:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ** Yes, re-assessment can always happen later. Right now they are in CYA mode, but will that mean they also will ignore what their viewers want and tell the truth, regardless of those viewers' wishes? I doubt it. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 16:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **:Yes. If they make some effort at correcting the record, I would certainly think a reassessment is in order. Unexplained personnel moves are less persuasive to me, but I am just one old guy. Cheers. ] (]) 16:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes'''. If nothing else ] says that reliable sources should have ''a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy''. Regardless of the exact reliability of Fox News, they don't have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy at this point. ''''']''''' 17:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Yes''' on what I dare say are obvious grounds. Moreover, the idea of a time limit on the downgrading does not make sense to me. (It would be, I believe, unprecedented.) We revisit and re-discuss these matters when circumstances warrant, not when we guesstimate that they might. ] (]) 17:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ====References==== | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| {{u|Jayron32}}, this has only been open for 3 days, is that really enough time for an RFC on a topic this impactful? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 02:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :I've ] reopened this RfC. Sorry Jayron32 but a project-wide RfC that will have as large an impact as this one should remain open for much longer than 3 days. ] (]) 04:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| These following perennial sources have cited his self-published blog, exemplifying ''']''': | |||
| == RfC: Is ].net a reliable source? == | |||
| :*'']'', including and | |||
| :''Forbes'' describes him as, "Jeff Sneider, an industry insider and reporter", and covers his reporting, even providing a link to another site he contributes to, ''Above the Line''. | |||
| <!-- ] 18:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1684260131}} | |||
| {{rfc|sci|pol|soc|rfcid=6E794F1}} | |||
| Which of the following best describes ].net articles? | |||
| :* '']'' covers his reporting | |||
| * Option 1: Generally reliable | |||
| * Option 2: Additional considerations apply | |||
| * Option 3: Generally unreliable | |||
| :* '']'' covers his reporting | |||
| AFAIK ].net has not been discussed here. It has been cited a lot. Concern was expressed here: ], but the declared COI editor and I did not agree. Although Tweakers site lists editors and appears to have editorial staff, I found a article like this to be troubling because it was submitted by a person with obvious COI, and that person was extensively quoted; it was cited in ]. Without extensive review of the website, to me it appears similar to Reddit, or a large group blog. -- ] (]) 17:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : and here's him reporting that ] was chosen to play ] in ] of '']'', which ended up being '''spot-on correct''', via '']'': | |||
| :News are written by Tweakers staff. Sources like other sites or press releases are cited. | |||
| :Reviews are written either by editors ("reviews door de redactie") or users ("gebruikersreviews"). They are clearly marked. | |||
| :The specific article you mention was written by Olaf van Miltenburg, at the time news coordinator ("Nieuwscoördinator") for Tweakers (he is now Planning Editor at Wageningen University).The article is based on information posted by PrivacyGuides team members on Reddit. The "Update" was written by the founder of PrivacyGuides. So it definitely is not ]. | |||
| :I can't comment on the general quality or reliability of the news or the editor reviews. ] (]) 18:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :This RfC is malformed; it's not proportionate go straight from a 1-on-1 draft notability dispute to an RfC here (especially since Tweakers was only discussed in two posts, in total, in that "dispute"). Talk page disputes can be brought up here, in normal discussions (not RfCs), and discussed by the wider community. Generally, RfCs are only held after several non-RfC discussions have been held, or if the source is very obviously unreliable (as in, written by AI, not this site). ] (]) 01:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I concur with the above that this RFC is premature, this looks to be generalizing from a single use in a single dispute. We should probably have some evidence this source is frequently under dispute before considering it in the general. --]] 16:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tweakers.net has been discussed almost a couple dozen times over the years. I was mostly going by what ] says about it, although Misplaced Pages is not reliable, and the one questionable link I spot checked. Misplaced Pages does not describe Tweakers as a news publishing organization; it is described as a technology website <i>featuring</i> news, etc. It also gives "Tweakers Awards" where members choose the best products, which is thus user-generated content. Of other Discussions, there is a mix of positive and negative comments by editors, although it is not always clear on reliability opinions. This was the most detailed discussion I saw, and it looks like Option 2 - Additional Considerations or worse because of affiliate links etc. I was hoping someone with more familiarity with Tweakers and reliable sourcing would have more informed opinions to give here. -- ] (]) 15:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your claim "as been discussed almost a couple dozen times" is not borne out by your link. It shows that the text string "tweakers.net" has appeared a couple of dozen times on pages in the Talk: namespace. A quick spotcheck of several shows that the vast majority of the times that text string appeared was as a bare external link, with no "discussion" about reliability, and that most of what is left seems to be ''naming'' the site without ''discussing'' its reliability. I'm not going to comb every link there to find perhaps an actual discussion, but my quick check says that such discussions have happened rarely and/or superficially if ever. Can you indicate some specific discussions where the site's reliability has been discussed and where it is a point of contention? --]] 16:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My "your link" is to the wiki-standard "Discussion" search. Please interpret my "has been discussed" as your "has appeared on Discussion pages", then look at the other links I already provided above, particularly the last one, which had more lengthy discussion, or commenting, or whatever semantic representation is preferred. -- ] (]) 19:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Comment''' I'll add some of my observations here. More for future reference than for the RfC, which doesn't seem to be taken up. | |||
| :** Their editorial statute ("Redactiestatuut") looks good to me. | |||
| :** Editor reviews ("reviews door de redactie") and user reviews ("gebruikersreviews") are clearly distinguished. | |||
| :** Their news are written by staff and sources are appropriately cited/linked. As is normal for this kind of page a lot of the news is information of the type "company x has announced the coming release of product y" which are basically reports about press releases. Obviously this has to be taken into account to determine the ] of news articles on a case by case basis. | |||
| :: I see no reason to consider Tweakers generally unreliable. Obviously the user generated content, e.g. user reviews and forum posts are unreliable, but they are clearly marked. News has to be checked for independence on a case by case basis by looking at the sources which often are press releases. To evaluate overall quality and reliability we would need people who are more familiar with the site to weigh in. ] (]) 00:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :* per a ] publication, '']''{{'}}s own '']'', covers one of his reports | |||
| == Does this book support the claim that USSR joined the Allies not after ], but almost a month later? == | |||
| :* '']'', (] as {{tq|considered reliable for entertainment-related topics}} but not for {{tq|controversial statements related to living persons}}, which in this case, we're sort of concerned about that stuff in relation to Sneider's reporting) '''covers Sneider in many, many instances'''. <br> | |||
| This book <ref>{{Cite book |last=Woodward |first=Llewellyn |title=British Foreign Policy in the Second World War |publisher=Her Majesty's Stationery Office |year=1962 |location=London |pages=162-3 |quote=He replied on July 10 that Stalin had accepted 'an agreement for joint action between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the government of the U.S.S.R. in the war against Germany.' ...The agreement was signed on July 12.}}</ref> says | |||
| : and reported by ''Screen Rant'' an ''InSneider'' report that '']'', (a film with Austin Butler and Norman Reedus) was dropped by Disney's ]. Sneider's report '''ended up being true''', as Disney let the rights go to ]. | |||
| :"''He replied on July 10 that Stalin had accepted 'an agreement for joint action between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the government of the U.S.S.R. in the war against Germany.''" | |||
| Does this source support the claims that | |||
| * USSR joined the Allies ''as a result'' of signing Cripps-Molotow declaration | |||
| * The Cripps-Molotow declaration was a military alliance | |||
| * The USSR could not be considered the Ally until it signed a military alliance with Britain? | |||
| Sincerely, --] (]) 01:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 01:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :No. Because it doesn't say any of that. ] (]) 02:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :* And '']'' - reporting on the ''InSneider'' report mentioned above concerning ''Bikeriders'', right . Can hardly get better than trade publications. | |||
| :I would think there are more-explanatory and more-recent sources for those questions, rather than extrapolating from a single sentence in a government doc from 1962. - ]] 02:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :* '']'' - that Sneider was the first to get the news that ] were coming back for '']'' and '']. | |||
| :Does it support the claims? Probably slightly, and obliquely at that, but it has got to be far down the totem pole of sources in the general area. ] (]) 02:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :* via '']'' - Sneider that ] was playing ]'s son in '']''. | |||
| : There might be more in that source which better supports those three claims, but that sentence alone definitely isn't sufficient to source any of those three claims. The source supports something along the lines of "the UK and the USSR signed an agreement for joint action in the war on July 12th" and nothing significantly broader. ] (]) 02:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Per Loki, the source can only be used as a source for what it actually says, which in this case is that Crips stated that Stalin accepted an agreement for joint action between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the government of the U.S.S.R. in the war against Germany on 10 July and that said agreement was signed on 12 July. It ''cannot'' be used for ''any'' interpretation about what that means, and all of the statements the OP asks about cannot be sourced to that sentence because doing so would be a violation of ], to wit, "Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source" The source doesn't state what the three statements say, so it cannot be used to support those three statements. --]] 17:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think their email was as good back then, Paul. It sometimes took a while for paperwork to get sorted out. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 18:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::...and they were rather busy at the time. ] (]) 18:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. Actually, I fully agree with what you say. This my question was caused by the dispute with one user, who believes that this source does support these claims. ] (]) 13:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I also find the ''Mary Sue'' story about Johnny Depp and Sydney Sweeney to be drama mongering. Their punchline about Sneider's story amounted to "and <u>internet users</u> were pissed about the actress potentially working with the subject of the ]" - like who cares about internet people being ticked? Was there doxxing? was ] or a world government involved? '''No!''' | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| :If Sneider gets something wrong, nobody gets mangled or tangibly harmed. The ] policy is for claims concerning living people themselves, not films and casting processes or anything of the like. and for randoms who are not, something that is not what Sneider is doing. | |||
| :Let's ] the concept of this policy and apply it to ]. Even though the chunk of rock is the subject of the article, there are parts of the article for the Moon which concern living people, like ] and how he walked on it. '''Holy hell!''' the very association of living people to a subject of an article clearly not about people means we '''must NEVER''' use any ] about the Moon in the article because it is ]. | |||
| :I don't think that Sneider should be used to state facts about casting. I certainly don't believe we need to add a person to a cast list because he says something on his podcast: while I question his nature of jumping the gun on reports, I don't believe the rationale should be that the info he reports is concerning a living person. I figured that saying ] was gonna be in ''Fantastic Four'' was bold, but it's concerning that a character is going to be in a film, not some claim about a person's life and times. Besides his casting scoops, I think he gives worthy insight into the film industry and its processes. I think that his branding is corny and I'm concerned that but hey, ] was cruel yet he was still held in high regard for his work. Same thing for Sneider. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, I started this discussion because I was bothered by the Fantastic Four page where he's used for the cast list. I hope we are able to at least agree that he shouldn't be cited without attribution, lest he gets something wrong (not maliciously, but because his sources may have been wrong, or events changed in the production process that he was not aware of). Advocating him to be deprecated for BLP violations is a massive stretch that I do not agree with- he's generally reliable, and I trust that his self-published site can be used for article content. He just shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. ] (he/him • ]) 01:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Precisely. I agree with all of that. The Fantastic Four page's cast section is something that is being discussed at ] and would be best handled there rather than here, though I agree with the core points with the attribution and use with non-BLP content. ] (]) 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think it's best if we formalize it here, anyways. It's my hope that we can get a consensus enough to write an entry on ], which would be helpful for everyone editing CBM articles that refer to his claims. ] (he/him • ]) 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would prefer listing Sneider at perennial sources. The ] taskforce already has an entry for his reports at ], for reference. ] (]) 04:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Just to note that this wouldn't meat the criteria for inclusion on the RSP. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know, saying someone was going to get a job, and then it turns out they didn't might have a negative effect on their career. A casting director might wonder why they weren't chosen. This is just speculation, and it probably helps the actors, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. The stakes are low either way, and it makes sense to wait for an official announcement. As it has been said, things don't always pan out. Speculation on casting seems like news to me. ] (]) 15:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :All three of the listed ''Forbes'' articles are written by ] ] {{rspe|Forbes.com contributors}}, which are ] due to lack of editorial oversight. Please note that Forbes.com contributor articles do not count toward ]. As a policy, ] takes precedence over the ] guideline. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::alright, we can consider the other 97 out of 100 <small>joking exaggeration</small> sources I've laid down here. We've still got use by Hollywood trades, reliable entertainment websites, and other popular sources. My point stands still. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe that Sneider's reporting of casting is 90% of the time on point, but the margin of error warrants attribution and additional consideration. I do not believe that info about a person being cast in a film constitutes ''personal'' information, and thus I believe that BLP does not apply to that extent. I believe additional considerations and attributions should apply for the first reason, rather than depreciation for a grossly WikiLawyered reading of BLP policy. I believe he is considered reliable for general behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood, having been at it for a long-o time and that he would know about these things. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is a bright-line rule that prevents self-published sources from being used for third-party claims {{xt|"about a living person"}}. The policy is phrased with the word {{xt|"Never"}} to emphasize that routine exceptions for claims such as film castings are not appropriate. This language is repeated in the ] policy in more explicit terms: {{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."}} Like the remainder of ], this rule applies to all claims about living persons, and not just {{!xt|"''personal'' information"}}. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay. We seem to agree to not use it as a third-party source. We seem to agree to give Sneider attribution and consideration of ] in these reports he does. | |||
| ::::If there are any concerns, I suggest you turn to the great policy that is ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::What do you mean by {{tq|behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood}}? Like what a gaffer is? Or the type of camera used? Or does he know more about things like how casting directors and location scouts work? I thought he was a reporter that covered the Hollywood beat. Does he do anything besides report what industry people tell him? ] (]) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wonder if reporting what industry people tell you is, uh, what trade journalism is the definition of? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think he is a trade journalist, either. A trade journal covers an industry with people in that industry as the target audience. ] describes him as an Entertainment Journalist and describes him writing for publications aimed at the general public. His own website describes itself as {{tq|Scoops and insider analysis}}. This isn't about being an expert, it is about being in the know and chasing down leads. A lot of the articles are even labelled "Hot Rumor". He is a reporter, he reports things. The nature of what he reports means that it involves making predictions as well as discussing rumours and other gossip. A lot of it involves upcoming movies, that is, events that haven't happened yet. It also means a lot of his stuff isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. ] (]) 11:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::know what? I think his insights have merit. Glad to see you found the article about the journalist that I wrote. Did you see the part where he threatened to drive his car into a tree when he lost a Christopher Nolan scoop, then got fired from ''Variety''? Or when he said something racially insensitive and got fired from ''Mashable''? I personally enjoyed the part where he went on about getting his butt kicked by ] in a boxing match. | |||
| ::::::Anybody think that he does a self-published newsletter because he can't hold down a job? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It did strike me as surprisingly negative considering the defence he is getting here. It is basically a hit piece. The boxing thing was confusing, it is probably undue. ] (]) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Reliable sources describe Sneider the way that they do, so that should be reflected in the article. This is a rationale that is based on a concept which is probably best explained by ]. | |||
| ::::::::As for the boxing match, that is a notable event he was involved in. Fighting the director of ] is plenty notable for inclusion. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I like Paul Tassi's work, but per ], he can't be used in USEBYOTHERS analysis. However, he, like the other links in this post generally refer to Sneider's reports as in terms of rumors instead of certainties. The one exception is , where it is corroborated by THR, and they suddenly switch to writing in certainties. The last three links here from the major trades are clearly doing their own independent corroboration of Sneider's story and doing the polite thing in journalism and crediting him with being the first to break the news. | |||
| :As for accuracy, many of the links were about the Beatles casting, which Sneider was actually wrong about Charlie Rowe as George Harrison, which was immediately denied, and ultimately ended up being wrong. The many commentary pieces about the rumored casting that it sparked might justify inclusion, but the miss doesn't speak well to his reliability. So even from your own links, it seems that for content that doesn't run afoul of ] and is encyclopedic enough to include, it would have to be attributed and written as though it's a certainty. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have not kept up with this discussion over the holidays but I see a bunch of dubious arguments have taken place. Trailblazer was correct above when he said that Sneider makes it clear when he is noting rumours versus reporting on something that his sources have confirmed to him, and the high-profile instances where he "got something wrong" are not examples of him lying but clearly examples of things being true or potentially true at the time which did not pan out. Several instances have been mentioned where a potential casting was reported but did not pan out. That is not a lie or a "miss" or anything of the sort, he is reporting on people being eyed by a studio or even entering negotiations but he can't guarantee that everything will work out in the end, and his wording reflects that. The exact same can be said for any of the Hollywood trades who have reported on potential casting that ended up falling through. The level of scrutiny being put on the accuracy of his reporting here is a bit ridiculous considering the same would not be done if he was still writing for ''TheWrap'' or ''Variety'', which is what WP:SELFPUB protects. If any of these reports had come from a journalist who was still working at the trades we would not be having this conversation at all. As for WP:BLPSPS, its wording is oddly vague. "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person" -- what does that even mean? Any sentence that mentions a living person cannot be sourced to any self-published source, regardless of what that source is or what the sentence says? If an expert on the life of Donald Trump had a meeting with him and then tweeted out something Trump had said, we could not include that in any articles even if it was not a detail about Trump's personal life? I think it is crazy to say that we can't use a tweet or a blog post from a person we otherwise consider to be reliable to note when an actor is being considered for a role in a film or that they may have a scheduling conflict that could prevent them from doing a certain job. I am sure the wording at BLPSPS could not have been meant to prevent that. - ] (]) 14:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Votesmart.com == | |||
| :In your example, if that expert's tweet contained anything of substance, a reliable source would mention it, and you would be free to cite that reliable source. Alternatively, you could wait until the ] policy no longer applies to Trump, although I highly doubt that the tweet would constitute ] in any Misplaced Pages article if no reliable source mentions the tweet by that time. In all other cases, yes, ] would prohibit that tweet from being cited on Misplaced Pages to support a claim about Trump, despite the tweet being written by an expert, because the tweet is self-published. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 22:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Is votesmart.com a reliable source? I need information on a former AR state legsitlaure member ] and they have a lot of info on her. ] (]) 22:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - ] (]) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The ] policy, {{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer"}}, is as explicit as can be. That longstanding requirement has been part of the ] since ], and part of the ] when it ]. (It was added to the latter page as a guideline requirement ].) If you would like to contest these policies, you are free to do so on their respective talk pages. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was going to mention the wording in ], as it's more explicit, but Newslinger beat me to it. I've found this annoying in the past, where the project of a living person is detailed in a otherwise reliable third party self-published source. However that exact situation is meant to be covered (and excluded) by it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I and others have said, the policies against self-published sources used for anything about living people is a bright line rule. And as for ] and ignoring the self-published/BLP issue, if the only source that mentions an aspect of an article subject is a self-published newsletter, then it would more likely to be undue to include based on the proportion of RS coverage. Misplaced Pages is not the great place to ] about what reliable sources should be covering. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - ] (]) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::When I went through and removed most of the mainspace uses of InSneider, the overwhelming majority were reports of people being cast, people being considered for a acting/directing role, when an already cast role was going to make a secret appearance in a film, or creative decisions that can only be made by a very small number of people at a studio (i.e. director, producer, executives) that the guidance at ] leans towards applying the policy. | |||
| :::::If something aligns with what other reliable sources have said, then it would be best to use what those sources have said instead of a SPS. But in any case, UNDUE is not an avenue to bring in content that doesn't meet our verifiability/sourcing policies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Again, we are not writing a biography about James Gunn or Peter Safran and using Sneider to source claims about their person. Sneider is used to write about the particulars of film production. | |||
| ::::::One side of this discussion is looking at the forest, while the other side is focused on the trees. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::BLPGROUP doesn't seem to be relevant to this discussion, it is talking about "corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons" and specifically refers to harmful claims, neither of which apply here. - ] (]) 11:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The subsection is about when BLP applies to "legal persons" AND "groups". It does not displace ] and in no way limits the applicability of BLP to groups to instances of potentially harmful material. | |||
| :::::::The first part of the paragraph is a clarification about how ] existing as a term of art in law doesn't mean that they are always covered by BLP, which is meant to protect natural persons. The second half of the paragraph applies to all groups and tells us to look at each group on a case by case basis to see where it fits on the spectrum between groups that are small enough that BLP should apply and ones where they are too large. The part about harm is simply noting it is part of the analysis. For creative decisions on films, the people actually making that decision would be very small, so it should attract BLP protections, which means BLPSPS applies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - ] (]) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Besides the stories involving named people where BLP would obviously apply, the level of creative decisions that InSneider reports on and that Misplaced Pages uses him for are those that would clearly be attributable to a very small number of people (5-10 max). They're typically stuff such as what projects a studio is considering, what characters will be cast, and what the plot of film will be about. | |||
| :::::::::We're not using InSneider for lower-level stuff like what belt buckle was used on a particular costume, what brand of communication devices the PAs use, or what shade of a color was used in a particular CGI shot. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of ], we are fine. #2: ]. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see ] on this very page. '']'' censored CEO killer ]'s face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If ''general association'', not even ''direct'', with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The one policy that ] does not bypass is ]. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the ] and the ] policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like ] {{ndash}} which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per ], {{xt|"Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful"}}, particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::A few editors here are trying to stretch the BLPSPS and SPS policies to prevent Sneider from being used at all, which shouldn't override the existing community consensus and clear evidence that he is a reliable source for film-related reporting. HadesTTW suggested wording that is a good start towards a common-sense solution where Sneider is used, with attribution, for reports on film-related coverage where better sources do not exist. This should lead to a compromise, with Sneider being used in situations where his reports are improving articles while editors become more aware of whether he should be used (and not using him in situations where his reports genuinely fall into BLPSPS territory, could be replaced by a better source, or some other issue such as DUEWEIGHT). All that is preventing us from moving on to that conclusion and ending this discussion is the idea that BLPSPS and SPS apply to every little mention of a living person in a source, which I maintain is ridiculous and inappropriate. - ] (]) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::If you do not agree with excluding self-published sources from being used for claims about living persons, you may propose a change to the relevant policies at ] and ]. What you believe is {{!xt|"ridiculous and inappropriate"}} is actually how these policies have been applied on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, per community consensus. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I never said I was against the central ideas of BLPSPS, I completely understand why we want to have a higher standard of verifiability when it comes to exceptional/controversial claims about real people who may take issue with said claims. That makes sense from multiple angles. What I take issue with is using the same standard for non-exceptional claims that happen to involve people. In my opinion, there is a very big difference between (which I accept) and . - ] (]) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::exactly! If I actually paid any attention to X-Men 97, I would have rm'd that in a hot second. Sneider making claims that ] was doing heinous stuff to his staffers is some outrageous content that I would insist we wait on reports by '']'' or '']'' or '']'', any particular source of merit to include those claims in the article. Outrageous claims require usage of especially reliable sources like ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::In the 18 years since that BLPSPS policy was enacted, the industry of journalism has changed drastically with a variety of seasoned journalists and subject-matter experts publishing their reports on their own accord, and I believe it is about time that the policies are updated to compliment such changes to update with the times. I do not think Sneider's status as a self-published source should discount his reliability with his actual reporting in his newsletter, and am more than happy to raise concerns for the policy to be updated elsewhere, but that is not the central issue to determine reliability in {{em|this}} discussion. ] (]) 02:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Most people on this board are aware of the poor state of traditional journalism and the rise of indie outlets. I myself noted in a ] that ], who has a track record of good journalist work and whose stories I think are accurate, should nonetheless not be used without corroboration and/or discussion by non-SPS RSs because he's a BLPSPS. If any of you think there's appetite in moving from the current bright-line rule to another system for BLPSPSs (e.g. limited carve out where RSN endorses use with attribution), that might be a worthwhile discussion to have. As its stands though, BLPSPS is quite clear and the overwhelming majority of the uses of InSneider are in such cases. | |||
| :::::::::::::::If we do want to go back to discussing the reliability of InSneider for non-BLP claims, I would start with something I asked earlier, are you as a subscriber to InSneider, able to provide examples of if he retracted, corrected, and/or explained why he missed on the Sweeney/Day Drinker, Holland/Spider-verse, Lindeloff/Star Wars stories? Getting a story wrong isn't fatal to use as a reliable source since even the best sources aren't 100%. However, for assessing new sources, correcting mistakes is an indicator of reliability (as long as the miss rate is not too high), but not addressing them is a sign of unreliability. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::The language in ] and ] does not provide an exemption for self-published content about other living persons that is deemed to be uncontroversial. The "central idea" of this requirement is to ensure that any claim (not just controversial claims) about a living person passes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing special about Sneider or his self-published newsletter that would warrant an exception to this requirement, which applies to every other individual who meets the ] criterion. If anyone wants to amend this requirement, which has been applied on Misplaced Pages for more than 18 years, a discussion at ], ], or ] would be the first step to enact the change you are looking for. Such a change, if it gains community consensus, would apply to all sources of this kind and not just Sneider's content. Until then, the use of Sneider's self-published claims about other living persons remains a violation of core content policies. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Once again, that is your ''interpretation'' of the policies which is clearly not shared by all editors. I fear a discussion at one of those other places will have similar luck due to a few editors that like things the way they are, but I am happy to give it a go. As for wrapping up this discussion, I still think we should return to the wording that I suggested above in response to HadesTTW. I am not concerned about these apparent "misses" that Patar knight keeps harping on about. Some of these may have been genuinely wrong, but not many of them (which is the case with almost all reliable trade sources as well). Most would have been accurate at the time but then things changed due to the developing nature of films (i.e. Lindelof leaving his SW film, Driver being considered for FF but not getting the part). The Sweeney instance seems to be a blatant case of him getting it wrong and being called out immediately, but that one time isn't enough to make him an unreliable source especially when nearly everything else he has reported aligns with other sources. - ] (]) 10:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::I've started a policy talk page discussion at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Self-published claims about other living persons}}. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I don't have a particular problem with using Sneider as a source, as long as we attribute his speculations properly. He has a generally good track record and is used by reliable sources. But I have come across situations where we report his speculations as fact. When he has an expectation that is not attributed to an official or at least genuinely connected source, if we choose to report that expectation at all, it needs to be attributed as "Sneider's expectation that such and such will occur", not as a Wikivoice statement that "such and such will occur." ] (]) 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :@] do you mean votesmart.org/]? Here's a discussion from 2016: ] ] (]) 07:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{Hatnote|Once Telegram gets mentioned on ], its shortcuts would be ] and ].}} | |||
| :Looking at the earlier discussion, I concur with the first response there by Only in Death... Per ], one needs to be ''very careful'' when using the source to ascribe things like political positions to a BLP article, ''even by implication''. It seems to be an essentially reliable source for voting record (which bills a person voted on, and how they voted), ''however'', to state (or even imply) that a person feels a certain way, or holds a particular political position, or believes in something or other, because they voted a specific way on some specific legislation is a bridge to far, and care needs to be avoided. I'd even be careful characterizing the vote beyond anything than "So-and-so voted nay on H.B. 202-35" or whatever, and NOT say things like "So-and-so voted against legalizing marijuana", because that requires additional sourcing to a source that states that explicitly. --]] 11:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Telegram is unreliable because: | |||
| ::Sounds about right. ] (]) 20:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Telegram is an ] platform, which means that it is highly unreliable as a source because it is used by the alt-right to evade censorship and publish far-right opinions and pseudoscientific conspiracy theories. | |||
| :::Votesmart is one of the parameters in {{tl|CongLinks}} and I use it that way, as an external link. I don't personally believe I've encountered any errors in it. It's a useful research tool I don't cite inline. – ] (]) 20:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Telegram is a ] because it is a social networking service. | |||
| ::A separate but related issue is that sentences like {{tq|So-and-so voted nay on H.B. 202-35}} are often problematic from the point of view of ] and ]. --] (]) 21:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Most far-right things (such as ], ], and ]) have escaped to Telegram after getting suspended on several mainstream social networking services. | |||
| *Telegram has been described as a "safe haven for spammers and crypto scams" because of how most Telegram groups are flooded with cryptocurrency scammers and other types of spammers. However, t.me links are barely seen on Misplaced Pages (or i just don't see them often). | |||
| *]. | |||
| Telegram would either be ] (like all other self-published sources) or ] (because it is alt-tech). However, if t.me links are commonly used to violate ], it would be ]. | |||
| ] (]) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Reliability of the ] for politics? == | |||
| :I wasn't aware there was anyone suggesting that it might be reliable. ] (] • ]) 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| What do we think of the reliability of this story? Full text is available here. An editor is arguing that the DT is not reliable for politics. See the discussion here]. ] (]) 01:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Telegram doesn't need to be on the RSP, it's obviously unreliable and I don't see anyone arguing that it is reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, it's just a user-generated source (]). Reliable for ] claims and posts by respectable experts/journalists/reliable sources, unreliable generally. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Aside from the fact that the ] i.e. '''''literal''' neo-Nazis'' use it (which is ]), Telegram, as a platform where ] with no clear editorial oversight, is a ] and unreliable, except in cases such as ]. I thought this was pretty obvious. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson == | |||
| :The source is reliable for what it is saying: a Republican-backed study by the US Senate concluded that COVID likely came from a lab leak. The Telegraph is clearly not trying to say this report is true, just that the news is that this report from the Senate is making this claim. In other words, we have to be careful how to word in within WP, but there's no reason not to consider using the Telegraph as the source for the information about this senate report. ] (]) 01:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Reliable for saying what the Telegraph pieces says, that the US senate report claims that the source was most likely a "research-related incident". I'd also not how couched the language used by the Telegraph is "claimed", "claims", "argued", this is hardly surprising as as they stated in the article {{tq|However, the report did not offer a "definitive" conclusion on the origin of the pandemic}}. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 01:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's an OK source for what is being presented. I would assume the backlash on this is that its reporting on opinions ...something that is not peer reviewed by experts in the field. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 01:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Or "its reliable for the fact it was said, not for that being true". ] (]) 16:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :An observation on the Telegraph's biases. It "has endorsed the ] at every UK general election since 1945." It has a reputation of being "a mouthpiece for Boris Johnson" whose columns were allegedly published with "no fact-checking at all". It keeps attacking ] with headlines such as "The tyranny of the transgender minority has got to be stopped". It was criticized by the regulator ] for systematically publishing ]. It regularly publishes texts with "pseudoscientific views on climate change", and published a false story about a predicted "mini-ice age" instead of global warming. Does that sound like a reputable publication? ] (]) 05:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::A lot of UK media outlets have been going downhill in recent years (eg see the debacle around the Jewish Chronicle). Unfortunate. (] · ]) ''']''' 06:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think consistent political endorsements are relevant for ]. For example, I believe here in the US, the NYT has endorsed the D candidate in every election since 1960. We still consider them a first tier source. ] (]) 16:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Unfortunately, while the Telegraph employs "journalists" like transphobe and Covid fake news-peddler ], it is always going to be somewhat mistrusted. It ''does'' appear to have dialled the climate change denial nonsense back a bit in recent years, however. ] 21:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, the NYT has endorsed Republicans for governor, Senator, NYC mayor, and other positions since the 60s. ] (]) 00:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Why was this article brought up on the of ] talk page? Editors are using it to advocate for a rewrite of the lead, despite the fact that (a) it's a single news article, (b) it's not a MEDRS, (c) it's an old story about the October 2022 partisan Senate report, which is only back in the news because Axios just obtained the full report. The article is a ] (primary) source that simply summarizes the full report. If the author provides any analysis or opinions of his own, I can't discern them. It is a reliable source for what the Senate Republicans think, which is all it covers. Bringing up the article on the lab leak talk page is non-productive. ] (]) 21:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure why the query is about the papers reliability for politics and then goes on about coronavirus. It isn't quite such a politically divided issue like it has been in America, though conservatives do tend to follow republicans more on things like covid and climate change. It definitely is biased on politics but it's nowhere near the worst in Britain for that. On this matter what it did was basically publicise something that was out of date and with no medical input when the space could have been used for something better. My normal response when seeing something like that in a newspaper is to just curse them and move on to something else. ] (]) 23:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ] is cited in the''' Media outlets''' section of ]. He's an independent journalist who self-publishes and doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist. Reliable or not? I say no. Some other editors from that article might come here with more context. ] (]) 02:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *It appears concerns here regard due weight rather than reliability. The DT's politics coverage is usually reliable for simple factual information, but editorial choice of content follows a political line, so, like every paper, it is often necessary to attribute. This report is true, a US senate report DID make this claim. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it should appear in the lead, and perhaps not even the article unless peer-reviewed information is also given due prominence. --] (]) 04:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :. Mr. Klippenstein is being used to cite: | |||
| :There's a distinction between editorial policy and the accuracy of news reporting. Editorials, columns, analyses, etc., are not considered reliable sources wherever they are published. We should not judge a news outlet reliability based on its editorial position. The ''Wall Street Journal'' is a good example where the two parts of the publication are totally separate. | |||
| :# {{tqq|Klippenstein also alleged that '']'' directed their staff to "dial back" on showing photographs containing Mangione's face.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Klippenstein |first1=Ken |date=December 11, 2024 |title=NY Times Doesn't Want You to See Shooter's Face |url=https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/ny-times-doesnt-want-you-to-see-mangiones |access-date=December 15, 2024 |website=kenklippenstein.com |language=en}}</ref>}} | |||
| :The Republicans lab leak conclusion was reported in other publications such as ABC and all media covered that the FBI has concluded that coronavirus originated in a lab. | |||
| :# {{tqq|A report on the killing by the ] was obtained by independent journalist Dan Boguslaw, and published by Klippenstein on December 26. The report focused on Mangione's motive and people who express sympathy for him, whom they labeled as "extremists". Klippenstein alleged that multiple media outlets had access to the report, but selectively quoted it in a way that focused on Mangione. He said that "By withholding documents and unilaterally deciding which portions merit public disclosure, the media is playing god."<ref>{{cite web |title=Read the NYPD’s Mangione report the media won't publish |url=https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/post-luigi-the-extremist-threat-is |publisher=Ken Klippenstein |access-date=28 December 2024}}</ref>}} {{reflist}} | |||
| :Should the media refuse to report on what the majority party says because they are (probably) wrong? I don't think so. It's very important for readers to know what the debate in Washington is. | |||
| :] (]) |
:] (]) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :It's crap. "Media reactions" or "in the media" sections in Misplaced Pages articles too often, like this article, become dumpsters where Wikipedians simply like to show off how good they are at finding random sources and shoehorning them into an article, for reasons. ] (]) 04:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe the Telegraph's news articles remain a reliable source for politics. It is obviously biased and anything controversial should be attributed and also triangulated with other reliable sources biased differently. (Its opinion pieces are obviously not similarly reliable, although opinion in the Telegraph is more likely to be noteworthy than opinion in more marginal publications.) It is not, of course, reliable for medical matters. On this particular article, I agree with the above comments: the issue is weight not reliability. Politicians' views about medical matters (accurately reported or otherwise) are not particularly noteworthy in most contexts. ] (]) 16:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. ] (]) 04:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Facts in its news coverage are probably facts. Its opinion pages do not appear to be fact checked. The opinions may be noteworthy, but they should not be used without attribution (and should probably be avoided) - ] (]) 14:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::Right, but the focus here is on the reliability of Ken Klippenstein and whether or not his statements (sourced to his own website and attributed) are usable in the article. ] (]) 12:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :{{tq|doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist}} That's not accurate, as you could have confirmed by checking out the references in the Klippenstein WP article that note that he's been a journalist for outlets like The Nation and The Intercept. Both of those are generally reliable on the RSP. He's also seen as serious by other journalists (e.g., in Columbia Journalism Review interview, which describes him "as one of the most fearless reporters of the Trump era"). | |||
| :::That's bad news about those papers, because RSes have no excuse not to fact-check the opinion columns too. And it certainly doesn't apply to the world. (''e.g.'' I write for ] occasionally, in the opinions section, and I can assure you their fact-checkers are ''vicious'' and have saved my arse more than once.) If a paper runs nonsense in its opinion columns, that counts against that paper - ] (]) 09:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :His self-published work cannot be used as a source for WP content about living or recently dead people (e.g., about Mangione's letter), per ]. He could be used as a source on a BLP if the WP text sourced to him is not itself about a person (e.g., if it's about mainstream media). But in this case, I don't see how to disentangle his statements about the press from content about Mangione. Some other news outlets have reported a bit about the content currently sourced to Klippenstein, such as this , noting Klippenstein's apparent publication of Mangione's letter. ] (]) 15:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The reason they provide little if any fact-checking is cost and time. If you had to write an opinion piece for tomorrow's paper about something that happened today, there wouldn't be a lot of time to fact check it. That's why columns, editorials, anaylses are rarely reliable sources according to rs policy. | |||
| ::I was just going to say something similar - it's definitely inaccurate to say he hasn't written for other reliable sources in the past. It's true that his own stuff would fall foul of ], but his stuff picked up by other reliable sources is usable, conceptually, with proper context and attribution. ] ] ] ] 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::All news media btw run nonsense in opinion pieces. ] (]) 03:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Hell no, get rid of this Kenny guy now. ]: this content directly involves a living person (Luigi), and to make self-published claims about info regarding these living persons is against policy. And, Kenny boy over here is using his blog to write ] things about an American newspaper of record. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *The Daily Telegraph employs people with ghastly and abhorrent opinions, but it's reliable for statements of fact, and its journalists have seriously embarrassed the Conservative party in the past with accurate and devastating revelations about expenses.—] <small>]/]</small> 16:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{U|BarntToust}} - Dial it back a bit. ] applies to all BLP is all Misplaced Pages spaces. You calling him weird names like "Kenny Boy" probably doesn't constitute "written with the greatest care and attention". ] ] 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * The Daily Telegraph is a reliable and important top-tier newspaper. The DT is correct that the US Senate report contained this info, it is report on what the Senate report contained. Whether the US Senate report is reliable or due for inclusion is separate entirely from the reliability of the DT. ] (]) 20:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::If this was like '']'' or '']'' writing this about ''NYT'' then yes I would support inclusion. This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here. "Ken" should be more concerned that he is writing damning blog posts accusing a reputable newspaper of compromised journalistic integrity. Who else will pick this up? Who else will corroborate this bold as all hell claim with trusted journalistic process? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here" is false, as is "he is writing damning blog posts." More than one person here has noted that he's a reliable journalist. Unbandito explained why he chose to start his own journalism Substack (not a blog). There are a number of established writers using Substack to host their reporting; here's ]. It's bizarre that you put his name in quotation marks, especially after calling him "this Kenny guy" and "Kenny boy." Nothing is stopping you from answering your own questions. I already noted a couple of sources that had picked it up; here's . ] (]) 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I personally believe that bold claims against these news organisations need other comparable news organisations to corroborate them, to establish ]. the spreading of claims by sources who are especially biased and opinionated means nothing. "Ken" can make a bombshell accusation against NYT for spineless reporting but can we get ''The Guardian'' or some other prestigious institutions to back these claims? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A reminder that WP:RS states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject," so I don't agree that his reporting "means nothing." This thread started off with the false claim that he "doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist" and the question "Reliable or not?" The false claim has been addressed. The question shows that people have different opinions. Whether some mention of Klippenstein is DUE is not a matter of reliability and belongs on the Talk page. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Having been employed by two ultra-partisan outlets for some short period, and then by "The Young Turks" which is marginally better than InfoWars, does not indicate this individual's self-published works meet the encyclopedia's reliability standards. And it has not been shown that I made a false claim, only if you think these ultra-partisan sources are "mainstream". Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent, which is laughable. ] (]) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::He was employed by The Young Turks ''before'' he worked for The Nation and The Intercept, not ''after'', and those aren't the only other media for which he's written. Partisanship doesn't determine whether a given media outlet is/isn't mainstream media. They're both listed on Harvard's . {{tq|Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent}} Please quote whomever you're referring to, because I don't see any comment suggesting that. I'd be happy to be corrected, but otherwise, it's counterproductive to characterize people's comments as more extreme than they actually are. Again: people clearly have different opinions about whether he's "Reliable or not?" You have your opinion, and I have mine. Personally, I consider the ] interview as evidence of his reliability; if they happen to focus on someone who's unreliable, I think they say so, as . ] (]) 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Funny, Misplaced Pages lists The Federalist as "generally unreliable due to its partisan nature" yet they're listed as mainstream on Harvard's index. Seems like some kinds of partisanship are more acceptable than others. ] (]) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I didn't claim or imply that all MSM on Harvard's list are ''reliable''. Reliability, partisanship, and mainstream media status are all distinct dimensions. A source can fall into any one of their 8 combinations. The full RSP sentence is "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature''' and its promotion of conspiracy theories'''." Maybe you think a source that promotes conspiracy theories is reliable, but I don't. ] (]) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don't think a source promoting conspiracies is reliable, and I'm not disputing the decision against The Federalist. I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview, and I disagree. Even the content in question isn't just a professional critique of editorial decisions, but it's couched in nefarious undertones, even going so far as to accuse MSM of "playing god." ] (]) 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::{{tq|I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here.}} That's a very general claim for which you've provided no evidence and that also seems way beyond the scope of this particular thread. {{tq|Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview...}} Another very general claim, though this one at least touches on the thread's topic. Focusing just on Klippenstein, if you have evidence that he "''frequently'' write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a ] worldview" and not reliable, you should present it. If you do have that evidence, then you really should have presented it when you first asked "Reliable or not?" ] (]) 00:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I would just refer you over to the article's talk page where discussion of this issue has continued, and a resolution has been reached. As to Klipp's conspiratorial worldview, see his latest media rant which I also submitted in talk.. ] (]) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I don't see how anything on the talk page provides evidence for your claim that he "'''frequently''' write of large corporations as dark plotters," and either you have evidence of that or you don't. So far, it looks like you don't. The only thing I see in your link relative to a "conspiratorial worldview" is his claim that "every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is," which hardly rises to the level of "frequently." ] (]) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a ]? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::It's a BLP violation to keep calling him a conspiracy theorist is what it is. One that Jonathan f1 seems quite committed to. ] (]) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Like I explained to you on the talk page, I'm using his own words. He's alleging that politicians and major media outlets "conspired" against the public. ] (]) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Him using a turn of phrase one time doesn't give us cause to start throwing insults at him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Please provide a couple of reliable sources calling Klippenstein a conspiracy theorist or desist immediately. ] (]) 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::], do we need reliable sources? I don't think we should explicitly be throwing around the ]-word, but rather ]. Keeps BLP vio away. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::I'm not putting him in the same bucket with Alex Jones, but his repeated attacks on major media followed by a remark about them "conspiring" with each other is what it is. But okay, to move past all this pointless tone policing, I'll find a new phrase. ] (]) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I'm not going to rehash his entire career as a journalist here, and particularly his time with The Young Turks which will certainly provide you with ample evidence of this. It isn't even relevant here -the articles in question are attack pieces where he is either implicating major media outlets in a plot or calling their journalistic ethics into question. That we are even debating inclusion with no corroboration from high-grade sources is remarkable. ] (]) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Again, I said {{tq|if you have evidence that he "'''frequently''' write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it.}} You're the one who made the claim, and you're the one with the burden of proof for it. Don't try to shift the burden onto me. I'm not "debating inclusion" of any specific edit right now. I'm telling you that if you can't or won't substantiate your claim, then you should retract it, as it's an unsubstantiated contentious claim and a BLP violation. The BLP policy applies to any statements about living persons on all WP pages, including this one. ] (]) 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::I'll retract it just to move on from this. My objection to Klippenstein in this particular case does not hinge on this little side issue. ] (]) 23:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why did you put his real name in quotes like that? ] ] 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As an indicator that I generally distrust Substack reporters and their methods. I can't believe that anything will pass as qualified journalism nowadays 😐 <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :In this case, I'd say keep it. Klippenstein obtained and published the manifesto, which mainstream sources begrudgingly admitted was the same one they refused to publish. It appears that the citations in this article are of secondary coverage of his work, which makes them even more admissible. Klip is not just some guy, he has journalistic credentials and a past of reliable reporting for multiple reliable orgs. He's one of a number of journalists who was laid off from major outlets in the last year or so as part of a broader trend of restructuring in media that is ongoing. He and others like Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill have moved on to independent work, but despite the loss of their association with an established organization, their reporting remains influential and they've made a number of valuable contributions to our knowledge of and discourse on current events. I worry that Misplaced Pages policy, which assumes that mainstream media has a static financial and ethical position in perpetuity, is not adequately nuanced to accommodate major shake-ups in the press such as what we're seeing today. I think it's also worth noting that while Ken publishes on substack, at least in some other articles he's written (such as his publication of a US intelligence report on Israeli preparations to strike Iran) he employs an editor to review his work. This is the same sort of self-publishing that mainstream RS do, and another argument in favor of his reliability. ] (]) 16:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::"multiple reliable orgs." | |||
| ::Really, like what? The Young Turks? I'm aware that Nation and Intercept are considered generally reliable, but there's also consensus that they're opinionated, biased and partisan, and should be used with caution. Klipp doesn't work for any of these publications anymore; he self-publishes on substack and has made a career for himself publishing MSM polemic. That's what this section includes currently -Klipp's self-published polemic directed at NY Times, CNN etc. Even if this appeared in The Nation, there'd be weight issues. ] (]) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, The Nation and The Intercept. All media has bias, and any media-literate person should understand this. I think weight arguments are a lot stronger regarding content that is more than a few sentences or a short paragraph long. I don't think the due weight for this content is zero, and therefore I think the material is appropriate. If there is a significant view in opposition to Klippenstein, I think the page would be better improved by expanding it. ] (]) 17:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Of course all media, and all humans, are biased, but when a consensus on here comes with that caveat, you know you're not dealing with a gold standard RS. And this is only relevant here if you think his past employment with these outlets, however brief, in some way lends credibility to his self-published substacks. ] (]) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think what his past employment in media shows is that he has the training and follows the same standards of verifiability as prestige media organizations. I think it's worth noting that when a fake version of the manifesto was making the rounds, Klippenstein declined to publish it and called it out as misleading because he couldn't verify its authenticity. Regardless of where he's publishing them, I think his publication of several leaked documents ahead of the mainstream press as well as his history as a FOIA journalist shows that he is well connected to valuable sources of information and is engaged in "real" investigative journalism of the sort that prestige outlets are increasingly unwilling to pay for when opinion pieces get them just as many clicks. | |||
| :::::His perspective on the unwillingness of the media to publish a document which they had verified is true is granted some additional relevance by the fact that he is the one who published the document and inquired to these organizations as to why they hadn't, as well as by the fact that journalists from those legacy organizations leaked internal communications to him which showed the decision those organizations had made. | |||
| :::::I think that this is frankly a strong example of the way that Misplaced Pages's current RS policies are inadequate to handle the reality that with the traditional media in financial and organizational crisis, sometimes breaking news is going to be published by small independent outlets or individuals. Any conception of reliability that uniformly dismisses sources like Klippenstein as if they're some random blog post by John Q. Public while reifying legacy media despite the history of its errors and shortcomings and the media studies scholarship that problematizes a simplistic conception of source reliability, is sure to exclude some valuable material and include a lot of junk. Without getting too far off topic, I think the solution to this is to emphasize verifiability and source consensus over things like editorial process and organizational prestige, and to attribute wherever there is controversy or disagreement. ] (]) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Anyone using phrases like "MSM polemic" ought to be stepping well away from deciding the reliability of ''any'' sources, to be honest. ] 19:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::NY Times and CNN are mainstream media, a polemic is "a piece of writing expressing a strongly critical view of someone or something." Thus, Klippenstein's hit pieces on MSM are polemics. I don't see why me knowing what these words mean implies I need to "step well away" from assessing reliability. ] (]) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::if someone else reports on it, its not sps, its secondary coverage of SPS, which should be admissible in BLP, right? I think we can't directly use any details in his blog that aren't vetted and cited by another non-SPS news source ] (]) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, secondary sources can be used for a BLP, if they are RSs. For example, this article confirms that Klippenstein published Mangione full "manifesto." And this article could be used re: his criticism of other media for not releasing the whole thing, though RSP says "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." Perhaps there are other reliable non-SPSs that are better sources for the content about Klippenstein's criticism of other media; I'm not going to take time right now to search further. There may still be questions about due weight, whether a claim needs to be attributed, etc., but those are distinct from the question of reliability and what can be used for BLP material. ] (]) 17:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::See, this is the thing, we've got LA Times, a high quality RS for news, so there's no reason to cite Klippenstein. But that covers the manifesto issue, which I wouldn't object to including. But the hit piece on those MSMs? Yeah, that's not found in LA Times or any other source on that level, only a "marginally reliable" source. I do not think Klipp is any position to critique editorial decisions at these publications, and do not see how that's due weight anyway. ] (]) 18:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this: | |||
| :::::* I don't object to the bit about media not publishing the manifesto, and this could be sourced to the LA Times (the secondary source referencing Klippenstein). | |||
| :::::* The next line about the NY Times not showing the suspect's face -no RS is talking about this and I personally find it irrelevant. | |||
| :::::*The last part about media outlets selectively quoting from the NYPD report -this exceeds weight limits and makes the section read like a hit piece against MSM, all sourced to one man. Klippenstein objects to the NYPD using the term "extremists" to describe the suspect's supporters, and cites a report by security firm Dragonfly to argue that the risk of violent attacks on corporate leaders will likely remain low. If you read his source, they, too, use the word "extremists" to describe people who support the killing. | |||
| :::::] (]) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I read his work and personally trust Klippenstein. However, his substack is clearly a self-published source. Unbandito's comments on broader issues with Misplaced Pages, while interesting, don't address the ] issue. Ultimately, Klippenstein is the person with final approval on what he wrote. | |||
| :I would consider Klippenstein's views ] if they are reported on by reliable sources. Based on what I know and see here, I can't consider him to meet the ] criteria in this topic area. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 07:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with Chess here - ] is appropriate here. Klippenstein is a respected journalist. He's also self-publishing. But, in this case, he's an expert who is self-publishing. ] (]) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::See talk page (article linked up top). ] (]) 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll endorse this as position as well. Klippenstein has a good track record with reputable outlets and hasn't had issues so far on his own, but is ultimately a ] that should only be included when corroborated and/or discussed by non-SPS RSs. That appears to be the case with the manifesto itself, but not the other reports. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Pretty much yes. There's no issue with the manifesto content, but the other reports are not mentioned in any secondary RS of any quality (ignoring Washington Times and the art website). There's also the fact that he's mentioned 3 separate times in a section of only 8 lines, which is hard to defend. ] (]) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I merged the 'Media outlets' section with the 'Other' section. An editor made a ] on the talk page that according to Klippenstein's article, he's a FOIA document expert, and that {{tq|much of his journalism draws on information he has uncovered from records requested at state and national levels of the US government}}, which {{tq|also frequently include information from leaked documents}}. ] (]) 02:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Regardless of expert status, BLPSPS applies and would bar the use when it's not corroborated. It seems the new combined section has some sources that discussion Klippenstein's work in and of itself, which partially solves that issue. The issue then is if the amount of coverage is DUE. Klippenstein is an established journalist and some inclusion is probably due given the coverage, but a lot of the paragraph is repetitive, so I would probably cut it down by half. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Could you comment in the ], because despite what is being said here in this thread, certain editors still think he's a ], ], and unreliable ], ], ]. ] (]) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :From what I can tell, a consensus has not yet been achieved here. I don't wish to step on anybody's toes, but I have reverted ]'s blanking of a large portion of the disputed section . ] (]) 10:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please see ]: {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} You should self-revert your reversion until consensus has been reached in one way or another. ] (]) 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::But ] is also relevant: {{tq|When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.}} ] (]) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. ] (]) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The material that User:Toa Nidhiki05 removed had been in the article since December 13 without any dispute (until now). ] (]) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Ken Klippenstein is a bit of a weird special case because he's an experienced reporter whose Substack is nevertheless still clearly an ] but because he has very different views on the direct publication of source documents (like manifestos) than much of the rest of the media, he is reasonably often the main source of the full text of a document that the rest of the media acknowledges exists, is real, and that Klippenstein's version of the text is correct, but refuses to actually publish the text themselves. A sort of one-man Wikileaks situation. | |||
| :I honestly think that since he is clearly reliable in these situations he is actually a fine source for these sorts of documents, presuming we bear in mind that: | |||
| :a) Documents published by him should be clearly acknowledged in the text to be sourced to him alone. | |||
| :b) Just because Klippenstein is reliable for the text of the documents he publishes doesn't mean that the documents themselves are reliable for facts or that Klippenstein is endorsing or even has checked their factual claims. | |||
| :c) Klippenstein doesn't have to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and so it's very possible that documents he publishes don't follow BLP guidelines for some reason. AFAICT usually what he publishes is about public figures but that doesn't ''have'' to be the case, and in cases where a document has private information about a private figure we shouldn't repeat it. ] (]) 21:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfC: NewsNation== | |||
| == Is the credibility and usefulness of the sources for the ] article in tatters? == | |||
| <!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}} | |||
| What is the reliability of ]? | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| Do the sources for this article lack credibility? -- ] (]) 03:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey (NewsNation)=== | |||
| :I came across this article while fixing errors, there's a lot of background detail in the article's talk page. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 11:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *'''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). | |||
| ::{{Re|ActivelyDisinterested}} Will this article be removed from Misplaced Pages? -- ] (]) 12:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **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. | |||
| :::That will be resolved at AFD, not here. If you believe that your article should not be deleted, you need to make your best argument at its discussion page there. ] (]) 12:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ***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. | |||
| ::::{{Re|Banks Irk}} , Are both these sources useful for the ] article? -- ] (]) 12:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ***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’."}} | |||
| :::::No. They are not reliable sources. ] (]) 12:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}. | |||
| ::::::{{Re|Banks Irk}} This article has been reviewed. So will it not be considered important? -- ] (]) 14:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ***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.”}} | |||
| :::::::{{yo|Karsan Chanda}} There is a deletion discussion ]which you are invited to participate in, do not open discussions anywhere else, it is there that you need to contribute. It is not that the article is not considered important, we need ] of Alan Singh in a good source. Significant coverage means a couple of paragraphs about Alan Singh at least. ] (]) 04:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former. | |||
| ***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}. | |||
| ***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians. | |||
| **Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs: | |||
| ***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}. | |||
| ***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 . | |||
| :] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (NewsNation)=== | |||
| == 911Truth.org and consortiumnews.com == | |||
| *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) | |||
| == Is this article declaring the ] a 12th c. baptistry a reliable source for the tower?? == | |||
| '''Source.''' https://911truth.org, specifically https://911truth.org/tag/ray-mcgovern/ | |||
| :] as a source has been previously discussed or mentioned: , | |||
| The autho rhas emailed me demanding it be added to the Newport Tower article as it has been peer reviewed.] press.... Other non-peer reviewed papers of his can be found here. ] ] 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Source.''' https://consortiumnews.com, specifically https://consortiumnews.com/tag/ray-mcgovern/ | |||
| :] as a source has been previously discussed or mentioned: , , , | |||
| :For reference the tower is ] The answer is no. The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming. Even academic presses slip up sometimes and Istanbul University Press is frankly quite a bit distant from Rhode Island such that I would be cautious about the level of rigour of its fact checking (if any) on the topic. ] (]) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Article.''' ] | |||
| ::In addition to this, the author is retired from the U.S. Navy and a student of aeronautics, while this paper involves a great deal of cartography, religious history, etc. In other worlds, far outside of the author's field, even if there was some question about its reliability. Looking at the non-peer reviewed papers, I see that the author also believes the ] is legit. ] (]) 15:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], that WP article has an entire section on ], so it's not clear to me that "The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming" is a reason to exclude this hypothesis. Given that context, what does it means to be a RS for a fringe theory? A source may be reliable for the existence of the fringe theory but unreliable otherwise. | |||
| ::It's unclear to me whether this chapter is truly peer-reviewed. It appears in an , and the editors are on the faculty of Istanbul University, but it's not clear to me that they have expertise in this area, whether they reviewed all of the chapters for accuracy or only for things like pertinence and organization, or if they sought any outside review for any of the chapters. Their Google Scholar info: , . The book was just published, and I couldn't find any reviews for it. What the author of the chapter "demands" is irrelevant. ] (]) 20:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The question is, does this source add anything to the "Norse hypothesis" such that it is worth adding the article to include it? I think the answer is no. There's no evidence that this paper has had any impact on the wider discourse surrounding the tower. ] (]) 20:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I haven't read the paper, but the abstract says "Two Turkish cartographers, the earliest being Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-1310), and later, Piri Reis (c. 1465-1553), illustrated the North American Baptistery on their respective cartographic works." I know nothing about the "Norse hypothesis" and so cannot judge whether this is something new; the current WP text makes no mention of Turks, but perhaps that's just a matter of what was judged to be DUE. The book link above says that the book was only published last week, so at this point the chapter cannot possibly have had any impact on wider discourse. ] (]) 22:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It seems the text is mostly taken up by attempting to divine meaning from certain blotches on an old map. This is not a particularly convincing hypothesis for what it's worth. ] (]) 14:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Peer review is only as good as the peers in question... Istanbul University and history have a rather fraught history when it comes to Turkish nationalist historiography (which I would fit this under given the elements of Turkish exceptionalism). We have a long history of disregarding those views because academics outside of Turkey do (especially as it concerns claims of Ottoman voyages of discovery, the Kurds, and the Armenian Genocide). ] (]) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :No, obvious crank. I would take it as evidence that Istanbul University Press is not reliable. I imagine he was stationed at the base in Newport and got interested, but he should seek professional training in history and learn to read some relevant languages before leaning in on a claim this unlikely. There's really nothing in his article except some maps so extremely magnified that they don't resemble anything in particular. ] (]) 01:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Pinkvilla == | |||
| '''Content.''' Are they appropriate for inclusion in ]? | |||
| ] has been flagged as an unreliable source, and there is growing consensus around its exclusion from the list of acceptable sources on ]. Previously dicusssed (see ], ]). Due to concerns about the site's editorial standards, accuracy, and potential biases, I propose to dicussss the credibility of Pinkvilla. The aim is to ensure that Misplaced Pages articles are supported by sources that meet higher standards of reliability and credibility. Pinkvilla itself states that the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data. However, it asserts that the numbers are generally reflective of the box-office performance of the films in question ().] (]) 09:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] (#2) states that we "should generally avoid providing external links to"..."any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." As noted above, various discussions about https://911truth.org and https://consortiumnews.com have found them to be generally unreliable sources of information, however, the "External links" section of ] contains links to articles in in which his name has been tagged. Are those links appropriate for inclusion or should they be removed? (I understand that this is not about any particular text in the article, but I'm not sure there is a better forum for the question.) Thanks! -] (]) 16:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *As bare links with no context, no, we should not link them. ] is a fairly short list, and in practice is restricted mostly to either a) official websites of the subject b) reliable sources which discuss the subject, but which are not being used directly as inline citations. This is neither of those. Kill with fire. --]] 18:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you think there's a difference between the box-office numbers in Pinkvilla and their general articles? Could one be considered reliable and the other not, or is this looking at the site as a whole? ''']''' (]) 20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've deleted 911truth as it's clearly highly inappropriate. The McGovern page there was made up of stuff reposted from elsewhere (often Consortium) plus some fringe content that mentions him. The Consortium page might fit ELYES if that was the main outlet for his writings, but I don't think it is. The external links section on that article is severely bloated and I'd support cutting a lot of it out. ] (]) 17:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data}} it probably shouldn't be cited then. ] (]) 23:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Reliability discussion took place previously ] putting it as one of the best sources for movie related news and box office collections. ] (]) 07:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu == | |||
| * Not sure about consortiumnews, but 911truth is clearly highly inappropriate as BobFromBrockley eloquently puts forth. ] (]) 20:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C): | |||
| == Policy violation to link to WikiLeaks == | |||
| * '''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) === | |||
| See ]. Lots of links to WikiLeaks and archived copies. All of Misplaced Pages should be searched for such links. | |||
| * A: See "Geni.com" at ]. | |||
| * 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 === | |||
| Doesn't linking to ] violate our policies? We are not allowed to link to any website known to host copyright violations or stolen documents, and linking to an archived copy doesn't help the situation. That's why the ] article does not link directly to the website that hosts the dossier. We had to settle that matter when the article was first created. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 21:28, 19 April 2023 (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) | |||
| :Wikileaks can be used as a primary source for backing up secondary sources, for instance about Wikileaks organization or denials or suchlike. But yes that page should not have links to Wikileaks for information about specific leaks, only to secondary sources. ] (]) 23:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a ]. But it could be a good follow-up. ] (]) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes. ABOUTSELF allows linking to the main index page and About page, but WikiLeaks hosts lots of illegally obtained content, and I believe we are not allowed to link to such URLs. That list links to many such pages. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 23:29, 19 April 2023 (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) | |||
| :::Hmm, that's rather strange. The main injuction seems to be against linking to copyright work that has been stolen. Isn't there some rule about government works in the US being public domain? It would still need a secondary source and I can't see there would ever be a good reason to link to the primary leaked source in that article. ] (]) 23:36, 19 April 2023 (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) | |||
| :::::Works by the US federal government are often public domain from a copyright perspective; see ]. Not sure if we have a policy on linking to hacked/leaked materials. The reason we don't link to the Steele dossier is because it's a major BLP violation. ] (]) 05:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Classified US Federal government documents are, by law, in the public domain. You may find You'll find another example at ]. <nowiki>:</nowiki>3 ] (]]) 12:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's ...really quite amusing. Thanks! ] (]) 12:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Amusing or not, the Mother Jones article does not verify {{blue|Classified US Federal government documents are, by law, in the public domain.}}]] 12:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'd have thought along with ] article the Mother Jones quote was enough to go by {{quote|Julian Sanchez, a fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute who has studied copyright policy, was harsher: “Do they not cover this in orientation? documents should not be placed in public repositories—and, by the way, aren’t copyrightable. How do you even get a clearance without knowing this stuff?”}}. ] (]) 14:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC?  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Let's be clear about this - is it the case that having such links is problematic from the legal point of view and makes it possible to sue Wiki(m/p)edia in the US where the servers are located? If that's the argument, we need someone qualified to confirm that. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :On the other hand, the mere fact that the documents were obtained not in a legal way is not a good reason to remove the links. Consider the ] article - do you propose to remove the links to the actual papers from it too? ]<sub>]</sub> 05:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a long discussion. See this ]. There's two questions, one is whether it's public domain, and usually we deal with copyright, whether than national security classification. The other is, whether it's reliable. In all cases, a federal government is a primary document, but the question is, can we assume it's a primary government document? Generally Wikileaks is known for authenticating its sources, but it should neutrally be noted, that it's a Wikileaks host of documents, not directly claim it's some NSA document that was declassified in a FOIA request. All that said, if newspapers report on it, or they're used in public court proceedings, I'd have no issue with linking to direct Wikileak document in question. It's an unresolved question. ~ 🦝 ] (he/him • ]) 12:12, 20 April 2023 (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) | |||
| :::Yes, such documents should definitely be attributed, I don't think anyone would argue with that. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *AFAIK, reading documents post-leak is not illegal in the U.S., '']'', organizations such as ''both'' Wikileaks and Misplaced Pages are protected under First Amendment guidelines regarding freedom of speech and of the press. To wit "Any system of prior restraints of expression a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity", which is to say that the burden of establishing ] lies with the government, and there is a presumption against its wide applicability in the absence of specific liability. Which is to say, there is no legal ramifications on Misplaced Pages (or likely Wikileaks) to worry about. The copyright issue is a red herring as well, as far as I am concerned, and smacks of throwing anything against the wall and seeing what sticks. --]] 18:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| This particular article has a huge number of proportion of primary sources. If the material in the list is noteworthy, there'd be secondary sources showing it. It's not our job to be a portal to Wikileaks. ] (]) 17:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey A: Geni.com === | |||
| :I count roughly 25 references to WikiLeaks, out of 288 references, which isn't "a huge proportion". Some of these references are to Twitter posts by WikiLeaks, some to their website. Many are used in the standard way we usually use primary sources, i.e. to support statements like {{tq|WikiLeaks claimed}}, etc. | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Besides that, I wholeheartedly concur with Jayron32 that the copyright or legality arguments are red-herrings. WikiLeaks's tweets fall under ]. The documents, however, don't fall under ABOUTSELF, since they are not original work self-published by WikiLeaks, but the works of others republished by them. Those documents count as bog-standard primary sources, to be used conservatively for descriptive statements of facts, not avoided altogether. ] (]) 18:04, 21 April 2023 (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) | |||
| === Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley === | |||
| Pinging {{yo|Diannaa}} as the resident expert to see whether such links represent a copyright issue. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 11:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment'''. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--] (]) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''' Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "'''the source is generally prohibited'''". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) ] (]) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation. | |||
| :::Deprecation of this source will ''reduce'' the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again. | |||
| :::::::Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Generally unreliable'''. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) ''Generally unreliable'' is the one which says this: {{tq|"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"}} I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would ''only'' allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be ''prohibited''. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at ] shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he ''knows'' {{xt!|may be of little factual significance}} at face value just because he finds them "]" ({{xt!|but is reproduced by way of interest}}), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't ]. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. ] (]) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the '''Generally unreliable''' category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then ''only as far as we have to''. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Generally reliable''', in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav === | |||
| == ArabiaGIS and UNDP == | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. ] (]) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--] (]) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as {{xt|genealogy.eu}} and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :'''Comment'''. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the ], Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate'''. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; . --] 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site . And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)=== | |||
| I am thinking of create a bot request to automate some coordinate addition to lebanese towns articles. See this . The source for the coordinates is listed as UNDP/Arabia GIS. I was wondering if this is a reliable source for the coords of all LB towns. I'd say the UNDP is reliable but not sure about Arabia GIS. Their website went offline in 2011. before that. | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| Edit:Seems they actually recreated their website but it has since gone offline again. See | |||
| :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) | |||
| ] (]) 17:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Franklin Open == | |||
| == Buzzfeed News shutting down - what now? == | |||
| I would like to know what is known about "Franklin Open" (). It claims to be peer-reviewed but charges $1900 to publish an article. Should we count this as an RS, or should its articles be treated as self-published? (Apologies if it's already dealt with somewhere — I searched and couldn't find it.) --] (]) 22:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| With ''Buzzfeed News'' shutting down<ref>https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/buzzfeed-news-shutting-down-layoffs-1235589751/</ref>, should we be thinking about removing it from the list or is it still too early to do so? At the very least, I'm thinking of making a bot request at ] for ] so as to archive all ''Buzzfeed News'' citations. | |||
| :It's published by Elsevier on behalf of the Franklin Institute. So not self-published.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 04:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Thoughts? ] (]) (]) 18:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : |
::But the question is, is the stuff peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? --] (]) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| : |
:::Like any other Elsevier/Franklin Institute journals. Reliable in its area of expertise, which is mostly engineering and applied mathematics.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 05:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::: Well, here's the thing. They published a paper with no meaningfully new content on the so-called ], . This thing should never have gotten past peer review, not because anything in it is ''wrong'' per se, but because it's not a novel contribution (and is also not a survey). It's a bunch of trivial calculations, put together well with nice illustrations, but with an overall conclusion that is not remotely new. | |||
| :Should keep in list and note when the shutdown occurs, and maybe mention that after shutdown BuzzFeed will focus on all news efforts in ] instead. ]''']'''] 18:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:::: So this makes me wonder about their standards, and whether they should be treated as a predatory journal or something similar. --] (]) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::::]s are completely standard, expected, uncontroversial aspects of nearly all ]s, including ''Franklin Open''. If a journal can't charge for subscriptions or article access, it needs to make at least some money through APCs. Does this discussion concern the journal itself and every article it publishes, or rather a single article regarding monkeys and typewriters? If the latter, then the qualifications of the authors and which salient points of the paper merit mention should be discussed on article talk pages per ], ] & ]. Not all articles ever published warrant stuffing into every Misplaced Pages article about a topic, no matter how much individual Wikipedians may slobber over the authors, and thousands of perfectly reliable and decent-quality articles should not be cited per ] and ]. But I'd almost always place more importance on published academic journal articles, even if I dislike the methods or conclusion, over the quibbles and beard-strokings of Wikipedians. ] (]) 23:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Doesn't affect the reliability of old stories. But let's see what they do now, hopefully they won't ditch the team but "keep the brand", and start pumping out bad stories under the Buzzfeed News property. Doubtful IMO, but something to watch out for. | |||
| :::::Per the scope of the journal "Original manuscripts and special topic issue are welcome as well as multidisciplinary topics or application-oriented articles, reviews, surveys, and '''educational articles'''." (emphasis mine) There's zero issue with a journal publishing an educational article with routine calculations and no new conclusions. You said yourself the illustrations were nice. What's the reliability concern here?  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 08:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Would be nice to have a bot that archives all BN links though — ] (]) 18:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What? reliable journals publish educational articles all the time and they're preferable to novel hypotheses and research. ] (]) 08:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Filed ]. Hopefully an admin can look at it soon. ] (]) (]) 19:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It doesn't seem to be an educational article. The authors seem to ''think'' they're making a novel contribution. --] (]) 04:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Following up at ]. -- ]] 19:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Even if that is the case why would this have any bearing on the reliability of the journal? ] (]) 04:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * It doesn't really change anything. The entry in the list is still important because we continue to have a lot of citations to their archived reporting and because (due to the associations of the Buzzfeed name outside its news division) it's a source that is frequently challenged, something that will probably only get worse now that Buzzfeed News is historical (and therefore people will steadily become less familiar with it and the fact that it was independent from the rest of the company.) A source shutting down doesn't affect the reliability of their past reporting, and "don't cite any future reporting from a source that no longer exists" is not usually a problem we have to worry about. --] (]) 16:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Well, it might not, or at least not very much. In my opinion they should not have published this particular article, and I think that reflects badly on them, but of course that is going to happen from time to time. I was trying to find out what was known about the journal, specifically whether it was predatory or predatory-adjacent, and I did that because I didn't think a reputable research journal would publish this. But it seems that that was not the issue. --] (]) 04:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Twitter == | |||
| {{ref-talk}} | |||
| I want to raise a concern about ] or known now as '''X'''. I'm planning to nominate a list to ] and some awards are cited as a tweet from a Philippine Record Label, ], and some cited on YouTube but originally from a significant subscribers (1 Million plus subscribers) and have a Official Artist Channel and can be treated as a reliable source per ]. So, is it okay to cite a tweet directly from record label because some awards aren't covered on a news article, which is only acknowledged on their social media. | |||
| == New York Post sports coverage == | |||
| P.S: I added a discussion just in case some reviewers have a disagreement on citing a tweet. ] ] 01:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *https://nypost.com/sports/ | |||
| We rightly have the ] marked as "generally unreliable", especially for politics. I want to make a carve out for their sports coverage, which is pretty good. | |||
| :From your description alone, it sounds like you're asking if Star Music's tweets about (themselves or their bands) winning awards can be cited as sources? If that's the case, the tweet would be a self-published, primary source, and inherently self-serving. So no, I wouldn't consider that appropriate. Reliable, independent, secondary sources reporting on the awards are what makes them important. | |||
| Some of their columnists have wiki bios. For instance, ] and ] are NY Post baseball columnists who are also on ]. They're both members of the ] and have votes for the ]. ] is also a NY Post sports columnist. They have previous work experience at RSP publications. | |||
| :If I've misunderstood your question, can you give us some examples of the tweets and how they would be used? ] (]) 01:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] one of their post is here , they recognized the awards for the Best Inspirational Secular Song at the 46th Catholic Mass Media Awards, and this is only the piece of sources i searched. ] ] 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::the ] a Featured list was cited from a Facebook too cause they considered it. and ] cited this on ref 28. So, I think needed to be considered to since it was awarded. ] ] 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The problem isn't really Twitter/X or Facebook, it's that you want to use a post by the record label about an award they received. That's inherently self-serving, which means we should avoid using it. | |||
| ::::The Facebook sources at ] were posted by Awit Awards (still a primary source, but not the recipient) and the Philippine Movie Press Club (a secondary source, though I wonder how reliable they are), so I'm assuming that's why they were included. Personally, I think both of those should be removed until they can be supported by better sources, but that's just me. ] (]) 02:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Woodroar}} I think it can be considered? because {{tq|The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.}} The claim made in the post is specifically about ] under the record label Star Music, which is not considered a third party in this context. | |||
| :::::{{tq|The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim}} | |||
| :::::The award mentioned is neither excessively self-serving nor extraordinary (such as a prestigious recognition like the Grammys). Instead, it is a straightforward of Bini achievements. ] ] 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Of course it's self-serving, it's about an award that one of their bands received. As far as the claim about third parties, I hadn't considered that. But Star Music's tweet ''does'' involve claims about third parties, both the group Bini ''and'' the organization Catholic Mass Media Awards. | |||
| ::::::As others have pointed out, there are also NPOV concerns. Alongside reports from reliable, secondary, independent sources, it's ] to include an award sourced only to a self-published, primary tweet from the record label. ] (]) 15:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*I would say that coverage of winning an award is obviously {{tq|unduly self-serving}}. As I said below, we're not just relying on the source for the statement that the award was given but for the implication that it is worth noting; we can't rely on the recipient for that! --] (]) 21:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If an award isn't covered by secondary independent sources, how is it BALASP on the page? ] (]) 02:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::exactly. Had it recieved media coverage, it would've been notable and due for inclusion. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with the sentiment overall for due weight in articles, but this is a list after all. Per ], a high-quality list would; {{tq|"comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items"}}, suggesting that all items would ideally be included in the list, even if not a requirement. I'm inclined to agree with opinions above that documenting an award you have received is not ''unduly'' self-serving, even if publishing such information is entirely self-serving. I otherwise don't agree with the argument that publishing an award won is effectively unwarranted. The question should be more about the awards themselves, for example if the awards were meaningless or irrelevant then sure it would be unwarranted. Give the awards referenced above, the ''Catholic Mass Media Award'' by the ], I'd say it's questionable, but otherwise there are enough secondary sources reporting on them even if not widespread, even if not those in question it seems. ] (]) 13:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Twitter, when cited that way, is ], which carries several restrictions; it's also obviously ]. One key thing is to avoid such about-self cites for anything self-serving - things companies post on Twitter are often promotional in nature and therefore potentially self-serving. "We intend to release this at date XYZ" would be something we could cite to Twitter. Winning an award, unfortunately, is almost certainly self-serving and therefore is probably something we can't. Note that even if you're absolutely certain they're not making it up, you're still relying on them for the implicit statement that this award is ''worth noting'', which they are obviously not a good source for. And similarly, even beyond that, it raises ] issues - if there is no coverage of the award anywhere except by the recipient (who is obviously not a neutral party and could therefore be expected to highlight even exceptionally marginal things, providing little weight to them), this makes it hard to justify as worth including. --] (]) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Far Out Magazine == | |||
| There is only one error in their coverage that I can recall, and that was Heyman's tweet this offseason. He deleted the erroneous tweet within minutes. This is of course why we have an essay on ] properly. The error was only on Twitter, not nypost.com. | |||
| Would ] be considered a reliable source for music and the arts? ] (]) 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Is there anything else I'd need to demonstrate to show it as reliable for sports? Pinging {{u|David Gerard}}, who has removed some NY Post sports citations, and {{u|Yankees10}}, who I saw restoring some of them. – ] (]) 00:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Only RSN-comment I could find on it here: ]. I can't find an "about"-page. Currently it's used on WP quite a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be. ] (]) 08:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah this was my thinking with the reversion. NY Post may not be reliable in general but as Muboshgu stated they employ notable baseball columnists/reporters. I believe an exception should be made for these.-- ] 01:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Comments at ] indicate caution is called for. ] (]) 08:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I make it a point to remove this source whenever I see it because of the fact that, beyond the ] concerns noted on the talk page linked above, many of their articles seem to republish content from years ago, while titling them to make it sound as if new insight has come out recently. For a few examples as of late, see , , and are all examples of this website recycling content from other, more reliable sources that can (and should) be cited instead. For all I know, there may be minor instances where this site can be used, but I'm familiar enough with Far Out Magazine to say that, for the most part, their content is clickbait churnalism, and in particular, should not be used for information about ]. ] (]) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Credit to ] for explaining the unreliability of this source ]. ] (]) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :There's a common claim that unreliable newspapers should get a pass for their sports coverage - mostly on an ILIKEIT basis. This was commonly brought forward for The Sun (also a News Corp publication) and the Daily Mail - and yet, when I checked those two and actually looked at the sports coverage that we were using in Misplaced Pages, I kept finding egregious careless errors, wrong years, and claims that were not verifiable in any other source at all. It turns out bad sources can't be trusted. | |||
| :(Martin Samuels won awards for his coverage at the Mail and is now at News Corp, so good individuals exist - but the paper's tendency to error and claims that can't be verified anywhere else remain. And a Mail piece being bylined "Martin Samuels" wouldn't give it a pass.) | |||
| :I don't think ILIKEIT is a reason to make a carveout for a paper like the New York Post that keeps being caught in fabrications and was nearly deprecated; it's already been shown that they tend to lying way too much for Misplaced Pages use. | |||
| :Note also that this is a pitch for a carveout on ]s in particular - I've been hitting specifically NYP on BLPs (and PageSix anywhere, 'cos it's a lying gossip rag and shouldn't really be used anywhere on Misplaced Pages) - and GU sources are really just not appropriate at all on BLPs except in remarkable circumstances, "sports" or not - ] (]) 08:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:TL;DR, no, ''Far Out'' is unreliable; it's a website that engages in churnalism. See ] at ]. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 14:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :Minimally reliable, there may be some use but in general I don't think they're reliable for the reasons that have been mentioned (especially the churnalism/CIRCULAR concerns). I don't think that this is suprising, they are what it says on the label... "Far Out" ] (]) 23:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::and - note - is so important to NPOV that it can ''only'' be achieved by adding a GU source to a BLP - ] (]) 16:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Sure, allow, generally it's ]. Specifically for sports: after the New York Times pretentiously declared they'd authenticated the Hunter Biden laptop story, the New York Post ended: "Readers of The Post have known this since October 2020. We also have a much better sports section. We’ve authenticated it." ] (]) 20:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::The NY Post is not generally ], it was specifically found GUNREL in an RFC - ] (]) 14:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm inclined to support the carve-out for sports only, unless there's concrete evidence of issues in their sports area. I think sports is generally low stakes and I also think the Post's sports section is indeed better than somere of their other sections. While I respect and agree with David Gerard and Jayron32, on many things, I can see why sports editors might want more sources to support content and I can see the Post's sports content by default doing no harm absent evidence otherwise. If there is indeed evidence that the Post's sports content is as bad as their political or general news reporting as far as being accurate and factual, I would change my view. ''']'''<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> 20:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Gender-related sports coverage should not be cited.]] 16:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Support, and edits like ] are so incredibly stupid that the person who makes them should be treated as though he were a normal disruptive editor. Erasing something as trivially easy to source as one of the world's most famous entertainers performing at one of the world's most famous events under the guise of removing an unreliable source (hey, I wonder if there is video of her singing the anthem, like would it be possible such a thing would have been recorded). The NYPost is an absolutely reliable source on sports on sports-related topics. And there has never been evidence that it is not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *The sports section of ''The New York Post'' is a well-established ] that has had a long reputation for having some of the best sports reporting in New York. Even as far back as 1985, when the ''NY Post'' was unambiguously still a tabloid, ''New York'' magazine that {{tq|or years, ''The New York Post'' has excelled at this demanding pasttime, and has had no serious challengers to its reputation for the best sports section in town}} (it faced competition for this role from the ''New York Daily News'' for a bit in the 80s and 90s, but it still holds that crown; see from Fordham University Press for more info). There's also some evidence of explicitly ''higher'' ethical standards being applied specifically to the sports ''section'' of the paper than other sections (for example, where ran on the gossip pages when the sports section killed a story due to journalistic ethics), so I don't think describing a carveout for the sports section as merely being {{tq|ILIKEIT}} has any firm basis in reality. The headlines can be quite sensational, but ] covers that well enough. I also would urge caution with respect to how this is construed: the Sports editorial vertical is the operation that's got a good reputation; stories published in other sections of the newspaper that are merely tangential to sporting should not be confused with content coming from that vertical. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary? == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Are the sources in these two articles primary or secondary? ] and ]. The book provided is just a collection of parliamentary records, elections, terms served etc. an example is here: ] (]) 08:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| As a food website, would this be considered a reliable source for establishing the notability of a restaurant? As an example it is used around 30 times in this article ]. ] (]) 16:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : Those articles are sourced to contemporary newspapers, which would be secondary sources; one of which, the ''New Zealand Herald'', is included in the "perennial sources" page and categorised as "Generally reliable". ] (]) 10:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I mean, reliable for what? Facts about the restaurant or reviews of the restaurant? Of course, it is a reliable source for its own opinions. It also isn't a fly-by-nite publication, as a ] property, it's got serious backing, and the article about the website indicates that ''other'' reliable sources consider it "required reading" and it's won four James Beard Awards. Given all of that I would say that the facts reported by the website should be considered reliable, and the opinions of the website (which is NOT a reliability issue, sensu stricto, and as such, are not really the purview of this board) are ]. --]] 19:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **Newspapers are interesting to discuss because their classification evolves with time. Historians usually classify recent newspaper reports as being secondary, but ''old'' reports are classified as primary (this is because the sources used by the newspaper have been lost, and so the newspaper becomes the earliest available record of the events… with more modern sources based on that old newspaper). ] (]) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that Eater is a reliable source for basic facts about a restaurant, and for its own opinions about restaurants. It should also be regarded as a reliable source on notability. I'm a little concerned that its use in the linked article is overdone per WP:DUE. What was on the menu on a particular date is probably a little non-encyclopedic. But that's for the article talkpage. ] (]) 20:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:Reliability isn't the issue here. It is if the sources are primary or secondary. Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, and Berkeley considers contemporary newspaper articles as primary sources: ] (]) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd say it's reliable enough, per Jayron32 and Banks Irk. ''']'''<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> 20:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == AdWeek == | |||
| == Any reason CBS News is not listed in the RS/P? == | |||
| Would ] be considered a reliable source in terms of advertising campaigns? ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I was surprised to see that ] is not listed in ]. Any reason for this, or just never happened? Searching through the archives here, I didn't see any focused discussions on it. There are a number of passing mentions whose implication is that CBS News is generally reliable. There are also some mentions that group it together with its closest analogues, ] and ], both of which are listed in RS/P as generally reliable. There are also a couple of mentions that point to well-known CBS News screw-ups, such as ]. All news organizations have a few such disasters, and in the end CBS News owned up to that one. So in my view, CBS News should be listed in WP:RS/P as generally reliable. ] (]) 21:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * AdWeek is a perfectly reliable advertising trade magazine. ] (]) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The thing is public relations notices aren’t usually considered reliable for companies. ] (]) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::As an established trade magazine, I consider ''AdWeek'' ] for topics related to the ]. ''AdWeek''{{'s}} , which consist of a small number of articles published under {{code|adweek.com/press}} between 2017 and 2022, are ] ] that are ], and should not be considered the same as ''AdWeek''{{'s}} standard content. Are these press releases the public relations notices that you are referring to? — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 05:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Langweiledich.net == | |||
| :I'd have said "obvious GENREL", but it looks like their TV and online news divisions in 2021 (with the usual "opportunity that positions CBS for the future" corporate crap to downplay cost-cutting). That concerns me because most TV news is heavily biased towards superficial coverage (notably on science topics), and against the kinds of deeper analysis that makes a source truly secondary. Will need to keep an eye out. ] (]) 22:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :CBS News is generally reliable IMHO. ''']'''<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> 22:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *WP:RSP isn’t a list of every media source… only the ones we ''frequently'' have discussed. The reason CBS is not listed is because we have not discussed it all that often. It hasn’t been a ''perennial'' issue (That’s the “P” part of RSP). | |||
| :You don’t need a source to be listed at RSP to determine whether it is reliable or not. ] (]) 23:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :The irony of ] is that to get on the list a source has to be discussed here a lot. So to get listed as generally reliable a lot of people have to have questioned and/or challenged their reliability. ] (]) 12:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that CBS News is generally reliable. —] (] | ]) 23:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Not every source gets listed. If you think it is reliable, ''you can just use it and don't need permission''. RSP is mainly for sources which have been controversial enough to attract significant debate as to its reliability. Lots of ''scrupulously reliable sources'' have never been so discussed, and don't need to be listed here. --]] 12:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I came across being used in the ] article to support this claim: | |||
| == Should AccuWeather be deprecated? == | |||
| {{tq|In 2023, users of the ''Touhou Project'', '']'' and ] subreddits collaborated to recreate "Bad Apple!!" on ] ] canvas, during its 2023 event.}} It's in German, so I can't really judge the reliability of this site myself - would it be considered a reliable source? ]] 22:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{cot|Block evasion. ] (]) 23:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| Should ] be deprecated for being inconsistent, as claimed in ]? ] (]) 23:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|Blaze Wolf}} Does deprecation require an RFC? ] (]) 23:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Note''' – This is a likely IP sock of ]. It has proven frustrating at the numerous instances of this user being reported to ] because the problem isn't being adequately addressed. The user being allowed to edit freely despite being a sockpuppet mocks the system. The user may try to act like a different person, but gives it away very easily by editing the same exact content and be the location of the IP address. ] (]) 23:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| **Huh? I don’t like false accusations without evidence. ] (]) 23:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| :It's the self-published blog of Maik Zehrfeld. There's some advice about self-published sources here ]. I don't think it would be considered reliable, best to find a better source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] has an ]== | |||
| == Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 02:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article. | |||
| == Do these sources support the claim: "During WWII, USSR was neutral until June 1941"? == | |||
| 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> | |||
| Some editors argue that the sources listed below do not support this claim. | |||
| 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> | |||
| The sources (and quotes) are as follows: | |||
| 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") | |||
| * "''After Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, Stalin abandoned his attitude of {{tq|pro-Axis neutrality and joined the Allies}}''" (Jan T. Gross. A Note on the Nature of Soviet Totalitarianism. ''Soviet Studies'', Jul., 1982, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Jul., 1982), pp. 367-376. ) | |||
| * "''It is interesting to note that Graff Werner von Schulenburg, the German Ambassador in Moscow, regretfully informed his government in early 1940 that {{tq|the Soviet Union was genuinely determined "to cling to neutrality and avoid as much as possible anything that might involve it in a conflict with the Western Powers"}}''" | |||
| :"''The fall of France bolstered rather than altered the British concept. True, the loss of their allies on the Continent momentarily inspired the British to close ranks with the Russians. But the measures taken were too little and too late.''" (Gabriel Gorodetsky. The Impact of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact on the Course of Soviet Foreign Policy. ''Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique'' , Jan. - Mar., 1990, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1990), pp. 27-41. ) | |||
| * "''The Soviet Union formally declared its neutrality on 17 September 1939, the same day that Soviet armed forces entered eastern Poland.''" (Geoffrey Roberts. Stalin, the Pact with Nazi Germany, and the Origins of Postwar Soviet Diplomatic Historiography. ''Journal of Cold War Studies'', Fall 2002, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Fall 2002), pp. 93-103. ) | |||
| * "'' The underlying message seemed to be that Moscow had acted to protect its own interests, was distancing itself from Berlin, and was concerned not to become involved in any wider conflict. One scholar has written that the Soviets, in the ensuing days and weeks, '{{tq|resorted to strenuous efforts to placate Berlin and consolidate their own neutrality}}' '"" | |||
| :"''British policy towards Soviet Russia did lurch and waver over ensuing months, notably during the Winter War. It is true, for example, that the British Government was much closer to declaring war on the Soviet Union during the Finnish campaign some four months later than it was over the Soviet invasion of Poland.''" (Keith Sword. British Reactions to the Soviet Occupation of Eastern Poland in September 1939. ''The Slavonic and East European Review'' , Jan., 1991, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Jan., 1991), pp. 81-101. ) | |||
| * "''Even {{tq|before Soviet entry into the war}} the British had hinted at or proposed some kind of general settlement. {{tq|For example, in October 1940 London had proposed an agreement}} that in return for the USSR’s benevolent neutrality there would be consultations on the postwar settlement, de facto recognition of Russian territorial acquisitions in Eastern Europe and British economic assistance to Soviet defence preparations''" (Geoffrey Roberts. Ideology, calculation, and improvisation: spheres of influence and Soviet foreign policy 1939–1945. ''Review of International Studies'' (1999), 25, 655–673. | |||
| * "''In Britain at least, it is customary to say that the Second World War began in September I939. {{tq|Yet what actually began then was a limited European war, confined to Britain, France, Germany and, briefly, Poland}}. Since the mid-I930s. British military planners had worked with the nightmare worst-case assumption of a three-enemy war-against Germany, Italy and Japan-but the latter two powers remained neutral, albeit malevolent, in September I939. {{tq|On the sidelines too were the Soviet Union, which signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in August, and the United States}}, whose stance was one of neutrality tilted benevolently towards the Allies.. ''" (David Reynolds. 1940: Fulcrum of the Twentieth Century? ''International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-)'' , Apr., 1990, Vol. 66, No. 2 (Apr., 1990), pp. 325-350. ) | |||
| Thank you in advance. --] (]) 21:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :@], it is customary to mention and tag the users, which are concerned. | |||
| :Our discussion wasn't about neutrality of USSR until June 1941, but about the date when USSR entered WW2. As far as I'm concerned, I don't think these sources confirm that the Soviet Union entered WW2 in 1941, as you claimed. This is what our discussion is about (]). Basically, none of them address the issue of SU entrance to WW2. ] (]) 22:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, no. I would like to know opinia of uninvolved users, and I am NOT going to continue the Allies of WWII dispute on this noticeboard. | |||
| ::Here, I am asking a very simple question: | |||
| ::{{tq|Some users believe the above sources do not say that the USSR was neutral until 22th of June, 1941. And I am asking whether these sources support the claim about Soviet neutrality or not?}} ] (]) 12:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::You said "some users believe", specify which users and where. Also this board is to check if sources are reliable, not if they support certain statements, so it's misuse of the noticeboard. Also "opinion", not "opinia". ] (]) 12:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, it is to check if sources are reliable ''in context''. The problem is that the statement isn't really well considered; for example the term "neutral" can have far too many definitions in historical context. We would need to define what we mean by "neutral" (neutral as in "not involved in any treaties or pacts with others? Neutral as in declared neutrality? Neutral as in not actively fighting? Etc.) If you define what you mean by "neutral", you can just avoid the term altogether. You can say things like "Do these sources support the statement that the USSR signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact on 23 August 1939" or "Do these sources support the statement that the Soviet Union invaded Poland on 17 September 1939" or "Do these sources support the statement that the Soviet Union signed the Anglo-Soviet Agreement on 12 July 1941". --]] 14:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think you need to adress it to @] rather than me ] (]) 14:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I was addressing your incorrect statement "not if they support certain statements, so it's misuse of the noticeboard" We actually usually ask for ''context'' when discussing sources, reliability ''in context'' (as in, alongside of the Misplaced Pages text that the source is being asked to verify" is ''very much'' what we do at this board, and not ''in any way'' a misuse of it. It is, in fact, using it ''exact'' as it is intended. If you read the instructions at the top of the page, it specifically asks for "The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports." So, no, I was not addressing it at Paul Siebert. I am addressing it directly, and unambiguously at ''you'', Marcelus, for the blatantly false claim you made at 12:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC), when you said "not if they support certain statements, so it's misuse of the noticeboard." which is a direct contradiction of the clear instructions at the top of the page. --]] 15:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Please change your tone. This noticeboard exists to verify the reliability of a source, in the context of the content it is supposed to support. It does not exist to verify that a source supports specific content. | |||
| :::::::@] is not asking whether Gorodetsky's book is reliable as a source for the claim that the Soviet Union was neutral before 1941. Which would be the correct use of the noticeboard. Paul Siebert is asking whether Gorodetsky's book (and other sources) supports the statement that the Soviet Union was neutral. Which is incorrect use of the noticeboard. | |||
| :::::::This is not a question of reliability, it is a question of the proper selection of sources and the correctness of their interpretation. This is a fairly simple difference, expressed directly in his question ({{tq|Do these sources support the claim...}}), I'm surprised you didn't catch it. | |||
| :::::::Leaving that aside. The instructions clearly ask for information such as the Misplaced Pages article in which the source is being used ( in this case ]) and the exact statement in the article that the source supports. The absence of the latter is particularly problematic. Because contrary to what PS says in the submission he does not want to use these sources to support the statement about the neutrality of the Soviet Union in 1939-41, but to support the statement "Soviet Union: at war from Jun 1941", that he is trying to put in the article. | |||
| :::::::So this is not only a bad use of noticeboard, a badly worded request, it is also an attempt to manipulate the participants in this discussion, in order to "win" the RFC on another t/p. ] (]) 16:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Regarding: {{tq| this is not only a bad use of noticeboard, a badly worded request, it is also an attempt to manipulate the participants in this discussion, in order to "win" the RFC on another t/p.}} I pre-agreed with you on that, by already saying as much several times. I don't see where any statement I've made in this discussion indicates that I think something ''differently'' than that. Perhaps you can tell me where I made a statement to make you think ''i would have disagreed'' with you there, so I can clarify myself. I would not like to be misunderstood. I clearly think (and as far as I can tell, already stated several times) that the OP was wrong to start the discussion here. --]] 18:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{tq|t. I am addressing it directly, and unambiguously at you, Marcelus, for the blatantly false claim you made at 12:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC), when you said "not if they support certain statements, so it's misuse of the noticeboard." which is a direct contradiction of the clear instructions at the top of the page.}} | |||
| :::::::::The claim wasn't false, as I explained it to you above. ] (]) 19:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *Like below, the statement is far too blunt to be useful in understanding the nuance of the relationships between the parties involved. Don't make such blunt statements and instead merely describe the events and relationships directly. --]] 12:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:I am not discussing nuances here. I just want to know if these sources say the USSR was neutral. ] (]) 12:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::Matter for concerned editors to determine, assuming those sources are reliable. In which article does the disputed phrase appear? ] (]) 12:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::(ec)This is a 'discussing nuances' noticeboard. Context matters when it comes to assessing whether a source can be cited for a statement. ] (]) 12:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::The statement "During WWII, USSR was neutral until June 1941" is not a statement that should appear in any article, because it glosses over the events of the time, and is far to broad a brush to paint those events with. The sources themselves are reliable enough for describing the events they describe. The statement is ], in the sense that it oversimplifies the relationships between the USSR and the other countries participating in World War II. I'd avoid making it altogether, and instead merely describe the events in question. --]] 13:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@], @], @]: In the ] article t/p, there is a discussion about how the date when the Soviet Union joined the Allies should be indicated in the infobox. The main discussion was between 22 June 1941 (the date of the German attack) and 12 July 1941 (the first British-Soviet agreement). @] argued in favour of the first date. A compromise proposal was made to write "Soviet Union: at war with Germany from Jun 1941", Paul Siebert in favour of the version "Soviet Union: at war from Jun 1941", claiming that the SU was neutral before this date. Some users, including myself, believe that this wording ignores Soviet aggressions in 1939-41. ] (]) 13:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *::::That's not a reliable source issue. That's merely an issue of how to describe the events in an infobox (as others have noted, infoboxen are terrible devices for conveying nuance). This forum ''will not'' be able to provide any help in resolving the issue. You're just going to need to talk it out on the article talk page and arrive at a consensus. You cannot short-circuit the consensus-building discussion by throwing sources at the issue. --]] 13:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I agree, that's what I said in my other comment here ] (]) 13:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{yo|Jayron32}} WRT {{tq|The statement "During WWII, USSR was neutral until June 1941" is not a statement that should appear in any article...}} seems to be a straw man argument. Some people may believe I want to add the statement about Soviet neutrality in that or other articles. Actually, the situation is opposite. Of course, it would be incorrect to say that the USSR was strictly neutral during that period (similar to e.g. Sweden). However, it would be equally incorrect to describe it as the Axis co-belligerent, similar to Germany or Japan. We have a historical fact: before June 1941, the USSR was considered a neutral power by all future Allies, therefore, it would be incorrect to say it was "at war". | |||
| *:::The truth is somewhere in the middle, and it would be equally misleading to claim the USSR was "totally neutral" or it was "The Axis ally". Ironically, I never proposed to add the explicit claim about USSR's neutrality. In contrast, the OP insists the USSR was a combatant in the same sense as Nazi Germany. ] (]) 01:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{yo|Jayron32}}{{yo|Selfstudier}}{{yo|AndyTheGrump}} I see that some additional explanations are needed. | |||
| *:This my question was caused by the fact that I was accused of spreading false information that was not supported by RS and . Actually, the question I asked at the top of this section was a not completely accurate summary of four statements. These statements are as follows: | |||
| *:1. The USSR declared neutrality in 1939; | |||
| *:2. From Sept 1939 till June 1941, the USSR was officially considered as a neutral power by Britain, France, and other major powers. | |||
| *:3. The USSR officially abandoned its neutral status in June 1941, immediately after ''Barbarossa'' | |||
| *:4. At the beginning, the war that would later be named "World War II" was a local European war between Poland, France, Britain, on one side, and Germany on another, whereas the USSR (as well as the US) were neutral. | |||
| *:I am not asking if the source support these claim in some context, because these claims are true or false irrespective to any concrete context. | |||
| *:So far, I am leaving beyond the scope NPOV or relevance issues. {{tq|I perfectly know our policy, and I know that verifiability does not warrant inclusion.}} I also KNOW that a context does matter. However, all of that should be discussed later, after WP:V and WP:NOR issues have been resolved. | |||
| *:Therefore, I am rephrasing my question more accurately: | |||
| *:{{tq|Leaving NPOV and similar issues beyond the scope, do the above mentioned sources contain the claims ##1-4, and do they ''explicitly'' say that?}} ] (]) 23:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ]: 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> | |||
| So it is a question of interpreting whether those sources contain or explicitly say a particular wikipedian-written statement. And a statement which is inherently ambiguous unless one specifies the definition-at-hand for "neutral". IMHO in cases like that it is best to avoid such characterizations which have multiple meanings. IMHO either way that it a judgement call that is outside the scope of this board. This board would determine whether or not it is considered a reliable source with respect to the text which cited it. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 01:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ]: 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): | |||
| :I see no ambiguity here. | |||
| * | |||
| :The statement "The USSR declared neutrality in 1939" is not ambiguous, because it is absolutely clear WHO declared (the USSR, a state), WHEN did it do it (in 1939), HOW the declaration was made (in the same way as other official statements made by a state), and what exactly "neutrality" meant (not Coulomb neutrality, not ''gender'' neutrality, but, obviously, a neutrality in political and military sense). | |||
| * | |||
| :The statement "From Sept 1939 till June 1941, the USSR was officially considered as a neutral power by Britain, France, and other major powers" allows no double interpretation, and it is absolutely unambiguous: The USSR was ''officially'' (in terms of the international law) considered neutral by absolutely concrete states: France, Britain, as well as Japan, Italy, the US etc. | |||
| * | |||
| :The statement "''The USSR officially abandoned its neutral status in June 1941, immediately after Barbarossa''" is absolutely unambiguous: it abandoned neutrality by declaring a war on German and all its allies except Japan. | |||
| * (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) | |||
| :The "''At the beginning, the war that would later be named "World War II" was a local European war between Poland, France, Britain, on one side, and Germany on another, whereas the USSR (as well as the US) were neutral.''" was almost verbatim taken from the cited source, and it should be understood in the very same context that the author of that article used. | |||
| * | |||
| :Therefore, I have no clue what kind of a judgement call do you mean. ] (]) 01:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Is this a reliable source for the statement: "The Soviet Union entered WWII in September 1939" == | |||
| ::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) | |||
| == Bossip == | |||
| "The Soviet Role in World War II: Realities and Myths, " Mark Kramer, Director, Cold War Studies Project, Davis Centre, Harvard Univeristy. Particularly the following quote: "Another myth is that the Soviet Union’s role in the Second World War began on 22 June 1941, when the Wehrmacht attacked the USSR. In reality, the Soviet Union was a leading participant from the very start, colluding for nearly two years with Nazi Germany." | |||
| Hello. I am debating on improving the "]" article for a possible ] nomination. I have a question about a potentials source. Would '']'' be considered reliable and high-quality enough for the FAC process (or for Misplaced Pages in general)? I would be using the following source: . The page says that the site has earned awards in the past and has been mentioned in various reliable sources. I am hesitant about it as ''Bossip'' is a "gossip" website. Apologies if this site was already discussed before, and thank you for any help and insight on this. ] (]) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Context is this discussion about a compromise proposal in relation to a RfC for the article ].]) | |||
| :Looks marginally reliable to me. Like it's not great. But by the standards of pop culture media it's not as bad as it might be. ] (]) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you ] (]) 01:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for the response. That is fair. I had a similar opinion about to be honest. If I do decide to work on this article in the future, I may use other sources first and then see if this one would even be necessary in the end or not. For the purposes of a FAC, which has stricter requirements for sources, it may not be the best option for that context. ] (]) 19:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The statement is far too blunt to be used at all. Instead, we should provide more details as to the USSR's overall involvement in the war, from the ] through to the German invasion you note in 1941. Avoid speaking in such absolutes, and instead just ''describe'' their involvement as to what it was. --]] 12:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :What exactly would 'Before she was the illest female in her Dillard’s department, Amil was the illest in all of Hip-Hop, making $40K/guest verse as the Roc’s first lady? Riiiiiiiight.' be used to source? ] (]) 20:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: It would be used as a negative review for the song as it is criticizing Amil's lyrics. ] (]) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah. The use of slang isn't the issue here. Reliability isn't a register of specific vocabulary. I suppose the question would be whether, Amil was, in fact, making $40,000 per guest verse previously. Should they be reporting that factual statement accurately and should they have a decent history of accuracy in reporting and clarity in corrections when they make an error then the rest is just aesthetics. ] (]) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It wouldn't be reported in the article as a factual statement. The "$40,000 per guest verse" bit is part of the song's lyrics and would be addressed in that context, not as an absolute fact. ] (]) 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems pretty odd if not outright illogical to use a gossip website if you're going to bring this to FAC. The typical reviewer there expects the '''''cream of the crop''''' of sources, not tabloid gossip. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Read some of the articles on the site and it's overly unserious and pretentious BS; my advice is to not use this source. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Okay. Thank you for the response. I agree with your assessment. I have removed it from the article. I am honestly not sure why I used it in the first place. I just thought that it would be beneficial to open a discussion about it here to get further feedback. I believe my question has been answered, and hopefully this can be used to help any other editors in the future. ] (]) 02:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Science-fiction fanzines == | |||
| ::The problem is this (all of these threads About Russia's entry into Ww2) are about the info box, where we can't have nuance. ] (]) 12:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I see the question of science fiction fanzines has come up many times in the archives. My question is fairly simple. Writer and translator Philippe Hupp, the founder of the Metz science fiction festival, sent a letter to ''PKD Otaku'', a sercon fanzine that is notable in the PKD community and is often referred to by PKD scholars, but is admittedly obscure in the grander scheme of things when it comes to reliable sources. (pp. 4-6), Hupp goes into some historical detail of his relationship with ] and how he was able to get him to speak at the festival in 1977, and provides important historical documents (correspondence, photos) that is reprinted with permission by ''PKD Otaku''. Currently, I'm citing this letter in an article about the festival to say some basic facts about the history. While Hupp and Metz have been covered by numerous reliable sources in France and elsewhere, I believe this kind of exclusive historical detail has only been revealed in ''PKD Otaku''. Is it acceptable for me to carefully cite this info from Hupp (it is, after all, about him and his relationship with PKD) and point to ''PKD Otaku'' as the source? The article I am working on, ], is currently on GAR, and it has been pointed out that this fanzine may not meet the criteria for a RS. It does have two editors, however, but I think it is safe to say it is self-published like most fanzines. It would be a shame for this historical information to be ignored. What is the best course of action? If it isn't acceptable to use as a primary source, I've thought that a brief mention of it in a footnote might be okay. Please let me know your thoughts. ] (]) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Which is one good reason for not using infoboxes in such contexts. ] (]) | |||
| ::::But also a different argument, and one nor for this forum. ] (]) 13:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::We can have nuance in the infoboxes ] (]) 13:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::An infobox should be a summery of a summery. ] (]) 13:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And nothing should appear in an infobox that isn't an accurate summary of what relevant sources have to say on a subject. If nuance is necessary to cover this, and the infobox can't summarise this, it shouldn't go in at all. ] (]) 13:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Difficult to get nuance in an infobox and probably shouldn't try. ] (]) 14:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::@Slatersteven So would you suggest that we simply list the Big Three in the info box without any dates? There are no dates listed for the other Allies (except those who were former Axis Powers and that's a separate argument.)? If so, would you like propose this on the Article Talk page? I don't want this page to turn into another forum for discussing this issue. ] (]) 22:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, the scope of the dispute seems to be broader. The point AA is advocating seems to be as follows: | |||
| ::::* In contrast to other Big Three members, the USSR was fighting on the German side since September 1939. | |||
| ::::* In contrast to other Big Three members, the USSR joined the Allies not immediately after it declared a war on the Axis, but after it signed an alliance with Britain. Therefore, the starting date of the "Allied" status of the Soviet Union should be linked not to ''Barbarossa'', but to signing of the Molotov-Cripps agreement. | |||
| ::::If I understood AA's position incorrectly, I respectfully request them to correct me. | |||
| ::::In contrast, I argue that these statement were not found in the sources used by AA, but they were ''inferred'' from them by AA, which is explicitly prohibited by NOR. ] (]) 00:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Far'' too complicated for an infobox, which is bound to be misleading. ] (]) 00:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::And that is why we should add only non-controversial facts to the infobox and discuss nuances elsewhere. What fact is non-controversial? The declaration of war date. Did USSR declare a war on the European Axis in June 1941? Yes. Therefore, that is the information that should be in the infobox. ] (]) 01:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :If it's the only source available, and the facts are not controversial, and cited as being from Hupp's account of things, it seems fine to me. ] (]) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Ian Stevenson == | |||
| ::I believe it meets that criteria, however, I will revise it further to make sure that it does. ] (]) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Beebom.com == | |||
| At ] we currently use a paper by ] to support the claim that "authority has no place in science". However, the paper we are using to source this - which does make that claim - is the 1989 Flora Levy Lecture in the Humanities , in which Stevenson is primarily describing his belief in reincarnation, making it a decidly fringe paper, in which he makes the claim to say that we shouldn't trust what other people tell us about reincarnation. So, can we use a paper arguing for a fringe claim as support for a statement about the scientific process? - ] (]) 03:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I would not use it. For the reason you have stated, plus it sounds like his opinion or philosophical statement devoid of context (i.e. he made asserted "authority has no place in science", but did not explain his reasoning). -] (]) 03:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Beebom has been in a few discussions previously about reliability but they've had few responses. I'm asking about their reliability after in ] where their opinion is being used as fact ]. Issues below also make it difficult to establish reliability via ]. | |||
| == Fascist-era censuses == | |||
| I'm not familiar enough with Beebom to know their overall reporting but I've come across issues. | |||
| Hello. Data from the 1942 and 1943 censuses in Fascist-occupied Albania has been added to many settlement articles recently by {{ping|Alltan}}. Links: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * They don't have a masthead so I don't know who their writers are or what their expertise is. The most they have is an with a few higher roles not in editorial and then two editors without any information. This makes it difficult to establish their level of independence and editorial control. A previous RS discussion pointed out some of their content being written by "Beebom Staff" which is still the case but not often. | |||
| The sites are apparently owned by a "Tim Bespyatov" and I'm not sure where the source documents are to confirm the charts this individual has created. There are also many notes in the margins such as "disputed value" - it may be impossible to know what the dispute is exactly; Alltan ] what is disputed. | |||
| * Their are limited and don't disclose important information. For example, they don't state a separation of ads from editorial. They don't mention here the affiliate programs they're in or the sponsorship deals they do. They don't mention their Beebom Gadgets storefront where they sell phones and make videos on them. However, they disclose having an Amazon affiliate program in their . But they don't disclose the other "affiliate partners" they use. These issues brings into question conflicts of interest which they don't have a policy on. Alongside other basic guidelines like a corrections policy or how they handle accepting samples (if they do). | |||
| **A 2016 interview explains that they make money from sponsored posts and partnerships. This isn't included in their editorial guidelines. I bring it up since they feature this interview on their About Us page, but Misplaced Pages blocks links to the interviewer's site, YourStory. | |||
| **They as "#sponsored" 5 years ago but stopped. It seems they now use a byline named "Partner Content" for those articles. But they don't mention anything about a sponsorship or partnership in their latest article under this byline. Nor is there anything about this in their policies. So I can't confirm if they do this for all paid content or not. | |||
| *I tried looking into their gaming coverage after seeing them on the ] page and found a where they deliberately lie. The headline is, "Black Myth: Wukong Is Now the Most Played Steam Game of All Time", which they almost immediately state isn't true. While also stating "Yes, Black Myth Wukong is now the most-played Steam game of all time!" This makes me question their overall fact checking and reliability when they lie in a news headline. | |||
| I can't find much mention of Beebom aside from their own social media on google. Even after removing their social media, I can't find anything. ] (]) 02:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| There's also a note at the bottom of each page: "the data contain errors in almost every geographical name, but these names are presented in forms in which they appear in the original document and are sufficient to identify corresponding settlements." | |||
| :It should probably be removed as a source for the example you brought, since an "opinion" piece is not "reporting." As for the site as a whole, it seems to fit more the model of YouTube gadget reviewer, and could probably be used as a source for certain product reviews where appropriate. But they haven't shown that they have much editorial oversight. The two editors I see listed do not have bios. ] (]) 15:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| At quick glances, many of the stats don't seem too farfetched. However, at least one major problem I've noticed is that there is no category for Turks (among other groups), which are and were a significant population in rural western Macedonia. A good example is ] where, as a result of Turkification during the Ottoman-era, there has been a solidly Turkish population for a long time - this is confirmed in late 19th/early 20th studies by Kanchov and in Ethnographie des Vilayets d'Andrinople, de Monastir et de Salonique. Yugoslav and Macedonian census (1953-present) also show an exclusively Turkish population (Selishchev shows a mixed Bulgarian-Turkish population). Yet, now we have a Fascist-era census from 1942 showing a pure Albanian population, where "Turk" apparently wasn't even an option. | |||
| ::So I did a bit of digging and they haven't really been keeping their website up to date. One of the two editors has now moved into the position of "content strategist". This looks like a very marginal source. I've definitely seen worse in the video game space but I'd personally hesitate to use it for anything controversial. I would also suggest that opinion from this source is likely undue unless there is a named author on the byline with some sort of expertise independent of the outlet. ] (]) 16:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Jacobin == | |||
| Per , these WWII censuses' "results were only approximate and a complete and a modern population census could not be carried out." | |||
| How do we best proceed with this? Thanks. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under ]. ] (]) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This source appears to be self-published and therefore not reliable. The exception might be if Tim Bespyatov is a subject expert who has been published on subjects relating to WWII in the Balkans or the demographics of Macedonia or similar. Even if this were the case, raw census data from this period would have to be attributed, and I would be very uncomfortable using it unless quoted in a secondary source by a subject expert able to analyse its reliability. ] (]) 05:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :BTW, when setting up section here, you should include the name of the page which the source is being used for, and also some details of the claim it is being used to source. ] (]) 05:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Apologies, first time posting here. The source has been added to dozens of articles within the past week. For example: ], ], ], ], ], ], etc. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :This appears to be someone's personal server on which they publish things they're interested in, see for example on the same server where Tim Bespyatov has galleries of trams, buses, and metro lines. I can't find anything definitive on Tim Bespyatov to show they would pass the requirements of ]. So the links should be considered unreliable. If the site is reposting census data a better source should be found. As to raw census data from fascist sources in general they should be used with extreme skepticism, given the racial ideologies they believed in. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 13:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Local hero's objection seems to be related to the inclusion of the census itself. Tim Bespyatov's pop-stat-mashke was used as an easy way for readers who want to examine the census. The same website is widely used in articles about the Balkans as an easy way to cite censuses because it functions as a repository of census data. Offline sources can be used and I can search for other online sources which may be paywalled. | |||
| :The inclusion of a census regardless of the era it was produced, may be useful to readers. The manipulation of censuses for political goals didn't begin or end in World War II. Kanchov is considered to have been writing under a Bulgarian nationalist bias, while Afanasy Selishchev explicitly changed his theories depending on what Soviet foreign policy dictated. They're not removed from the article despite their flaws. The bias which is embedded in every publication is itself useful in understanding the politics behind identity categorizing. Inclusion becomes a problem only when the source of a publication is being hidden from readers. This is not such a case because readers are being informed that it is a census which was conducted during WWII when the area became part of the Italian protectorate over Albania. ] (]) 13:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is not the place for debating the inclusion of census data, but my position is that I can see no justification for including raw data from fascist era censuses in the pages of present day towns/villages. If this data is mentioned in a reliable secondary source discussing the town's demographic history, it should be fine to include as long as it reflects the overall perspective of the source in question. Otherwise, we would have to put the primary source in context by outlining the defects in the census data in every single article. Leading to the question, if the data is misleading, why use it? ] (]) 14:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: As it stands, we don't even need to discuss the above, as at the moment we do not have a reliable source for the census data. ] (]) 14:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::This appears to be a disagreement of how census data should be used. The best solution would be not to use it unless it's included in secondary sources that have already analysed it. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 14:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Content disputes need to focus on specific issues. Census figures are usually cited as raw data in sections about demographics. The question is whether this 1942 census is used in reliable sources in any form. The answer is ''yes''. | |||
| :::<small>{{cite book |last1=Kolstø |first1=Pål |title=Strategies of Symbolic Nation-building in South Eastern Europe |date=2016 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Strategies_of_Symbolic_Nation_building_i/po3eCwAAQBAJ}}</small>{{tquote|There have been few systematic studies of the country's socioreligious landscape, and the last reliable and recognized figures are some 70 years old. In the Italian census in 1942, 68.9 per cent of Albania's population were Muslims (among them 21.5 per cent Bektashis), 20.7 per cent were Orthodox, and 10.3 per cent Catholic (...) Later estimates have been guesswork or heavily politicized.}} The census needs to be attributed openly but it's not fundamentally ''more'' politicized than any other census and it is not excluded in relevant bibliography.--] (]) 19:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That still doesn't answer the question bof whether this site is reliable for republishing the data. It is, after all, not hosting original documents but publishing tables based on them. If the data is going to be used it should be referenced to a reliable source. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 22:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :There are definitely issues with Jacobin, and a reevaluation of its reliability is probably going to come sooner or later. I don't think a Reddit page full of amateur pundits, who are in turn discussing another social media discussion, is going to give us anything meaningful to work with. ] (]) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Are these reliable sources for ] == | |||
| :Not a good look, but I will note that the says at the bottom: {{tpq|q=y|Correction: An earlier version of this article overstated the amount of US housing stock that Blackstone owns.}} So far as I can tell, the sentence in question is removed from the current version of the article entirely. --] (]) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That would indicate, notwithstanding snark on Twitter, the website for snark, Jacobin actually did the thing we expect of a reliable source and made a correction to an article with a factual error, identifying with a correction notice that a correction had been made. ] (]) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this justifies a significant increase in caution towards the author at the very least. In general, an in-depth look at it's reliability is probably due, even though a Reddit discussion isn't evidence. ] (]) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It's strange that it was closed as 'generally reliable' in the first place, when most respondents voted either 'no consensus' or 'generally unreliable' in the last RFC. ] (]) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Had a quick perusal of the r/neoliberal subreddit. It appears to be discussing one sentence in one (possibly opinion) article in Jacobin. Are you asking whether that particular article is a reliable source for that one sentence? ] (]) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just as an aside, RFCs are ] (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Sources making corrections, as has happened in this case, is a sign of reliability. Things that happen on social media, and reactions on social media, are mostly irrelevant. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The ] that supposedly found ''Jacobin'' to be reliable really is a bit of a tenuous close. A simple beancount in that RfC would lean against treating it as ], and I'm not really able to discern ''why'' the arguments for reliability were so much stronger than those in opposition that an affirmative Option 1 consensus was declared instead of a no-consensus close (at minimum). I do think that it's ripe for re-evaluation. — ] <sub>]</sub> 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The author's behavior would be annoying if we were chatting at lunch and I personally dislike the smugness, but reliability isn't a personality contest, and as Simonm223 points out the article itself was corrected and the erroneous information removed. That's basically what we expect a reliable source to do—fix itself when an error gets pointed out. So long as the actual content produced is dependable or gets fixed to become dependable, that's reliability. Anonymous Reddit complaints trying to score Internet points aren't a compelling reason for overturning the prior RfC. Evidence of a pattern of unreliable reporting and ''failures'' to make corrections would be more persuasive. ] (] | ] | ]) 03:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. ] (]) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I think it is time for a review of the past discussion and time to bring up Jacobin for a reliability check. ] (]) 03:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? ] (]) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::What does "NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus" mean? ] (]) 21:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * It looks like they handled this appropriately, can you explain what the issue would be? Your comment is a little light on details, its basically just spamming a reddit discussion... Maybe tell us what you think? ] (]) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| A new discussion on Jacobin is long overdue, particularly per ]. It's clear that Jacobin is not reliable on all topics, and at the very least additional considerations should apply in these cases. --] (]) 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Which seems to have been written by a fan. - saveindia.com. Definitely doesn't seem to meet our criteria. Citation 4 leads to and what I can see there (not all 4 are working) don't seem to meet RS either. Puzzling are these, cites 10 and 11 which lead to this journal which looks ok on the surface but when you click on the menu the pages aren't there. So I can't tell if it's or not. That one lists a respectable editorial board but again the top links don't work, at least for me. The external link called review leads to (one of the ones at citation 4) which looks like some sort of Islamophobic personal site. ] ] 10:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :The article was created (in 2017) by {{u|MoorthyM}}, which sounds like a version of the subject's name. They last edited it four months ago, and have made no other edits to the encyclopedia. I've given them a <nowiki>uw-autobiography</nowiki> warning. ] | ] 11:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC). | |||
| ::Update: I misspoke; the article creator was ], another redlinked account that hasn't edited since 2017. Anyway, I have ] the article. ] | ] 16:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC). | |||
| :Agreed. ] (]) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Heritage Times (India) == | |||
| ::An RfC next would be worthwhile. ] (]) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors == | |||
| Is this site: https://www.heritagetimes.in/about-us/ reliable specifically some of the biographical content at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQjXELpSrlU for use in the article ]. The content would be neutrally selected and worded ie. real name, education, etc... -- ]] 15:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive top|status=|result=The discussion is partially non-topical for this forum. The discussion about the issues that belong here continues below in {{slink||The Heritage Foundation}}.—] 19:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I would say: reliable enough for those basic facts, yes. I would say overall this is kind of an '''option 2''' situation, since the outlet's stated mission is to "{{tq|dispel the false and semi-true stories being fed to the people in the name of History}}". On the one hand, it has editorial staff and procedures for corrections (contact us). On the other hand, it has a stated POV bias and thus should probably ''not'' be used for matters of analysis, opinion, commentary, etc. Anything ''slightly'' controversial (even controversial facts) probably needs to be covered by other additional RSes. {{pb}}Overall, given the editorial policy and correction mechanism, it is reliable enough for matters of fact that you describe. I think it would be better if at all possible to not link to youtube, but it is an ''okay'' last resort given that it is connected to the outlet. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 15:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Taking this here based on a recommendation from {{U|Aquillion}}. The conversation began where a report from forward was shared . According to this report, the Heritage Foundation {{tq|plan to use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia}}. A copy of the Heritage Foundation proposal deck is available . This Heritage Foundation plan to dox wikipedia editors also {{tq|would include creating fake Misplaced Pages user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them. It is unclear whether this has begun.}} | |||
| ::Makes sense, thanks.-- ]] 01:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Clearly this situation is alarming in the extreme and the discussion at the arbitration case brought forward the very reasonable suggestion of a project-wide block of all Heritage Foundation domains. So why here? Well Aquillion suggested a reasonable first-step toward this would be to get the site deprecated and blacklisted via RS/N. So that's what I'm here to do. ] (]) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC: Russian defence ministry as source for ceasefire violations in Azerbaijan == | |||
| :I am unsure about a retalitory deprecation (or whatever). ] (]) 14:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No this would be a preventative deprecation. The idea, to my understanding, is to remove the ability of Heritage Foundation domains to interact with en.wp as much as possible. ] (]) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is that not best done with range blocks, to prevent them from setting up accounts? ] (]) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think this is a discussion to be had at the Village Pump, as it's not a matter of reliability. Deprecation wouldn't have the effect that your looking for, you would need blacklisting and I don't think this would fall within the normal process of blacklisting. So a discussion at VP seems more appropriate as it's something outside of prior policy or guidelines. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A village pump discussion was created and the suggestion to bring the conversation here actually arose from discussion of that conversation at the arbitration page. Honestly I'm pretty nervous about a pseudo-governmental organization trying to interfere with individual Misplaced Pages editors in this way so I'll happily take the conversation to whatever board we think is most appropriate. But right now we've got a whole lot of conversations pointing to different places as a precis to discussing the actual problem. ] (]) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hostile actions by a third party against Misplaced Pages or it's editors isn't a reliability issue, and this isn't a forum for anything but reliability issues. If anything it sounds more like safe guarding, a much bigger issue that should probably involve the WMF. However if editors want to start a discussion about it's reliability, per the sources below, that would be a seperate matter. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I will point out that part of what I said there was that they're already used on some , and are probably ''already'' depracable for publishing obvious disinformation (especially since the 2020 election.) I wouldn't have suggested going through RSN to deprecate them if I didn't think they were ''also'' worthy of deprecating on their own merits, entirely separately from the threats to use their websites to dox Misplaced Pages editors; but deprecating them would make it easier to add them to the spam blacklist and would help avoid situations where editors are forced into a situation where they have to consider whether to click a link to an obviously Heritage Foundation-controlled site in order to verify a presented source. I suppose we could just move ahead with trying to get those sites added to the spam blacklist ''without'' deprecation, but for a site that also publishes disinformation, it seems easier to get it deprecated first, since it ought to be an easy call. --] (]) 14:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Apologies if I misinterpreted. I'll admit that reading the thread at the arbitration case upset me rather considerably. ] (]) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is a more valid reason, there do seem to be issues with the recent work. ] (]) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This discussion should be closed and a proper thread should be opened with substantiated concrete claims about problems with this source. —] 15:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The thread itself is the precursor to an RFC. That said, they've published misinformation or disinformation about climate change,<ref name="Washington_2011">{{Cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |location=London |page=75,77 |oclc=682903020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Michael |title=Heritage Foundation |url=https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808183550/https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |archive-date=August 8, 2021 |access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Ruth E.|last1=McKie|title=The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|publisher=Springer International Publishing|date=2023 |location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-33592-1|pages=19–50|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|quote=Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...}}</ref> the FDA<ref>{{cite book|first1=Zane C.|last1=Wubbena|first2=Derek R.|last2=Ford|first3=Brad J.|last3=Porfilio|title=News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAcoDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|date=1 March 2016|isbn=978-1-68123-401-4|via=Google Books|pp=49|quote=For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.’s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...}}</ref> elections and politics,<ref name="Kessler_2021">{{Cite web |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=March 31, 2021 |title=The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511214334/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |archive-date=May 11, 2021 |access-date=April 2, 2021 |newspaper=]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-GAvideo-2024-09-07">{{Cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Ken |last2=Fausset |first2=Richard |date=September 7, 2024 |title=Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907203454/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |last2=Swenson |first2=Ali |title=Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force |url=https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |publisher=Associated Press |date=July 12, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713110730/https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |url-status=live }}</ref> and more. --] (]) 16:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's enough to open an RFC. ] (]) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Can I suggest closing this section and starting another, to afford accusations that questions of reliability are based on animosity to the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{+1}} I think it's time we started a RfC (perhaps in a new section, as suggested by AD). ] (]) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, new section. —] 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::An RFC is in a new section already? You mean a new RFCbefore section? Titled Heritage Foundation? (ie without the dox part) ] (]) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::New level 2 section. —] 19:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I certainly have no objection to closing this discussion and opening a new one to host an RfC / RfC Before.] (]) 19:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Could someone who can read Bengali take a look at ]? == | |||
| Hello, I started the title AfD in response to some users recreating a rejected draft in mainspace and they responded by filling the discussion with sources that don't pass ]. I'm unable to read some of the sources, though, in particular one that the users claim has a whole chapter on the subject of the article. Could someone who can read the Bengali sources take a look at the discussion and see if the article passes ]? --] (]) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You may have more luck asking at ] or ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, will repost there (West Bengal, since it's the Wikiproject whose scope covers the article's subject). --] (]) 22:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == The Heritage Foundation == | |||
| ] has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change,<ref name="Washington_2011">{{Cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |location=London |page=75,77 |oclc=682903020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Michael |title=Heritage Foundation |url=https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808183550/https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |archive-date=August 8, 2021 |access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Ruth E.|last1=McKie|title=The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|publisher=Springer International Publishing|date=2023 |location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-33592-1|pages=19–50|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|quote=Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...}}</ref> the FDA<ref>{{cite book|first1=Zane C.|last1=Wubbena|first2=Derek R.|last2=Ford|first3=Brad J.|last3=Porfilio|title=News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAcoDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|date=1 March 2016|isbn=978-1-68123-401-4|via=Google Books|pp=49|quote=For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.’s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...}}</ref> elections and politics,<ref name="Kessler_2021">{{Cite web |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=March 31, 2021 |title=The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511214334/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |archive-date=May 11, 2021 |access-date=April 2, 2021 |newspaper=]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-GAvideo-2024-09-07">{{Cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Ken |last2=Fausset |first2=Richard |date=September 7, 2024 |title=Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907203454/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |last2=Swenson |first2=Ali |title=Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force |url=https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |publisher=Associated Press |date=July 12, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713110730/https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |url-status=live }}</ref> and more. It has been publishing obvious disinformation especially since the 2020 election. Its website heritage.org is used as a source on some <s></s> (<u>correction</u>: I copied "5000" with this search link from another editor uncritically. "heritage.org" includes all of "english-heritage.org" links; the real count is —00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—] 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. ] (]) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about the ]? —] 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. ] (]) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. ] (]) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation? | |||
| ::What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in ]? —] 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods. | |||
| :On a quick search, I only found in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. ] (]) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's ]. Not sure if we want this used or not. ] ] 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index {{tq|The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations}} suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. ] (]) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. ] (]) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes. | |||
| ::::Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --] (]) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh do stop. I've heard that particular ] violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a ] ] perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. ] (]) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --] (]) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? ] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --] (]) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::That's a bold claim. Evidence? --] (]) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. ] (]) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —] 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by ], replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting ]. ] (]) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. ] (]) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would consider it ] since it’s self published and openly partisan. ] (]) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. ] (]) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether ] applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. ] (]) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There was an ] as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against ''always'' considering them to be self-published. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Please review reference no. 6 in ] ({{tq|Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state}}). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —] 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. ] (]) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in ], supported by the Project 2025 publication, ''with attribution'': {{tqq|], a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their ''2025 Mandate for Leadership'', they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|title=Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise|first=Heritage|last=Foundation|date=1 February 2023|website=]|access-date=1 September 2023|archive-date=16 November 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231116113522/https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>}} Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —] 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. ] (]) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. ] (]) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It might be 'reliable' that the HF said what they said they said, but is it relevant? This is getting into questions about whether the content is even ]. Lots of people say lots of things about lots of stuff, but Misplaced Pages doesn't quote it all. ] (] | ] | ]) 07:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There's the reputed ], for one. ] (]) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. ] (]) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —] 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. ] (]) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is ''directly'' relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. ] (]) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support ''' blacklisting ''']]''' 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Minor point but it's used on not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. ] (]) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' blacklisting. I don't wanna get doxxed.. ] ] 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually ''prevent'' and/or ''stop ''any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? ] (]) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They have threatened to start doxxing people on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 22:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::And also have said they will do it with links. ] ] 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's unlikely that any professional phishing campaign by HF would use heritage.org, and if their home website were blacklisted, they would proceed to ''use other websites'' ] (]) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. ] (]) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| As with ALL think-tanks, I think they should be considered ]; though if some of their reports see ] than those could be used with attribution.---''']]''' 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Could we see some evidence of doxing please? If this is something they do to people it is a safety concern and we probably need to deprecate. As for the rest, I think they are an over-used fringe source, but there are probably times when their attributed opinion is due. The Economic Freedom Index was something you used to see quoted a lot in newspapers and on TV in the UK, not so much now. It shouldn't be mentioned in our ] or ] type articles.--] (]) 06:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : expose in ], a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. ] (]) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting. I don’t know if it’s “spam” per se but an organization that has stated an intent to dox editors is obviously just a simple threat to user safety. And I don’t think there’s any debate their content is all garbage, disinfo, and propaganda. Even ] content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. ] (]) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting. ] am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? ] ] 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Heritage.org is marked as unreliable, yes.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 11:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support''' blacklisting. The Heritage Foundation produces two things: disinformation and opinion. I don't think the opinion of a disinformation vendor is particularly noteworthy except in ] contexts. With such minimal value to use of this group as a source let's just show them the door. ] (]) 13:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support blacklisting'''. The site is published by an ideologically-motivated group which is well-documented for making false claims of fact, using dubious methodologies in their work, and is now engaged in efforts to damage this very project. There's absolutely no use, and much potential harm to come from using them. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === RFC: The Heritage Foundation === | |||
| <!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}} | |||
| {{rfc|pol|rfcid=08190DC}} | |||
| What is the reliability of ] and should it be blacklisted? ] (]) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 5: ]''' | |||
| ==== Poll: The Heritage Foundation ==== | |||
| * <s>'''Option 5: Blacklist'''</s>: Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. ] (]) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Pinging @]@]@]@]@], they voted above before I made this RFC. ] (]) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in. | |||
| *:is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5] (]) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. ] (]) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@]: There is a way to warn users attempting to ''add these links'' (filter {{edit filter|869}}), but warning users who click on them would likely require some JavaScript magic that's above my pay grade. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support option 5''' - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP ''']]''' 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —] 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. ''']]''' 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source}}; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —] 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? ] (]) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said: {{tqq|We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization}}—] 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig ''']]''' 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::They don't. ] (]) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::What is the status of (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —] 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. ] (]) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —] 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. ] (]) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —] 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. ] (]) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::If ''Daily Mail'' is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):{{blist| | |||
| <nowiki>{{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}} | |||
| </nowiki>}}...?{{br}}I'll help you: ''Daily Mail'' is not blacklisted.—] 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::]. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —] 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? ] (]) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see ] below. ] (]) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment: {{tqq|Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing).}} Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise. {{tqq|But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal?}} Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.{{pb}}Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question of {{tqq|Do paperbacks get special dispensation ...}}. That original question, mildly rephrased, is:{{pb}}''How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with ], which is how this RfC's question is also formulated ({{tqq|'''What is the reliability of <u>The Heritage Foundation</u> ...'''}})''?{{pb}}Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is ''possible'', but it is not what, say, ] thinks. He wrote: {{tqq|... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question ...}}. —] 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing ''']]''' 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —] 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. ] (]) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. ] (]) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —] 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support option 5 and option 4''' per my statements above. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. ] (]) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3,''' with '''Option 5''' post 2016 and '''Option 4''' for any hard copy after 2016. ] (]) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. ] (]) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::@] You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at ]; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —] 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] Interesting, it looks like it's possible ]. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". ] (]) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Yeah, that is interesting. In the present case, if blacklisting for ostensible security reasons, the date isn't a factor. —] 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: generally unreliable'''. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as by ] which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. ] (]) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' and '''Option 4'''. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. ] ] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2 for pre-2016''' (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "]" think tanks) and '''Option 4 for 2016 and later'''. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., ''']''' (])), not from value judgements.—] 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. ] (]) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—] 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —] 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --] 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. ] (]) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Blacklist -- ''but this does not mean removing the reference''. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- ] (]) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable ('''option 3''') as they are into ] conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.] (]) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "]." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. ] (]) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? ] (]) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. ] (]) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? ] (]) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{re|JoJo Anthrax|Bluethricecreamman|Abo Yemen|Dronebogus|Doug Weller|MjolnirPants|SarekOfVulcan|Vanamonde93|NatGertler|Boynamedsue|Gnomingstuff|Patar knight|1AmNobody24|Tryptofish|Chaotic Enby|Horse Eye's Back}} | |||
| *:::While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. ] (]) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. ] (]) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! ] (] · ]) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. ] (]) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --] 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If it wasn’t security related I wouldn’t have voted. But I would still allow older cites under a 3 ''if and only if'' they were replaced by wayback machine links. ] (]) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. ] (]) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 6''', ]. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you ''give out your IP when you visit any website'' and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, ''this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing''.{{pb}}The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a ''very specific link'', and they have to be fairly certain that ''only you'' could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that ''outwardly looks like'' something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.{{pb}}If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be ''more effective'' by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.{{pb}}The is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/] source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.{{pb}}What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-anonymize and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.{{pb}}The technical solutions offered at ] are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions ''would'' do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:We can do both. We can remove a ] source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of ] interference.] (]) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is ''very'' relevant. — ] <sub>]</sub> 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing ] above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting. | |||
| *:::Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --] (]) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. ] (]) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. ] (]) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. ] (]) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: Blacklist''' (along with '''4: Deprecate'''). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --] (]) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the ''Forward'' piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --] (]) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{+1}} ] (]) 23:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've been continuing to think about this, and I've also been reading the subsequent RfC comments by editors who argue that we should still consider that it's a think tank that can provide citable source material. Some editors have also said that we should not let our emotional reaction against the doxing issue influence how we evaluate Heritage as a reliable or unreliable source. In some ways, I agree that we should not make sourcing decisions based upon emotion. However, we should also not be naive about what a ''legitimate'' think tank does. Think tanks take advocacy positions, but they also are populated by ''thinkers'', people with expertise who think carefully about issues, and seek to publish well-reasoned analyses of issues. But it's frankly laughable to characterize Heritage that way. An organization that says, publicly, that they are going to go after Misplaced Pages editors, as persons, in order to enforce their preferred view of what information Misplaced Pages readers will find, is not an organization that is producing scholarly analyses of information that Misplaced Pages might want to cite. If it's a legitimate think tank, then ] is a think tank, too. Even if they also purport to produce thoughtful position papers, those publications simply ''have'' to be recognized by us as tainted by intellectual dishonesty. There is no passing that off as reliable sourcing. --] (]) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? ] (]) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::There's a wide range, in both directions, of how much valuable information a source can offer. On WP:RSP the only sources deprecated with antisemitism as part of the justification are Press TV, an Iranian propaganda outlet; The Unz Review, with justification mentioning "racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content" and "many apparent copyright violations"; and Veterans Today, which was blacklisted for abuse and deprecated for "unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories." Unz Review is the only deprecation citing racism. Searching for a few other "horrible things" keywords, I don't immediately see anything else. | |||
| *::::With Press TV and Veterans Today it seems there are, I would say, much clearer underlying problems with the sources than is the case with HF. Unz Review seems to have been a clear-cut case — the only such case I see — of cancelling an outlet primarily for being unusably (i.e questionably) rabid, and it being an outlet that no one would miss because it doesn't seem (per its RfC) to provide useful info. HF may be unhelpful to an extent, but not ''that'' unhelpful. Apart from that, sources are flagged for their information being inappropriate for the encyclopedia, not for saying horrible things. | |||
| *::::It's also worth looking at Asian News International. They're another organization hostile to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's mission, but despite ''that whole situation'', they're only MREL, and the description of why gives no mention to ''that situation.'' That's the most important precedent in this comment. | |||
| *::::If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those ] (]) 02:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Well said @], "{{tq|If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those...}}" ] (]) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: Blacklist''', primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, '''generally unreliable''' at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. ] (] · ]) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. ] (]) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense: | |||
| :*In general, '''Option 5''' for editor security reasons, as per all above. | |||
| :*With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, '''Option 4''' as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve ] theories. | |||
| :*With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, '''somewhere between option 2 and option 3''' - ] would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- ]] 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. ] (]) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. ] (]) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. ] (]) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. ''']''' - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s ], which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. ] (]) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yes. Their is no reason not to place fingerprint gathering html5 snippets as widely as possible if you want as much tracking as possible. ] (]) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::And consider, Misplaced Pages editors will only be one target. A large tracking network can be a used to doxx other people they dislike (advocates of racial equality, LGBT people, non-capitalists). Its pretty safe to assume they will have middleware somewhere in their webstack to affect fingerprinting. I'd be mad at my cyberattack consultant if they missed the obvious. ] (]) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites''' as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --] (]) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. ] (]) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. ] (]) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. ] (]) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. ] (]) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Fingerprinting everyone is useless for purposes of following and tracking Wikipedians. ] (]) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. ] (]) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:"This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. ] (]) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per {{u|PARAKANYAA}}. Well said. - ] (]) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. ] 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. ] (]) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' and in case it's considered seperate '''Option 4''' as well. THF are not only publishers of ] but are posing an active threat to ] ] (]) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5:''' While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. ] (]) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2-3''' There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? ] (]) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources ] (]) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@] makes the most well articulated point of anyone in this RfC. This would indeed be "very bad precedent" and we should not also retaliate based on the claims of a single source in such bad form. ] (]) 21:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''', at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (, '''' and academica ( and ) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from '''', a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. ] (] | ] | ]) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''', per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least ''some'' things. ] (] - ] - ]) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. ] (] - ] - ]) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 1''', though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. ] (]) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? ] (]) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the ''Forward'' source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So '''Option 1: Generally reliable'''. ] (]) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. ] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. ] (]) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' as their own communications indicate that they are a security risk, that they intend of publishing malicious web content in order to identify people who click on their links.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rosenfeld |first=Arno |date=2025-01-07 |title=Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors |url=https://forward.com/news/686797/heritage-foundation-wikipedia-antisemitism/ |access-date=2025-01-10 |website=The Forward |language=en}}</ref> '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4 and maybe 5'''. Based on their (lack of) quality as a source this is an ''extremely'' obvious 4 but their recent outrageous threats were making me think that 5 was also justified, comparable to how we would treat a terrorist organisation. After seeing Red-tailed hawk's comment, among others, I am now less sure about that. What I am sure of is that they publish deliberate ] in intentional bad faith and that makes them utterly untrustworthy and unreliable (with both an upper and lower case "u") as a source for anything at all except for their own claims. Literally nothing that they say can be relied upon unless independently corroborated by actual Reliable Sources, in which case we should just use those Reliable Sources instead. If they say that the sky is blue then a Reliable Source needs to open a window and check before we can say that it is. I see people saying that they may have been more reliable in the past. I have my doubts about that. Sure, they are probably ''even worse'' now than they were before but were they ''ever'' really anything better than a 3 or 4? That said, if that does turn out to be true, and we do decide to blacklist, then I guess we could use Archive.org to refer to contemporaneous copies of their content which we know not to have been subsequently tampered with. --] (]) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' because they have announced they are a security risk, and '''Option 4''' because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors. ] (]) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4''' as they routinely publish material chock full of conspiracy theories and outright fabrications.--] (]) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5, regrettably'''. I would normally have suggested '''option 2'''. But given they are actively trying to dox editors on Misplaced Pages and contributors to other internet sources, that is absurd and is not something that can result in them being tolerated as a source on Misplaced Pages. They do good work - they produce things that, while biased, are reliable, generally speaking. But their efforts have extended to doxxing contributors, and that is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages has an obligation to make ''reasonable attempts to protect'' its users - whether editors or readers - from having their information harvested through links. And since the Heritage Foundation has admitted they intend to engage in information harvesting based on links... nope. Not permissible. '''To clarify''' - my !vote here is '''not''' a comment on their reliability overall. If they cease their information harvesting, I support a further discussion on this topic. But if they intend to (and per reliable sources, may have already begun) use their links to harvest editor/reader information, '''absolutely not acceptable''', and they should be blacklisted until they cease engaging in such behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be ''at minimum'' a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say ]. ] (]) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.] (]) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I counted two ] (]) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. ] (]) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''option 2/3''' - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them. | |||
| :That said, what they publish is ''opinion'' and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE. | |||
| :If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to ''Mein Kamph'' as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ])</small> 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable ] and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --] (]) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. ] (]) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC''' per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. ] (]) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. ] (]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree with the '''BADRFC''' !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. ] (]) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Very poor option 2 or option 3''' gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. ] (]) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, ''if accurately recounted in the media,'' to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. ] (]) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —] 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. {{pb}}For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. {{pb}} For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. {{pb}} For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the ] because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. ] (]) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{Tq|This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular.}} {{+1}} 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) ] (] | ] | ]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::What about the democracy indices from ], or ], or ]? Or the ]? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL ] (]) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. ] (]) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC ] (]) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::] is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the ] outmoded. ] (]) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't ''current'' and ''reliable'' scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for ''Principia''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s estimate. I'm going to read ''current'' scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.{{pb}}The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. ''Wealth of Nations'' lies in the social sciences while ''Principia'' deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's ''Wealth of Nations'' in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the , not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly ''because'' it is ''inspired by'' The Wealth of Nations. | |||
| *::::The IEF is not a problem with this organization ] (]) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference}}: No, it wouldn't make sense to reference the Heritage Foundation directly. If what we want to cover is the criticism, we want secondary source coverage ''of'' such criticism; citing such criticisms ''directly'' and just deciding to put them in an article is ] in the pursuit of a ]. Criticism of vaccination is an influential element of American culture, but we don't go out of our way to cite anti-vaxxers; we instead cite reliable sources that independently document and analyze such. The Confederate secession was a major part of American history, but we ought not write Civil War articles by citing 1860s South Carolina newspapers for information about anti-abolitionism; we cite historians and how they have documented and analyzed what's relevant, what's meaningful, what was disinformation, etc. Likewise, if what we want is coverage of the Heritage Foundation and its role as an agitation engine against certain kinds of policies (in your example, education), then we cite journalists, historians, sociologists, education professors, etc. who study and write about organizations like the HF. ] (] | ] | ]) 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::This is entirely correct. ] (]) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::The difference between anti-vaxxers and Heritage Foundation is that anti-vaxxers are a fringe perspective in the medical field, even if one of them is going to lead the NHS, and that Heritage Foundation is, like Cato, a well-established but POV/advocacy think tank. As for Civil War newspapers, the difference is timeliness: of course historical events have many better sources that are third-party analysis, but we do cite think tanks all over the place. I don't see why HF is substantially different from any other MREL <u>POV, advocacy</u> think tank whose work should be attributed. | |||
| *:::To source HF's ''own role'' in policy, of course it wouldn't be used as a source for itself. The same holds for any source, MREL or not ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. ] (]) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::{{Strikethrough|What are you suggesting out of this, what we delete the ] page?}} ] (]) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::If you mean to say that HF is GUNREL because the IEF is pseudoscientific, then I'd ask for RS that say the IEF is ''pseudoscientific'' (not that it's just ''flawed'', because of course any index is flawed) ] (]) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in ], which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org): {{tqqi|] is an ] (3rd on the ]),<ref>{{Cite web|title=Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom|url=https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|access-date=2022-11-12|website=www.heritage.org|language=en|archive-date=21 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200521231822/https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|url-status=live}}</ref> ...}} —] 23:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a ''non-scientific'' source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —] 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::To restate my own point, I don't think the IEF can at all be taken as a reason to call HF a GUNREL source. | |||
| *:::::::::I actually think Economy of Ireland is a great example of an article where the IEF (<u>and by extension HF work</u>) can be brought up, since Ireland's corporate economy is based around being a regulatory/tax haven, though I do think the current phrasing especially with parenthesis is weird so early in the article ] (]) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —] 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican}}: Reliable sources and the neutral point of view aren't determined by what is politically mainstream, whether Republican or Democrat in the United States, or Labour or Tory in the United Kingdom, or LDP in Japan, etc. The Taliban is a mainstream political faction in Afghanistan, insofar as it's the faction in power, but I don't think we would consider some kind of Taliban-aligned think tank to be a reliable source for Afghani society and politics. Mainstream reliability is determined not by the ideologies of politics but by the rigors and standards of academia and journalism. A , but that belief being 'mainstream' doesn't make it reliable, and we wouldn't treat a source attesting such as one that's reliable for biology or evolutionary anthropology. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::To clarify, I don't mean to assert that HF is reliable because of being mainstream Republican. I mean to say that WP:FRINGE, specifically, doesn't make much sense to use against what is, in the US, a political and academic giant. They might have some specific views that are fringe, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the source — The Economist has called for the legalization of cocaine, which is a fringe position, but The Economist is (rightfully) a well-respected source. | |||
| *::TLDR I complain about specifically WP:FRINGE being invoked against HF as reason to deprecate ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. Other sanctions may be appropriate for the privacy issues, but RSN is not an appropriate forum to pursue them. We cannot retaliate against sources for conduct which is not restricted by wiki accuracy and notability guidelines. And I'm leery of taking such wide action against an organization with a long and complicated history, comprising some intentional lying (especially the last 4 years) but also real and valuable research. Ideally we would give Heritage up to 2020 similar treatment to Cato {{tq|The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.}} (which I think is the only thinktank with an RSP listing) and minimally GUR it for 2020+, but with the RFC as-listed I think we have to err on the side of trusting editors to use their own judgement. This RFC did not arise from an editing dispute and I don't think Heritage is being regularly used inappropriately on wiki. If a dispute does arise, Option 2 will be enough to prefer other sources. ] (]) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. It's a widely used source, not just on Misplaced Pages but also in other RS, including scholarly articles (, ), so ] applies. I'd support every effort to combat their scheme to influence Misplaced Pages but blacklisting them ''as a source'' is not going to help. Blacklisting them would make us look like vindictive amateurs rather than a serious encyclopedia. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If its relevant would not other RS report it anyway? ] (]) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The Heritage Foundation is most cited through their ], which is a lot of data that's documented on that article in tables refreshed each year; no secondary source includes all the data included on that article. We could start a discussion on that article's talk page about removing the data under WP:Indiscriminate if we wish, but there does seem to be precedent with global indices to include all countries' rankings, indices, and historical rankings. ] (]) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. ] (]) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's exactly what I just meant with the ] part of my reply. ] (]) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. ] (]) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah. It would be a bit hard, though, since other indices also list everything. I would support such rampant restructuring if I had a clear picture of where the removed data would go. I'd say Wikidata, but that doesn't seem to have such facilities/pages. And no, I don't think it's reputation is that much worse to warrant deletion. Alaexis lists two sources that cite IEF: one source from the unreliable MDPI, but also one source from Nature, which is like top-tier iirc. ] (]) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor. ] (]) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:"{{tq|An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor.}}" How does this in any way comment on the RfC, "{{tq|What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted?}}" | |||
| *:This is exactly the sort of comment that is not actually addressing the RfC, but is purely retaliatory and very angry (perhaps understandably, but that is besides the point). Nothing about this sort of comment is rooted in policy, and I hope any closer views such !votes with the correct and proper disregard that they deserve. ] (]) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. ] (]) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? ] (]) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If they are unreliable on specific grounds, so be it, but so far mere retaliation is neither valid nor constructive. ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Nope. Their hostility is the icing on ]. ] (]) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''', or at the very least options starting from 3, due to its publication of fabricated and/or misleading information and its widespread use in the project. --] (]) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or 2'''. As far as I can tell, their internal memoranda are a wishlist and aspirational, and so far they haven't been successful in any of their reprehensible ideas. As far as the source itself, I tend to see it as verging into pretty unreliable territory similar to Fox News, but it's a think tank, so sometimes they might have some well-researched reports or attributable opinions, and they're one of the largest right-wing think tanks so they have a large body of usable attributed information, similar to other think tanks or advocacy groups, biased, but occasionally useful with real academics working there, so I think full deprecation or blacklisting seems excessive. The reality is, their desire to dox editors is easier wished for than done, and it doesn't expressly impugn the reliability of their past material. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *After some thinking, I'm leaning towards '''option 4''' per Tryptofish above. Besides the extensively documented lying, I (unfortunately?) don't trust a source that aspires to covertly attack and burn down us and our library, and there should be a pretty good reason for someone to click twice on the "publish" button. This won't stop any "link injection", and it shouldn't: Thinking blacklisting would diminish security problems is pure security theater, per RedTailedHawk; it is not something we should do. Deprecating informs newer editors of the situation, and that's something we should do. ] (]) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). ] (]) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. ] (]) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. ] (]) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. ] (]) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::So you said. ] (]) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —] 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::How about you stop asking me to read what I read and disagree with? ] (]) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::M.Bitton, you're wrong to insist on blacklisting based on this discussion. The real discussion about what to do technically, and blacklisting is a technical and not an editorial measure is had at ]. It is also had at other places, where discussions aren't public. —] 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 5''' The sites are not reliable and the new information showing recently shows clear and obivous issues brought up by most here so far. ] (]) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4''' - Are there any indications at all that their statements are a reliable source about anything that is not embarrassing to themselves? ] (]) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4+5''' per the sources above. They routinely publish misinformation, and make no particular claim that I can see towards doing any fact-checking or having any editorial controls in the first place, so they shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with; but the fact that they somehow ended up used in so many articles shows that deprecation is necessary. In the rare case where someone there says something significant, it will be reported in secondary sources and can be cited via those; there is no exception to ] for "they're really important, tho", precisely because unreliable-but-important sources can be cited via secondary coverage. Their threats to use domains they control to dox and out Misplaced Pages editors is just an additional reason on top of this and a reason to take the step of a formal blacklist. While blacklisting obviously won't ''solve'' the problem, it will avoid situations where editors feel they have to click their links in order to evaluate a potentially-viable source, and force them to use lesser-known (and, for most editors, more intrinsically suspicious) domains in order to do any sort of spear-phishing attack. Some editors seem to be saying "well let them use their own domain for those attacks, that'll make it more obvious" - but if we don't blacklist it then it ''won't'', because allowing it means it could also be used in good faith. --] (]) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Routinely publishing misinformation would be a concern, but I haven't been convinced from the discussion so far that they do that. Could you elaborate? ] (]) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Option 5:''' +1 (what Aquillion said) + Think tanks are rarely anything but a source of last resort on Misplaced Pages. We mostly use them when they have useful insight into niche security topics. If any primary research or opinion from the HF is particularly notable and due, it will be covered by reliable, secondary sources, and we can still cover it. We don't need to send users to a website with potentially malicious activity. ] (]) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' This seems like a drastic overreaction. ] (]) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''5, and 3/4'''. If this had been asked a month ago, I'd've said '''3''' because, as Alalch and others laid out in the RFCBEFORE, they have a reputation for letting politics trump accuracy, leading to mis- and dis-information; in any situation in which their views are DUE, those will (by ]!) have been covered by other, reliable sources; and any ABOUTSELF statements needed on their own article can be handled as exceptions/whitelisted. But '''5''' is also in order: for a source to operate in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, is not only additional evidence that they do dishonest/untrustworthy things and are unreliable, the misuse of their domains in particular merits blacklisting. ''Pace'' those who think blacklisting their main domain is "security theater" because they'll also use other domains, I think it's necessary, as I (a) see no reason to doubt they're using their main domain for the same thing, and (b) view blacklisting them (under their main domain) as a necessary first part of blacklisting them (under any other domains they're caught using). ] (]) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' given the explicit details of the threat they pose to editors here. (same reason that a site like Conservipedia should be blacklisted too). The content they produce would already make them generally unreliable (and I don't know if we ever considered them reliable before so deprecation doesn't sound possible), but we should go the step further to protect WP editors here. I can see limited exemptions to use them as a primary source only on a page about the Herigate Foundation itself if that absolutely needed, but likely not. --] (]) 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 5''' This feels cut-and-dry. They're a propaganda wing for a specific hardline ideology and have a long and storied history of simply disregarding factuality. Ignoring all the concerns with them outing editors, I'm amazed it wasn't already considered unreliable. | |||
| === Discussion: The Heritage Foundation === | |||
| What exactly happens to the 5000 links if we blacklist them? Does a bot go through and remove the https:// from them so they are unclickable? (Seems reasonable.) Or are the citations deleted? (Seems a bit damaging.) Or something else? This will affect how I opine in the above RFC. –] <small>(])</small> 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I'm just noting that it isn't 5000 but cca 1750, please see ]. Sorry for propagating the incorrect number. —] 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It could either of those two options or it could be that the bot goes through and replaces the references with a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki>. I guess that should be discussed. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :] says "Ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting." —] 23:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the ] list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. ] (]) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to ]. The page ] (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. ] is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of ]. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see ]) only explains ''what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon''. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an ''additional outcome'' may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.{{pb}}The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —] 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think a malware website can not be used as a reliable source. The intent is to misinform and endanger. Nothing reliable about that. ] (]) 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I see arguments above that the Heritage Foundations declared hostility to Misplaced Pages's neutrality means we should treat them as a hostile organization. There are other entities hostile to our neutrality; Donald Trump and the Chinese government are two that come to mind. Neither is what I would call a reliable source, but we don't ban all links to them; they're treated as reliable for a very limited set of cases. What's the difference between these cases? There are governments who have imprisoned Misplaced Pages editors (so I gather; I don't have a reference but I've seen it said). Can those governments be cited for anything at all -- e.g. the names of their ministers? Option 5 seems inconsistent with the way we treat these other hostile entities. ] (] - ] - ]) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Donald Trump doesn't have a detailed cyberattack plan to doxx editors here. The heritage foundation does plan on using web technologies to harm editors. ] (]) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. ] (]) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, but that vector doesn't seem as hostile as imprisonment to me. Why does the fact that this attack is digital mean option 5 is appropriate (instead of e.g. just using archive.org to avoid direct links)? ] (] - ] - ]) 12:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''', a great many comments !voted purely out of retaliation to try and stop Heritage foundation from taking a certain action that some perceive to be "doxxing". I have a serious question though, "Does deprecating and removing any links to Heritage Foundation, IF the blacklist/deprecation retaliatory measure passes... does this actually stop them from initiating their plan, or parts of it? I am not familiar with all of the details, but with A.I. and other tools these days, couldn't they still try and do things to identify some editors with certain editing patterns or behavior completely independent of whatever happens with this discussion and then do the "doxxing" anyway? This seems to have larger legal implications, unless I misunderstand it, and if that is the case then this seems silly to try and solve with a angry RfC which might not have any real defensive benefit for the community. Has anyone taken this into consideration? Is anything being done about that? If not, why not? ] (]) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Reference Subsection === | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| == Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) == | |||
| *] (PCORI) | |||
| Are PCORI statements a ] for medical claims? Do PCORI statements pass ] as coming from a ]? | |||
| I say yes. The organization is non-governmental, but was established by the United States government, and they have awarded about US$2 billion in grants over the past 10 years. They are a large research organization which takes care in making conventional statements. Also, they have good alignment with wiki community organizations, and have hosted and joined wiki editing events in the United States and with Wikimedia Medicine for almost 10 years. That alignment is because of PCORI's patient advocacy, and because typical people find this organization's statements to be more relevant than those from more industry-oriented medical organizations. While PCORI does drive a lot of research through peer reviewed journals, they also make expert consensus statements in the name of PCORI which are not peer reviewed. | |||
| {{ping|Zefr}} said that some PCORI statements are "neither vetted by peer-review nor is it mainstream clinical practice", which is correct, but I feel that they still meet MEDRS by being a statement from an authoritative organization. Similarly, {{ping|Whywhenwhohow}} reverted saying the sources were not MEDRS compliant. {{u|FULBERT}} made the statements as Wikimedian in Residence at PCORI, and I collaborate with FULBERT through United States Wikimedia groups and through the University of Virginia, where I also am a Wikimedian in Residence. | |||
| Here are the talk notices about reversion. The statements are | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| Here is an actual PCORI statement from the ] article. The reverted claim from this statement was that 40% of patients using a drug have adverse effects. | |||
| *https://www.pcori.org/evidence-updates/comparing-treatments-multiple-sclerosis-related-fatigue | |||
| I support using this source for this claim. | |||
| Thoughts from others about PCORI generally? Thanks. ]] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Bluerasberry}} - in the case of my , the was just a summary of preliminary results (n=33, i.e., primary research) from the "Treatment of Fatigue with Methylphenidate, Modafinil and Amantadine in MS" (TRIUMPHANT-MS) trial, which had been funded by PCORI. | |||
| :At this early stage,TRIUMPHANT-MS was actually just a ] reported . That study is not a MEDRS source for the article statement, "modafinil has been shown to be effective in managing fatigue in people with MS" when other more substantial sources, including a meta-analysis, are used. | |||
| :Further, the PCORI statement is that ''"These findings <u>can contribute to clinician and patient discussions</u> about treatments to reduce MS-related fatigue."'' In other words, the PCORI article is a) a progress report, and b) an advice source for a physician-patient discussion. | |||
| :In this case, such a brief update on funding for preliminary research is not an appropriate reference, and does not comment on the wider issue of PCORI as an organization. ] (]) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Reviewing the PCORI website leads to the conclusion that their strength is the cross-sectional diversity in how they evaluate, monitor, then disseminate summaries of research projects, described They are <u>not</u> the publication venue for completed research - the ] sources of journals, books or clinical organizations - but rather their reports are summaries of the research project. For this reason, I would ask why would we cite a PCORI summary when a peer-reviewed publication is the main source? Is there an example of a PCORI final report that you feel is a good MEDRS example? | |||
| ::There was concern that funded research groups submitting final reports to PCORI had which was caught and adjusted by PCORI before publication. | |||
| ::As of 2023, the with PCORI to improve the review process for evaluating research funding candidates. | |||
| ::The ] article needs updating. There are fewer than 30 watchers/editors of the article. ] (]) 03:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Zefr}} Two issues here: The extent to which PCORI publications meet MEDRS, and then presuming that PCORI is reliable, ] that Misplaced Pages reflects PCORI's claim in an appropriate context. Originally I think you were challenging PCORI, but here, I think you are challenging the claim. Do you agree with that distinction and separation, and if so, can you (or I) move your text discussing the claim to ]? | |||
| :::This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, so this is the place to discuss your comments about the organization and your question about why to cite PCORI's summaries instead of the original source. Briefly, there can be multiple approaches to healthcare. Most approaches originate in the ], and it is challenging to escape that. PCORI speaks for itself, but I would describe it as remaining in the healthcare industry (as opposed to exiting it to seek ]), and within that context, recommending ] which prioritizes ]. So for example, many medical recommendations from industry seek to maximize curing disease, but a patient-centered approach could emphasize managing side effects and planning the financial cost of treatment. Regardless of what kind of recommendations PCORI is making, I sustain the notion that per ], Misplaced Pages includes expert institutional claims which may not go through the peer review process of a journal. | |||
| :::I think the report we have been discussing is a good MEDRS example. It comes in different forms - | |||
| :::* (we were discussing citing this one) | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::* | |||
| :::Misplaced Pages typically does not cite trials, but here, PCORI is elevating the results of this case study into a special report and expert recommendation. We can attribute this to the organization following ]/] guidelines, which was . | |||
| :::PCORI gets into cases like this which are fairly unusual. The situation is that there is an ] for a drug (so it is not indicated or approved, but there is evidence for it) and then PCORI is giving an alert about that off-label use. I am not a physician, and I do not know how to untangle expert institutional critiques of off-label drug use, but in general, I just trust PCORI's process and think Misplaced Pages can include PCORI recommendations attributed to them. I do not see this as the same as citing a case study without the backing of an expert org. | |||
| :::Base question back to you - how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence? ]] 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If PCORI published a summary of results from a multinational Phase III trial or a systematic review that it had helped to fund, then perhaps that would meet ] (although still not a national clinical guideline that would better meet MEDASSESS). In the case of the reference for modafinil, PCORI is giving an update on a pilot study, which clearly isn't MEDRS. | |||
| ::::''"how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence?"'' Defined on the PCORI website under ''Evidence Updates'': {{tq|''PCORI presents findings from systematic reviews and some of our funded research studies in concise, accessible formats called Evidence Updates. Most Evidence Updates are available in two versions: one for patients and caregivers and one for clinicians and other professionals. These updates, which capture the highlights and context for these new findings, are created and disseminated in collaboration with patients, health professionals, and other organizations."''}} | |||
| ::::Likely, the PCORI update for a systematic review would be more digestible for the common Misplaced Pages reader, but having the original journal publication would have to go with it as the more complete source. If there was a conflict with another source and both were MEDRS-qualified, ] would say discuss them both. | |||
| ::::It's ok to copy any of this to the modafinil talk page. ] (]) 03:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Horse Eye's Back}} I do not think there is a term for nonprofit organizations which have strong government ties, but yes, I understand what you mean. PCORI is a ] which receives government grants through the ]. | |||
| :I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Law&Crime Network == | |||
| Hello! I would like to know your opinion about youtube channel and their news site . Are they reliable source for information about murders/trials? ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Youtube channels are generally not reliable sources. Please see ] for additional context. ] (]) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't speak to their YouTube channel at all. Re: their website, ] used to be their managing editor (he's now a with ]), and I found him to be a very reliable reporter on legal issues. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Their website is RS. However many of the sources there, you have to deal with BLPCRIME, for which you must be cautious anyway. But I have found them to be fine. ] (]) 01:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Catholic-Hierarchy.org == | |||
| '']'' is a self-published source that has been featured in two prior discussions (2016 and 2020). Multiple editors appear to consider it a reliable source specifically because it is used in other independent publications. This is a noted exception for self-published sources that can be found in WP:RS/SPS. However, users also acknowledge that it should never be used in biographies of living people. | |||
| Is there more discussion that should be had? Should these details be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? This source is used several thousand times on the English WP, so centralized standards for it might be desirable. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has ] and can be discussed on ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply|OldPolandUpdates}} Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? ] (]) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mid-paragraph ]. ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" ] (]) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to ]. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles. | |||
| ::::] seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: ]. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used ''enough'' by external publications. | |||
| ::::If you consider ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? ] (]) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The standard is mid-paragraph ] "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which does not appear to be the case here. ] (]) 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would also note that there appears to be a consensus from 2020 that this is a SPS, see ] ] (]) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. ] (]) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a ] in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. ] (]) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? ] (]) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, '''whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications'''." ] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? ] (]) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::No, there has to be works other than the self published ones and they have to predate the self published one. Generally only academics and journalists satisfy our requirements. ] (]) 01:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have modified the WP:RSPSOURCES entry to better reflect this comment. ] (]) 04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It still feels off, you're giving wayyyyyy too much weight to the group that thinks its reliable when that view isn't supported by policy and guideline. You also make the consenus that it isn't an expert SPS look like just an opinion, but we clearly have consensus that the author isn't a subject matter expert by our standards. It also isn't a general opinion that SPS can't be used for BLP, thats solid policy. This comes off more as apologism than what consenus actually is. ] (]) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * This is a non-expert self published source. We have established that no such "noted exception" exists. ] (]) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *If it is used by reliable secondary sources then it shouldn't be difficult to find the information from the reliable source itself. ] (]) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: The '']'' == | |||
| {{Closed rfc top|'''Withdrawn''' by JJPMaster --] (], ], ]) 21:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| The ''London Standard'', formerly known as the '']'', has 18,703 links on the English Misplaced Pages. Its reliability has not been discussed since 2018, and there is currently no consensus on its reliability. Therefore, '''what is the reliability of the ''London Standard''?''' | |||
| * Option 1: ] | |||
| * Option 2: ] | |||
| * Option 3: ] | |||
| * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ] | |||
| ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I think you should also post some examples of the articles from this publication. People would then know why this outlet is now up for discussion. ] (]) 01:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Can we stop doing RfCs with no background? That is not what this is for. ] (]) 01:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: I brought it here (a) because of its recent change in format and (b) because it hasn't been discussed in seven years. I figured that the previous discussions would have been sufficient for ], so I didn't think to start a regular discussion beforehand. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You don’t start off with the RfCs, for which you provided 0 context. ] (]) 02:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{summoned by bot}} I'm with Parakanyaa here. That it hasn't been discussed since 2018 is not sufficient reason for an RFC, in fact it's reason against one. I would have expected some recent discussion prior to an RFC, so that we have some context. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Bad RFC''' because of lack of ]. I have no context whatsoever here. Presumably if it's being brought up here, JJPMaster thinks there's some kind of problem with it, but if so it's not clear at all what problem(s) they think there is. ] (]) 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Bad RFC''' due to complete lack of ]. No discussion in any capacity since 2018. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 04:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Procedural Close'''. There is no mandatory periodical process for the reliability of specific sources. A source is brought here for discussion ''only'' after what the instructions demand, in large fonts, right at the header: {{tq|Please supply the article is used in, and the claim it supports. RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions .}} This is a bad RfC and should not be entertained nor continued. -] (]) 12:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Unless there's some new context in regard to it's reliability, disagreement between editors or discussion of London Standard's reliability in secondary sources, then there's no need for a new discussion let alone an RFC. Maybe the wording in header and edit warning needs to be stronger. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{Withdrawn}} per above. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 12:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable per ]. Since this newspaper is listed in RSP, we are within our rights to !vote on it. ] (]) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{closed rfc bottom}} | |||
| == Checking a wikipedia source == | |||
| I'm curious as to whether in general I can copy an already existing citation from one Misplaced Pages article to another which says the same thing without having to check that citation. For example, on the page ] there's a citation which I haven't checked, but I'm assuming the person who added it did: <ref>Jacques Downs, ''The Golden Ghetto'' (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1997), 191.</ref>, and I want to use it to link his name on ]'s page. ''This example is the specific one and a little complicated (and I apologize for that), but the question also applies for other cases.'' Can Do I have to check the citation myself first to do this? ] (]) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] You ''should''. Noone can force you, but sadly often, WP-sourcing is not what it should be. Gbooks and archive.org is sometimes helpful. Note also that you are close to have access to the ]. ] is sometimes useful. ] (]) 09:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You should be able to access page 190–191 via Google books here -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The advantage of checking sources yourself is that you're much less likely to see your edits reverted with a comment of ''failed verification, not in source'' later. ] (]) 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you guys very much, I added it. ] (]) 21:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| == RE: Lambgoat == | |||
| Is the source mil.ru a reliable source to support a table of ceasefires? | |||
| just got ], but I have a useage that hasn't come up yet in discussions that I want to get clarity on. Is an , about heavy metal genres, acceptable for use on the relevant Misplaced Pages genre articles, with the exclusion of any BLP claims or controversial statements? I'm pinging the other editors who were involved in that discussion. {{u|JeffSpaceman}}, {{u|Sergecross73}}, {{u|MFTP Dan}}.--] (] | ]) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Source''': , official site of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation | |||
| * '''Article''': ] | |||
| * '''Content''': the table ] | |||
| * '''Previous discussion''': ] | |||
| —''] ].'' 16:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to say, I have ''never'' seen LG do something like this and would not be personally inclined to use it. It's only just over a year old, so maybe it's a new thing they're doing and I didn't keep up. ] <sup> ] </sup> 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a primary source, so if there are reliable secondary sources which describe the violations we should use such secondary sources. From what I see in the article, most of the *other* sources used for ceasefire violations are Armenian and Azerbaijani media and official bodies, which are likely to be biased and possibly not reliable (Azerbaijan is somewhere near Russia when it comes to press freedom). If this is all we have at the moment, I think it's worth retaining the list, considering that the information is clearly attributed. | |||
| ::I found from 2024, so it looks like this might be a new addition to the type of coverage that they do.--] (] | ]) 02:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :There is also a question of due weight (not for this noticeboard) - is the list of ceasefire violations actually necessary for that article? ]<sub>]</sub> 19:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I would recommend verifying with other, more established reliable sources, and potentially citing those instead per ]. I think routine coverage (as you state, barring exceptional claims or third-party information about living people) is probably viable, but I'm not confident this source should be cited for what you are looking into it being used for. But I'll see what others think and where consensus goes. ] (]) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Russian Ministry of Defence is biased and possibly not reliable (this is not UN peacekeeping). See the article section on ]. —''] ].'' 21:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :They don't mention editorial staff or fact checking on their about us. ] (]) 21:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::And yes, the list is ], ]. Please join in the article’s talk page. —''] ].'' 21:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::They do have an editor, per the , but the role is not explained.--] (] | ]) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I would honestly just remove that entire table. The major violations are covered right above in prose, where some of the Russian claims can also be included ''with attribution''. It seems a little out-of-scope to include a list of every little scrap. ] (]) 21:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I would oppose to usage of ANY information obtained from the governments of the states involved in an open military conflict. In addition to the fact that that would be against ], such sources can contain a deliberate misinformation. I am pretty sure the same is true for Ukrainian Ministry of Defense (they also engage in disinformation, which is absolutely correct and justified). All information of that type must be analysed by experts and summarised in some good secondary source, and only after that we can use it. ] (]) 00:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:18, 11 January 2025
Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 910, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463
Additional notes:
Shortcuts- RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
- While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
- This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.
RFC Science-Based Medicine
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- There is a general consensus that at least some articles on this site can be considered self-published, and substantial disagreement over whether the site's editorial control is adequate, with even some partial supports acknowledging that material on the site may not be substantially reviewed if reviewed at all. As such, material from this site should be used with caution, probably with attribution, and should not on its own be used to support negative or controversial content in BLPs. Particular articles from the site may still be reliable on the basis of self-published sources by experts; those should be considered on an individual basis. Seraphimblade 10:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Is the blog Science-Based Medicine in whole or in part, a self-published source? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment for context: Note that a prior RfC has found a previous consensus has found that Science-Based Medicine is considered WP:GREL and not considered WP:SPS. See WP:SBM for more details at WP:RSN. Raladic (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Iljhgtn, is there a reason that you chose not to list this RfC on the Maths, science, and technology list? If not, would you mind adding that topic area to the RfC template? Thanks,FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)- Never mind, Raladic added it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Responses (Science-Based Medicine)
- Not SPS - Per the previous RfC, there seems to be no reason to rehash this. The editorial practices of SBM show that they do not act like an SPS and that has not changed since the prior RfC. So there appears to be no reason to deviate it from it now. What is the rationale for this repeat RfC other than to try to discredit it? SBM is one of the watchdog media that help keep WP:FRINGE science out of Misplaced Pages. Raladic (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment (Summoned by bot), @Iljhgtn has there been in discussion of this on this noticeboard since the last RFC? TarnishedPath 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- OP created different RFC here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Science-Based_Medicine"_blog which was closed as a bad RFC as it was not neutral and editors pointed out the lack of RFCBEFORE on a reasoning of why this needs to be rehashed. Given that that one was just closed and now this new one was immediately opened again without any RFCBEFORE discussion, it similarly appears to be looking for a problem without information as to why this RfC is here without any new evidence that should change the established consensus of the community. Raladic (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- There was a discussion from a few years ago listed on RSP that seemed very mixed as to whether SBM is a SPS Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS. Per what they wrote on their site: "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" If people are able to publish directly, by themselves, without being reviewed, then that meets the definition of SPS and we need to treat it that way for BLPs. Noting that this only means that it can't be used for direct statements about living people, but can still be used for statements about the truth (or, more often, otherwise) of views held by living people, the views of the authors about living people, and statements about fringe theories themselves. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight -
After careful review, the editors of SBM decided to retract this book review. Because we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness, occasionally corrections need to be made post-publication. In this case we felt there were too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science, and leaving the article up would not be appropriate given the standards of SBM.
, so this looks like exactly what you'd expect from a non-SPS. You basically just made the case why they are not an SPS. Raladic (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)- In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- "As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as WP:SKYISBLUE. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- This just seems like sealioning but here you go... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You have linked to several articles by Steven Novella. Where does it claim on those articles they are self-published? David H. Gorski obviously reviewed those articles, he is listed in the link you cited below as the other editor. There are two editors so this isn't self-publishing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The website says "SBM is entirely owned and operated by the New England Skeptical Society" . So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella . This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology . My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. The dude looks young for his age, fooled me. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- So between Jay, Steve, and Robert Novella it seems that we have a lot of relatives here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is your source for the organization having 25 employees? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: you've claimed three times that the organization currently has exactly 25 employees... It is the core of your argument, but I don't think its true and I can't find it anywhere online... So how are you getting that number? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology . My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The website says "SBM is entirely owned and operated by the New England Skeptical Society" . So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella . This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as WP:SKYISBLUE. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- "As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight -
- It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have contacted someone who should know about this; hopefully they get back to me and I can let you know what the current figure of their employees is with documentation if possible. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: it has been a week, did you find out anything useful? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have contacted someone who should know about this; hopefully they get back to me and I can let you know what the current figure of their employees is with documentation if possible. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Psychologist Guy: Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not SPS This isn't a self-published source, the articles are reviewed before being published by an editorial board. The four current editors are: Steven P. Novella, David H. Gorski, Kimball C. Atwood, Mark Crislip. Guest editors can submit articles to the website, all of which are reviewed before publication. Critics of SBM are jumping a single retracted article that this is an SPS. Seems like a bad case of cherry-picking. There is no good evidence this is an SPS. Update There are two editors not four my mistake. The publisher is the New England Skeptical Society. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't match what is currently on their website, they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by New England Skeptical Society, it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The New England Skeptical Society, of which Novella is founder and president. Void if removed (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by New England Skeptical Society, it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Their own statement was "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" Given that, it is clear that in at least some cases, people can publish directly on SBM without being reviewed before publication. - Bilby (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't match what is currently on their website, they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS, seems to be pretty cut and dried at least when it comes to Novella's pieces (remember SBM claims to be a blog, its generally presenting personal opinions... When its two expert editors want to publish their actual work they do not publish it there but in real journals). I would also note that this discussion should include the sister blog NeuroLogicaBlog. If anyone wants to disagree with me they can lay out what editorial checks and balances would apply to Novella. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own Respectful Insolence. There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is it two or several? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own Respectful Insolence. There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- (How) does the following factor into your assessment that it's an SPS? In their discussion of "Why Dr. Harriet Hall’s review of Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage was retracted," they note that "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing," and that they "have mechanisms of quality control" for articles that are posted without prior review, including "clarification in the comments" and "corrections to the original text of the article." Their page about outside submissions says in part "The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using an informal peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a 'rough and ready' peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission." FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. Void if removed (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was asking Horse Eye's Back, in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for Bilby as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- With Quackwatch we came to a similar position - articles published by the editor are self published, but articles on the site by other authors are not. I'm ok with something similar here. The only problem is that all they say is "trusted authors" can post directly. I would read that as safe to assume people who do not regularly have articles posted on the site would not be trusted, but it doesn't say only the editors are trusted to publish without prior review. Thus there may be some gray area between the two. - Bilby (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The others are more a grey area for me, most of what we are currently using on wiki is pieces by Gorski and Novella... And we have discussions elsewhere about some guest authors like Harriet Hall not producing work of the same quality/rigor as Gorski and Novella. Its a bit of an odd situation, normally the editors are not also the authors and even when they are they're normally not the primary and most reliable authors. Its made extra odd because most of the editors/authors are subject matter experts so usable under EXPERTSPS no matter where we come down on general reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was asking Horse Eye's Back, in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for Bilby as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. Void if removed (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS. It's a group blog with some guest authors. Having multiple contributors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Having guest authors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Retracting a post does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. This language in WP:SPS is particularly relevant: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". As a pro-SBM editor argued in the aborted RfC, the need for SBM in Misplaced Pages is to enable wikivoice accusations of "grift, fraud and quackery" that cannot be sourced otherwise. In other words, the reason this group blog has been elevated to a reliable source is to work around NPOV. - Palpable (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is a direct quote from WP:SPS. - Palpable (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with WP:SPS the appropriate venue is WT:V - Palpable (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is a direct quote from WP:SPS. - Palpable (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Do some people !voting here have a connection to the source? I see one editor referring to Steven Novella as "Steve" and another who may be affiliated with the New England Skeptical Society. I have seen some surprising interpretations of WP:COI in the past so I'm not sure if this is important, but thought it was worth noting. - Palpable (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is also a great point and worth investigating as part of any close here. Looks sus at the very least... Iljhgtn (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS. I personally think this source is fine to use on BLPs, but there is no way to honestly read our (convoluted, strange) SPS guidelines and not come to the conclusion that it is one. It is a small group of people most of whom publish without prior review on a blog. That they make arguments we like does not make it not a blog. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS. It's a group blog, but still a blog. Group blogs are specifically called out on WP:SPS. As noted above, SBM "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness". The fact that they later retracted one article doesn't negate that the norm for "trusted authors" (probably including regulars, and definitely including the owners of the site such as Gorski and Novella) is to publish without any editorial review of the author's work. Hence, it is clearly by and large an SPS.
- The claim that we need this to not be an SPS to effectively fight fringe and quackery is often made but I've never seen it backed up with an example of a fringe topic whose Misplaced Pages article would become credulous to pseudoscience without it. There are plenty of published and even academic sources that stuff like homeopathy is pseudoscientific, quackery, etc.; we are perfectly capable of sourcing something like "John Smith is an advocate of homeopathy, a pseudoscientific practice" in just about any case it is needed. SBM being an SPS also doesn't preclude its use in cases of WP:PARITY, as pro-fringe sources themselves are often SPS or otherwise poor. Crossroads 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- The germ theory denialism article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's no shortage of reliable sources establishing that the germ theory was a huge advance in medicine and that we have basically incontrovertible proof of it for maybe thousands of diseases.
- - Palpable (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- But using any of those sources to draw conclusions about the specific claims of a particular germ theory denialist would be against policy. XOR'easter (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The germ theory denialism article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Reliable SPS- can be used to describe fringe theories proposed by people as discredited or as quackery, including on a bio... should not be used to describe people themselves as quacks. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)- Partial SPS - saw some of the info of arguments below from CoffeeCrumbs, and FactOrOpinon. I think the partial peer-review for some articles is... frustrating for a direct answer, but if there is peer-review on an article, it should stand as non-SPS material. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS - We see at WP:SPS that an SPS has clear rules and restrictions, such as not being used ever for a WP:BLP, absolutely never. Some seem to be arguing that this obvious SPS should for some reason be granted an exception to the clear language of "never" and should be allowed on biographies of living persons in some cases (or in many). There are many reasons why that is not allowed generally, but we have now learned that this source is essentially the soapbox of primarily only two individuals, and most importantly, is not part of a media outlet or organization or inclusive of any external (or even further internal vetting). No, rather, it is a blog. An SPS blog. One perhaps run by scientists, two scientists, but a blog, nonetheless. Again, quoting directly from WP:SPS, "
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
" So here we have this source, which is obviously beyond WP:SKYISBLUE a blog and a self-published source, we must then at the very least clarify that it absolutely must not be used in any circumstances for BLPs going forward, by the fact that it is so clearly a SPS.Iljhgtn (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC) - Partly SPS and partly non-SPS - The site makes it clear that some authors can publish without prior review. I consider their articles to be self-published; for example, I put Steven Novella's articles in this category. The site also says that other articles undergo prior review (e.g., "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing"). I consider the latter to be non-self-published. Examples of authors who clearly aren't regular article authors there and whose articles presumably underwent prior review: Nikolas Dietis and Kiarash Aramesh. For some articles/authors, it's not clear to me whether they fall in the SPS category or instead in the non-SPS category. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that posts by some established contributors are self-published (as shown by links above), while guest contributors are not. So the answer to whether SBM is an SPS or not is 'yes'. SPS and not SPS. Certainly the idea that it's fully SPS has no basis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS: As noted by other contributors, SBM openly acknowledges that it often publishes content without prior peer review. Consequently, this makes it a self-published source (SPS), with the opinions expressed representing those of individual authors. Like any other SPS, its use requires caution, especially in articles about living people or controversial topics, where ensuring accuracy and neutrality is critical. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not SPS for reviewed articles They directly state they have editorial peer review for a number, if not most, of their articles. And only a select few don't go through that process (though appear to have after the fact review, considering the retraction, so even that seems to be in question). I will note that this appears to be yet another attempt by WP:FRINGE pushing editors to try and remove skeptical debunking media from negatively covering their fringe topics. Par for the course attempt, honestly. Silverseren 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a day that ends in -Y.... XOR'easter (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we can't tell what is and isn't peer-reviewed and what is SPS material, is that not a problem? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- And how we will determine which articles have been reviewed? Also note that editorial review and peer review are different things and they do not appear to make a claim of peer review. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a blog, they are a trusted blog." Iljhgtn (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Poor editorial control is a matter of reliability, but all matters of reliability don't have to be decided by classifying a source as self-published. It's accepted that other sources follow their stated editorial practices, and noone has shown why that shouldn't be the case here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a blog, they are a trusted blog." Iljhgtn (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not SPS for reviewed articles They've got editors, which sets it apart from a standard SPS. Those articles that could be self published are still reliable for most purposes anyway, since they are from subject matter experts. It is also worth noting that while it should not be used for biographical details in general, even if this were to be considered a SPS that would not rule it out for comments on science, medicine, or the reception of fringe ideas, even when those ideas happen to appear on an article with a person's name at the top. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not SPS by virtue of having either pre-publication review or the possibility of editorially imposed retraction. A source that is truly self-published wouldn't have either of those. XOR'easter (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Partial SPS It's a bit awkward since they do so much good work, but "our own editors, however, have earned the privilege of publishing articles without prior review, since they have a proven track record," is extremely concerning. What they describe as an editorial process for these articles, saying that "if any concerns about accuracy, fairness, or completeness come to our attention, we deal with them in a number of ways," is just not enough. The job of an editor is checking before, not just maybe cleaning up after "if," so I would have to say that the articles by their own editors have to be considered SPS until they revise this. Things they actually do vet before putting up, I consider as being subjected to an editorial process, however. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Generally not SPS, though additional scrutiny for articles by Gorski and Novella may be appropriate. Essentially per my previous comment. I'm also frankly not impressed with this RFC, and the manner the proposer starts these discussions in general. Said discussions are not quite up to the point of disruption, but I would nonetheless heavily suggest that they seek advice as to the drafting of their statements and formatting of their proposals and whether adequate prior discussion has taken place, from one of the other editors supporting their point of view. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS A group blog posting guest postings is still a group blog, and still self-published. Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella, whose blog it is), previous claims to having a robust editorial process seem unconvincing. There is no consistently documented publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and this source is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. Void if removed (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as here, and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am responding to suggestions that some sort of allegedly robust editorial and accountability process makes it not an SPS, which I think is a nonsense.
- My favoured definition of SPS is: if it isn't traditionally published (book, newspaper, journal) or something directly comparable structurally, it is an SPS. That is in line with USESPS since it considers virtually all websites to be self-published. It is narrow, yes, but it is also consistent across media. It is also not a reflection on reliability in other ways, as SPS vs GREL are two different concerns.
- I think the "self" in "self-published" causes much confusion, as does the consideration that "publishing" is the mere act of putting information online. A publishing company is more than a person who vets content and presses a button to place material on a website. If we consider something not self published simply because the person who writes it has to go through another person before it is published, that means celebrity social media accounts where an intern reports to a manager aren't self published, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing (ie, virtually nothing is self-published by that standard).
- I consider "science based medicine" to be a publication as a whole rather than something that can be approached article-by-article. There is no distinct, separate, traditional publishing entity, as with a newspaper, a book, or an academic journal. The owners and editors are all the same, and that they solicit other people's content to add to their own publication which they entirely control still makes it their own self-published publication, in exactly the same way as any blog with guest posts.
- I know there are difficult edge cases to the whole "what is a traditional publisher" model, but I don't think a group blog like SBM is even close to that, and considering it to be one (because editors want to use it to make BLP claims about quacks) has turned into a slippery slope IMO. Void if removed (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources is policy, not an essay. It is clear policy that blogs like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs at a bare minimum. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I said "USESPS is an essay, not a policy" (emphasis added). It seems that you're confusing WP:USESPS (which as I noted is an essay) with WP:SPS (which is a policy). People clearly have different opinions about whether SBM is wholly SPS or only partially SPS, and if the consensus of this RfC is that it is only partially SPS, then the part that isn't SPS can be used for statements about living persons despite identifying itself as a blog. Also, the BLP policy is for statements about living persons, wherever they occur, but AFAIK, RS expert blogs can be used for DUE statements about non-persons, even if that statement appears in a biographical article. BLPSELFPUB is also an exception. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware. We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them. When I raised this weeks ago I asked what I was missing, and it turned out I wasn't missing anything except a massive intractable tarpit. I think none of it is obvious. Your objection here is understandable depends very much how you interpret "author", "publisher" and the work being published, and a narrow definition restricted to natural persons means any source with two people can be argued to be not self published. But to me it remains obvious that for a self published book in which my friend writes the foreword, their content is still self published even though I acted as "editor", and I don't see a difference between a self published book with multiple contributors and a group blog with multiple contributors. And the trouble is a lot of the discussions about how we classify X or Y revolve not around what they are, but about how we want to use them, which makes it ever more messy. Personally I would like to see clarity on *why* BLPSPS exists, and define the standard clearly there, because that would inform what sort of sources are acceptable in BLPs, which is really the nub of the matter. BLPSPS feels like it might once have been shorthand for "a source who's probably had the lawyers look it over before publishing it", but that's just my impression/speculation. Absent BLPSPS, the question of whether sources like grey literature or SBM are SPS or not is largely moot. Void if removed (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Void if removed makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, most local and hyper local news outlets are in fact self-published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Void if removed makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources is policy, not an essay. It is clear policy that blogs like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs at a bare minimum. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as here, and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not SPS for reviewed content. Where content is clearly reviewed, definitely not SPS. Where we’re not certain, treat it with extra caution. By the way “blog” and “SPS” are not synonyms. Blog is a format that can be edited and published by reputable organisations, as with eg The Conversation or perhaps the SPLC’s Hatewatch. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree with you that your two examples are not SPS, however I have seen people argue the contrary in both cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Everything in The Conversation (website) is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per WP:NEWSOPED. I also don't believe that any of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this blog are considered reviewed, and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- That argument is directly supported by Misplaced Pages policy. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone needs to make, but policy overrides guidelines. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. XOR'easter (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling WP:V a guideline). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of WP:V that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using
self-published sources as third-party sources about living people
, but that fails to apply in two different ways. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)- How does "fail to apply in two different ways"? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- There seems to be a lot more than that which is pertinent, that whole section for example is pertinent not just that one sentence. Many of the "not SPS" arguments also seem to be based on WP:NEWSBLOG. As for it somehow not applying you've lost me, gonna have to explain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of WP:V that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using
- Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling WP:V a guideline). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- That argument is directly supported by Misplaced Pages policy. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone needs to make, but policy overrides guidelines. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. XOR'easter (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this blog are considered reviewed, and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Everything in The Conversation (website) is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per WP:NEWSOPED. I also don't believe that any of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, several editors seem to claim something along the lines of "since Science-Based Medicine is 'reviewed' it cannot be a SPS". This claim would benefit from some proof, ideally other secondary sources validating this claim, and not just the very same source saying that it does so. Alex Jones might claim that he is reviewed and reliable etc. That claim by itself does not make it so. Also, I am not saying that Science-Based Medicine is anything like AJ in terms of reliability etc., and to be clear, this RfC is not about reliability, it is just on whether or not the SBM source is an SPS, which I think it pretty obviously is. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models:
- Book publisher: External authors submit book outlines and sample chapters; if selected, the publisher contributes substantially towards editing (including developmental editing if necessary), designing, and marketing the book. The author pays for none of this and expects to get paid (at least if sales exceed a minimum threshold). If the publisher rejects the book, then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher.
- Newspaper: The publisher/publication hires editors and journalists. The editor assigns stories (to internal staff) or commissions them (among freelancers; alternatively, editors may accept external pitches, in the book-publisher model). The journalists write the stories; the editor and publisher/publication representatives decide whether to publish what the journalists wrote. If an employee instead of a freelancer, the journalist expects to get paid the same even if the article is canned (not published). If a freelancer, and the piece doesn't run, the freelancer is free to sell it to a different publication.
- Peer-reviewed journal: The (usually for-profit) publisher or (usually academic) sponsoring body creates the publication and hire editors. External authors submit whole papers; editors send the papers for external review and use that information to decide which ones to publish. The authors usually pay for publication, but this is understood to be akin to volunteer work on all sides, with the money usually coming from a third-party grant rather than the author's own funds. If the journal rejects the article, the author is free to submit it to another journal.
- I wonder if any of these models feel similar to how you imagine SBM to work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have expanded on this concept in a sandbox. I wonder whether people would find that comparison useful in, say, Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using self-published works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do not think any of the above apply to SBM, but I'd like to see you perhaps write up a few methods for what clearly SPS look like, and then we could compare to the above, and determine which SBM most closely resembles. Again, if you write stuff, then you are the publisher, that is by definition "self-published", which is very often the case even if not always for Science-Based Medicine...even by their own admission! Iljhgtn (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think defining none self-published sources are the ones we give a free pass because of our social-culture background is a good way to define them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models:
- SPS. The website describes itself as a blog. According to WP:SPS blogs are considered SPS. In addition, SBM publishes unknown proportions of articles without prior editorial review. Therefore, SBM could only be used with attribution, because it is impossible to tell which articles passed editorial review and which did not. JonJ937 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @JonJ937, WP:SPS says "...self-published material such as...personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above)...are largely not acceptable as sources". Are you sure that this isn't a WP:NEWSBLOG? They have an Executive editor and a Managing editor, which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with WP:NEWSBLOGS, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "
These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.
" Iljhgtn (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)- I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want Science-Based Medicine to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per WP:NEWSBLOG we are advised to use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. JonJ937 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Use with caution and statements of opinion are covered by other parts of the guidelines, separate from SPS. Whether a source is self-published or not doesn't mean it's reliable or unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per WP:NEWSBLOG we are advised to use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. JonJ937 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want Science-Based Medicine to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "
- @JonJ937, WP:SPS says "...self-published material such as...personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above)...are largely not acceptable as sources". Are you sure that this isn't a WP:NEWSBLOG? They have an Executive editor and a Managing editor, which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with WP:NEWSBLOGS, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Mostly SPS. It seems to be the Novella and Gorski show. That doesn’t make it unreliable for topics in which they are recognised experts - neurology for Novella and oncology for Gorski, apparently. That would make them reliable reviewers of any guest content on those topics too. But outside their domains of expertise, they are just blogging. Expertise in one domain does not imply expertise in another - and sometimes it’s quite the opposite, in that smart people who are accomplished in their niche start to think their opinions on everything else are equally robust (looking at you, Elon). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS. Editorial oversight is insufficiently verifiable nor independent enough to call this something other than self-published. SmolBrane (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPS It seems their peer-review is only for new contributers, the staff is volunteer and they explicitly say that they like to avoid as much editing as possible. There also doesn't seem to be much of editorial indepencence from the owner (New England Skeptical Society) which is an advocacy group. Especially troubling is that the Executive Editor is also the President of NESS. NESS also has two other members of the Novella family on the board. That makes three of the five board members from the same family. This is no what oversight should look like. The group of writers is also small and probably know each other well and are of course, ideologically similar. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Partial SPSPartly unclear, partly not SPS As discussed above, it isn't clear which articles by Gorski and Novella have been reviewed and we should probably lean towards treating those ones like WP:EXPERTSPS just to be safe. They do, however, have a very clear review policy on guest articles (see ) which statesvolunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission
(emphasis added). That's pretty obviously not self-publishing. I do want to note though that this type of discussion would really benefit from more consensus on what an SPS is. Maybe some more experienced editors should consider drafting a big RfC to revise SPS with more detail on what it means in practice (probably after ARBPIA5 is over so admins have more time to focus on it)? CambrianCrab (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CambrianCrab:The main problem is that they currently only have two editors (one being the managing editor), so we can be relatively sure that they do not follow that policy becuase it requires a minimum of four editors to follow (the managing editor and at least three others). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good catch on the number of editors, I missed that the other ones had retired/passed, but I don't really think that makes it SPS since articles are still getting reviewed. Imo, it's a red flag in terms of reliability that either the list of editors and/or review policy is out of date, but no impact towards whether or not it's SPS. CambrianCrab (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- See and that is interesting because I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I think that it could be reasonably argued that SBM is reliable, but that there is no case at all that it is somehow not SPS. When there is one person in most cases writing something and then just directly launching it to the internet on a blog, that is self-published. Which we have no way of knowing if these two editors even check one another, so it is very possible that frequently this is exactly what is happening. However, how different is it really when there are only two editors from one checking on anything. That is practically and definitionally a self-published source by every possible measure for evaluating whether or not a source as SPS or not. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? And again, even if that is true, if there are only two editors doing the "reviewing", that is not due diligence, that is back scratching and rubber stamping. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't think SBM is unreliable, just that outdated pages would be a red mark towards reliability. Whether or not pages or up-to-date has nothing to do with if something is self-published.
- I don't really follow the rest of your argument.
We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed?
Yeah we generally take sources at their word on their own policies unless we have reason to question it. SBM is a relatively long-running and well-known outlet run by experts in the topic area. I don't see any reason we should think they're lying about their policy. CambrianCrab (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Those are fair point, review is review and it seems that at least some are seemingly getting reviewed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- See and that is interesting because I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I think that it could be reasonably argued that SBM is reliable, but that there is no case at all that it is somehow not SPS. When there is one person in most cases writing something and then just directly launching it to the internet on a blog, that is self-published. Which we have no way of knowing if these two editors even check one another, so it is very possible that frequently this is exactly what is happening. However, how different is it really when there are only two editors from one checking on anything. That is practically and definitionally a self-published source by every possible measure for evaluating whether or not a source as SPS or not. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? And again, even if that is true, if there are only two editors doing the "reviewing", that is not due diligence, that is back scratching and rubber stamping. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CambrianCrab:The main problem is that they currently only have two editors (one being the managing editor), so we can be relatively sure that they do not follow that policy becuase it requires a minimum of four editors to follow (the managing editor and at least three others). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not SPS. What someone means by "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" is "these writers aren't dumbasses and we trust them" with an implied "if an issue is found after the piece is out, we'll put out a correction", not "these people are infallible and we will never correct them because reasons". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- So they are essentially "Not SPS" because they claim to sometimes not be SPS. Got it. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of oversight is due diligence, not dumbass detection. SmolBrane (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Partly SPS and generally unsuitable for contentious topics on Misplaced Pages. While SBM is valuable for some scientic topics, it self-described as blog with inconsistent editorial oversight, allowing authors like Novella and Gorski to pubish without review. Gorski, who often takes strong positions, is a polarizing figure, and his articles often reflect a bias and lack of nuance. For controversial topics or biographies, more neutral and independently vetted sources would better meet Misplaced Pages standards. IntrepidContributor (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- SPS As I've said before on previous RfCs, this is explicitly a self-published source. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not SPS unless Gorski and Novella wrote the piece: SBM is one of the best sources for coveraging WP:FRINGE and WP:FRINGE activism we have and I'll note some, certainly not all, wanting to make it a SPS tend to have, at best, a WP:PROFRINGE attitude . Simply put, there is editorial oversight of contributors. We don't know if there is for Gorski and Novella, and should act accordingly and treat them as subject matter experts outside BLPs, but we do know that there is for other contributors. I'm somewhat concerned with the shape of this RFC - we have longstanding consensus that SBM is a reliable source and not an SPS. Instead of challenging that, this RFC was opened to challenge specifically the SPS designation in a seemingly roundabout way to question it's reliability.
- I also want to note that per WP:PARITY
In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed.
- so while I still maintain it's not an SPS, the standards for WP:FRINGE allow non-peer reviewed sources on fringe topics as long as they're reliable, so an SPS designation should not, unless we also agree it's not reliable, be used to go a purge of its use. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- No due to editorial oversight. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that the editors have stated that they do not provide oversight on all contributers prior to publication, this does not seem to be universally true. - Bilby (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- SPS I think it's important that the arguments about whether Science Based Medicine is SPS or not are removed from our own assessment of the topics they’ve covered, otherwise we infuse topic bias on a process matter and risk floating away from the core question of this RfC. SBM is SPS simply because of the lack of editorial oversight and independence needed for subject matter of medicine.--Evathedutch (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not SPS when it's "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" it means that you have to become a trusted author first before you can publish without prior review, i.e., the editorial oversight comes from becoming a trusted author. Banedon (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editorial oversight means reviewing content prior to publishing to ensure the content being published is factual, etc. It's not about who the author is, it's about the substance of the content. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that if I write a letter to the editor of some local newspaper, and it is published, then the newspaper is a SPS? Banedon (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Banedon If it was published without review? Yes. A website that published unreviewed content is not a publisher, it's a self-publishing platform. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the editors of the local newspaper basically do nothing? Banedon (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you are using the wrong analogy. If you can publish directly, based on your own decision to publish, without anyone else reading or vetting your writing before it appears, you are self publishing. If an editor checks the material and approves it before publication, it is not self publishing. SBM allow some editors to publish without checking or vetting the material before it is published, as you akcnowledged, so in those cases it is an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- At the very least anything written by Gorski and Novella there seems to be strong consensus that at minimum those articles are very clearly SPS. In other cases, I think it is dubious at best, since Gorski and Novella run the show and whether or not any real "editorial review" is happening on this blog appears to be very, very much in doubt. The analogy of a "local newspaper" and a blog is not actually analogous, and it is weird that an exception was ever carved out for this blog for it to somehow not be considered SPS. Thankfully it appears as if a new consensus has emerged as a result of this RfC in favor of SBM now being considered SPS, or at minimum, anything published by Gorski or Novella absolutely is without a shadow of a doubt SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bilby: That's where we disagree. By letting you publish directly, the editor is saying they trust you to write content that doesn't need to be edited - and that means it's not SPS. In fact, one could argue it's a higher bar than having to read and vet the writing. Banedon (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- By publishing directly, it is by definition self publishing. By being trusted to publish directly, it means you are seen as reliable. The two are not mutally exclusive. - Bilby (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you are using the wrong analogy. If you can publish directly, based on your own decision to publish, without anyone else reading or vetting your writing before it appears, you are self publishing. If an editor checks the material and approves it before publication, it is not self publishing. SBM allow some editors to publish without checking or vetting the material before it is published, as you akcnowledged, so in those cases it is an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the editors of the local newspaper basically do nothing? Banedon (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Banedon If it was published without review? Yes. A website that published unreviewed content is not a publisher, it's a self-publishing platform. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that if I write a letter to the editor of some local newspaper, and it is published, then the newspaper is a SPS? Banedon (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- We are all making assumptions about "what it means" because SBM is not transparent enough about its editorial policies. It pales in comparison to journals that tackle many of the same topics. This is precisely why it's SPS. Evathedutch (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thats right. This "Not SPS" argument is without merit. SBM is not a journal, it is a blog and is 100% SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind. Banedon (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that they post "bogus content"? If not, how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Bogus content" is related to an argument about reliability. Which some contributors to this RfC have mistakenly believed is part of this discussion, it is not. This RfC is on the question of whether or not SBM is SPS, which it so obviously is. Therefore, my response was simply reframing that we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all, instead, we are simply discussing whether or not the "editorial review" which some allege occurs at SBM (with scant evidence), is done by the very same people who publish content (Gorski and Novella).
- Given the self-publication by Gorski/Novella, which evidently is what happens, then the source is a self-published source, and "bogus" doesn't even enter into the conversation. Or at the very minimum, any article published by SBM by Gorski/Novella ought to 100% be considered SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Banedon wrote: "If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind," and you responded "If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks."
- As best I can tell, you did not respond to my second question, so I'll ask it again: If , how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote?
- Just so you're clear, the current WP:SPS characterization "self-published" explicitly refers to reliability. When you say "we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all," that's not entirely true. It's relevant to whether some of the content on the site is not self-published. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've moved the goal posts, Banedon is arguing that none of the content on the site is self-published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know that Banedon's !vote was "Not SPS," but I interpreted Banedon's comment to Iljhgtn (who claimed that SBM is "100% SPS") as a point about outside contributors to SBM (outdated description here). Maybe I misinterpreted. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think in the case of Gorski and Novella there is absolutely no question that it is SPS, but I am more and more wondering how much "editorial review" actually happens even in other cases. From the link you provided if we review, "
How to submit a guest article: Anyone is welcome to submit content to ScienceBasedMedicine.org, regardless of credentials. We’ll publish anything we think is interesting, relevant, well-written, and, above all, scientifically sound. (The less editing we need to do, the better.) The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission. Please embed citations as weblinks rather than footnotes or endnotes, it saves us a lot of time. How to submit a guest article for publication on SBM Submit your article by email directly to Dr. Gorski (SBMeditor@icloud.com), the managing editor . If he thinks it has potential, he will distribute it to the editorial staff for further consideration. Please note that none of the editors are paid for our work on SBM, and most of us have demanding day jobs. That means that, more frequently than we would like, the process is less than optimal and not as fast as writers (or we) would like. (For instance, if Dr. Gorski is working against a grant application deadline, you might not hear for a while, because trying to keep his lab afloat trumps his extracurricular activities on SBM.)
" There are claims that "at least three of our editors evaluate the submission", but again, I don't trust this, but beyond that, this only applies (if they even do it) to guest submissions, which can be Gorski may post even if he just thinks its "interesting" and "The less editing we need to do, the better" (all well and good, but again, doesn't sound like much "editorial review" is happening even in the case of guest submissions... But again, that is only part of the discussion. The other part that has overwhelming consensus at this point is that anything from SBM authored by Gorski or Novella is SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- No offense, but you just posted a bunch of text that once again didn't answer my question. Here it is again: If , how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote?
- I'm not looking for your personal opinion about SBM, as you've already made that clear in your many comments. I'm not looking for your opinion about the RfC consensus. I'm trying to understand your response to Banedon. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- His comment was, "
If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind.
". I was not in any way focused at all on the "bogus content" aspect that you are laser focused on, I was refuting the fact that obviously I, Iljhgtn, cannot get stuff published on their page, but that if I could sure, it would not be a self-published source perhaps. Though it is a ridiculous point he made and that is why I am citing the direct text, instead of offering opinion. If that does not answer your query then I am exasperated and we can both just move on from this odd reading comprehension and/or semantics confused discourse we've been having. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- Yes, I think we're talking past each other, and it's fine with me for both of us to step away from it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- His comment was, "
- I think in the case of Gorski and Novella there is absolutely no question that it is SPS, but I am more and more wondering how much "editorial review" actually happens even in other cases. From the link you provided if we review, "
- I know that Banedon's !vote was "Not SPS," but I interpreted Banedon's comment to Iljhgtn (who claimed that SBM is "100% SPS") as a point about outside contributors to SBM (outdated description here). Maybe I misinterpreted. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You've moved the goal posts, Banedon is arguing that none of the content on the site is self-published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- But you're not Gorski or Novella, are you? That kind of renders the entire point moot. Obviously you can't publish bogus content, because you're not trusted, ergo, there is editorial control and it is not SPS. Banedon (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that they post "bogus content"? If not, how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind. Banedon (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thats right. This "Not SPS" argument is without merit. SBM is not a journal, it is a blog and is 100% SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editorial oversight means reviewing content prior to publishing to ensure the content being published is factual, etc. It's not about who the author is, it's about the substance of the content. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Contributions by the editors are SPS. Definitely contributions by Gorkski, Novella, and the other listed editors are clearly WP:SPS by both the letter and spirit of WP:SPS. By the letter of WP:SPS I don't think contributions by other people are SPS but I do have serious doubts about the editorial policy, and thus the overall reliability, of SBM if they're allowing the editors to regularly publish articles without fact-checking. Loki (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not SPS. This is a web publication of the New England Skeptical Society, not the personal vlog of Randy from Boise. Just because it's called a blog doesn't mean it's a personal, self-published blog. The premise that organizations publishing stuff written by members of their organizations amounts to self-publishing seems like it can't help but lead to something like, "the LA Times publishes stuff written and reviewed by members of the LA Times so the LA Times self publishes itself". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society whose leadership overlaps with that of the blog and is largely restricted to a single family, the Novellas. The same man, Steven Novella, is in charge of both so there is no independence here that would make it not self published. I would also note that if the Washington Post ever fired all its professional staff and started hosting stuff by Jeff Bezos and his buddies we would treat it as a SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did you consider the editorial that Bezos wrote in the Post (re: his decision to block the Post's endorsement of Harris) to be SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but note that we already treat editorials and opinion pieces as SPS so its a bit of a moot point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's news to me. Are you saying that an editorial or opinion piece cannot be used unless it either falls under EXPERTSPS or BLPSELFPUB? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its a bit (some would say a lot) wider than that because WP:ABOUTSELF also applies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't understand how ABOUTSELF comes into play, since an editorial / opinion piece is typically representing the view of a single person, though I guess it's occasionally written by more than one, as with something from an editorial board. But even assuming that ABOUTSELF is in play, that says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we cannot use an opinion piece or editorial in the NYT to make a statement —attributed to the author(s) — about a living person whose relationship to the author(s) is third-party. If that's the case, I think there's a lot of WP content that's in breach of this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There might be some (wikipedia is full of violations of any rule you care to name), but most of those uses are as primary (under aboutself) not as third-party sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whether it's primary is distinct from whether it's self-published. Many opinion pieces are used as third-party sources for attributed opinions about living people. Here's an example: in the Trump and fascism article, the text "Following the January 6 Capitol attack, Robert Paxton, who had initially resisted calling Trump a fascist, announced that the label now seemed necessary," sourced to this opinion piece by Paxton, which is a third-party source for a statement about Trump. Are you saying that you think that text must be removed because the source is SPS? WP:RSEDITORIAL certainly doesn't say that all opinion pieces should be treated as SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There might be some (wikipedia is full of violations of any rule you care to name), but most of those uses are as primary (under aboutself) not as third-party sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't understand how ABOUTSELF comes into play, since an editorial / opinion piece is typically representing the view of a single person, though I guess it's occasionally written by more than one, as with something from an editorial board. But even assuming that ABOUTSELF is in play, that says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we cannot use an opinion piece or editorial in the NYT to make a statement —attributed to the author(s) — about a living person whose relationship to the author(s) is third-party. If that's the case, I think there's a lot of WP content that's in breach of this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its a bit (some would say a lot) wider than that because WP:ABOUTSELF also applies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's news to me. Are you saying that an editorial or opinion piece cannot be used unless it either falls under EXPERTSPS or BLPSELFPUB? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but note that we already treat editorials and opinion pieces as SPS so its a bit of a moot point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You argue they're amateurs and unqualified to write the coverage that they do; that doesn't on its own bear on whether they're self-published or not. I've limited the scope of my !vote here to concluding they aren't self-published. Whether they are a reliable publication that isn't self-published or an unreliable publication that isn't self-published is a different question. As for Novella heading NESS and Science-based Medicine—um, well, yeah, duh. The latter is an organ of the former. I'm not aghast that the editor in chief of the LA times runs the LA Times, or that Alfred A. Knopf ran Alfred A. Knopf. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society. The LA Times is owned by Patrick Soon-Shiong, the editor in chief of the LA times is Terry Tang. A book by Alfred A. Knopf Sr. or Blanche Knopf published by Alfred A. Knopf would be considered SPS for wikipedia purposes, that isn't groundbreaking thats totally normal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To add to this, being an editor and running an interest organization are (and should be) two very different roles. I can't imagine the director of the National Association for People that Can't Edit and Hate Editorial Integrity (NAPCEHEI) would make a good editor in chief for the org's publication. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I said,
You argue they're amateurs
; you said,No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society
(emphasis added). I'm not seeing how I've mischaracterized what you believe about their qualifications when you immediately repeated it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society. The LA Times is owned by Patrick Soon-Shiong, the editor in chief of the LA times is Terry Tang. A book by Alfred A. Knopf Sr. or Blanche Knopf published by Alfred A. Knopf would be considered SPS for wikipedia purposes, that isn't groundbreaking thats totally normal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did you consider the editorial that Bezos wrote in the Post (re: his decision to block the Post's endorsement of Harris) to be SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is a distinct difference between the LA Times and SBM in that it would appear as if at SBM just Gorski can write something or just Novella and then publish it. That is different that the LA Times or other non-SPS in that those have editorial review by other staff. These staff are known and are publicly verifiable as they have publicly findable jobs as seen here.
- At minimum, it must be acknowledged that material written by Gorski and Novella is SPS. For the record, that is also not saying it is not reliable (as several commenters above continue to be confusing), just that Gorski and Novella work from SBM is SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Forbes.com is owned by Forbes Media LLC. Because it is owned by a company, does that mean we should not regard it as self published? In the case of Forbes.com it is not the ownership that matters, but the ability of people to publish directly as contributors without editorial review. With SBM, I would argue that it is also not the ownership that matters, but whether or not people can publish directly without editorial review. - Bilby (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Forbes.com includes content both from Forbes staff and from Forbes contributors. So some of the Forbes.com content is SPS and some isn't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Presumably, that is because the Forbes staff material is published under editorial control. It is not the ownership that decides if something is an SPS, but the process by which material becomes available after it has been written. - Bilby (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That was my point, as it seemed you were claiming that we should regard all of Forbes.com as self-published. Why did you conclude that the subset of SBM material that does undergo prepublication editorial review is nonetheless SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've never assumed that material on SBM that undergoes editorial review is SPS. My only concern is that the argument that the publication belongs to the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not SPS, is not sound. I think you can reasonably argue that some material published by SBM does not under go editorial review prior to publication, and that some material is therefore self published, or you can argue that all material undergoes pre-publication editorial review, and therefore SBM is not an SPS at all. But I don't think you can argue that SBM is owned by the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should have been clearer. I was asking because in your Dec.6 !vote, you said that you consider SBM to be wholly SPS (or at least, you didn't qualify your SPS response). FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think I have been fairly consistent, but to explain my reasoning: it is clear that trusted authors are allowed to self publish on the site, but what is not clear is who these authors are. We khave been assuming that this means the editors can publish directly, and we have assumed that guest contributors probably can not, but we do not know if all guest editors are not trusted enough, nor do we know where the authors that sit between those two come. Given that, rather than say "partial SPS" but not know who is self publishing, I think it is safer to say "SPS" but realise that there may be exceptions. From a BLP perspective I prefer to errr on the side of caution. - Bilby (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should have been clearer. I was asking because in your Dec.6 !vote, you said that you consider SBM to be wholly SPS (or at least, you didn't qualify your SPS response). FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've never assumed that material on SBM that undergoes editorial review is SPS. My only concern is that the argument that the publication belongs to the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not SPS, is not sound. I think you can reasonably argue that some material published by SBM does not under go editorial review prior to publication, and that some material is therefore self published, or you can argue that all material undergoes pre-publication editorial review, and therefore SBM is not an SPS at all. But I don't think you can argue that SBM is owned by the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That was my point, as it seemed you were claiming that we should regard all of Forbes.com as self-published. Why did you conclude that the subset of SBM material that does undergo prepublication editorial review is nonetheless SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Presumably, that is because the Forbes staff material is published under editorial control. It is not the ownership that decides if something is an SPS, but the process by which material becomes available after it has been written. - Bilby (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Forbes.com includes content both from Forbes staff and from Forbes contributors. So some of the Forbes.com content is SPS and some isn't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society whose leadership overlaps with that of the blog and is largely restricted to a single family, the Novellas. The same man, Steven Novella, is in charge of both so there is no independence here that would make it not self published. I would also note that if the Washington Post ever fired all its professional staff and started hosting stuff by Jeff Bezos and his buddies we would treat it as a SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- SPS A group blog where the participants can publish without review is a SPS, even if it calls certain people editors and sometimes deletes things (if that were the standard, even much of social media wouldn't be a SPS, because sometimes those sites have deleted stuff like COVID misinformation). I also do not think accepting occasional outside submissions consistutes "review" to the degree those posts become not-SPS. Nor do I think being "published" by an organization the blog authors *also* control consititutes sufficient independence, as some have claimed. I think sometimes the authors can be cited under the WP:SPS subject-mattere expert exception, but only in the specific area of their academic speciality (e.g. neurology, surgery and oncology, family practice medicine) but not in other areas. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: Bild
What is the reliability of the German tabloid Bild, including its website Bild.de?
- Generally reliable
- Additional considerations apply
- Generally unreliable
- Deprecated
Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Responses (Bild)
- Option 3/4 Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, archived link, routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation)
Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers.
...The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary
... EDIT: another quoteBILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.
} Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)- As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 , as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that an acclaimed book presenting a lightly-fictionalized denunciation of its practices is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. signed, Rosguill 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3 at least, and I wouldn't say no to 4. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for WP:ABOUTSELF material; if they claimed something as simple as X number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3 I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- 3/4 Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. Magisch 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and allegedly breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable FortunateSons (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2, provisionally, since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. Alaexis¿question? 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3, I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 4 Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Misplaced Pages project. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3, there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – Bildblog. But see my comment in the discussion section below. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 per ActivelyDisinterested. The Kip 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per WP:ABOUTSELF would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4 per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- it's snowing 3 Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3/4: Tabloids usually fail reliability. It seems this one is no different. ToThAc (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3/4 (depending on whether anyone can make a case that there's some e.g. ABOUTSELF use we would still want them for — but I doubt we should be using them 1,800 times, as Hemiauchenia says we are at present) per Aquillion and Hemiauchenia; as RSP says, a reliable source "has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction"; BILD has the opposite reputation. -sche (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (Bild)
Bild is currently used over 1,800 times on the English Misplaced Pages per bild.de 
. It is already currently listed on RSP as "generally unreliable". This RfC was prompted by a discussion at WT:RSP, where a user questioned the lack of participation in previous discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I asked the initial question at WT:RSP since I don't like when we classify sources based on vibes. So I'll play the role of the devil's advocate. I have very little knowledge of the German media landscape and I'm open to arguments in both directions. The sources provided by u:Hemiauchenia make two claims:
articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary"
- this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities- In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes . Alaexis¿question? 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated):
From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.
- If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. signed, Rosguill 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. Alaexis¿question? 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia, I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks!
- These are the key points from the foreword
- articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers
- BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples
- is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze
- A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer
- A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable.
- I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed?
- In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very WP:BIASED source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. Alaexis¿question? 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. Alaexis¿question? 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. Alaexis¿question? 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated):
- I'm not really sure what is meant by
classif sources based on vibes
, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. WP:SOURCE saysreputation for fact-checking and accuracy
, as does WP:RS multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the bild.de , most of them belong to the first category. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Nigerian newspapers
WP:RSNP has nothing about Nigerian newspapers, but references a project-list of them which seems rather too optimistic. It seems to me that these newspapers are filled with completely unreliable promopieces. You can see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Martina Ononiwu, where a completely unknown Nigerian/French person supposedly got a US-only award from President Biden. Not a single source outside Nigeria confirms this, there seems to be no reason at all why she would have received this, but it got reported by Vanguard, Guardian, Nation, Roving Naija, The Sun...
We had similar issues with e.g. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Musa Muhammed (entrepreneur), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Omogboye Saheed Ayodeji, and probably many others which I can't find as easily.
Isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers which routinely publish such completely unreliable promo pieces as articles? Fram (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that if you deprecated these newspapers, there'd be basically no usable Nigerian sources left, which hardly seems good in terms of attempting to fix Misplaced Pages's coverage biases. I do agree that it is standard practice at a lot of Nigerian newspapers to run effectively undisclosed promotional material, and it seems good to note this somewhere on RSP, but I think deprecating them outright would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says
realised that their top quality journalism or influential columnists alone weren’t going to win the battle for eyeballs. Enter “viral content” and clickbait headlines. Press releases were repackaged as news stories, fact-checking and verification became redundant. Aanu Adeoye says, “the traditional gatekeepers of journalism (newspapers) in this country don’t give a hoot about the quality of what they’re churning out daily.” In a few years, stories from Nigeria’s top newspapers looked as hurriedly written as stories from blogs. It had become a game of who could break the news the fastest and who could churn out the most news. Nigerian traditional media beat the upstarts at their own game and occupied spots at the top of Nigeria’s most visited websites. But the true cost of this pyrrhic victory was quality control.
If even mainstream Nigerian newspapers can't be trusted as factual sources then it's not clear what Nigerian sources can be trusted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) - I really don’t get arguments like this one. How does it help Misplaced Pages to use unreliable sources from countries with more limited media landscapes? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- One of Misplaced Pages and the WMF's goals is to be "diverse" and to lessen systemic bias to western nations. Limiting coverage to Western liberal democracies will obviously prevent that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- How does it help the English Misplaced Pages to eliminate practically all English-language sources for about 1 billion English-speakers? There's not an easy answer, here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Much of the editor population vastly underestimates how much of our reader base comes from these regions of the globe.
- Formally deprecating sources is a last resort for widely misused stuff like the Daily Mail (arguably part of the issue there was the perceived credibility of a mainstream Western paper subject to strict British libel laws). Simply following and enforcing existing P&G should address the issues adequately.
- Furthermore, if one of these Nigerian papers were to come under new and improved management or ownership, I doubt WP would take notice with any real celerity.
- RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says
- This is a problem with virtually every newspaper published in Nigeria and India. We cannot simply deprecate all news from two of the largest English speaking countries in the world. Or, we could, but we would get called very racist for doing so. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which don't have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. Fram (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It still has a disparate impact in a racially biased manner. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No its not, it is based upon lack of truth, no one here has raised race once apart from you. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever the intention banning the entire media ecosystem of a developing country of 230 million people (plus India's 1.43 billion because we would ban them for the same reason) and making our encyclopedia irrelevant to large swathes of the non western world would have a biased outcome - doesn't matter the intention if it gets you the same result. Is that a sacrifice we are willing to accept? Because if so we need to stop pretending we have any interest in "combatting systemic bias". PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, in my opinion it hasn’t been shown that reliability issues already aren’t being handled at in a nationally disparate manner. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- if these sources want to be accepted as reliable on Misplaced Pages, they should give up their practice of publishing paid news and writing puff pieces for anyone willing to pay. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we are going to be banning every single news source of a country of 230 million, then we should be very aware we are doing it. And possibly throw out all the project's virtue signaling over countering systemic bias along with it, if we decide to go that route. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- We should allow perpetuation of misinformation on Misplaced Pages because it would be racist not to? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (disparate impact or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should we do the same and ban all news from India? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- We should ban all shitty sources. If that wipes out all of India’s news (I’d sure be surprised) then yes. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should we do the same and ban all news from India? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see how it would be preferable to have our coverage of non-Western developing countries be dominated by propaganda, paid-promotion, tabloids, and un-fact-checked reports... JoelleJay (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- No one is suggesting an either-or dichotomy. We should start by enforcing existing policies with regard to usage of these sources on a case by case basis. Mass deprecation was merely an impulsive suggestion someone made somewhere above, and would self-evidently be overkill unless all other options had been exhausted, which they haven’t. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (disparate impact or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which don't have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. Fram (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think this claim should be presumed true but not notable. The PVSA award is given out annually by any number of authorized NGOs to their own volunteers without any US government involvement, and it does come with a form letter in the president's name. Ononiwu apparently received hers from Innovate Africa Corp. There's no reason any US press to write up such a thing, and there doesn't seem to be a public database of honorees. Note however that Ononiwu should not have been eligible for the award because she's not a US citizen or permanent resident. I guess these newspapers went along with exaggerating the award's prestige, but I don't see it as a major problem for reliability on facts. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it could be worth writing some guidance along the same lines as WP:NEWSORGINDIA, though I'm not sure it rises to the point of a general deprecation yet. Reuters Institute report here might also be helpful in developing such guidance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- As with WP:NEWSORGINDIA Nigerian news sources are full of undisclosed advertorials. It's a common practice, so editors need to be cautious with anything that uses promotional language. Their use for establishing notability needs to be seen in a similar light.
- Formally deprecating all Nigerian news media just isn't an option, in the same way deprecating all India news media with the same issue isn't an option. I would support changing the language of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it highlights the same issue in other countries not just India. I doubt this is an issue limited to those markets, and one that will likely become more of an issue everywhere with the difficulties newsedia currently face. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I recall at least one instance of them churning out AI generated puff pieces e.i daily times ng puff piece about Pranav Adani and GPTzero analysis of first 5000 words of it. Oddly enough Daily Times NG is listed as a "generally reliable" source for Nigerian topics at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources.- Ratnahastin (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's evidence that their promotional articles aren't reliable. But I've yet to see anyone present evidence here that other kinds of news from these sources are unreliable. Does anyone here have evidence of that? If not, I don't see why we'd deprecate these Nigerian news sources in their entirety, and instead I support Hemiauchenia's having added "Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability" to RS/P, perhaps adding something like "especially for promotional news articles." FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since the PROMO issues seem to be localized particularly to biographies, perhaps we could have guidance similar to what we use at NCORP that calls for heightened Nigerian source scrutiny re: independence when it comes to BLPs. Deprecating them just for BLPs might also be an option. JoelleJay (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I refuse to comment on the instances that led to this proposal because they can happen on a platform with the format adopted by Misplaced Pages. However, I oppose the proposal to deprecate all Nigerian newspapers on English Misplaced Pages. Applying a blanket judgment based on issues with a few outlets among many is unjust and undermines Misplaced Pages's inclusivity. Nigeria's media landscape, shaped by its diverse population of over 500 languages and 300 ethnic groups, plays a critical role in democracy and accountability.
- "While no media is flawless, treating all Nigerian newspapers as unreliable disregards their contributions and efforts to uphold global standards. Media reliability concerns exist worldwide, yet discussion of this nature is sensitive and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through blanket exclusions. Adopting this precedent ensures fairness and avoids marginalizing voices from the Global South.
- "I recommend individual evaluations of Nigerian newspapers, involving local expertise and ongoing monitoring, to maintain Misplaced Pages's mission of inclusivity and accuracy. A nuanced approach will preserve diversity and strengthen the platform's credibility."Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes banning falsehoods is a sacrifice I am willing to make, be they from White people black people, or yellow people. As I said about Fiox and the Daily Myth, if you do not want to be accused of telling lies, there is a simpler solution, do not tell them. This is my last response here with a firm not reliable. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind, but it has to be proof and not emotive appeals to (so-called) fairness. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
or yellow people
Uhhh.... JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- Obviously meant as in "persons of any color, including colors in which persons don’t exist" and not a reference to the antique Western epithet for East Asians ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not "obvious", even to those of us who have interacted with Slatersteven enough to presume he wasn't intending to use a racial epithet. JoelleJay (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously meant as in "persons of any color, including colors in which persons don’t exist" and not a reference to the antique Western epithet for East Asians ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm against this. Nigerian sources, like all sources, are entitled to be evaluated one by one. EEpic (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)
I've gone ahead and created a new section covering Nigerian news organisations at RSP Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Nigerian_news_organisations. It's a bit stubby at the moment but it's at least a start. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources. —A. B. 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —A. B. 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that their judgment is poor or that Nigerian editors are inferior in any way, but that there are issues with Nigerian press across the board, such as low press freedom that is very different from say, news sources in Western Europe and North America, which should be kept in mind with evaluating their content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —A. B. 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I encourage you to engage with folks at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria as you develop guidance on Nigerian media. A. B. 21:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I second this. I conversion about Nigeria WP should not be done without Nigerians editors involvement. Just because you found something wrong in some sources that doesn’t give you the right to assume all is bad. I can literally give you examples of where BBC published falsehood, in 2024! So let’s listen to these editors as they are more familiar with these sources. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reliable sources can churn out a lot of rubbish once in a while. No matter what anyone says, the likes of Vanguard, Guardian, Daily Times, Punch, Daily Independent, The Sun, etc, would always be notable relating to general issues about Nigeria. Some weeks back, a state in Nigeria held their governorship election. These media houses in question were the source of verified information about the election. When a political appointment is made by the president, it is the same media houses that Misplaced Pages editors would use to establish the claim. If we make them unreliable, it means we are putting an end to Nigerian contents on English Misplaced Pages. These media houses will dish out promotional materials whenever they want and we can do nothing about it (it is business for them). All we can do as Wikipedians is to speedy norminate articles for deletion if they are not notable to be on the Wiki. The major issue we are having now is a result of a loophole in the notability criteria. GNG should not be used ALONE to establish notability. SuperSwift (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If these media houses(e.g The Daily Times) are churning out AI generated puff pieces then we should indeed add a cautionary clause in the guideline that care must be taken when using these sources to establish notability, especially at venues such as AfD. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- GNG still works. The sources have to be independent. What this means is that in the case of Nigerian media, it's tricky but necessary to try and determine if a particular report is independent of the subject.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Judging articles on a case-by-case basis is something we (Nigerian editors) are already doing and believe it or not, we’re doing a damn good job at it. Deprecating these sources means that articles on Nigerian topics would be deleted in batches——thousands, if I might add——and this doesn’t necessarily reflect the systemic bias we are supposed to be fighting.
- There are tells that give off a sponsored/paid article and every Nigerian editor in good standing already knows this and by this, I vehemently disagree with Hemiauchenia that Nigerian editors are not able to distinguish a reliable source from an unreliable source.
- Also, I think sometimes, what we consider as “poor journalism” (in the Western standard) are just Nigerian journalist (correctly) using Nigerian English to write articles that it seems like it is promo. This does not mean that undisclosed paid journalism does not happen but sometimes, we confuse the two. So, this is me opposing any form deprecations as this will have unintended consequences. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have a section on RSP that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ratnahastin, uhm, if Indian editors did so, someone took the liberty of doing it for us (possible due to our incompetence): WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA; no one is opposing it. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have a section on RSP that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
It is true that Nigerian news outlet like their Western counterparts (RSBIAS?) do publish opinions, promotional and advertorials like reliable news without explicitly marking them as much. In fact, this has long history in African media and it is mostly associated with UPE editors who want to create contents for their gain.
Yet, deprecating Nigerian sources is not the solution. It will definitely do more harm than good to the visibility of the most populous black nation on earth. This means that we would have no reliable source to either curate or create contents. This is just an indirect way of saying that Nigerian content is no longer acceptable on English Misplaced Pages. This is because reliable sources are the backbone of contents creation. Prior to this discussion, we have been sending a lot of articles with promotional sources to Nigeria AfD noticeboard. This is what we can do from our end. We can neither stop people creating them nor stop the media from doing their business.
Also, there is currently a section at WP:RSP tagged WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA notifying reviewers and editors of caution in dealing with Nigeria sources. This alongside thorough analysis of Nigerian sources should drastically reduce the promotional articles and create a better future for Nigerian contents on the English Misplaced Pages.Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We cannot disregard Nigerian sources entirely. Yes, there are issues with some outlets, such as publishing promotional content or reworded press releases, but this isn’t unique to Nigeria. Even in countries with established media systems, there are sources that can’t always be trusted. The solution isn’t to write off all Nigerian sources but to evaluate them individually. Some articles might be biased or promotional, and we can avoid those. However, there are also credible reports and investigative pieces from Nigerian media that meet our standards. By treating each source on a case-by-case basis, we strike a balance, avoiding systemic bias while ensuring the content we use is reliable. A blanket approach would only create more gaps in coverage, which isn’t what we want for Misplaced Pages. And as Reading Beans mentioned, we Nigerian editors are already doing a good work judging sources on a case-by-case basis. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
], the only keep argument is based on just the above "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?". This is why they should not be acceptable because content is being created (and defended) using dubious sources (on the very grounds those sources are being defended here, false allegations of racism or false balance). Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Such a statement from a suspected UPE with limited knowledge around Wp:BIO and Wp:GNG shouldn't hold water let alone be used as a basis or argument for the deprecation of an sources of information. The WikiProject Nigeria volunteer are doing enormous tasks to ensure content that doesn't meet the English Misplaced Pages standard is nominated for deletion. Atibrarian (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, like already stated above, every sources presented in an AfD discussion is analysed carefully. FYI, majority of !delete votes there are Nigerian editors and the only keep !vote there being the paid creator (whom I suspect of UPE). If you can get a deletion discussion where a non-notable article was kept and defend with unreliable sources, I would appreciate it. Like the examples shown, the unreliable of the published articles were always pointed out and the articles were (correctly) deleted. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. No. No. my friend, @Reading Beans, I have told you ever and anon that this editor is not into UPE. So STOP THE SUSPICION and even voicing it out. It is affecting the reviewing of my articles. It is a blessing in disguise that my article brought this intense discussion. My take away from here is the guide being created for Nigerian sources and the caution I will employ in future creations. Royalrumblebee (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- What I'm seeing in that AfD, and in the others mentioned that all ended in deletion, is editors using their own good judgement to deal with this issue. Hopefully the new advice at NEWSORGNIGERIA will help encourage other editors to use the same caution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, if someone argues "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?", the response should be "no, we don't. We're rejecting notability based on these specific Nigerian articles, because (a) the articles being used to assert notability all focus on a single "event," (b) the articles are extremely similar and might have been content farmed, especially since they seem overly promotional (e.g., it's not a "prestigous" award, it's solely based on number of hours volunteered and being nominated by a relevant organization), and (c) US government info about the award makes it clear that she's not eligible for that award (as she's not a US citizen or permanent resident), which means that these articles aren't reliable for this content. But the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do you have evidence of the latter? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which is what Im did say, more than once. To me met with stonewalling "but that's racism" comments (and still am), at which point if the best argument you have is emotive, I have to assume you have no others, thus Im assume its an accepted problem with them. And as this is about "reputation for fact-checking" and the best argument is "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism"...well I have to assume they dio not have said reputation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm not sure what the referent of "them" is in "Im assume its an accepted problem with them."
- As for the rest, my argument isn't "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism." My argument is "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do you have evidence of the latter?" You still haven't presented any evidence that articles from Nigerian news media are generally unreliable. Either you have evidence for that or you don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- ] ]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Did you actually read those articles? Neither one makes any mention of any of the Nigerian news outlets identified in the OP. The BBC piece is about new websites "established around the time of Nigeria's general elections in February 2023." The SSRC piece is about "the spread of disinformation and how social media has only furthered this spread by providing new, fast-moving arenas for confirming and amplifying such false information" in Nigeria, including uptake by traditional news media, while noting that "The increasing threat to democratic institutions posed by disinformation is a global phenomenon." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Vangaurd and The nation ]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- "This story is part of a series by the BBC on disinformation and fake news - a global problem challenging the way we share information and perceive the world around us," where this particular article focused on the "spread of fake news in Africa" by looking at how five false stories — one each from five African countries, including Nigeria — was picked up by some news media in those countries. Yes, "The Nation and the Vanguard, both published stories with a very similar theme" to one of those false stories, but absolutely nothing in the BBC article suggests that Nigerian news media are generally unreliable. Is there any country globally where the BBC couldn't write an analogous report? For example, another BBC story in this series is "How President Trump took 'fake news' into the mainstream." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- You have it in reverse, we judge a source on its reputation for fact-checking, I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not, it down to you to show they do, We do not judge sources based upon how local editors will police pagers, but on the sources alone. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not ]
No, you haven't. Nothing you cited says anything about their reputation or suggests that they're generally unreliable. If you believe that something you cited provided evidence of general unreliability, please quote what you have in mind.it down to you to show they do
I haven't claimed that they have a reputation for fact-checking, so I have no burden to prove that they do (and more generally, if you want me to show something that I've said is true, just quote it, so we're both clear about the claim in question). What I said is (again): "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter." Fram proposed "to formally deprecate these newspapers," and you responded with "a firm not reliable." Since you're claiming that they're generally unreliable, you have a burden to show that they're generally unreliable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- You have it in reverse, we judge a source on its reputation for fact-checking, I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not, it down to you to show they do, We do not judge sources based upon how local editors will police pagers, but on the sources alone. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- "This story is part of a series by the BBC on disinformation and fake news - a global problem challenging the way we share information and perceive the world around us," where this particular article focused on the "spread of fake news in Africa" by looking at how five false stories — one each from five African countries, including Nigeria — was picked up by some news media in those countries. Yes, "The Nation and the Vanguard, both published stories with a very similar theme" to one of those false stories, but absolutely nothing in the BBC article suggests that Nigerian news media are generally unreliable. Is there any country globally where the BBC couldn't write an analogous report? For example, another BBC story in this series is "How President Trump took 'fake news' into the mainstream." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Vangaurd and The nation ]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Did you actually read those articles? Neither one makes any mention of any of the Nigerian news outlets identified in the OP. The BBC piece is about new websites "established around the time of Nigeria's general elections in February 2023." The SSRC piece is about "the spread of disinformation and how social media has only furthered this spread by providing new, fast-moving arenas for confirming and amplifying such false information" in Nigeria, including uptake by traditional news media, while noting that "The increasing threat to democratic institutions posed by disinformation is a global phenomenon." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I finally dug up an old AfD comment I'd made after reading a bunch of literature on Nigerian sources:Nigerian newspapers in particular are well known to flout broadcasting rules on paid advertising.
Professor Omenugha describes a similar trend in the print media: “In the newspapers, the so called specialised pages of the property, IT and computer businesses and finance pages are prime examples of commercialised spaces. The point is that no attempt is made to let the audience or readers know that these spaces are paid for and they end up holding them as sacred as they would news”.
Some journalists also work as paid consultants to politicians and businesses thus threatening professionalism. AIT’s Amarere says it is demeaning to journalism as “some of the concerned journalists now work for companies through which they obtain jobs. They cover their track by saying they are staff of this or that company and run offices outside the newsroom. In this situation it is difficult to balance profession with commercial interest”.
"Awards" issued by media are also considered corrupt.“The awards are not free, they are for money and anything that comes with a prize has implications”, says Olumide Adeyinka-Fusika, a lawyer. “If a newspaper names a bank as the best bank of the year and the bank is later indicted for corruption, that newspaper will not be willing to publish the story because that will be like passing a vote of no confidence on their own judgement”.
JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)- Here are some other references: chapter "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome"
For example, such practices as pack journalism by beat associations of journalists which operate like cartels, the payment of protection fees by reputation managers of institutions, the granting of awards of dubious credibility to non deserving individuals and organisations are some of the ways in which corruption manifests in the media.
Nigerian media and corrupt practicesEven though over 64 % of those sampled believed that acceptance of any form of gratifications was unethical, over 75 % of the
The Nigerian Press, Brown Envelope Syndrome (BES), and Media Professionalism
journalists engage in corrupt practices with impunity. More than half of the 18 media outfits covered by the study are indifferent to certain identified corrupt practices in their organizations.Adewale (2008), in his "The Rot in Nigerian Journalism Is Much Deeper Than We Thought" cited a controversial statement by Graham Greene to back up his position thus: "A petty reason perhaps why novelists more and more try to keep a distance from journalists is that novelists are trying to write the truth and journalists are trying to write fiction". This embarrassing irony aptly describes the state of Nigerian journalism and journalists in particular.
Deep rot in NigeriaIn its mildest form, press releases are published almost verbatim. Reporters either have an agreement with the government media men and are ‘settled’ with money, or threatened they will not be paid what is known as ‘qua”, or ‘mobilisation”. Some papers don’t pay salaries, and journalists have to make what they can on commission. In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men. Newspapers have a straight conflict of interest, they are financially reliant on political adverts, full-page colour hagiographies to governors and other political players. Last year, one paper alone took an estimated £270,000 in advertisements on one edition from supporters of former military ruler Ibrahim Babangida, celebrating his birthday.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)- I think we need something similar to User:Ms Sarah Welch/sandbox/Paid news and private treaties for Nigerian media as well. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- @JoelleJay the "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome" is an auto-expiring link that doesn't let anyone else use it. Could you provide a better link/where you found the original link? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Clicking the link from this should work. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- All seriousness aside,
In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men
- those powerful men should just buy the newspaper or hell even a whole media empire to rebroadcast their personal opinions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here are some other references: chapter "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome"
- ] ]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which is what Im did say, more than once. To me met with stonewalling "but that's racism" comments (and still am), at which point if the best argument you have is emotive, I have to assume you have no others, thus Im assume its an accepted problem with them. And as this is about "reputation for fact-checking" and the best argument is "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism"...well I have to assume they dio not have said reputation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was pointed to this discussion by @Axad12 after a similar discussion when I ran across Bella Disu. It does seem like much of Nigerian media simply writes whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay for. It seems like these sources should simply be banned except in cases where it is clear that the article was not purchased. 🄻🄰 00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
| unhelpful ChatGPT wall of text |
|---|
|
- Comment pretty much everything has already been said; the news media in Nigeria seem to be in the habit of puffing everyone and everything. As with the Indian news sources, we almost have to evaluate each news story on a case-by-case basis. We can keep Nigerian sources, but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability. The sources in the country are in the habit of puffy reporting, we just have to learn to use them. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd be ok if we create a policy similar to the NewsOrgIndia ... We allow the sources, but to be taken with a grain of salt. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. What did you mean by “…
but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability.
”? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. What did you mean by “…
- @Hemiauchenia's addition of WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA is helpful but the link to the unvetted WikiProject list is not, in my opinion. It lists, for example, This Day as "reliable" which is the publication I made a thread about which seemed to have drawn the conclusion to disregard promo and use with caution. It also lists pretty much every newspaper which reported inaccurately sparking this thread as "reliable"
- Beyond the issue of promo, Reporters Without Borders state "Nigeria is one of West Africa’s most dangerous and difficult countries for journalists, who are regularly monitored, attacked and arbitrarily arrested, as was the case during the 2023 elections." 🄻🄰 10:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक What sort of opinionated and unstructured comment did you just make? What do you mean by "unvetted WikiProject list"? Do you, by any chance, know the efforts I and few other editors who are Nigerians have put to bring up that list? Please be careful when making comments, especially when the topic has to do with one you're not entirely familiar with. As far as I am concerned, you cannot call a list which I have put efforts in contributing to "unvetted", the comment is not only unreasonable but also incorrect.
- I couldn't locate the thread you linked but whatever you brough up there are your opinion. I know the efforts I have been putting at AfD when it comes to Nigerian sources. Be careful, please, with all due respect.
- In a more general note, this thread is not going anywhere, This Day is a reliable source of information whether anyone "who is not a Nigerian" likes it or not, in fact, any source listed in the WikiProject as reliable is indeed reliable. The Herald, Guardian, New York Times, and other UK or US papers all publish nonsense piece as well, no one is permitted to call Nigerian sources unreliable because there are only a few Nigerian editors? I can't tell. I guess when this thread was initiated it was thought that there'd be no editor to oppose. SMH. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The link they are referring to has been archived, see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 460#This Day on Bella Disu.
In regard towho is not a Nigerian
There are many non-Nigerians who don't agree with the comment that started this thread. I both support and encourage projects to maintain there own sources lists, as they most likely to have knowledge of that particular area, but they are subject to WP:CONLEVEL and so from to time discussions like this will happen. The net result of this discussion has been WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, which only writes down the advice that has been given in many other discussions. - If any editor wants to discuss a particular source they believe has issue outside of what's already covered by WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA I suggest they start a new section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested last time we discussed This Day, you pointed out that they have a tag for advertorials. Currently, top of the advertorials is this article about a former governor's successor's parents visiting him. As you noted, there is no indication on the article that this is an advertorial and it looks like a normal news item. This one is also also in the advertorials category with no indication on the article.
- How can this be a reliable source when advertorials are completely indistinguishable from reporting? 🄻🄰 15:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because otherwise it would result in the making all news organisations in multiple countries completely unusable, and it wouldn't be limited to India and Nigeria. Such undisclosed advertorials are common in a lot of countries, and will likely become more common not less due to the changes effecting news media across the globe. It wouldn't help to improve the encyclopedia by saying that such vast swathes of the news media are generally unreliable, and in many ways that isn't a fit description for the sources. They are reliable for many things, but not for the promotional nature of these advertorials.
- As has been said before the AfDs show that noone is being fooled. Editors are correctly spotting when this is happening and acting accordingly. Promo content being added to Misplaced Pages is certainly not an issue limited to these countries, just look to all the reputation management companies found elsewhere.
- Ultimately it's what effect should be had. We don't want those advertorials being used to add promo content to Misplaced Pages, that is achieved by WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. So do we need to class all those news media organisations as generally unreliable, will that help to improve the encyclopedia? I very much doubt it would. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are they? How are they being spotted? For example, see Eko Heritage Awards - there are many sources here but every single one of them appears more dubious than the two advertorial examples linked above. For an active AfD, see Misters of Nigeria. It was moved out of drafts by an editor who is now blocked and the editors voting keep simply insist that the sources are reliable without any evaluation. 🄻🄰 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Pinging you is difficult) Let me be blunter, you deletion rationale in that AfD
Sources all appear to be WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA
is not only unappealing but also vague. Why? you simply said that "ALL" of them are NEWSORGNIGERIA without telling us what analysis you did that made you come to that conclusion. I figured since we're not doing anything in-dept here, it would make sense to also tell you, since this area is my expertise, that the subject clear-cut passed GNG. If you did any analysis and showed it, then we'd be discussing what you analysed and not something else. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Pinging you is difficult) Let me be blunter, you deletion rationale in that AfD
- I do not get the impression that advertorials are regularly passed off as real news in countries with strong protections for journalism. What the academic papers I linked earlier were emphasizing is that Nigeria has a striking systematic problem with unethical journalism that goes beyond what is seen in respectable broadsheets (the "brown envelope syndrome" being one example) and appears to affect all major outlets. The last link talks about an egregious political advert for Babangida's birthday that ran in the Daily Trust—listed as generally reliable—and characterizes the newspapers as being reliant upon such revenue sources. Some of the other journals note that several newspapers don't even pay their journalists; surely at least those should be considered generally unreliable? JoelleJay (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are they? How are they being spotted? For example, see Eko Heritage Awards - there are many sources here but every single one of them appears more dubious than the two advertorial examples linked above. For an active AfD, see Misters of Nigeria. It was moved out of drafts by an editor who is now blocked and the editors voting keep simply insist that the sources are reliable without any evaluation. 🄻🄰 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure why you're responding with so much emotion. It would be better to discuss this dispassionately. Your reply doesn't actually explain why a publication like This Day, which publishes disguised promotions, should be viewed as reliable. @JoelleJay also provides very compelling evidence above which has not been rebutted. 🄻🄰 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe the rather emotionally charged use of "unvetted" to describe another editors work had something to do with it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- So, my reply is emotional to you, and you think I am dispassionate, lol. I'll entirely ignore this your comment. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The link they are referring to has been archived, see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 460#This Day on Bella Disu.
- I'd be ok if we create a policy similar to the NewsOrgIndia ... We allow the sources, but to be taken with a grain of salt. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
People may defend WP:RSNG, but when I see that e.g. The Nation is considered "generally reliable" but publishes (with a byline!) e.g. this pure promo drivel (used in a new article here, not something I went looking for especially), then it is hard to take that list or the defense of it seriously. It turns out to be (at least in part) a copy of a four year old article from the Vanguard, not some actual journalistic effort by the Nation, but how could one tell? Fram (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose blanket ban.The proponents of the ban have failed to actually demonstrate that all Nigerian newspapers have always been unreliable. As far as I can see, the evidence presented does not, for example, give any indication that the Lagos Daily News or the Daily Times were unreliable in 1925. In fact, they do not even appear to have been mentioned. This source, actually cited above, claims that the quality of Nigerian newspapers was better before the internet. This source, also cited above, only applies to the South-West geo-political zone, and not the other five geo-political zones (something not mentioned above). We need to take one newspaper at a time, and we need to look beyond the last five minutes. James500 (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- There has been no proposal to blanket ban all Nigerian Newspapers, so you are bold opposing a strawman. Fram (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Expressions such as "isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers" do look like proposals for a blanket ban. Everyone else in this thread seems to think that this is a proposal for a blanket ban. If you are not proposing a blanket ban, perhaps you should rephrase your comments in grammatically and semantically correct plain language that other people can actually understand. Anyway, in view of the statement that there is no proposal for a blanket ban, I have struck my !vote. James500 (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, I too, interpreted it as a blanket ban, and it's clear from people's comments that many other people did as well. Glad to know that that's not what you meant. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- There has been no proposal to blanket ban all Nigerian Newspapers, so you are bold opposing a strawman. Fram (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would support RSNG in that I would support projects creating source lists. How specific sources are listed on RSNG is first a matter of discussion at the project level (as the list is only at the project level), and RSN if there is no agreement there. This is the same for all project level lists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Brainstorming RfCs
It is clear that referring to the overly optimistic Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources is not a good approach to determine the current reliability of some Nigerian newspapers. If we were to reconsider the status of e.g. The Sun (Nigeria), to list it as e.g. "generally unreliable", what question should be posted in an RfC? Should we first try to find a cut-off date (i.e. "no longer generally reliable from year X on")? Are the above examples and reports sufficient, or is more needed? Or would it be easier to change WP:RSNP, correcting "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability. Wikiproject Nigeria has assembled a list of sources that they consider reliable/unreliable: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources." to "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability and verifiability", adding "verifiability" and removing the link to the project-based list? Fram (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think correcting WP:RSNP is a good start, simply by undoing this edit which there clearly wasn't agreement to add. 🄻🄰 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What to include or not include on the RSP (outside of the results of discussions at RSN) are probably best discussed at the RSP talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was WP:BOLDly added without discussion, though, so I've removed it for now as a first step. --Aquillion (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest that editing the section be done this way. RSP is no different from any other page, edit, discuss on talk page, then third opinion or noticeboard. Exact wording in the section doesn't immediately necessitate an RFC unless there is unresolvable differences of opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was WP:BOLDly added without discussion, though, so I've removed it for now as a first step. --Aquillion (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What to include or not include on the RSP (outside of the results of discussions at RSN) are probably best discussed at the RSP talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest against one RFC to cover all the sources, unless there is a very specific question about the sources (more specific than 'are they reliable?'), as it will likely result in a train wreck.
- If the issue is just to add 'and verifiability', or removing the project link, I would suggest just doing it. Consensus is first built through editing, and the RSP is no different in that matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever way the discussion goes it, I suggest an RFC should be in a completely new section. RSN gets overloaded, and this section is already very large. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Fram (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever way the discussion goes it, I suggest an RFC should be in a completely new section. RSN gets overloaded, and this section is already very large. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been reading old RfCs about unreliable medias to reference. Many of these discussions start with a blanket question. For example: "Is The Sun (Nigeria)
- Generally reliable
- Additional considerations apply
- Generally unreliable
- Deprecated"
- From there, editors can make their own arguments so if there should be a cut-off date for reliability. I think we can start with the more egregious media with examples and those who do not view them as unreliable should make the argument for why and when they should be considered reliable. 🄻🄰 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the TechCabal article is correct, then Nigerian newspapers were better before the internet. This might not apply to The Sun (Nigeria), which began publication in 2001. One of the earliest accounts of "brown envelopes" dates to the Second Republic (1979 to 1983): . On a search of Google Books, I found no references to "brown envelopes" in Nigeria in any book published before 1983. I found no more than 8 such references in books published before 1990, and 5 of those were from 1989: . In the absence of further evidence, I think we could take 1979 as a complete cut off point. Even after that, the evidence is not unequivocal. The study from 1984 says that NAN journalists may not be as corrupt as journalists are depicted: . And the claims of bribery during the Republic seem to relate more to government journalists, than to independent newspapers. The sources also suggest that Next (Nigeria) was more reliable. James500 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Jeff Sneider / The InSneider
Used for many claims throughout pages for CBM movies, such as The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Superman (2025 film), Kraven the Hunter (film), and Peter Parker (The Amazing Spider-Man film series), including those which are otherwise unverifiable like Victor von Doom appearing in the first or that Spider-Man was supposed to appear in Madame Web (film) but was cut.
I really do not see why his claims is so widely allowed and accepted as fact, even though he is undoubtedly more reliable than random blogs or posts on Twitter he's still a journalist making claims without evidence. I would like to establish here definitively if we continue to site theinsneider.com as a source, as we currently do in many articles. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did a Google News search and when other outlets report his stuff it is described as a rumour or "reportedly". He is also described as a "scooper". I don't think most of that should be used on Misplaced Pages because of NOTNEWS. Rumours about media that haven't been released yet aren't even news yet. Does he say that he got his info from a source? Then it should be attributed to that source. It also looks like a SPS. So everything sourced to him should be attributed, but even then it probably shouldn't be used. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right now, much of what is sourced to him is just taken as face value, for example Doom is listed in the cast for the Fantastic Four movie without clarification that it's based off a claim by him. My changes to remove such information from the pages were undone, so there seems to be some ambiguity if he is currently accepted as a RS. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- For any stories about named people (e.g. casting), WP:BLPSPS would probably bar use of this source, since he's self-published. His record on this is at best mixed from a quick search. For example, he reported that Sydney Sweeney would be starring in a new Johnny Depp film, which was swiftly denied, kept posting that it was true, and then a few months later, Penelope Cruz was announced as the co-star.
- I did some digging and apparently he made a recent post, copied here, , in which he says
This may speak to my own reckless vanity, but I’d rather be wrong sometimes than sit on 100 accurate stories and stand idly by and watch as Nellie Andreeva breaks every single one of them. Yes, it’s nauseating to get a story wrong — seriously, it makes me sick to my stomach — but it’s an even worse feeling when you don’t report something and then get beat by the competition.
If that's his attitude to reporting, then it would probably be best if we don't use him for non-BLP subjects as well. -- Patar knight - /contributions 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- I've removed everything that clearly failed WP:BLPSPS and tried to beef up non-BLP uses of this (e.g. filming dates, projects in development) with better sources that cite his work. Honestly most reputable don't really cite him and hedge by using "rumoured" or "reportedly" and cannot corroborate. Definitely not an ideal source and probably runs afoul of WP:NOTGOSSIP, especially if not picked up by better sources citing him at all. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
In the future it would be appreciated if you notified other editors of such a discussion rather than going on what I would describe as a deletion rampage, making dozens of edits to remove a source that is widely deemed to be reliable. Sneider clearly meets the SME requirement at WP:SELFPUB, he is a long time film and entertainment journalist whose work has previously been published by various reliable sources. The fact that he is now self-publishing his reporting does not now make him unreliable, which is what the wording at SELFPUB caters for. If you take issue with specific claims he has made or the wording of specific claims then the place to discuss those is at the talk pages of the articles in question, not here where the majority of editors will never see it. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have notified editors at WP:FILM, WP:TV, WP:MCU, DC Universe (franchise), and Sony's Spider-Man Universe. I think that should cover all the articles impacted so far by this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- For a lot of these pages, the relevant policy isn't WP:SELFPUB, but WP:BLPSPS, since the InSneider is self publishing reporting about living people (e.g. A didn't role B, C got fired because of D, E might be in F). BLPSPS is a bright-line rule and while WP:IAR exists, superhero movie rumours isn't going to justify that. This is especially true when non-selfpublished exist to cover the same claims or when WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies.
- For example, your revert at Black Widow (2021 film) restored The InSneider when the material in the sentence is already fully supported by the already cited The Hollywood Reporter piece and your revert at X-Men '97 restored material alleging very specific allegations of sexual misconduct with young men that is corroborated by independent sources . I've reverted the latter given the serious BLP issues there.
- It's less of an issue when the BLP-connection is less direct such as when it's talking about a film production in general (e.g. G starts filming in H, I was delayed to J, K is in development at L), but even SELFPUB recommends replacing with better sources when possible and I highlighted some reliability issues with Sneider above.
- I have also notified WP:BLPN since this touches on BLPSPS. -- Patar knight - /contributions 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are forgetting that there is a very big distinction between Sneider's pieces written for Collider and other RS and those he written on his own blog. He speculates much more and gives unverified, evidence-free information on his blog than he does when working with publications, and he isn't impeded by an editor or journalistic oversight in his own website.
- If you want to see proof that Sneider has made false and provably false claims on his own website before, then there's compilations of all the time he has made false claims thanks to the people at the subreddit for Marvel spoilers. Among the falsehoods he has promoted on his site include that the Fantastic Four movie would start filming in March, that Adam Driver was cast as Doom, that Jack Quaid was cast as Johnny Storm, and that Tom Holland was going to appear as a full role in Across the Spider-Verse. Sneider should be used in articles only when he is writing for reliable sources, otherwise we are inviting unsourced and oftentimes completely imagined speculation on our pages. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh wow, so he's basically correct about 2/3 of the time. Not terrible, I guess for online postings, but this would seem to fall well-short for WP:SELFPUB purposes, much less making an exception for WP:BLPSPS. -- Patar knight - /contributions 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we should be letting some people from a Reddit community dictate what they think is true or false to determine notability on this encyclopedia. I understand Sneider gets a bad rap from some people and in the press, but he does qualify as a WP:Subject-matter expert in the field of entertainment news. I am subscribed to his newsletter and Sneider does a pretty good job clarifying what he is actually reporting from what are his own opinions and beliefs. A lot of what he says in his newsletter tends to be blown out of proportion or taken out of context, and not everything pans out in the film industry. For the Sydney Sweeney thing, I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart and thus, Cruz came onboard, not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading. A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions (because they get ad revenue from major companies involved) but Sneider has a good track record of reporting on industry details, deals, and events as they are in progress, which goes for the Fantastic Four castings and Black Widow. I have been working on adding third-party sources for some of his recent newsletter issues being cited to help make verifying his reports easier, though this takes time. I do not agree with removing his published articles from Collider, Variety, or his newsletter outright as we cannot disregard a source simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT or you don't believe in it. We go by WP:Verifiability, not truth, and report all the facts as presented, which is how an encyclopedia ought to be. I have not found any instances to my immediate recollection where editors cited a Sneider report only for it to be proven intentionally wrong or misleading. The Madame Web report was not disputed or debunked, and the recent reports of Superman and Beyond the Spider-Verse have since been clarified as a matter of semantics, not actually being intentional false news reporting on Sneider's part. A lot of what he says is regurgitated through aggregators and social media which tends to be less reliable or transparent than what he actually says in his newsletter or on his podcast The Hot Mic. I would not go as far as to say Sneider's newsletter reporting is "speculation", as he is an independent working journalist with 20+ years of experience in this profession. He knows his stuff but gets a lot of bad publicity from his social media activity and because some of his reporting hits a nerve with select communities. I would consider him a reliable source, but with clarification needed to specify when he is making an educated guess or providing an opinion alongside what he is reporting from his industry sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, because @Tinynanorobots questioned what Sneider's sources are, I suppose it ought to be explained that every journalist gets their information from sources. These individuals are usually people who work within the industry they are reporting about, so they are often talent agents, managers, PR workers, producers, involved creatives in a production, etc. who have first-hand information and provide information as a tip to a journalist. Most of these sources prefer to remain anonymous, so we cannot just find who his sources are to verify their tips. That's just not how this industry works. Filming schedules and castings change all the time, so to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false, and if you have any reliable sources saying Sneider specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report, that should be presented rather than just going off of some editors' opinions of a controversial figure. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Anonymously-sourced reporting obviously can be used in RSs, but you're not really making a strong case for reliability and encyclopedic quality by defending Sneider with
to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false,
. In respect to the Holland thing, it's not a good look to be confidently stating things about major casting at the tail end of February 2023 that then don't pan out upon release in at the end of May that year. Maybe he was right at the time, though no one else has corroborated this from what I can tell, but even then he would've published too early given he was ultimately wrong. specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report
would meet the standard for defamation of a public figure, but it isn't the standard for assessing if a particular source is reliable or a good indicator of if something is encyclopedic. If someone gets a lot of stuff wrong in good faith, they're still not reliable, especially in WP:BLPSPS situations. -- Patar knight - /contributions 05:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- Yes, using anonymous sources is common in journalism, but is not standard. The standard is to cite their sources. Sure, NYT and WaPo don't always follow their own guidelines on anonymous sources. Usually such guidelines involve mentioning that the information is from an anonymous source and giving clues as to the credibility of the source. When including information from anonymous sources, wikipedia should follow suite. If the NYT cites a "source close to the president" for a claim, the wikipedia article should also mention a "source close to the president" So how much info does Sneider give?
- Also, information should be verified. This might involve asking another source if they object to the publication of the information. Also, really, the studio should be asked to comment. If there is not a comment from the studio or a line saying that comment was sought, then best practices have not been followed.
- The idea that Sneider is a SME is questionable. The reporting in question seems to be a matter of insider knowledge not expertise. Basically, people are leaking the information to Sneider or gossiping to him about who will get the part. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Anonymously-sourced reporting obviously can be used in RSs, but you're not really making a strong case for reliability and encyclopedic quality by defending Sneider with
- FYI, we are also not here to be WP:Righting great wrongs. It is completely acceptable to note what an SME reports about an industry topic they have been covering for two decades now. The reports should be judged on a case-by-case basis to determine if Sneider has ever actually intentionally made any false or misleading statements and passed them off as a report directly by himself, and not by sheer opinion or a lack of or misunderstanding of the filmmaking process and journalistic procedures. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if he is 100% correct (which he isn't), none of his tweets and InSneider reports can be used per WP:BLPSPS to verify anything about living people since they are self-published. There's presumably no issue with his work in non-self-published sources with editorial control like Collider, but for the self-published stuff in respect to living people (e.g. castings, cut scenes, staffing), Misplaced Pages has a bright line rule against it. The only stuff that is even allowed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for self-published stories would be for instances where it's being used for stuff that is general enough to not really implicate BLP (e.g. filming schedules, runtime, episode length). -- Patar knight - /contributions 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The whole sum of BLPSPS is that no self-published blogs may be used. Sneider's publishing is via a newsletter and is part of his job as a journalist. In what ways are his newsletter reports violating any core and basic BLP policies or how are they of a major concern to it beyond the X-Men '97 allegations. A lot of journalists nowadays are posting on their own outside of major trades or news organizations because those options have become more prevalent to do so. Anonymous sourcing is also how all journalists operate, so if we say journalists who post on their own cannot be cited as reliable sources for doing their job without disclosing their sources and having a company watch over them, that sets a very bad precedent for the freedom of the press and what we actually allow to be included, let alone mentioned, in this encyclopedia. If it applies to Sneider, it ought to apply to all self-published journalists and newsletters, and I don't see how that could go well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's a misreading of BLPSPS, which says:
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—
(emphasis added). Unless there's a clear organizational structure (e.g. 404 Media), most newsletters are little more than self-published blogs. There's tons of great journalists with their own newsletters that I think are most likely reliable that I would love to cite (though Sneider may not be one of them), but BLPSPS is crystal clear on this front and for good reason. If you want to start a new discussion somewhere (here, WP:BLPN WT:BLP, etc.) on whether we should move to a case-by-case basis for journalistic SPSs, you can do that, but until then BLPSPS is policy and can't be overridden by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Don't really care about the anonymous sources issue, since that is an accepted norm for journalists. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- Not all of the instances of Sneider's reports are about people themselves. They are primarily about the Hollywood projects which naturally involve people's jobs and castings. I fail to see how a technicality should prevent us from using a decent source at all. If the issue is of verification, find a third-party source verifying the report. This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that.
The InSneider can be separately assessed for reliability for any claims not about living people, but as WP:BLP makes clear in the first sentence, it applies regardless of if the article is a biography or not, so the fact that Sneider is cited on movie articles is immaterial in respect to WP:BLPSPS.- There's been multiple discussions on this noticeboard about Substack and other newsletters involving much more prominent journalists than Sneider and the consensus has always been that BLPSPS bars their use in respect to living people unless the publication has editorial oversight and a reputation for reliability (e.g. Glenn Greenwald , David Sirota , Matt Taibbi , in general )
- I don't object to the underlying facts per say if they are indeed verifiable through third-party sources. I did try to find non-self-published sources that independently corroborated what Sneider reported, and replaced InSneider with them when I did. I only removed when I was unable to do so. WP:BLPRESTORE makes it clear that the onus to restore material removed for BLP issues is on those who want to restore it to do so in a policy-compliant way, which seems unlikely since nothing in this section has challenged the individually self-published nature of InSneider. -- Patar knight - /contributions 21:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not all of the instances of Sneider's reports are about people themselves. They are primarily about the Hollywood projects which naturally involve people's jobs and castings. I fail to see how a technicality should prevent us from using a decent source at all. If the issue is of verification, find a third-party source verifying the report. This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's a misreading of BLPSPS, which says:
- The whole sum of BLPSPS is that no self-published blogs may be used. Sneider's publishing is via a newsletter and is part of his job as a journalist. In what ways are his newsletter reports violating any core and basic BLP policies or how are they of a major concern to it beyond the X-Men '97 allegations. A lot of journalists nowadays are posting on their own outside of major trades or news organizations because those options have become more prevalent to do so. Anonymous sourcing is also how all journalists operate, so if we say journalists who post on their own cannot be cited as reliable sources for doing their job without disclosing their sources and having a company watch over them, that sets a very bad precedent for the freedom of the press and what we actually allow to be included, let alone mentioned, in this encyclopedia. If it applies to Sneider, it ought to apply to all self-published journalists and newsletters, and I don't see how that could go well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if he is 100% correct (which he isn't), none of his tweets and InSneider reports can be used per WP:BLPSPS to verify anything about living people since they are self-published. There's presumably no issue with his work in non-self-published sources with editorial control like Collider, but for the self-published stuff in respect to living people (e.g. castings, cut scenes, staffing), Misplaced Pages has a bright line rule against it. The only stuff that is even allowed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for self-published stories would be for instances where it's being used for stuff that is general enough to not really implicate BLP (e.g. filming schedules, runtime, episode length). -- Patar knight - /contributions 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your lengthy examination of Sneider as a reliable source. I think a potential compromise that I hope the editors here could agree on- is to restructure all current citations to his self-published website so that it clearly states that it is journalist Jeff Sneider reporting. The example on The Fantastic Four: First Steps that spurred me to open up this discussion in the first place, for example:
Additionally, the character Mole Man is expected to appear, and Robert Downey Jr. is expected to appear as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.
- could be reworded to:
Journalist Jeff Sneider reported in 2024 that the character Mole Man is expected to appear, as well as Robert Downey Jr. as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.
- This would be done for every single citation that uses his personal site. I see your arguments defending his inclusion as a verifiable source, but I also feel as the central issue here- that a lot of pages take him at face value as equivalent to official news from Deadline or Marvel Studios themselves, should still be rectified. We could also add him to the RS list as a source that can be used in the articles with attribution only.
- Thoughts? @Trailblazer101 @Patar knight @Adamstom.97 HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- For anything that involves stories about living people, this would be BLP violation, attribution or not, since The InSneider is a self-published source and that's barred by WP:SPS. If no other sources are writing about it besides a self-published report from Sneider, that's a good indicator that we shouldn't include it on Misplaced Pages. Attribution for stuff like "Mole Man" might be okay depending on Sneider's reliability and how tied that is to a specific actor in the text. -- Patar knight - /contributions 06:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I support attribution being applied to Sneider's reports, and most of the instances where his reports are used already do this in prose while third-party refs are being added to them. The BLP violation reads to me like a bit of a stretch with semantics itself and could probably be re-evaluated when it comes to journalists reporting as part of their job. Reporting on allegations should not be a reason to be barred as a source when major news outlets do the same. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Reporting on allegations a reason to be barred as a source
is a straw man. Major news outlets have a reputation for fact checking and reliability, while Sneider has had multiple confirmed reports not pan out. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- Which ones have not panned out? Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sweeny, Lindelof, and Holland make at least three incorrect reports in approximately a year. If I did more spot checks from the spreadsheet, there would probably be more. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, not everything in Hollywood pans out. That does not mean the reports were false. Unless other independent sources confirmed they were false, you are assuming they were not true, which draws into some dangerous POV issues here on your apparent bias. I have asked you to provide sources which confirm Sneider's reports were false, and you have provided none of the sort. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Lots of stuff in all kinds of different fields don't pan out. However, if a source often reports things as confirmed and they don't pan out, there's a reliability/jumping the gun issue and its starts falling into unencyclopedic WP:RUMOUR territory. The end result is that Sneider either misjudged how correct the story originally was or how likely that status quo was going to remain. If you look at the Deadline and Variety archives, they only reported on certainties in respect to the Sweeey/Holland/Lindelof stories (i.e. Cruz hiring/nothing/hiring and departure).
- Genuine question, does Sneider ever issue corrections/retractions or do retrospectives on why he got stories wrong? Obviously sometimes reliable sources get it wrong, and the proper thing to do in that case is to issue corrections/retractions.
- I think I've seen only even heard of Sneider once before (when the X-Men '97/Beau DeMayo story was happening) so to accuse me of bias is wild when you've created a position where it is functionally unfalsifiable that Sneider could ever be wrong. If it pans out, he was correct. If it doesn't, he was correct but things changed afterwards, despite in many cases no reliable sources backing up his original story. Sneider isn't important enough for something like the Columbia Journalism Review or an an actual reliable source to investigate his methods and he uses anonymous sources (which isn't an issue in and of itself) so it's essentially impossible to prove if any of his reports are false in a way that would satisfy you. -- Patar knight - /contributions 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that is an argument for waiting until things are officially announced, before putting them in the article. The problem isn't Sneider, but the kind of reporting that he is doing. He is reporting other people's predictions. He also isn't a SME. He is a reporter that chases leads and reports what may be hearsay or leaks or outright lies by his sources. He is reporting on Hollywood, after all. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, not everything in Hollywood pans out. That does not mean the reports were false. Unless other independent sources confirmed they were false, you are assuming they were not true, which draws into some dangerous POV issues here on your apparent bias. I have asked you to provide sources which confirm Sneider's reports were false, and you have provided none of the sort. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sweeny, Lindelof, and Holland make at least three incorrect reports in approximately a year. If I did more spot checks from the spreadsheet, there would probably be more. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which ones have not panned out? Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @HadesTTW: I just saw that you pinged me in this message. I agree that a good resolution here would be to add Sneider to the RS list as an SME for entertainment reporting as long as he is attributed, and potentially with the caveat that his self-published sources should be replaced with non-self-published sources if available. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- You can spot check the examples used and some definitely seem to hold up as poor reporting. Besides the Holland/Across the Spider-Verse example I discussed above another one I spot checked was this comment made March 9, 2023, in which Sneider says it's 100% confirmed that Damon Lindelof's Star Wars film would be coming out in December 2025 film. On March 21, 2023, Lindelof's departure is announced.
I am subscribed to his newsletter
Can you confirm if the quotation from the post I cited is correct then? It matched the title of this post from InSneider and it went unchallenged in the thread and seemed to match the style from what I've found.not everything pans out in the film industry.
,I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart...not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading.
andA lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions
. I don't think Sneider is maliciously creating false reports or anything, but if he's reporting too early on things that aren't confirmed yet while the major trade publications are reporting when it's certain, that does not bode well for his reliability nor for the encyclopedic value of his coverage (WP:NOTNEWS).removing his published articles from Collider, Variety
Pretty sure no one here is suggesting that. The main issue is WP:BLPSPS and then reliability as a WP:SPS. -- Patar knight - /contributions 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- Sneider's report and those quotes are correct from his newsletter. I have no idea what "thread" you are referring to, but a lot can change and happen in the 12 days between Sneider saying Lindelof's film was confirmed for that release and when Lindelof ultimately exited the film. That's just how Hollywood, and all of business, pans out. You can't seriously hold that against Sneider to say his statement is false when Disney's Star Wars films have pretty much languished with development hell issues for years. Even major trades report on projects in early development and when directors or writers are in talks. That's just what the trades do. They report on the production process, which is always in flux. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the confirmation. I copied the quotation from a Reddit thread from a film podcast subreddit which I linked in my comment above. I dealt with how the other trades operate and the issues with using Sneider for the truth of what he's reporting above, so I won't repeat them here. -- Patar knight - /contributions 22:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sneider's report and those quotes are correct from his newsletter. I have no idea what "thread" you are referring to, but a lot can change and happen in the 12 days between Sneider saying Lindelof's film was confirmed for that release and when Lindelof ultimately exited the film. That's just how Hollywood, and all of business, pans out. You can't seriously hold that against Sneider to say his statement is false when Disney's Star Wars films have pretty much languished with development hell issues for years. Even major trades report on projects in early development and when directors or writers are in talks. That's just what the trades do. They report on the production process, which is always in flux. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, because @Tinynanorobots questioned what Sneider's sources are, I suppose it ought to be explained that every journalist gets their information from sources. These individuals are usually people who work within the industry they are reporting about, so they are often talent agents, managers, PR workers, producers, involved creatives in a production, etc. who have first-hand information and provide information as a tip to a journalist. Most of these sources prefer to remain anonymous, so we cannot just find who his sources are to verify their tips. That's just not how this industry works. Filming schedules and castings change all the time, so to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false, and if you have any reliable sources saying Sneider specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report, that should be presented rather than just going off of some editors' opinions of a controversial figure. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Alrighty, I wrote the below on The Acolyte (TV series) and I'm copying this below.
Jeff Sneider being used as a source in Hollywood reporting.
Jeff Sneider's reports, found in his TheInSneider blog and also Above the Line, have been covered in several other reliable sources.
His career besides his self-published blog: He has had two notable tenures at TheWrap, and in between those two tenures, he had a stint at Variety covering the film industry. This is confirmed here, with information here on his tenure at Variety. Collider also has him listed as Senior Film Reporter, and says he did work at Ain't It Cool News before his venture into trade publications, and at one point he contributed reports for Mashable.
These following perennial sources have cited his self-published blog, exemplifying WP:USEBYOTHERS:
- Forbes describes him here as, "Jeff Sneider, an industry insider and reporter", and covers his reporting, even providing a link to another site he contributes to, Above the Line.
- and here's him reporting that Kaitlyn Dever was chosen to play Abby in the second season of The Last of Us, which ended up being spot-on correct, via NME:
- per a Vox Media publication, New York (magazine)'s own Vulture, covers one of his reports here
- Screen Rant, (noted in the perennial source list as
considered reliable for entertainment-related topics
but not forcontroversial statements related to living persons
, which in this case, we're sort of concerned about that stuff in relation to Sneider's reporting) covers Sneider in many, many instances.
- Screen Rant, (noted in the perennial source list as
- and reported by Screen Rant here is an InSneider report that The Bikeriders, (a film with Austin Butler and Norman Reedus) was dropped by Disney's 20th Century Studios. Sneider's report ended up being true, as Disney let the rights go to Focus Features.
- And Variety - reporting on the InSneider report mentioned above concerning Bikeriders, right here. Can hardly get better than trade publications.
- Deadline Hollywood - reports that Sneider was the first to get the news that the Russo brothers were coming back for Avengers 5 and Avengers 6.
- via The Hollywood Reporter - Sneider first reported that Jeremy Allen White was playing Jabba the Hutt's son in The Mandalorian & Grogu.
BarntToust 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I also find the Mary Sue story about Johnny Depp and Sydney Sweeney to be drama mongering. Their punchline about Sneider's story amounted to "and internet users were pissed about the actress potentially working with the subject of the Amber Heard lawsuit" - like who cares about internet people being ticked? Was there doxxing? was anonymous or a world government involved? No!
- If Sneider gets something wrong, nobody gets mangled or tangibly harmed. The WP:BLPSPS policy is for claims concerning living people themselves, not films and casting processes or anything of the like. and for randoms who are not, something that is not what Sneider is doing.
- Let's WikiLawyer the concept of this policy and apply it to the Moon. Even though the chunk of rock is the subject of the article, there are parts of the article for the Moon which concern living people, like Buzz Aldrin and how he walked on it. Holy hell! the very association of living people to a subject of an article clearly not about people means we must NEVER use any WP:EXPERTSPS about the Moon in the article because it is WP:BLPSPS.
- I don't think that Sneider should be used to state facts about casting. I certainly don't believe we need to add a person to a cast list because he says something on his podcast: while I question his nature of jumping the gun on reports, I don't believe the rationale should be that the info he reports is concerning a living person. I figured that saying RDJ was gonna be in Fantastic Four was bold, but it's concerning that a character is going to be in a film, not some claim about a person's life and times. Besides his casting scoops, I think he gives worthy insight into the film industry and its processes. I think that his branding is corny and I'm concerned that once he implied a joke about suicide after losing a scoop to a THR reporter but hey, Kubrick was cruel yet he was still held in high regard for his work. Same thing for Sneider. BarntToust 21:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, I started this discussion because I was bothered by the Fantastic Four page where he's used for the cast list. I hope we are able to at least agree that he shouldn't be cited without attribution, lest he gets something wrong (not maliciously, but because his sources may have been wrong, or events changed in the production process that he was not aware of). Advocating him to be deprecated for BLP violations is a massive stretch that I do not agree with- he's generally reliable, and I trust that his self-published site can be used for article content. He just shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Precisely. I agree with all of that. The Fantastic Four page's cast section is something that is being discussed at Talk:The Fantastic Four: First Steps and would be best handled there rather than here, though I agree with the core points with the attribution and use with non-BLP content. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's best if we formalize it here, anyways. It's my hope that we can get a consensus enough to write an entry on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which would be helpful for everyone editing CBM articles that refer to his claims. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would prefer listing Sneider at perennial sources. The WP:MCU taskforce already has an entry for his reports at WP:MCURS, for reference. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to note that this wouldn't meat the criteria for inclusion on the RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's best if we formalize it here, anyways. It's my hope that we can get a consensus enough to write an entry on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which would be helpful for everyone editing CBM articles that refer to his claims. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Precisely. I agree with all of that. The Fantastic Four page's cast section is something that is being discussed at Talk:The Fantastic Four: First Steps and would be best handled there rather than here, though I agree with the core points with the attribution and use with non-BLP content. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know, saying someone was going to get a job, and then it turns out they didn't might have a negative effect on their career. A casting director might wonder why they weren't chosen. This is just speculation, and it probably helps the actors, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. The stakes are low either way, and it makes sense to wait for an official announcement. As it has been said, things don't always pan out. Speculation on casting seems like news to me. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, I started this discussion because I was bothered by the Fantastic Four page where he's used for the cast list. I hope we are able to at least agree that he shouldn't be cited without attribution, lest he gets something wrong (not maliciously, but because his sources may have been wrong, or events changed in the production process that he was not aware of). Advocating him to be deprecated for BLP violations is a massive stretch that I do not agree with- he's generally reliable, and I trust that his self-published site can be used for article content. He just shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- All three of the listed Forbes articles are written by Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry), which are generally unreliable due to lack of editorial oversight. Please note that Forbes.com contributor articles do not count toward WP:USEBYOTHERS. As a policy, WP:BLPSPS takes precedence over the WP:USEBYOTHERS guideline. — Newslinger talk 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- alright, we can consider the other 97 out of 100 joking exaggeration sources I've laid down here. We've still got use by Hollywood trades, reliable entertainment websites, and other popular sources. My point stands still. BarntToust 02:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe that Sneider's reporting of casting is 90% of the time on point, but the margin of error warrants attribution and additional consideration. I do not believe that info about a person being cast in a film constitutes personal information, and thus I believe that BLP does not apply to that extent. I believe additional considerations and attributions should apply for the first reason, rather than depreciation for a grossly WikiLawyered reading of BLP policy. I believe he is considered reliable for general behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood, having been at it for a long-o time and that he would know about these things. BarntToust 02:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLPSPS is a bright-line rule that prevents self-published sources from being used for third-party claims "about a living person". The policy is phrased with the word "Never" to emphasize that routine exceptions for claims such as film castings are not appropriate. This language is repeated in the WP:SPS policy in more explicit terms: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Like the remainder of WP:BLP, this rule applies to all claims about living persons, and not just "personal information". — Newslinger talk 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. We seem to agree to not use it as a third-party source. We seem to agree to give Sneider attribution and consideration of due weight in these reports he does.
- If there are any concerns, I suggest you turn to the great policy that is ignore all rules. BarntToust 02:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by
behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood
? Like what a gaffer is? Or the type of camera used? Or does he know more about things like how casting directors and location scouts work? I thought he was a reporter that covered the Hollywood beat. Does he do anything besides report what industry people tell him? Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)- I wonder if reporting what industry people tell you is, uh, what trade journalism is the definition of? BarntToust 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think he is a trade journalist, either. A trade journal covers an industry with people in that industry as the target audience. Jeff Sneider describes him as an Entertainment Journalist and describes him writing for publications aimed at the general public. His own website describes itself as
Scoops and insider analysis
. This isn't about being an expert, it is about being in the know and chasing down leads. A lot of the articles are even labelled "Hot Rumor". He is a reporter, he reports things. The nature of what he reports means that it involves making predictions as well as discussing rumours and other gossip. A lot of it involves upcoming movies, that is, events that haven't happened yet. It also means a lot of his stuff isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)- know what? I think his insights have merit. Glad to see you found the article about the journalist that I wrote. Did you see the part where he threatened to drive his car into a tree when he lost a Christopher Nolan scoop, then got fired from Variety? Or when he said something racially insensitive and got fired from Mashable? I personally enjoyed the part where he went on about getting his butt kicked by Uwe Boll in a boxing match.
- Anybody think that he does a self-published newsletter because he can't hold down a job? BarntToust 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- It did strike me as surprisingly negative considering the defence he is getting here. It is basically a hit piece. The boxing thing was confusing, it is probably undue. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reliable sources describe Sneider the way that they do, so that should be reflected in the article. This is a rationale that is based on a concept which is probably best explained by Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.
- As for the boxing match, that is a notable event he was involved in. Fighting the director of one of the worst films is plenty notable for inclusion. BarntToust 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- It did strike me as surprisingly negative considering the defence he is getting here. It is basically a hit piece. The boxing thing was confusing, it is probably undue. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think he is a trade journalist, either. A trade journal covers an industry with people in that industry as the target audience. Jeff Sneider describes him as an Entertainment Journalist and describes him writing for publications aimed at the general public. His own website describes itself as
- I wonder if reporting what industry people tell you is, uh, what trade journalism is the definition of? BarntToust 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLPSPS is a bright-line rule that prevents self-published sources from being used for third-party claims "about a living person". The policy is phrased with the word "Never" to emphasize that routine exceptions for claims such as film castings are not appropriate. This language is repeated in the WP:SPS policy in more explicit terms: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Like the remainder of WP:BLP, this rule applies to all claims about living persons, and not just "personal information". — Newslinger talk 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I like Paul Tassi's work, but per WP:FORBESCON, he can't be used in USEBYOTHERS analysis. However, he, like the other links in this post generally refer to Sneider's reports as in terms of rumors instead of certainties. The one exception is Screen Rant article, where it is corroborated by THR, and they suddenly switch to writing in certainties. The last three links here from the major trades are clearly doing their own independent corroboration of Sneider's story and doing the polite thing in journalism and crediting him with being the first to break the news.
- As for accuracy, many of the links were about the Beatles casting, which Sneider was actually wrong about Charlie Rowe as George Harrison, which was immediately denied, and ultimately ended up being wrong. The many commentary pieces about the rumored casting that it sparked might justify inclusion, but the miss doesn't speak well to his reliability. So even from your own links, it seems that for content that doesn't run afoul of WP:BLPSPS and is encyclopedic enough to include, it would have to be attributed and written as though it's a certainty. -- Patar knight - /contributions 04:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I have not kept up with this discussion over the holidays but I see a bunch of dubious arguments have taken place. Trailblazer was correct above when he said that Sneider makes it clear when he is noting rumours versus reporting on something that his sources have confirmed to him, and the high-profile instances where he "got something wrong" are not examples of him lying but clearly examples of things being true or potentially true at the time which did not pan out. Several instances have been mentioned where a potential casting was reported but did not pan out. That is not a lie or a "miss" or anything of the sort, he is reporting on people being eyed by a studio or even entering negotiations but he can't guarantee that everything will work out in the end, and his wording reflects that. The exact same can be said for any of the Hollywood trades who have reported on potential casting that ended up falling through. The level of scrutiny being put on the accuracy of his reporting here is a bit ridiculous considering the same would not be done if he was still writing for TheWrap or Variety, which is what WP:SELFPUB protects. If any of these reports had come from a journalist who was still working at the trades we would not be having this conversation at all. As for WP:BLPSPS, its wording is oddly vague. "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person" -- what does that even mean? Any sentence that mentions a living person cannot be sourced to any self-published source, regardless of what that source is or what the sentence says? If an expert on the life of Donald Trump had a meeting with him and then tweeted out something Trump had said, we could not include that in any articles even if it was not a detail about Trump's personal life? I think it is crazy to say that we can't use a tweet or a blog post from a person we otherwise consider to be reliable to note when an actor is being considered for a role in a film or that they may have a scheduling conflict that could prevent them from doing a certain job. I am sure the wording at BLPSPS could not have been meant to prevent that. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- In your example, if that expert's tweet contained anything of substance, a reliable source would mention it, and you would be free to cite that reliable source. Alternatively, you could wait until the WP:BLP policy no longer applies to Trump, although I highly doubt that the tweet would constitute due weight in any Misplaced Pages article if no reliable source mentions the tweet by that time. In all other cases, yes, WP:BLPSPS would prohibit that tweet from being cited on Misplaced Pages to support a claim about Trump, despite the tweet being written by an expert, because the tweet is self-published. — Newslinger talk 22:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- The WP:SPS policy, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer", is as explicit as can be. That longstanding requirement has been part of the verifiability policy since February 2007, and part of the biography of living persons policy when it became a policy in July 2006. (It was added to the latter page as a guideline requirement in April 2006.) If you would like to contest these policies, you are free to do so on their respective talk pages. — Newslinger talk 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to mention the wording in WP:V, as it's more explicit, but Newslinger beat me to it. I've found this annoying in the past, where the project of a living person is detailed in a otherwise reliable third party self-published source. However that exact situation is meant to be covered (and excluded) by it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I and others have said, the policies against self-published sources used for anything about living people is a bright line rule. And as for WP:DUEWEIGHT and ignoring the self-published/BLP issue, if the only source that mentions an aspect of an article subject is a self-published newsletter, then it would more likely to be undue to include based on the proportion of RS coverage. Misplaced Pages is not the great place to right great wrongs about what reliable sources should be covering. -- Patar knight - /contributions 06:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- When I went through and removed most of the mainspace uses of InSneider, the overwhelming majority were reports of people being cast, people being considered for a acting/directing role, when an already cast role was going to make a secret appearance in a film, or creative decisions that can only be made by a very small number of people at a studio (i.e. director, producer, executives) that the guidance at WP:BLPGROUP leans towards applying the policy.
- If something aligns with what other reliable sources have said, then it would be best to use what those sources have said instead of a SPS. But in any case, UNDUE is not an avenue to bring in content that doesn't meet our verifiability/sourcing policies. -- Patar knight - /contributions 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, we are not writing a biography about James Gunn or Peter Safran and using Sneider to source claims about their person. Sneider is used to write about the particulars of film production.
- One side of this discussion is looking at the forest, while the other side is focused on the trees. BarntToust 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- BLPGROUP doesn't seem to be relevant to this discussion, it is talking about "corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons" and specifically refers to harmful claims, neither of which apply here. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- The subsection is about when BLP applies to "legal persons" AND "groups". It does not displace WP:BLPSPS and in no way limits the applicability of BLP to groups to instances of potentially harmful material.
- The first part of the paragraph is a clarification about how legal persons existing as a term of art in law doesn't mean that they are always covered by BLP, which is meant to protect natural persons. The second half of the paragraph applies to all groups and tells us to look at each group on a case by case basis to see where it fits on the spectrum between groups that are small enough that BLP should apply and ones where they are too large. The part about harm is simply noting it is part of the analysis. For creative decisions on films, the people actually making that decision would be very small, so it should attract BLP protections, which means BLPSPS applies. -- Patar knight - /contributions 03:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Besides the stories involving named people where BLP would obviously apply, the level of creative decisions that InSneider reports on and that Misplaced Pages uses him for are those that would clearly be attributable to a very small number of people (5-10 max). They're typically stuff such as what projects a studio is considering, what characters will be cast, and what the plot of film will be about.
- We're not using InSneider for lower-level stuff like what belt buckle was used on a particular costume, what brand of communication devices the PAs use, or what shade of a color was used in a particular CGI shot. -- Patar knight - /contributions 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of due weight, we are fine. #2: ignore all rules. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see #Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson on this very page. NYT censored CEO killer Luigi Mangione's face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If general association, not even direct, with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ignore all rules. BarntToust 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The one policy that WP:IAR does not bypass is consensus. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the WP:BLPSPS and the WP:SPS policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like Fandom – which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful", particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. — Newslinger talk 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- A few editors here are trying to stretch the BLPSPS and SPS policies to prevent Sneider from being used at all, which shouldn't override the existing community consensus and clear evidence that he is a reliable source for film-related reporting. HadesTTW suggested wording that is a good start towards a common-sense solution where Sneider is used, with attribution, for reports on film-related coverage where better sources do not exist. This should lead to a compromise, with Sneider being used in situations where his reports are improving articles while editors become more aware of whether he should be used (and not using him in situations where his reports genuinely fall into BLPSPS territory, could be replaced by a better source, or some other issue such as DUEWEIGHT). All that is preventing us from moving on to that conclusion and ending this discussion is the idea that BLPSPS and SPS apply to every little mention of a living person in a source, which I maintain is ridiculous and inappropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you do not agree with excluding self-published sources from being used for claims about living persons, you may propose a change to the relevant policies at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons. What you believe is "ridiculous and inappropriate" is actually how these policies have been applied on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, per community consensus. — Newslinger talk 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I never said I was against the central ideas of BLPSPS, I completely understand why we want to have a higher standard of verifiability when it comes to exceptional/controversial claims about real people who may take issue with said claims. That makes sense from multiple angles. What I take issue with is using the same standard for non-exceptional claims that happen to involve people. In my opinion, there is a very big difference between not trusting a SPS to report on claims of sexual misconduct (which I accept) and not trusting them to report on basic casting and filming details for a movie. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- exactly! If I actually paid any attention to X-Men 97, I would have rm'd that in a hot second. Sneider making claims that Beau DeMayo was doing heinous stuff to his staffers is some outrageous content that I would insist we wait on reports by NYT or WaPo or The Times, any particular source of merit to include those claims in the article. Outrageous claims require usage of especially reliable sources like newspapers of record. BarntToust 19:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- In the 18 years since that BLPSPS policy was enacted, the industry of journalism has changed drastically with a variety of seasoned journalists and subject-matter experts publishing their reports on their own accord, and I believe it is about time that the policies are updated to compliment such changes to update with the times. I do not think Sneider's status as a self-published source should discount his reliability with his actual reporting in his newsletter, and am more than happy to raise concerns for the policy to be updated elsewhere, but that is not the central issue to determine reliability in this discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most people on this board are aware of the poor state of traditional journalism and the rise of indie outlets. I myself noted in a section below that Ken Klippenstein, who has a track record of good journalist work and whose stories I think are accurate, should nonetheless not be used without corroboration and/or discussion by non-SPS RSs because he's a BLPSPS. If any of you think there's appetite in moving from the current bright-line rule to another system for BLPSPSs (e.g. limited carve out where RSN endorses use with attribution), that might be a worthwhile discussion to have. As its stands though, BLPSPS is quite clear and the overwhelming majority of the uses of InSneider are in such cases.
- If we do want to go back to discussing the reliability of InSneider for non-BLP claims, I would start with something I asked earlier, are you as a subscriber to InSneider, able to provide examples of if he retracted, corrected, and/or explained why he missed on the Sweeney/Day Drinker, Holland/Spider-verse, Lindeloff/Star Wars stories? Getting a story wrong isn't fatal to use as a reliable source since even the best sources aren't 100%. However, for assessing new sources, correcting mistakes is an indicator of reliability (as long as the miss rate is not too high), but not addressing them is a sign of unreliability. -- Patar knight - /contributions 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The language in WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS does not provide an exemption for self-published content about other living persons that is deemed to be uncontroversial. The "central idea" of this requirement is to ensure that any claim (not just controversial claims) about a living person passes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing special about Sneider or his self-published newsletter that would warrant an exception to this requirement, which applies to every other individual who meets the WP:EXPERTSPS criterion. If anyone wants to amend this requirement, which has been applied on Misplaced Pages for more than 18 years, a discussion at WT:V, WT:BLP, or WP:VPP would be the first step to enact the change you are looking for. Such a change, if it gains community consensus, would apply to all sources of this kind and not just Sneider's content. Until then, the use of Sneider's self-published claims about other living persons remains a violation of core content policies. — Newslinger talk 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, that is your interpretation of the policies which is clearly not shared by all editors. I fear a discussion at one of those other places will have similar luck due to a few editors that like things the way they are, but I am happy to give it a go. As for wrapping up this discussion, I still think we should return to the wording that I suggested above in response to HadesTTW. I am not concerned about these apparent "misses" that Patar knight keeps harping on about. Some of these may have been genuinely wrong, but not many of them (which is the case with almost all reliable trade sources as well). Most would have been accurate at the time but then things changed due to the developing nature of films (i.e. Lindelof leaving his SW film, Driver being considered for FF but not getting the part). The Sweeney instance seems to be a blatant case of him getting it wrong and being called out immediately, but that one time isn't enough to make him an unreliable source especially when nearly everything else he has reported aligns with other sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've started a policy talk page discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability § Self-published claims about other living persons. — Newslinger talk 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, that is your interpretation of the policies which is clearly not shared by all editors. I fear a discussion at one of those other places will have similar luck due to a few editors that like things the way they are, but I am happy to give it a go. As for wrapping up this discussion, I still think we should return to the wording that I suggested above in response to HadesTTW. I am not concerned about these apparent "misses" that Patar knight keeps harping on about. Some of these may have been genuinely wrong, but not many of them (which is the case with almost all reliable trade sources as well). Most would have been accurate at the time but then things changed due to the developing nature of films (i.e. Lindelof leaving his SW film, Driver being considered for FF but not getting the part). The Sweeney instance seems to be a blatant case of him getting it wrong and being called out immediately, but that one time isn't enough to make him an unreliable source especially when nearly everything else he has reported aligns with other sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The language in WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS does not provide an exemption for self-published content about other living persons that is deemed to be uncontroversial. The "central idea" of this requirement is to ensure that any claim (not just controversial claims) about a living person passes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing special about Sneider or his self-published newsletter that would warrant an exception to this requirement, which applies to every other individual who meets the WP:EXPERTSPS criterion. If anyone wants to amend this requirement, which has been applied on Misplaced Pages for more than 18 years, a discussion at WT:V, WT:BLP, or WP:VPP would be the first step to enact the change you are looking for. Such a change, if it gains community consensus, would apply to all sources of this kind and not just Sneider's content. Until then, the use of Sneider's self-published claims about other living persons remains a violation of core content policies. — Newslinger talk 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I never said I was against the central ideas of BLPSPS, I completely understand why we want to have a higher standard of verifiability when it comes to exceptional/controversial claims about real people who may take issue with said claims. That makes sense from multiple angles. What I take issue with is using the same standard for non-exceptional claims that happen to involve people. In my opinion, there is a very big difference between not trusting a SPS to report on claims of sexual misconduct (which I accept) and not trusting them to report on basic casting and filming details for a movie. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you do not agree with excluding self-published sources from being used for claims about living persons, you may propose a change to the relevant policies at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons. What you believe is "ridiculous and inappropriate" is actually how these policies have been applied on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, per community consensus. — Newslinger talk 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- A few editors here are trying to stretch the BLPSPS and SPS policies to prevent Sneider from being used at all, which shouldn't override the existing community consensus and clear evidence that he is a reliable source for film-related reporting. HadesTTW suggested wording that is a good start towards a common-sense solution where Sneider is used, with attribution, for reports on film-related coverage where better sources do not exist. This should lead to a compromise, with Sneider being used in situations where his reports are improving articles while editors become more aware of whether he should be used (and not using him in situations where his reports genuinely fall into BLPSPS territory, could be replaced by a better source, or some other issue such as DUEWEIGHT). All that is preventing us from moving on to that conclusion and ending this discussion is the idea that BLPSPS and SPS apply to every little mention of a living person in a source, which I maintain is ridiculous and inappropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The one policy that WP:IAR does not bypass is consensus. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the WP:BLPSPS and the WP:SPS policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like Fandom – which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful", particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. — Newslinger talk 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of due weight, we are fine. #2: ignore all rules. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see #Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson on this very page. NYT censored CEO killer Luigi Mangione's face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If general association, not even direct, with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ignore all rules. BarntToust 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a particular problem with using Sneider as a source, as long as we attribute his speculations properly. He has a generally good track record and is used by reliable sources. But I have come across situations where we report his speculations as fact. When he has an expectation that is not attributed to an official or at least genuinely connected source, if we choose to report that expectation at all, it needs to be attributed as "Sneider's expectation that such and such will occur", not as a Wikivoice statement that "such and such will occur." Rlendog (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Telegram (software)
Once Telegram gets mentioned on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, its shortcuts would be WP:TELEGRAM and WP:RSPTELEGRAM.Telegram is unreliable because:
- Telegram is an alt-tech platform, which means that it is highly unreliable as a source because it is used by the alt-right to evade censorship and publish far-right opinions and pseudoscientific conspiracy theories.
- Telegram is a self-published source because it is a social networking service.
- Most far-right things (such as Red Ice, The Light (newspaper), and Nicholas J. Fuentes) have escaped to Telegram after getting suspended on several mainstream social networking services.
- Telegram has been described as a "safe haven for spammers and crypto scams" because of how most Telegram groups are flooded with cryptocurrency scammers and other types of spammers. However, t.me links are barely seen on Misplaced Pages (or i just don't see them often).
- Pavel Durov has been arrested in France.
Telegram would either be WP:GUNREL (like all other self-published sources) or WP:DEPREC (because it is alt-tech). However, if t.me links are commonly used to violate WP:NOTSOAPBOX, it would be WP:SPB.
67.209.128.52 (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware there was anyone suggesting that it might be reliable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Telegram doesn't need to be on the RSP, it's obviously unreliable and I don't see anyone arguing that it is reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's just a user-generated source (WP:USERGEN). Reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF claims and posts by respectable experts/journalists/reliable sources, unreliable generally. Ca 16:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Aside from the fact that the alt-right i.e. literal neo-Nazis use it (which is something you can say about almost every social media platform at this point), Telegram, as a platform where anyone can create content with no clear editorial oversight, is a self-published source and unreliable, except in cases such as basic self-descriptions. I thought this was pretty obvious. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson
Ken Klippenstein is cited in the Media outlets section of this article. He's an independent journalist who self-publishes and doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist. Reliable or not? I say no. Some other editors from that article might come here with more context. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- permalink of the 'Media outlets' section. Mr. Klippenstein is being used to cite:
Klippenstein also alleged that The New York Times directed their staff to "dial back" on showing photographs containing Mangione's face.
A report on the killing by the NYPD was obtained by independent journalist Dan Boguslaw, and published by Klippenstein on December 26. The report focused on Mangione's motive and people who express sympathy for him, whom they labeled as "extremists". Klippenstein alleged that multiple media outlets had access to the report, but selectively quoted it in a way that focused on Mangione. He said that "By withholding documents and unilaterally deciding which portions merit public disclosure, the media is playing god."
- Klippenstein, Ken (December 11, 2024). "NY Times Doesn't Want You to See Shooter's Face". kenklippenstein.com. Retrieved December 15, 2024.
- "Read the NYPD's Mangione report the media won't publish". Ken Klippenstein. Retrieved 28 December 2024.
- Some1 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's crap. "Media reactions" or "in the media" sections in Misplaced Pages articles too often, like this article, become dumpsters where Wikipedians simply like to show off how good they are at finding random sources and shoehorning them into an article, for reasons. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right, but the focus here is on the reliability of Ken Klippenstein and whether or not his statements (sourced to his own website and attributed) are usable in the article. Some1 (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist
That's not accurate, as you could have confirmed by checking out the references in the Klippenstein WP article that note that he's been a journalist for outlets like The Nation and The Intercept. Both of those are generally reliable on the RSP. He's also seen as serious by other journalists (e.g., in this Columbia Journalism Review interview, which describes him "as one of the most fearless reporters of the Trump era").- His self-published work cannot be used as a source for WP content about living or recently dead people (e.g., about Mangione's letter), per WP:BLPSPS. He could be used as a source on a BLP if the WP text sourced to him is not itself about a person (e.g., if it's about mainstream media). But in this case, I don't see how to disentangle his statements about the press from content about Mangione. Some other news outlets have reported a bit about the content currently sourced to Klippenstein, such as this Hill article, noting Klippenstein's apparent publication of Mangione's letter. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was just going to say something similar - it's definitely inaccurate to say he hasn't written for other reliable sources in the past. It's true that his own stuff would fall foul of WP:SPS, but his stuff picked up by other reliable sources is usable, conceptually, with proper context and attribution. Sergecross73 msg me Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hell no, get rid of this Kenny guy now. WP:BLPSPS: this content directly involves a living person (Luigi), and to make self-published claims about info regarding these living persons is against policy. And, Kenny boy over here is using his blog to write WP:BOLD things about an American newspaper of record. BarntToust 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- BarntToust - Dial it back a bit. WP:BLP applies to all BLP is all Misplaced Pages spaces. You calling him weird names like "Kenny Boy" probably doesn't constitute "written with the greatest care and attention". Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this was like WaPo or The Times writing this about NYT then yes I would support inclusion. This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here. "Ken" should be more concerned that he is writing damning blog posts accusing a reputable newspaper of compromised journalistic integrity. Who else will pick this up? Who else will corroborate this bold as all hell claim with trusted journalistic process? BarntToust 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- "This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here" is false, as is "he is writing damning blog posts." More than one person here has noted that he's a reliable journalist. Unbandito explained why he chose to start his own journalism Substack (not a blog). There are a number of established writers using Substack to host their reporting; here's WP's incomplete list. It's bizarre that you put his name in quotation marks, especially after calling him "this Kenny guy" and "Kenny boy." Nothing is stopping you from answering your own questions. I already noted a couple of sources that had picked it up; here's another. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I personally believe that bold claims against these news organisations need other comparable news organisations to corroborate them, to establish wp:due weight. the spreading of claims by sources who are especially biased and opinionated means nothing. "Ken" can make a bombshell accusation against NYT for spineless reporting but can we get The Guardian or some other prestigious institutions to back these claims? BarntToust 18:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- A reminder that WP:RS states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject," so I don't agree that his reporting "means nothing." This thread started off with the false claim that he "doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist" and the question "Reliable or not?" The false claim has been addressed. The question shows that people have different opinions. Whether some mention of Klippenstein is DUE is not a matter of reliability and belongs on the Talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Having been employed by two ultra-partisan outlets for some short period, and then by "The Young Turks" which is marginally better than InfoWars, does not indicate this individual's self-published works meet the encyclopedia's reliability standards. And it has not been shown that I made a false claim, only if you think these ultra-partisan sources are "mainstream". Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent, which is laughable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was employed by The Young Turks before he worked for The Nation and The Intercept, not after, and those aren't the only other media for which he's written. Partisanship doesn't determine whether a given media outlet is/isn't mainstream media. They're both listed on Harvard's Index of US Mainstream Media Ownership.
Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent
Please quote whomever you're referring to, because I don't see any comment suggesting that. I'd be happy to be corrected, but otherwise, it's counterproductive to characterize people's comments as more extreme than they actually are. Again: people clearly have different opinions about whether he's "Reliable or not?" You have your opinion, and I have mine. Personally, I consider the Columbia Journalism Review interview as evidence of his reliability; if they happen to focus on someone who's unreliable, I think they say so, as here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)- Funny, Misplaced Pages lists The Federalist as "generally unreliable due to its partisan nature" yet they're listed as mainstream on Harvard's index. Seems like some kinds of partisanship are more acceptable than others. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't claim or imply that all MSM on Harvard's list are reliable. Reliability, partisanship, and mainstream media status are all distinct dimensions. A source can fall into any one of their 8 combinations. The full RSP sentence is "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories." Maybe you think a source that promotes conspiracy theories is reliable, but I don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think a source promoting conspiracies is reliable, and I'm not disputing the decision against The Federalist. I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview, and I disagree. Even the content in question isn't just a professional critique of editorial decisions, but it's couched in nefarious undertones, even going so far as to accuse MSM of "playing god." Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here.
That's a very general claim for which you've provided no evidence and that also seems way beyond the scope of this particular thread.Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview...
Another very general claim, though this one at least touches on the thread's topic. Focusing just on Klippenstein, if you have evidence that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it. If you do have that evidence, then you really should have presented it when you first asked "Reliable or not?" FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- I would just refer you over to the article's talk page where discussion of this issue has continued, and a resolution has been reached. As to Klipp's conspiratorial worldview, see his latest media rant which I also submitted in talk.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how anything on the talk page provides evidence for your claim that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters," and either you have evidence of that or you don't. So far, it looks like you don't. The only thing I see in your link relative to a "conspiratorial worldview" is his claim that "every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is," which hardly rises to the level of "frequently." FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a taboo? BarntToust 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a BLP violation to keep calling him a conspiracy theorist is what it is. One that Jonathan f1 seems quite committed to. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like I explained to you on the talk page, I'm using his own words. He's alleging that politicians and major media outlets "conspired" against the public. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Him using a turn of phrase one time doesn't give us cause to start throwing insults at him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Please provide a couple of reliable sources calling Klippenstein a conspiracy theorist or desist immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- if it looks like a duck, do we need reliable sources? I don't think we should explicitly be throwing around the Alex Jones-word, but rather show don't tell. Keeps BLP vio away. BarntToust 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not putting him in the same bucket with Alex Jones, but his repeated attacks on major media followed by a remark about them "conspiring" with each other is what it is. But okay, to move past all this pointless tone policing, I'll find a new phrase. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- if it looks like a duck, do we need reliable sources? I don't think we should explicitly be throwing around the Alex Jones-word, but rather show don't tell. Keeps BLP vio away. BarntToust 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Him using a turn of phrase one time doesn't give us cause to start throwing insults at him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Please provide a couple of reliable sources calling Klippenstein a conspiracy theorist or desist immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like I explained to you on the talk page, I'm using his own words. He's alleging that politicians and major media outlets "conspired" against the public. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a BLP violation to keep calling him a conspiracy theorist is what it is. One that Jonathan f1 seems quite committed to. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not going to rehash his entire career as a journalist here, and particularly his time with The Young Turks which will certainly provide you with ample evidence of this. It isn't even relevant here -the articles in question are attack pieces where he is either implicating major media outlets in a plot or calling their journalistic ethics into question. That we are even debating inclusion with no corroboration from high-grade sources is remarkable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I said
if you have evidence that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it.
You're the one who made the claim, and you're the one with the burden of proof for it. Don't try to shift the burden onto me. I'm not "debating inclusion" of any specific edit right now. I'm telling you that if you can't or won't substantiate your claim, then you should retract it, as it's an unsubstantiated contentious claim and a BLP violation. The BLP policy applies to any statements about living persons on all WP pages, including this one. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- I'll retract it just to move on from this. My objection to Klippenstein in this particular case does not hinge on this little side issue. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I said
- is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a taboo? BarntToust 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how anything on the talk page provides evidence for your claim that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters," and either you have evidence of that or you don't. So far, it looks like you don't. The only thing I see in your link relative to a "conspiratorial worldview" is his claim that "every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is," which hardly rises to the level of "frequently." FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would just refer you over to the article's talk page where discussion of this issue has continued, and a resolution has been reached. As to Klipp's conspiratorial worldview, see his latest media rant which I also submitted in talk.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think a source promoting conspiracies is reliable, and I'm not disputing the decision against The Federalist. I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview, and I disagree. Even the content in question isn't just a professional critique of editorial decisions, but it's couched in nefarious undertones, even going so far as to accuse MSM of "playing god." Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't claim or imply that all MSM on Harvard's list are reliable. Reliability, partisanship, and mainstream media status are all distinct dimensions. A source can fall into any one of their 8 combinations. The full RSP sentence is "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories." Maybe you think a source that promotes conspiracy theories is reliable, but I don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Funny, Misplaced Pages lists The Federalist as "generally unreliable due to its partisan nature" yet they're listed as mainstream on Harvard's index. Seems like some kinds of partisanship are more acceptable than others. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was employed by The Young Turks before he worked for The Nation and The Intercept, not after, and those aren't the only other media for which he's written. Partisanship doesn't determine whether a given media outlet is/isn't mainstream media. They're both listed on Harvard's Index of US Mainstream Media Ownership.
- Having been employed by two ultra-partisan outlets for some short period, and then by "The Young Turks" which is marginally better than InfoWars, does not indicate this individual's self-published works meet the encyclopedia's reliability standards. And it has not been shown that I made a false claim, only if you think these ultra-partisan sources are "mainstream". Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent, which is laughable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- A reminder that WP:RS states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject," so I don't agree that his reporting "means nothing." This thread started off with the false claim that he "doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist" and the question "Reliable or not?" The false claim has been addressed. The question shows that people have different opinions. Whether some mention of Klippenstein is DUE is not a matter of reliability and belongs on the Talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I personally believe that bold claims against these news organisations need other comparable news organisations to corroborate them, to establish wp:due weight. the spreading of claims by sources who are especially biased and opinionated means nothing. "Ken" can make a bombshell accusation against NYT for spineless reporting but can we get The Guardian or some other prestigious institutions to back these claims? BarntToust 18:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why did you put his real name in quotes like that? Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- As an indicator that I generally distrust Substack reporters and their methods. I can't believe that anything will pass as qualified journalism nowadays 😐 BarntToust 18:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- "This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here" is false, as is "he is writing damning blog posts." More than one person here has noted that he's a reliable journalist. Unbandito explained why he chose to start his own journalism Substack (not a blog). There are a number of established writers using Substack to host their reporting; here's WP's incomplete list. It's bizarre that you put his name in quotation marks, especially after calling him "this Kenny guy" and "Kenny boy." Nothing is stopping you from answering your own questions. I already noted a couple of sources that had picked it up; here's another. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this was like WaPo or The Times writing this about NYT then yes I would support inclusion. This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here. "Ken" should be more concerned that he is writing damning blog posts accusing a reputable newspaper of compromised journalistic integrity. Who else will pick this up? Who else will corroborate this bold as all hell claim with trusted journalistic process? BarntToust 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- BarntToust - Dial it back a bit. WP:BLP applies to all BLP is all Misplaced Pages spaces. You calling him weird names like "Kenny Boy" probably doesn't constitute "written with the greatest care and attention". Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- In this case, I'd say keep it. Klippenstein obtained and published the manifesto, which mainstream sources begrudgingly admitted was the same one they refused to publish. It appears that the citations in this article are of secondary coverage of his work, which makes them even more admissible. Klip is not just some guy, he has journalistic credentials and a past of reliable reporting for multiple reliable orgs. He's one of a number of journalists who was laid off from major outlets in the last year or so as part of a broader trend of restructuring in media that is ongoing. He and others like Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill have moved on to independent work, but despite the loss of their association with an established organization, their reporting remains influential and they've made a number of valuable contributions to our knowledge of and discourse on current events. I worry that Misplaced Pages policy, which assumes that mainstream media has a static financial and ethical position in perpetuity, is not adequately nuanced to accommodate major shake-ups in the press such as what we're seeing today. I think it's also worth noting that while Ken publishes on substack, at least in some other articles he's written (such as his publication of a US intelligence report on Israeli preparations to strike Iran) he employs an editor to review his work. This is the same sort of self-publishing that mainstream RS do, and another argument in favor of his reliability. Unbandito (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- "multiple reliable orgs."
- Really, like what? The Young Turks? I'm aware that Nation and Intercept are considered generally reliable, but there's also consensus that they're opinionated, biased and partisan, and should be used with caution. Klipp doesn't work for any of these publications anymore; he self-publishes on substack and has made a career for himself publishing MSM polemic. That's what this section includes currently -Klipp's self-published polemic directed at NY Times, CNN etc. Even if this appeared in The Nation, there'd be weight issues. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, The Nation and The Intercept. All media has bias, and any media-literate person should understand this. I think weight arguments are a lot stronger regarding content that is more than a few sentences or a short paragraph long. I don't think the due weight for this content is zero, and therefore I think the material is appropriate. If there is a significant view in opposition to Klippenstein, I think the page would be better improved by expanding it. Unbandito (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course all media, and all humans, are biased, but when a consensus on here comes with that caveat, you know you're not dealing with a gold standard RS. And this is only relevant here if you think his past employment with these outlets, however brief, in some way lends credibility to his self-published substacks. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think what his past employment in media shows is that he has the training and follows the same standards of verifiability as prestige media organizations. I think it's worth noting that when a fake version of the manifesto was making the rounds, Klippenstein declined to publish it and called it out as misleading because he couldn't verify its authenticity. Regardless of where he's publishing them, I think his publication of several leaked documents ahead of the mainstream press as well as his history as a FOIA journalist shows that he is well connected to valuable sources of information and is engaged in "real" investigative journalism of the sort that prestige outlets are increasingly unwilling to pay for when opinion pieces get them just as many clicks.
- His perspective on the unwillingness of the media to publish a document which they had verified is true is granted some additional relevance by the fact that he is the one who published the document and inquired to these organizations as to why they hadn't, as well as by the fact that journalists from those legacy organizations leaked internal communications to him which showed the decision those organizations had made.
- I think that this is frankly a strong example of the way that Misplaced Pages's current RS policies are inadequate to handle the reality that with the traditional media in financial and organizational crisis, sometimes breaking news is going to be published by small independent outlets or individuals. Any conception of reliability that uniformly dismisses sources like Klippenstein as if they're some random blog post by John Q. Public while reifying legacy media despite the history of its errors and shortcomings and the media studies scholarship that problematizes a simplistic conception of source reliability, is sure to exclude some valuable material and include a lot of junk. Without getting too far off topic, I think the solution to this is to emphasize verifiability and source consensus over things like editorial process and organizational prestige, and to attribute wherever there is controversy or disagreement. Unbandito (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course all media, and all humans, are biased, but when a consensus on here comes with that caveat, you know you're not dealing with a gold standard RS. And this is only relevant here if you think his past employment with these outlets, however brief, in some way lends credibility to his self-published substacks. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone using phrases like "MSM polemic" ought to be stepping well away from deciding the reliability of any sources, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- NY Times and CNN are mainstream media, a polemic is "a piece of writing expressing a strongly critical view of someone or something." Thus, Klippenstein's hit pieces on MSM are polemics. I don't see why me knowing what these words mean implies I need to "step well away" from assessing reliability. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, The Nation and The Intercept. All media has bias, and any media-literate person should understand this. I think weight arguments are a lot stronger regarding content that is more than a few sentences or a short paragraph long. I don't think the due weight for this content is zero, and therefore I think the material is appropriate. If there is a significant view in opposition to Klippenstein, I think the page would be better improved by expanding it. Unbandito (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- if someone else reports on it, its not sps, its secondary coverage of SPS, which should be admissible in BLP, right? I think we can't directly use any details in his blog that aren't vetted and cited by another non-SPS news source Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, secondary sources can be used for a BLP, if they are RSs. For example, this LA Times article confirms that Klippenstein published Mangione full "manifesto." And this Mediaite article could be used re: his criticism of other media for not releasing the whole thing, though RSP says "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." Perhaps there are other reliable non-SPSs that are better sources for the content about Klippenstein's criticism of other media; I'm not going to take time right now to search further. There may still be questions about due weight, whether a claim needs to be attributed, etc., but those are distinct from the question of reliability and what can be used for BLP material. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- See, this is the thing, we've got LA Times, a high quality RS for news, so there's no reason to cite Klippenstein. But that covers the manifesto issue, which I wouldn't object to including. But the hit piece on those MSMs? Yeah, that's not found in LA Times or any other source on that level, only a "marginally reliable" source. I do not think Klipp is any position to critique editorial decisions at these publications, and do not see how that's due weight anyway. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this:
- I don't object to the bit about media not publishing the manifesto, and this could be sourced to the LA Times (the secondary source referencing Klippenstein).
- The next line about the NY Times not showing the suspect's face -no RS is talking about this and I personally find it irrelevant.
- The last part about media outlets selectively quoting from the NYPD report -this exceeds weight limits and makes the section read like a hit piece against MSM, all sourced to one man. Klippenstein objects to the NYPD using the term "extremists" to describe the suspect's supporters, and cites a report by security firm Dragonfly to argue that the risk of violent attacks on corporate leaders will likely remain low. If you read his source, they, too, use the word "extremists" to describe people who support the killing.
- Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this:
- See, this is the thing, we've got LA Times, a high quality RS for news, so there's no reason to cite Klippenstein. But that covers the manifesto issue, which I wouldn't object to including. But the hit piece on those MSMs? Yeah, that's not found in LA Times or any other source on that level, only a "marginally reliable" source. I do not think Klipp is any position to critique editorial decisions at these publications, and do not see how that's due weight anyway. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, secondary sources can be used for a BLP, if they are RSs. For example, this LA Times article confirms that Klippenstein published Mangione full "manifesto." And this Mediaite article could be used re: his criticism of other media for not releasing the whole thing, though RSP says "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." Perhaps there are other reliable non-SPSs that are better sources for the content about Klippenstein's criticism of other media; I'm not going to take time right now to search further. There may still be questions about due weight, whether a claim needs to be attributed, etc., but those are distinct from the question of reliability and what can be used for BLP material. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I read his work and personally trust Klippenstein. However, his substack is clearly a self-published source. Unbandito's comments on broader issues with Misplaced Pages, while interesting, don't address the WP:BLPSPS issue. Ultimately, Klippenstein is the person with final approval on what he wrote.
- I would consider Klippenstein's views WP:DUE if they are reported on by reliable sources. Based on what I know and see here, I can't consider him to meet the WP:EXPERTSPS criteria in this topic area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Chess here - WP:EXPERTSPS is appropriate here. Klippenstein is a respected journalist. He's also self-publishing. But, in this case, he's an expert who is self-publishing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- See talk page (article linked up top). Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll endorse this as position as well. Klippenstein has a good track record with reputable outlets and hasn't had issues so far on his own, but is ultimately a WP:BLPSPS that should only be included when corroborated and/or discussed by non-SPS RSs. That appears to be the case with the manifesto itself, but not the other reports. -- Patar knight - /contributions 01:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pretty much yes. There's no issue with the manifesto content, but the other reports are not mentioned in any secondary RS of any quality (ignoring Washington Times and the art website). There's also the fact that he's mentioned 3 separate times in a section of only 8 lines, which is hard to defend. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I merged the 'Media outlets' section with the 'Other' section. An editor made a good point on the talk page that according to Klippenstein's article, he's a FOIA document expert, and that
much of his journalism draws on information he has uncovered from records requested at state and national levels of the US government
, whichalso frequently include information from leaked documents
. Some1 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Regardless of expert status, BLPSPS applies and would bar the use when it's not corroborated. It seems the new combined section has some sources that discussion Klippenstein's work in and of itself, which partially solves that issue. The issue then is if the amount of coverage is DUE. Klippenstein is an established journalist and some inclusion is probably due given the coverage, but a lot of the paragraph is repetitive, so I would probably cut it down by half. -- Patar knight - /contributions 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you comment in the article's talk page, because despite what is being said here in this thread, certain editors still think he's a "certified rando", "a random blogger", and unreliable 1, 2, 3. Some1 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of expert status, BLPSPS applies and would bar the use when it's not corroborated. It seems the new combined section has some sources that discussion Klippenstein's work in and of itself, which partially solves that issue. The issue then is if the amount of coverage is DUE. Klippenstein is an established journalist and some inclusion is probably due given the coverage, but a lot of the paragraph is repetitive, so I would probably cut it down by half. -- Patar knight - /contributions 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I merged the 'Media outlets' section with the 'Other' section. An editor made a good point on the talk page that according to Klippenstein's article, he's a FOIA document expert, and that
- Pretty much yes. There's no issue with the manifesto content, but the other reports are not mentioned in any secondary RS of any quality (ignoring Washington Times and the art website). There's also the fact that he's mentioned 3 separate times in a section of only 8 lines, which is hard to defend. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Chess here - WP:EXPERTSPS is appropriate here. Klippenstein is a respected journalist. He's also self-publishing. But, in this case, he's an expert who is self-publishing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- From what I can tell, a consensus has not yet been achieved here. I don't wish to step on anybody's toes, but I have reverted User:Toa Nidhiki05's blanking of a large portion of the disputed section here. Kire1975 (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please see WP:ONUS:
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
You should self-revert your reversion until consensus has been reached in one way or another. Astaire (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- But WP:NOCON is also relevant:
When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. Astaire (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The material that User:Toa Nidhiki05 removed had been in the article since December 13 without any dispute (until now). Some1 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. Astaire (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- But WP:NOCON is also relevant:
- Please see WP:ONUS:
- Ken Klippenstein is a bit of a weird special case because he's an experienced reporter whose Substack is nevertheless still clearly an WP:SPS but because he has very different views on the direct publication of source documents (like manifestos) than much of the rest of the media, he is reasonably often the main source of the full text of a document that the rest of the media acknowledges exists, is real, and that Klippenstein's version of the text is correct, but refuses to actually publish the text themselves. A sort of one-man Wikileaks situation.
- I honestly think that since he is clearly reliable in these situations he is actually a fine source for these sorts of documents, presuming we bear in mind that:
- a) Documents published by him should be clearly acknowledged in the text to be sourced to him alone.
- b) Just because Klippenstein is reliable for the text of the documents he publishes doesn't mean that the documents themselves are reliable for facts or that Klippenstein is endorsing or even has checked their factual claims.
- c) Klippenstein doesn't have to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and so it's very possible that documents he publishes don't follow BLP guidelines for some reason. AFAICT usually what he publishes is about public figures but that doesn't have to be the case, and in cases where a document has private information about a private figure we shouldn't repeat it. Loki (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: NewsNation
What is the reliability of NewsNation?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Survey (NewsNation)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings, Coulthart said "... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"! . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including Jamey Jacob and Mick West, all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
- Writing in The Skeptic, Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: "Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."
- He wrote a UFO book titled Plain Sight which Jason Colavito described as a "conspiracy narrative" and a "slipshod summary".
- The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for “espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”
- The Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking "Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary? while strongly implying the former.
- The Sydney Morning Herald has described him as a "UFO truther" with "little appetite for scrutiny".
- Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked 60 Minutes (Australian TV program) investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
- Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
- In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the Washington Post: ), the channel "was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health".
- In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said "... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing". The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to Mick West's analysis, a Boeing 737 .
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage Personisinsterest (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. BarntToust 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 per Chetsford. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. Compare WP:ROLLINGSTONE. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 why are we putting any stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “broken clock” syndrome. Dronebogus (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (NewsNation)
- For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Is this article declaring the Newport Tower a 12th c. baptistry a reliable source for the tower??
The autho rhas emailed me demanding it be added to the Newport Tower article as it has been peer reviewed.. Other non-peer reviewed papers of his can be found here. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- For reference the tower is Newport Tower (Rhode Island) The answer is no. The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming. Even academic presses slip up sometimes and Istanbul University Press is frankly quite a bit distant from Rhode Island such that I would be cautious about the level of rigour of its fact checking (if any) on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- In addition to this, the author is retired from the U.S. Navy and a student of aeronautics, while this paper involves a great deal of cartography, religious history, etc. In other worlds, far outside of the author's field, even if there was some question about its reliability. Looking at the non-peer reviewed papers, I see that the author also believes the Kensington Runestone is legit. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hemiauchenia, that WP article has an entire section on alternative hypotheses, so it's not clear to me that "The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming" is a reason to exclude this hypothesis. Given that context, what does it means to be a RS for a fringe theory? A source may be reliable for the existence of the fringe theory but unreliable otherwise.
- It's unclear to me whether this chapter is truly peer-reviewed. It appears in an edited book, and the editors are on the faculty of Istanbul University, but it's not clear to me that they have expertise in this area, whether they reviewed all of the chapters for accuracy or only for things like pertinence and organization, or if they sought any outside review for any of the chapters. Their Google Scholar info: , . The book was just published, and I couldn't find any reviews for it. What the author of the chapter "demands" is irrelevant. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- The question is, does this source add anything to the "Norse hypothesis" such that it is worth adding the article to include it? I think the answer is no. There's no evidence that this paper has had any impact on the wider discourse surrounding the tower. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't read the paper, but the abstract says "Two Turkish cartographers, the earliest being Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-1310), and later, Piri Reis (c. 1465-1553), illustrated the North American Baptistery on their respective cartographic works." I know nothing about the "Norse hypothesis" and so cannot judge whether this is something new; the current WP text makes no mention of Turks, but perhaps that's just a matter of what was judged to be DUE. The book link above says that the book was only published last week, so at this point the chapter cannot possibly have had any impact on wider discourse. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems the text is mostly taken up by attempting to divine meaning from certain blotches on an old map. This is not a particularly convincing hypothesis for what it's worth. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't read the paper, but the abstract says "Two Turkish cartographers, the earliest being Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-1310), and later, Piri Reis (c. 1465-1553), illustrated the North American Baptistery on their respective cartographic works." I know nothing about the "Norse hypothesis" and so cannot judge whether this is something new; the current WP text makes no mention of Turks, but perhaps that's just a matter of what was judged to be DUE. The book link above says that the book was only published last week, so at this point the chapter cannot possibly have had any impact on wider discourse. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- The question is, does this source add anything to the "Norse hypothesis" such that it is worth adding the article to include it? I think the answer is no. There's no evidence that this paper has had any impact on the wider discourse surrounding the tower. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Peer review is only as good as the peers in question... Istanbul University and history have a rather fraught history when it comes to Turkish nationalist historiography (which I would fit this under given the elements of Turkish exceptionalism). We have a long history of disregarding those views because academics outside of Turkey do (especially as it concerns claims of Ottoman voyages of discovery, the Kurds, and the Armenian Genocide). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, obvious crank. I would take it as evidence that Istanbul University Press is not reliable. I imagine he was stationed at the base in Newport and got interested, but he should seek professional training in history and learn to read some relevant languages before leaning in on a claim this unlikely. There's really nothing in his article except some maps so extremely magnified that they don't resemble anything in particular. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Pinkvilla
Pinkvilla has been flagged as an unreliable source, and there is growing consensus around its exclusion from the list of acceptable sources on Misplaced Pages:ICTFSOURCES. Previously dicusssed (see 1, 2). Due to concerns about the site's editorial standards, accuracy, and potential biases, I propose to dicussss the credibility of Pinkvilla. The aim is to ensure that Misplaced Pages articles are supported by sources that meet higher standards of reliability and credibility. Pinkvilla itself states that the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data. However, it asserts that the numbers are generally reflective of the box-office performance of the films in question ().Morekar (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think there's a difference between the box-office numbers in Pinkvilla and their general articles? Could one be considered reliable and the other not, or is this looking at the site as a whole? Ravensfire (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data
it probably shouldn't be cited then. EEpic (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Reliability discussion took place previously Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_9#Can_Pinkvilla_be_considered_a_reliable_source_? putting it as one of the best sources for movie related news and box office collections. RangersRus (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu
The following genealogy sources are currently considered Generally unreliable at WP:RSP (A), or in repeated inquiries at WP:RSN (B and C):
- A: Geni.com
- B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
- They should be:
- Option 1: listed as Generally unreliable (change nothing to A; add B and C at WP:RSP as such)
- Option 2: Deprecated (list them as such at WP:RSP)
- Option 3: Blacklisted (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)
- A: See "Geni.com" at WP:RSPSOURCES.
- B: See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#Have we got lists of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research?, in particular subsection #genealogy.eu, where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @ActivelyDisinterested. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
- C: See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Preliminaries
- Probably need to add the website Genealogics.org to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be WP:CIRC. --Kansas Bear 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. NLeeuw (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read Background: B. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey A: Geni.com
- Deprecate. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. JoelleJay (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate.
Question. Isn't it already deprecated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) - Deprecate A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unsure. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- Deprecate, per background discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.
- Deprecation of this source will reduce the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.
- Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally unreliable. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) Generally unreliable is the one which says this:
"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"
I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would only allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be prohibited. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the Generally unreliable category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then only as far as we have to. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally reliable, in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. Ghirla 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Deprecate. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. JoelleJay (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as genealogy.eu and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Lancaster (talk • contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the Europäische Stammtafeln, Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. Ghirla 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". NLeeuw (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; Foix. --Kansas Bear 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)
@ActivelyDisinterested: my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Franklin Open
I would like to know what is known about "Franklin Open" (link). It claims to be peer-reviewed but charges $1900 to publish an article. Should we count this as an RS, or should its articles be treated as self-published? (Apologies if it's already dealt with somewhere — I searched and couldn't find it.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's published by Elsevier on behalf of the Franklin Institute. So not self-published. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- But the question is, is the stuff peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? --Trovatore (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like any other Elsevier/Franklin Institute journals. Reliable in its area of expertise, which is mostly engineering and applied mathematics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, here's the thing. They published a paper with no meaningfully new content on the so-called infinite monkey theorem, here. This thing should never have gotten past peer review, not because anything in it is wrong per se, but because it's not a novel contribution (and is also not a survey). It's a bunch of trivial calculations, put together well with nice illustrations, but with an overall conclusion that is not remotely new.
- So this makes me wonder about their standards, and whether they should be treated as a predatory journal or something similar. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Article processing charges are completely standard, expected, uncontroversial aspects of nearly all open access journals, including Franklin Open. If a journal can't charge for subscriptions or article access, it needs to make at least some money through APCs. Does this discussion concern the journal itself and every article it publishes, or rather a single article regarding monkeys and typewriters? If the latter, then the qualifications of the authors and which salient points of the paper merit mention should be discussed on article talk pages per WP:DUE, WP:ASPECT & WP:ONUS. Not all articles ever published warrant stuffing into every Misplaced Pages article about a topic, no matter how much individual Wikipedians may slobber over the authors, and thousands of perfectly reliable and decent-quality articles should not be cited per WP:MEDRS and WP:PRIMARY. But I'd almost always place more importance on published academic journal articles, even if I dislike the methods or conclusion, over the quibbles and beard-strokings of Wikipedians. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per the scope of the journal "Original manuscripts and special topic issue are welcome as well as multidisciplinary topics or application-oriented articles, reviews, surveys, and educational articles." (emphasis mine) There's zero issue with a journal publishing an educational article with routine calculations and no new conclusions. You said yourself the illustrations were nice. What's the reliability concern here? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- What? reliable journals publish educational articles all the time and they're preferable to novel hypotheses and research. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be an educational article. The authors seem to think they're making a novel contribution. --Trovatore (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if that is the case why would this have any bearing on the reliability of the journal? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it might not, or at least not very much. In my opinion they should not have published this particular article, and I think that reflects badly on them, but of course that is going to happen from time to time. I was trying to find out what was known about the journal, specifically whether it was predatory or predatory-adjacent, and I did that because I didn't think a reputable research journal would publish this. But it seems that that was not the issue. --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Even if that is the case why would this have any bearing on the reliability of the journal? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be an educational article. The authors seem to think they're making a novel contribution. --Trovatore (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Like any other Elsevier/Franklin Institute journals. Reliable in its area of expertise, which is mostly engineering and applied mathematics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- But the question is, is the stuff peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? --Trovatore (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I want to raise a concern about Twitter or known now as X. I'm planning to nominate a list to Featured List and some awards are cited as a tweet from a Philippine Record Label, Star Music, and some cited on YouTube but originally from a significant subscribers (1 Million plus subscribers) and have a Official Artist Channel and can be treated as a reliable source per WP:RSYT. So, is it okay to cite a tweet directly from record label because some awards aren't covered on a news article, which is only acknowledged on their social media.
P.S: I added a discussion just in case some reviewers have a disagreement on citing a tweet. Royiswariii Talk! 01:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- From your description alone, it sounds like you're asking if Star Music's tweets about (themselves or their bands) winning awards can be cited as sources? If that's the case, the tweet would be a self-published, primary source, and inherently self-serving. So no, I wouldn't consider that appropriate. Reliable, independent, secondary sources reporting on the awards are what makes them important.
- If I've misunderstood your question, can you give us some examples of the tweets and how they would be used? Woodroar (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Woodroar one of their post is here , they recognized the awards for the Best Inspirational Secular Song at the 46th Catholic Mass Media Awards, and this is only the piece of sources i searched. Royiswariii Talk! 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- the List of awards and nominations received by SB19 a Featured list was cited from a Facebook too cause they considered it. and List of awards and nominations received by Bini cited this on ref 28. So, I think needed to be considered to since it was awarded. Royiswariii Talk! 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem isn't really Twitter/X or Facebook, it's that you want to use a post by the record label about an award they received. That's inherently self-serving, which means we should avoid using it.
- The Facebook sources at List of awards and nominations received by SB19 were posted by Awit Awards (still a primary source, but not the recipient) and the Philippine Movie Press Club (a secondary source, though I wonder how reliable they are), so I'm assuming that's why they were included. Personally, I think both of those should be removed until they can be supported by better sources, but that's just me. Woodroar (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Woodroar I think it can be considered? because
The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
The claim made in the post is specifically about Bini (girl group) under the record label Star Music, which is not considered a third party in this context. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim
- The award mentioned is neither excessively self-serving nor extraordinary (such as a prestigious recognition like the Grammys). Instead, it is a straightforward of Bini achievements. Royiswariii Talk! 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Of course it's self-serving, it's about an award that one of their bands received. As far as the claim about third parties, I hadn't considered that. But Star Music's tweet does involve claims about third parties, both the group Bini and the organization Catholic Mass Media Awards.
- As others have pointed out, there are also NPOV concerns. Alongside reports from reliable, secondary, independent sources, it's WP:UNDUE to include an award sourced only to a self-published, primary tweet from the record label. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that coverage of winning an award is obviously
unduly self-serving
. As I said below, we're not just relying on the source for the statement that the award was given but for the implication that it is worth noting; we can't rely on the recipient for that! --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Woodroar I think it can be considered? because
- the List of awards and nominations received by SB19 a Featured list was cited from a Facebook too cause they considered it. and List of awards and nominations received by Bini cited this on ref 28. So, I think needed to be considered to since it was awarded. Royiswariii Talk! 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Woodroar one of their post is here , they recognized the awards for the Best Inspirational Secular Song at the 46th Catholic Mass Media Awards, and this is only the piece of sources i searched. Royiswariii Talk! 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If an award isn't covered by secondary independent sources, how is it BALASP on the page? JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- exactly. Had it recieved media coverage, it would've been notable and due for inclusion. BarntToust 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with the sentiment overall for due weight in articles, but this is a list after all. Per WP:FLCR, a high-quality list would;
"comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items"
, suggesting that all items would ideally be included in the list, even if not a requirement. I'm inclined to agree with opinions above that documenting an award you have received is not unduly self-serving, even if publishing such information is entirely self-serving. I otherwise don't agree with the argument that publishing an award won is effectively unwarranted. The question should be more about the awards themselves, for example if the awards were meaningless or irrelevant then sure it would be unwarranted. Give the awards referenced above, the Catholic Mass Media Award by the Catholic Media Association, I'd say it's questionable, but otherwise there are enough secondary sources reporting on them even if not widespread, even if not those in question it seems. CNC (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Twitter, when cited that way, is WP:ABOUTSELF, which carries several restrictions; it's also obviously WP:PRIMARY. One key thing is to avoid such about-self cites for anything self-serving - things companies post on Twitter are often promotional in nature and therefore potentially self-serving. "We intend to release this at date XYZ" would be something we could cite to Twitter. Winning an award, unfortunately, is almost certainly self-serving and therefore is probably something we can't. Note that even if you're absolutely certain they're not making it up, you're still relying on them for the implicit statement that this award is worth noting, which they are obviously not a good source for. And similarly, even beyond that, it raises WP:DUE issues - if there is no coverage of the award anywhere except by the recipient (who is obviously not a neutral party and could therefore be expected to highlight even exceptionally marginal things, providing little weight to them), this makes it hard to justify as worth including. --Aquillion (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Far Out Magazine
Would Far Out Magazine be considered a reliable source for music and the arts? 2600:100C:A21D:971A:1418:AFA9:3465:D674 (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only RSN-comment I could find on it here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_458#Rockpasta.com. I can't find an "about"-page. Currently it's used on WP quite a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comments at Talk:Far Out (website) indicate caution is called for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I make it a point to remove this source whenever I see it because of the fact that, beyond the WP:CIRCULAR concerns noted on the talk page linked above, many of their articles seem to republish content from years ago, while titling them to make it sound as if new insight has come out recently. For a few examples as of late, see , , and are all examples of this website recycling content from other, more reliable sources that can (and should) be cited instead. For all I know, there may be minor instances where this site can be used, but I'm familiar enough with Far Out Magazine to say that, for the most part, their content is clickbait churnalism, and in particular, should not be used for information about living persons. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Credit to User:Binksternet for explaining the unreliability of this source on this user talk page message. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- TL;DR, no, Far Out is unreliable; it's a website that engages in churnalism. See this discussion at WT:ALBUMS. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 14:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Minimally reliable, there may be some use but in general I don't think they're reliable for the reasons that have been mentioned (especially the churnalism/CIRCULAR concerns). I don't think that this is suprising, they are what it says on the label... "Far Out" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary?
Are the sources in these two articles primary or secondary? 1874 Waitemata by-elections and 1886 Waitemata by-election. The book provided is just a collection of parliamentary records, elections, terms served etc. an example is here: Traumnovelle (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those articles are sourced to contemporary newspapers, which would be secondary sources; one of which, the New Zealand Herald, is included in the "perennial sources" page and categorised as "Generally reliable". Daveosaurus (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Newspapers are interesting to discuss because their classification evolves with time. Historians usually classify recent newspaper reports as being secondary, but old reports are classified as primary (this is because the sources used by the newspaper have been lost, and so the newspaper becomes the earliest available record of the events… with more modern sources based on that old newspaper). Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliability isn't the issue here. It is if the sources are primary or secondary. Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, and Berkeley considers contemporary newspaper articles as primary sources: Traumnovelle (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
AdWeek
Would AdWeek be considered a reliable source in terms of advertising campaigns? 2600:100C:A21D:971A:19F4:96E7:9B0B:1686 (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- AdWeek is a perfectly reliable advertising trade magazine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- The thing is public relations notices aren’t usually considered reliable for companies. 2600:100C:A21D:971A:19F4:96E7:9B0B:1686 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As an established trade magazine, I consider AdWeek generally reliable for topics related to the advertising industry. AdWeek's own press releases, which consist of a small number of articles published under
adweek.com/pressbetween 2017 and 2022, are non-independent primary sources that are promotionally toned, and should not be considered the same as AdWeek's standard content. Are these press releases the public relations notices that you are referring to? — Newslinger talk 05:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- As an established trade magazine, I consider AdWeek generally reliable for topics related to the advertising industry. AdWeek's own press releases, which consist of a small number of articles published under
- The thing is public relations notices aren’t usually considered reliable for companies. 2600:100C:A21D:971A:19F4:96E7:9B0B:1686 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Langweiledich.net
I came across this article being used in the Bad Apple!! article to support this claim:
In 2023, users of the Touhou Project, Osu! and Hatsune Miku subreddits collaborated to recreate "Bad Apple!!" on Reddit's r/place canvas, during its 2023 event.
It's in German, so I can't really judge the reliability of this site myself - would it be considered a reliable source? MiasmaEternal☎ 22:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's the self-published blog of Maik Zehrfeld. There's some advice about self-published sources here WP:SPS. I don't think it would be considered reliable, best to find a better source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)
This thread is opened at the request of @Kovcszaln6 following the dispute between me and @Javext in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) on the multiple issues regarding that article.
I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:
1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and
2. Yemeni state-controlled media outlets
wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")
Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article.
Special:diff/1266430566: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used.
Special:diff/1266448873: This is the version that Jav wants to keep
Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):
- (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:
Abo Yemen✉ 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle
WP:AGE MATTERS?citing Portuguese records
That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above Abo Yemen✉ 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama. pp. 290-291. (link) GordonGlottal (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the Quaiti Sultanate was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended). He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)
High School Flags
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.
May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.
The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.
Abo Yemen✉ 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the Special:diff/1266430566#Background Special:diff/1266430566#Losses and Special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city Internet Archive a txt version of the book that can get machine translated can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) Abo Yemen✉ 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, @GordonGlottal. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
- "Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." Javext (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
capturing Al-Shihr
hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? Abo Yemen✉ 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
- I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. Javext (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. Javext (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
-
"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr,
(Never happened btw)and how important it would be to conquer Diu."
Abo Yemen✉ 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned Abo Yemen✉ 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here Abo Yemen✉ 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? Javext (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? Abo Yemen✉ 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Bossip
Hello. I am debating on improving the "4 da Fam" article for a possible WP:FAC nomination. I have a question about a potentials source. Would Bossip be considered reliable and high-quality enough for the FAC process (or for Misplaced Pages in general)? I would be using the following source: Rappers Be Lyin: 10 Greatest Rap Lies. The About Us page says that the site has earned awards in the past and has been mentioned in various reliable sources. I am hesitant about it as Bossip is a "gossip" website. Apologies if this site was already discussed before, and thank you for any help and insight on this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks marginally reliable to me. Like it's not great. But by the standards of pop culture media it's not as bad as it might be. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. That is fair. I had a similar opinion about to be honest. If I do decide to work on this article in the future, I may use other sources first and then see if this one would even be necessary in the end or not. For the purposes of a FAC, which has stricter requirements for sources, it may not be the best option for that context. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What exactly would 'Before she was the illest female in her Dillard’s department, Amil was the illest in all of Hip-Hop, making $40K/guest verse as the Roc’s first lady? Riiiiiiiight.' be used to source? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be used as a negative review for the song as it is criticizing Amil's lyrics. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. The use of slang isn't the issue here. Reliability isn't a register of specific vocabulary. I suppose the question would be whether, Amil was, in fact, making $40,000 per guest verse previously. Should they be reporting that factual statement accurately and should they have a decent history of accuracy in reporting and clarity in corrections when they make an error then the rest is just aesthetics. Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be reported in the article as a factual statement. The "$40,000 per guest verse" bit is part of the song's lyrics and would be addressed in that context, not as an absolute fact. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. The use of slang isn't the issue here. Reliability isn't a register of specific vocabulary. I suppose the question would be whether, Amil was, in fact, making $40,000 per guest verse previously. Should they be reporting that factual statement accurately and should they have a decent history of accuracy in reporting and clarity in corrections when they make an error then the rest is just aesthetics. Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It would be used as a negative review for the song as it is criticizing Amil's lyrics. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seems pretty odd if not outright illogical to use a gossip website if you're going to bring this to FAC. The typical reviewer there expects the cream of the crop of sources, not tabloid gossip. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read some of the articles on the site and it's overly unserious and pretentious BS; my advice is to not use this source. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. Thank you for the response. I agree with your assessment. I have removed it from the article. I am honestly not sure why I used it in the first place. I just thought that it would be beneficial to open a discussion about it here to get further feedback. I believe my question has been answered, and hopefully this can be used to help any other editors in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read some of the articles on the site and it's overly unserious and pretentious BS; my advice is to not use this source. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Science-fiction fanzines
I see the question of science fiction fanzines has come up many times in the archives. My question is fairly simple. Writer and translator Philippe Hupp, the founder of the Metz science fiction festival, sent a letter to PKD Otaku, a sercon fanzine that is notable in the PKD community and is often referred to by PKD scholars, but is admittedly obscure in the grander scheme of things when it comes to reliable sources. In the letter that they published (pp. 4-6), Hupp goes into some historical detail of his relationship with Philip K. Dick and how he was able to get him to speak at the festival in 1977, and provides important historical documents (correspondence, photos) that is reprinted with permission by PKD Otaku. Currently, I'm citing this letter in an article about the festival to say some basic facts about the history. While Hupp and Metz have been covered by numerous reliable sources in France and elsewhere, I believe this kind of exclusive historical detail has only been revealed in PKD Otaku. Is it acceptable for me to carefully cite this info from Hupp (it is, after all, about him and his relationship with PKD) and point to PKD Otaku as the source? The article I am working on, If You Find This World Bad, You Should See Some of the Others, is currently on GAR, and it has been pointed out that this fanzine may not meet the criteria for a RS. It does have two editors, however, but I think it is safe to say it is self-published like most fanzines. It would be a shame for this historical information to be ignored. What is the best course of action? If it isn't acceptable to use as a primary source, I've thought that a brief mention of it in a footnote might be okay. Please let me know your thoughts. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it's the only source available, and the facts are not controversial, and cited as being from Hupp's account of things, it seems fine to me. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I believe it meets that criteria, however, I will revise it further to make sure that it does. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Beebom.com
Beebom has been in a few discussions previously about reliability but they've had few responses. I'm asking about their reliability after their reference in Game Science where their opinion is being used as fact WP:RSOPINION. Issues below also make it difficult to establish reliability via WP:SOURCEDEF.
I'm not familiar enough with Beebom to know their overall reporting but I've come across issues.
- They don't have a masthead so I don't know who their writers are or what their expertise is. The most they have is an About Us page with a few higher roles not in editorial and then two editors without any information. This makes it difficult to establish their level of independence and editorial control. A previous RS discussion pointed out some of their content being written by "Beebom Staff" which is still the case but not often.
- Their editorial guidelines are limited and don't disclose important information. For example, they don't state a separation of ads from editorial. They don't mention here the affiliate programs they're in or the sponsorship deals they do. They don't mention their Beebom Gadgets storefront where they sell phones and make videos on them. However, they disclose having an Amazon affiliate program in their privacy policy. But they don't disclose the other "affiliate partners" they use. These issues brings into question conflicts of interest which they don't have a policy on. Alongside other basic guidelines like a corrections policy or how they handle accepting samples (if they do).
- A 2016 interview explains that they make money from sponsored posts and partnerships. This isn't included in their editorial guidelines. I bring it up since they feature this interview on their About Us page, but Misplaced Pages blocks links to the interviewer's site, YourStory.
- They used to tag sponsored posts as "#sponsored" 5 years ago but stopped. It seems they now use a byline named "Partner Content" for those articles. But they don't mention anything about a sponsorship or partnership in their latest article under this byline. Nor is there anything about this in their policies. So I can't confirm if they do this for all paid content or not.
- I tried looking into their gaming coverage after seeing them on the Game Science page and found a clickbait news article where they deliberately lie. The headline is, "Black Myth: Wukong Is Now the Most Played Steam Game of All Time", which they almost immediately state isn't true. While also stating "Yes, Black Myth Wukong is now the most-played Steam game of all time!" This makes me question their overall fact checking and reliability when they lie in a news headline.
I can't find much mention of Beebom aside from their own social media on google. Even after removing their social media, I can't find anything. Snakester95 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It should probably be removed as a source for the example you brought, since an "opinion" piece is not "reporting." As for the site as a whole, it seems to fit more the model of YouTube gadget reviewer, and could probably be used as a source for certain product reviews where appropriate. But they haven't shown that they have much editorial oversight. The two editors I see listed do not have bios. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- So I did a bit of digging and they haven't really been keeping their website up to date. One of the two editors has now moved into the position of "content strategist". This looks like a very marginal source. I've definitely seen worse in the video game space but I'd personally hesitate to use it for anything controversial. I would also suggest that opinion from this source is likely undue unless there is a named author on the byline with some sort of expertise independent of the outlet. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Jacobin
Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under WP:RSP. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are definitely issues with Jacobin, and a reevaluation of its reliability is probably going to come sooner or later. I don't think a Reddit page full of amateur pundits, who are in turn discussing another social media discussion, is going to give us anything meaningful to work with. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not a good look, but I will note that the article referred to says at the bottom:
Correction: An earlier version of this article overstated the amount of US housing stock that Blackstone owns.
So far as I can tell, the sentence in question is removed from the current version of the article entirely. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- That would indicate, notwithstanding snark on Twitter, the website for snark, Jacobin actually did the thing we expect of a reliable source and made a correction to an article with a factual error, identifying with a correction notice that a correction had been made. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this justifies a significant increase in caution towards the author at the very least. In general, an in-depth look at it's reliability is probably due, even though a Reddit discussion isn't evidence. FortunateSons (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's strange that it was closed as 'generally reliable' in the first place, when most respondents voted either 'no consensus' or 'generally unreliable' in the last RFC. Hi! (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Had a quick perusal of the r/neoliberal subreddit. It appears to be discussing one sentence in one (possibly opinion) article in Jacobin. Are you asking whether that particular article is a reliable source for that one sentence? Burrobert (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just as an aside, RFCs are not votes (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sources making corrections, as has happened in this case, is a sign of reliability. Things that happen on social media, and reactions on social media, are mostly irrelevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The original RfC that supposedly found Jacobin to be reliable really is a bit of a tenuous close. A simple beancount in that RfC would lean against treating it as WP:GREL, and I'm not really able to discern why the arguments for reliability were so much stronger than those in opposition that an affirmative Option 1 consensus was declared instead of a no-consensus close (at minimum). I do think that it's ripe for re-evaluation. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The author's behavior would be annoying if we were chatting at lunch and I personally dislike the smugness, but reliability isn't a personality contest, and as Simonm223 points out the article itself was corrected and the erroneous information removed. That's basically what we expect a reliable source to do—fix itself when an error gets pointed out. So long as the actual content produced is dependable or gets fixed to become dependable, that's reliability. Anonymous Reddit complaints trying to score Internet points aren't a compelling reason for overturning the prior RfC. Evidence of a pattern of unreliable reporting and failures to make corrections would be more persuasive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is time for a review of the past discussion and time to bring up Jacobin for a reliability check. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What does "NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus" mean? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like they handled this appropriately, can you explain what the issue would be? Your comment is a little light on details, its basically just spamming a reddit discussion... Maybe tell us what you think? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
A new discussion on Jacobin is long overdue, particularly per Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin. It's clear that Jacobin is not reliable on all topics, and at the very least additional considerations should apply in these cases. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- An RfC next would be worthwhile. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors
The discussion is partially non-topical for this forum. The discussion about the issues that belong here continues below in § The Heritage Foundation.—Alalch E. 19:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Taking this here based on a recommendation from Aquillion. The conversation began at the PIA arbitration evidence talk page where a report from forward was shared . According to this report, the Heritage Foundation plan to use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia
. A copy of the Heritage Foundation proposal deck is available here. This Heritage Foundation plan to dox wikipedia editors also would include creating fake Misplaced Pages user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them. It is unclear whether this has begun.
Clearly this situation is alarming in the extreme and the discussion at the arbitration case brought forward the very reasonable suggestion of a project-wide block of all Heritage Foundation domains. So why here? Well Aquillion suggested a reasonable first-step toward this would be to get the site deprecated and blacklisted via RS/N. So that's what I'm here to do. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am unsure about a retalitory deprecation (or whatever). Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- No this would be a preventative deprecation. The idea, to my understanding, is to remove the ability of Heritage Foundation domains to interact with en.wp as much as possible. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is that not best done with range blocks, to prevent them from setting up accounts? Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is a discussion to be had at the Village Pump, as it's not a matter of reliability. Deprecation wouldn't have the effect that your looking for, you would need blacklisting and I don't think this would fall within the normal process of blacklisting. So a discussion at VP seems more appropriate as it's something outside of prior policy or guidelines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- A village pump discussion was created and the suggestion to bring the conversation here actually arose from discussion of that conversation at the arbitration page. Honestly I'm pretty nervous about a pseudo-governmental organization trying to interfere with individual Misplaced Pages editors in this way so I'll happily take the conversation to whatever board we think is most appropriate. But right now we've got a whole lot of conversations pointing to different places as a precis to discussing the actual problem. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hostile actions by a third party against Misplaced Pages or it's editors isn't a reliability issue, and this isn't a forum for anything but reliability issues. If anything it sounds more like safe guarding, a much bigger issue that should probably involve the WMF. However if editors want to start a discussion about it's reliability, per the sources below, that would be a seperate matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- A village pump discussion was created and the suggestion to bring the conversation here actually arose from discussion of that conversation at the arbitration page. Honestly I'm pretty nervous about a pseudo-governmental organization trying to interfere with individual Misplaced Pages editors in this way so I'll happily take the conversation to whatever board we think is most appropriate. But right now we've got a whole lot of conversations pointing to different places as a precis to discussing the actual problem. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- No this would be a preventative deprecation. The idea, to my understanding, is to remove the ability of Heritage Foundation domains to interact with en.wp as much as possible. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will point out that part of what I said there was that they're already used on some 5000 pages, and are probably already depracable for publishing obvious disinformation (especially since the 2020 election.) I wouldn't have suggested going through RSN to deprecate them if I didn't think they were also worthy of deprecating on their own merits, entirely separately from the threats to use their websites to dox Misplaced Pages editors; but deprecating them would make it easier to add them to the spam blacklist and would help avoid situations where editors are forced into a situation where they have to consider whether to click a link to an obviously Heritage Foundation-controlled site in order to verify a presented source. I suppose we could just move ahead with trying to get those sites added to the spam blacklist without deprecation, but for a site that also publishes disinformation, it seems easier to get it deprecated first, since it ought to be an easy call. --Aquillion (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies if I misinterpreted. I'll admit that reading the thread at the arbitration case upset me rather considerably. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is a more valid reason, there do seem to be issues with the recent work. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- This discussion should be closed and a proper thread should be opened with substantiated concrete claims about problems with this source. —Alalch E. 15:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The thread itself is the precursor to an RFC. That said, they've published misinformation or disinformation about climate change, the FDA elections and politics, and more. --Aquillion (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's enough to open an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can I suggest closing this section and starting another, to afford accusations that questions of reliability are based on animosity to the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- +1 I think it's time we started a RfC (perhaps in a new section, as suggested by AD). M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, new section. —Alalch E. 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- An RFC is in a new section already? You mean a new RFCbefore section? Titled Heritage Foundation? (ie without the dox part) Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- New level 2 section. —Alalch E. 19:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I certainly have no objection to closing this discussion and opening a new one to host an RfC / RfC Before.Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- New level 2 section. —Alalch E. 19:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- An RFC is in a new section already? You mean a new RFCbefore section? Titled Heritage Foundation? (ie without the dox part) Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, new section. —Alalch E. 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's enough to open an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The thread itself is the precursor to an RFC. That said, they've published misinformation or disinformation about climate change, the FDA elections and politics, and more. --Aquillion (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- Washington, Haydn; Cook, John (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. London: Earthscan. p. 75,77. ISBN 978-1-84971-335-1. OCLC 682903020.
- Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
- McKie, Ruth E. (2023). The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19–50. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2. ISBN 978-3-031-33592-1 – via Springer Link.
Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...
- Wubbena, Zane C.; Ford, Derek R.; Porfilio, Brad J. (1 March 2016). News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-68123-401-4 – via Google Books.
For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...
- Kessler, Glenn (March 31, 2021). "The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 11, 2021. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
- Bensinger, Ken; Fausset, Richard (September 7, 2024). "Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2024. Retrieved September 7, 2024.
- Fields, Gary; Swenson, Ali (July 12, 2024). "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
Could someone who can read Bengali take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tamluk Royal Family?
Hello, I started the title AfD in response to some users recreating a rejected draft in mainspace and they responded by filling the discussion with sources that don't pass WP:SIGCOV. I'm unable to read some of the sources, though, in particular one that the users claim has a whole chapter on the subject of the article. Could someone who can read the Bengali sources take a look at the discussion and see if the article passes WP:GNG? --Richard Yin (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- You may have more luck asking at WT:WikiProject Bangladesh or WT:WikiProject West Bengal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, will repost there (West Bengal, since it's the Wikiproject whose scope covers the article's subject). --Richard Yin (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change, the FDA elections and politics, and more. It has been publishing obvious disinformation especially since the 2020 election. Its website heritage.org is used as a source on some 5000 pages (correction: I copied "5000" with this search link from another editor uncritically. "heritage.org" includes all of "english-heritage.org" links; the real count is around 1750 —00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—Alalch E. 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the Index of Economic Freedom? —Alalch E. 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation?
- What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in Laffer curve? —Alalch E. 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the Index of Economic Freedom? —Alalch E. 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods.
- On a quick search, I only found this discussion in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. Not sure if we want this used or not. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index
The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. Simonm223 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes.
- Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh do stop. I've heard that particular WP:NPA violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a WP:FRINGE WP:AGEMATTERS perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. Simonm223 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? Simonm223 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. Simonm223 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a bold claim. Evidence? --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (archive.is). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —Alalch E. 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's a bold claim. Evidence? --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. Simonm223 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? Simonm223 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh do stop. I've heard that particular WP:NPA violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a WP:FRINGE WP:AGEMATTERS perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. Simonm223 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index
- It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by WP:EDITCON, replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting WP:FRINGE. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would consider it WP:GUNREL since it’s self published and openly partisan. HenrikHolen (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether WP:SPS applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was an RFC as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against always considering them to be self-published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether WP:SPS applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Please review reference no. 6 in Special:PermanentLink/1264352480 (
Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state
). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —Alalch E. 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in Special:PermanentLink/1262085410#History, supported by the Project 2025 publication, with attribution:
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their 2025 Mandate for Leadership, they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration.
Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —Alalch E. 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It might be 'reliable' that the HF said what they said they said, but is it relevant? This is getting into questions about whether the content is even WP:DUE. Lots of people say lots of things about lots of stuff, but Misplaced Pages doesn't quote it all. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's the reputed Index of Economic Freedom, for one. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in Special:PermanentLink/1262085410#History, supported by the Project 2025 publication, with attribution:
- Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Please review reference no. 6 in Special:PermanentLink/1264352480 (
- I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —Alalch E. 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is directly relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. -sche (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —Alalch E. 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support blacklisting Abo Yemen✉ 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Minor point but it's used on 1700 pages not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support blacklisting. I don't wanna get doxxed.. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually prevent and/or stop any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They have threatened to start doxxing people on Misplaced Pages. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 22:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- And also have said they will do it with links. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's unlikely that any professional phishing campaign by HF would use heritage.org, and if their home website were blacklisted, they would proceed to use other websites Placeholderer (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually prevent and/or stop any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
As with ALL think-tanks, I think they should be considered WP:GUNREL; though if some of their reports see WP:USEBYOTHERS than those could be used with attribution.---Avatar317 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Could we see some evidence of doxing please? If this is something they do to people it is a safety concern and we probably need to deprecate. As for the rest, I think they are an over-used fringe source, but there are probably times when their attributed opinion is due. The Economic Freedom Index was something you used to see quoted a lot in newspapers and on TV in the UK, not so much now. It shouldn't be mentioned in our Economy of Narnia or Socialist Republic of Zenda type articles.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This expose in the Forward, a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting. I don’t know if it’s “spam” per se but an organization that has stated an intent to dox editors is obviously just a simple threat to user safety. And I don’t think there’s any debate their content is all garbage, disinfo, and propaganda. Even WP:ABOUTSELF content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. Dronebogus (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting. User:Headbomb am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? Doug Weller talk 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blacklisting. The Heritage Foundation produces two things: disinformation and opinion. I don't think the opinion of a disinformation vendor is particularly noteworthy except in WP:ABOUTSELF contexts. With such minimal value to use of this group as a source let's just show them the door. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support blacklisting. The site is published by an ideologically-motivated group which is well-documented for making false claims of fact, using dubious methodologies in their work, and is now engaged in efforts to damage this very project. There's absolutely no use, and much potential harm to come from using them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
RFC: The Heritage Foundation
 |
|
What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
- Option 5: Blacklist
Poll: The Heritage Foundation
Option 5: Blacklist: Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Pinging @Dronebogus@Doug Weller@M.Bitton@Simonm223@MjolnirPants, they voted above before I made this RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in.
- is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bluethricecreamman: There is a way to warn users attempting to add these links (filter 869), but warning users who click on them would likely require some JavaScript magic that's above my pay grade. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support option 5 - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP Abo Yemen✉ 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —Alalch E. 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources § Definition of a source; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —Alalch E. 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said:
We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization
—Alalch E. 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig Abo Yemen✉ 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is the status of 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, Institute for Economic Freedom (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —Alalch E. 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —Alalch E. 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —Alalch E. 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Daily Mail is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):
- {{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}}
I'll help you: Daily Mail is not blacklisted.—Alalch E. 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- ]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —Alalch E. 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see this comment below. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment:
Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing).
Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise.But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal?
Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question ofDo paperbacks get special dispensation ...
. That original question, mildly rephrased, is:How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source, which is how this RfC's question is also formulated (What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation ...
)?Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is possible, but it is not what, say, User:NatGertler thinks. He wrote:... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question ...
. —Alalch E. 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —Alalch E. 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing Abo Yemen✉ 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —Alalch E. 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —Alalch E. 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If Daily Mail is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):
- We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —Alalch E. 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —Alalch E. 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —Alalch E. 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is the status of 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, Institute for Economic Freedom (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —Alalch E. 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said:
- Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —Alalch E. 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. Dronebogus (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support option 5 and option 4 per my statements above. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3, with Option 5 post 2016 and Option 4 for any hard copy after 2016. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at WP:RSP; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —Alalch E. 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E. Interesting, it looks like it's possible only if you can do some regex trickery. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is interesting. In the present case, if blacklisting for ostensible security reasons, the date isn't a factor. —Alalch E. 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E. Interesting, it looks like it's possible only if you can do some regex trickery. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at WP:RSP; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —Alalch E. 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3: generally unreliable. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as this article by Clarence Thomas which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 and Option 4. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 for pre-2016 (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "yellow" think tanks) and Option 4 for 2016 and later. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., this (permalink)), not from value judgements.—Alalch E. 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—Alalch E. 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —Alalch E. 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—Alalch E. 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Blacklist -- but this does not mean removing the reference. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable (option 3) as they are into WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "find out." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- Patar knight - /contributions 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- Patar knight - /contributions 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JoJo Anthrax, Bluethricecreamman, Abo Yemen, Dronebogus, Doug Weller, MjolnirPants, SarekOfVulcan, Vanamonde93, NatGertler, Boynamedsue, Gnomingstuff, Patar knight, 1AmNobody24, Tryptofish, Chaotic Enby, and Horse Eye's Back:
- While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it wasn’t security related I wouldn’t have voted. But I would still allow older cites under a 3 if and only if they were replaced by wayback machine links. Dronebogus (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. Nobody (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 6, Mu. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you give out your IP when you visit any website and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing.The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a very specific link, and they have to be fairly certain that only you could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that outwardly looks like something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be more effective by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.The Heritage foundation is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/WP:PRIMARY source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-anonymize and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.The technical solutions offered at the Village pump are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions would do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both. We can remove a WP:FRINGE source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of bad-faith interference.Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is very relevant. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing #Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting.
- Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is very relevant. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: Blacklist (along with 4: Deprecate). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the Forward piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been continuing to think about this, and I've also been reading the subsequent RfC comments by editors who argue that we should still consider that it's a think tank that can provide citable source material. Some editors have also said that we should not let our emotional reaction against the doxing issue influence how we evaluate Heritage as a reliable or unreliable source. In some ways, I agree that we should not make sourcing decisions based upon emotion. However, we should also not be naive about what a legitimate think tank does. Think tanks take advocacy positions, but they also are populated by thinkers, people with expertise who think carefully about issues, and seek to publish well-reasoned analyses of issues. But it's frankly laughable to characterize Heritage that way. An organization that says, publicly, that they are going to go after Misplaced Pages editors, as persons, in order to enforce their preferred view of what information Misplaced Pages readers will find, is not an organization that is producing scholarly analyses of information that Misplaced Pages might want to cite. If it's a legitimate think tank, then Antifa is a think tank, too. Even if they also purport to produce thoughtful position papers, those publications simply have to be recognized by us as tainted by intellectual dishonesty. There is no passing that off as reliable sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? Placeholderer (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's a wide range, in both directions, of how much valuable information a source can offer. On WP:RSP the only sources deprecated with antisemitism as part of the justification are Press TV, an Iranian propaganda outlet; The Unz Review, with justification mentioning "racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content" and "many apparent copyright violations"; and Veterans Today, which was blacklisted for abuse and deprecated for "unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories." Unz Review is the only deprecation citing racism. Searching for a few other "horrible things" keywords, I don't immediately see anything else.
- With Press TV and Veterans Today it seems there are, I would say, much clearer underlying problems with the sources than is the case with HF. Unz Review seems to have been a clear-cut case — the only such case I see — of cancelling an outlet primarily for being unusably (i.e questionably) rabid, and it being an outlet that no one would miss because it doesn't seem (per its RfC) to provide useful info. HF may be unhelpful to an extent, but not that unhelpful. Apart from that, sources are flagged for their information being inappropriate for the encyclopedia, not for saying horrible things.
- It's also worth looking at Asian News International. They're another organization hostile to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's mission, but despite that whole situation, they're only MREL, and the description of why gives no mention to that situation. That's the most important precedent in this comment.
- If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those Placeholderer (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well said @Placeholderer, "
If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those...
" Iljhgtn (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well said @Placeholderer, "
- Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? Placeholderer (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: Blacklist, primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, generally unreliable at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense:
- In general, Option 5 for editor security reasons, as per all above.
- With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, Option 4 as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve WP:FRINGE theories.
- With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, somewhere between option 2 and option 3 - WP:NEWSOPED would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. The Kip 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- GreenC 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. nableezy - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s security theater, which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Their is no reason not to place fingerprint gathering html5 snippets as widely as possible if you want as much tracking as possible. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- And consider, Misplaced Pages editors will only be one target. A large tracking network can be a used to doxx other people they dislike (advocates of racial equality, LGBT people, non-capitalists). Its pretty safe to assume they will have middleware somewhere in their webstack to affect fingerprinting. I'd be mad at my cyberattack consultant if they missed the obvious. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fingerprinting everyone is useless for purposes of following and tracking Wikipedians. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- "This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 per PARAKANYAA. Well said. - Amigao (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 and in case it's considered seperate Option 4 as well. THF are not only publishers of WP:Fringe but are posing an active threat to WP:NOTCENSORED Bejakyo (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. soibangla (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2-3 There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Springee makes the most well articulated point of anyone in this RfC. This would indeed be "very bad precedent" and we should not also retaliate based on the claims of a single source in such bad form. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3, at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (Associated Press, New York Times and academica (Springer International and Routledge) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from The Forward, a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2, per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least some things. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1, though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the Forward source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So Option 1: Generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 as their own communications indicate that they are a security risk, that they intend of publishing malicious web content in order to identify people who click on their links. TarnishedPath 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 and maybe 5. Based on their (lack of) quality as a source this is an extremely obvious 4 but their recent outrageous threats were making me think that 5 was also justified, comparable to how we would treat a terrorist organisation. After seeing Red-tailed hawk's comment, among others, I am now less sure about that. What I am sure of is that they publish deliberate disinformation in intentional bad faith and that makes them utterly untrustworthy and unreliable (with both an upper and lower case "u") as a source for anything at all except for their own claims. Literally nothing that they say can be relied upon unless independently corroborated by actual Reliable Sources, in which case we should just use those Reliable Sources instead. If they say that the sky is blue then a Reliable Source needs to open a window and check before we can say that it is. I see people saying that they may have been more reliable in the past. I have my doubts about that. Sure, they are probably even worse now than they were before but were they ever really anything better than a 3 or 4? That said, if that does turn out to be true, and we do decide to blacklist, then I guess we could use Archive.org to refer to contemporaneous copies of their content which we know not to have been subsequently tampered with. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 because they have announced they are a security risk, and Option 4 because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors. Sita Bose (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 as they routinely publish material chock full of conspiracy theories and outright fabrications.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5, regrettably. I would normally have suggested option 2. But given they are actively trying to dox editors on Misplaced Pages and contributors to other internet sources, that is absurd and is not something that can result in them being tolerated as a source on Misplaced Pages. They do good work - they produce things that, while biased, are reliable, generally speaking. But their efforts have extended to doxxing contributors, and that is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages has an obligation to make reasonable attempts to protect its users - whether editors or readers - from having their information harvested through links. And since the Heritage Foundation has admitted they intend to engage in information harvesting based on links... nope. Not permissible. To clarify - my !vote here is not a comment on their reliability overall. If they cease their information harvesting, I support a further discussion on this topic. But if they intend to (and per reliable sources, may have already begun) use their links to harvest editor/reader information, absolutely not acceptable, and they should be blacklisted until they cease engaging in such behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be at minimum a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say a newspaper of record with a notable ideological bias. Dronebogus (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I counted two Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I counted two Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- option 2/3 - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them.
- That said, what they publish is opinion and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE.
- If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to Mein Kamph as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable threat of harm and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. NadVolum (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. GretLomborg (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with the BADRFC !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Very poor option 2 or option 3 gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. FortunateSons (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, if accurately recounted in the media, to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —Alalch E. 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the Index of Economic Freedom because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general Placeholderer (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular.
+1 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- What about the democracy indices from The Economist, or V-Dem, or Adam Przeworski et. al? Or the World Happiness Report? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL Placeholderer (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC Placeholderer (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What about the democracy indices from The Economist, or V-Dem, or Adam Przeworski et. al? Or the World Happiness Report? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL Placeholderer (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Wealth of Nations is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the Principia outmoded. Placeholderer (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't current and reliable scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for Principia's estimate. I'm going to read current scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. Wealth of Nations lies in the social sciences while Principia deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the Providence of God, not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly because it is inspired by The Wealth of Nations.
- The IEF is not a problem with this organization Placeholderer (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't current and reliable scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for Principia's estimate. I'm going to read current scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. Wealth of Nations lies in the social sciences while Principia deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the Providence of God, not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference
: No, it wouldn't make sense to reference the Heritage Foundation directly. If what we want to cover is the criticism, we want secondary source coverage of such criticism; citing such criticisms directly and just deciding to put them in an article is original research in the pursuit of a false balance. Criticism of vaccination is an influential element of American culture, but we don't go out of our way to cite anti-vaxxers; we instead cite reliable sources that independently document and analyze such. The Confederate secession was a major part of American history, but we ought not write Civil War articles by citing 1860s South Carolina newspapers for information about anti-abolitionism; we cite historians and how they have documented and analyzed what's relevant, what's meaningful, what was disinformation, etc. Likewise, if what we want is coverage of the Heritage Foundation and its role as an agitation engine against certain kinds of policies (in your example, education), then we cite journalists, historians, sociologists, education professors, etc. who study and write about organizations like the HF. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- This is entirely correct. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The difference between anti-vaxxers and Heritage Foundation is that anti-vaxxers are a fringe perspective in the medical field, even if one of them is going to lead the NHS, and that Heritage Foundation is, like Cato, a well-established but POV/advocacy think tank. As for Civil War newspapers, the difference is timeliness: of course historical events have many better sources that are third-party analysis, but we do cite think tanks all over the place. I don't see why HF is substantially different from any other MREL POV, advocacy think tank whose work should be attributed.
- To source HF's own role in policy, of course it wouldn't be used as a source for itself. The same holds for any source, MREL or not Placeholderer (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
What are you suggesting out of this, what we delete the Index of Economic Freedom page?Placeholderer (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- If you mean to say that HF is GUNREL because the IEF is pseudoscientific, then I'd ask for RS that say the IEF is pseudoscientific (not that it's just flawed, because of course any index is flawed) Placeholderer (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1268161574, which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org):
Ireland is an open economy (3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom), ...
—Alalch E. 23:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a non-scientific source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —Alalch E. 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- To restate my own point, I don't think the IEF can at all be taken as a reason to call HF a GUNREL source.
- I actually think Economy of Ireland is a great example of an article where the IEF (and by extension HF work) can be brought up, since Ireland's corporate economy is based around being a regulatory/tax haven, though I do think the current phrasing especially with parenthesis is weird so early in the article Placeholderer (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —Alalch E. 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven Placeholderer (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —Alalch E. 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a non-scientific source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —Alalch E. 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1268161574, which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org):
- Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is entirely correct. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican
: Reliable sources and the neutral point of view aren't determined by what is politically mainstream, whether Republican or Democrat in the United States, or Labour or Tory in the United Kingdom, or LDP in Japan, etc. The Taliban is a mainstream political faction in Afghanistan, insofar as it's the faction in power, but I don't think we would consider some kind of Taliban-aligned think tank to be a reliable source for Afghani society and politics. Mainstream reliability is determined not by the ideologies of politics but by the rigors and standards of academia and journalism. A majority of Americans believe a creator deity was involved in the origins of humanity, but that belief being 'mainstream' doesn't make it reliable, and we wouldn't treat a source attesting such as one that's reliable for biology or evolutionary anthropology. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)- To clarify, I don't mean to assert that HF is reliable because of being mainstream Republican. I mean to say that WP:FRINGE, specifically, doesn't make much sense to use against what is, in the US, a political and academic giant. They might have some specific views that are fringe, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the source — The Economist has called for the legalization of cocaine, which is a fringe position, but The Economist is (rightfully) a well-respected source.
- TLDR I complain about specifically WP:FRINGE being invoked against HF as reason to deprecate Placeholderer (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2. Other sanctions may be appropriate for the privacy issues, but RSN is not an appropriate forum to pursue them. We cannot retaliate against sources for conduct which is not restricted by wiki accuracy and notability guidelines. And I'm leery of taking such wide action against an organization with a long and complicated history, comprising some intentional lying (especially the last 4 years) but also real and valuable research. Ideally we would give Heritage up to 2020 similar treatment to Cato
The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.
(which I think is the only thinktank with an RSP listing) and minimally GUR it for 2020+, but with the RFC as-listed I think we have to err on the side of trusting editors to use their own judgement. This RFC did not arise from an editing dispute and I don't think Heritage is being regularly used inappropriately on wiki. If a dispute does arise, Option 2 will be enough to prefer other sources. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 2. It's a widely used source, not just on Misplaced Pages but also in other RS, including scholarly articles (, ), so WP:USEDBYOTHERS applies. I'd support every effort to combat their scheme to influence Misplaced Pages but blacklisting them as a source is not going to help. Blacklisting them would make us look like vindictive amateurs rather than a serious encyclopedia. Alaexis¿question? 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
If its relevant would not other RS report it anyway? Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Heritage Foundation is most cited through their Index of Economic Freedom, which is a lot of data that's documented on that article in tables refreshed each year; no secondary source includes all the data included on that article. We could start a discussion on that article's talk page about removing the data under WP:Indiscriminate if we wish, but there does seem to be precedent with global indices to include all countries' rankings, indices, and historical rankings. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I just meant with the WP:Indiscriminate part of my reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. It would be a bit hard, though, since other indices also list everything. I would support such rampant restructuring if I had a clear picture of where the removed data would go. I'd say Wikidata, but that doesn't seem to have such facilities/pages. And no, I don't think it's reputation is that much worse to warrant deletion. Alaexis lists two sources that cite IEF: one source from the unreliable MDPI, but also one source from Nature, which is like top-tier iirc. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I just meant with the WP:Indiscriminate part of my reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "
An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor.
" How does this in any way comment on the RfC, "What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted?
" - This is exactly the sort of comment that is not actually addressing the RfC, but is purely retaliatory and very angry (perhaps understandably, but that is besides the point). Nothing about this sort of comment is rooted in policy, and I hope any closer views such !votes with the correct and proper disregard that they deserve. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If they are unreliable on specific grounds, so be it, but so far mere retaliation is neither valid nor constructive. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope. Their hostility is the icing on the cake. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- "
- Option 5, or at the very least options starting from 3, due to its publication of fabricated and/or misleading information and its widespread use in the project. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 or 2. As far as I can tell, their internal memoranda are a wishlist and aspirational, and so far they haven't been successful in any of their reprehensible ideas. As far as the source itself, I tend to see it as verging into pretty unreliable territory similar to Fox News, but it's a think tank, so sometimes they might have some well-researched reports or attributable opinions, and they're one of the largest right-wing think tanks so they have a large body of usable attributed information, similar to other think tanks or advocacy groups, biased, but occasionally useful with real academics working there, so I think full deprecation or blacklisting seems excessive. The reality is, their desire to dox editors is easier wished for than done, and it doesn't expressly impugn the reliability of their past material. Andre🚐 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- After some thinking, I'm leaning towards option 4 per Tryptofish above. Besides the extensively documented lying, I (unfortunately?) don't trust a source that aspires to covertly attack and burn down us and our library, and there should be a pretty good reason for someone to click twice on the "publish" button. This won't stop any "link injection", and it shouldn't: Thinking blacklisting would diminish security problems is pure security theater, per RedTailedHawk; it is not something we should do. Deprecating informs newer editors of the situation, and that's something we should do. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —Alalch E. 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- How about you stop asking me to read what I read and disagree with? M.Bitton (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —Alalch E. 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you said. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- M.Bitton, you're wrong to insist on blacklisting based on this discussion. The real discussion about what to do technically, and blacklisting is a technical and not an editorial measure is had at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. It is also had at other places, where discussions aren't public. —Alalch E. 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 The sites are not reliable and the new information showing recently shows clear and obivous issues brought up by most here so far. ContentEditman (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 - Are there any indications at all that their statements are a reliable source about anything that is not embarrassing to themselves? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4+5 per the sources above. They routinely publish misinformation, and make no particular claim that I can see towards doing any fact-checking or having any editorial controls in the first place, so they shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with; but the fact that they somehow ended up used in so many articles shows that deprecation is necessary. In the rare case where someone there says something significant, it will be reported in secondary sources and can be cited via those; there is no exception to WP:RS for "they're really important, tho", precisely because unreliable-but-important sources can be cited via secondary coverage. Their threats to use domains they control to dox and out Misplaced Pages editors is just an additional reason on top of this and a reason to take the step of a formal blacklist. While blacklisting obviously won't solve the problem, it will avoid situations where editors feel they have to click their links in order to evaluate a potentially-viable source, and force them to use lesser-known (and, for most editors, more intrinsically suspicious) domains in order to do any sort of spear-phishing attack. Some editors seem to be saying "well let them use their own domain for those attacks, that'll make it more obvious" - but if we don't blacklist it then it won't, because allowing it means it could also be used in good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Routinely publishing misinformation would be a concern, but I haven't been convinced from the discussion so far that they do that. Could you elaborate? Placeholderer (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5: +1 (what Aquillion said) + Think tanks are rarely anything but a source of last resort on Misplaced Pages. We mostly use them when they have useful insight into niche security topics. If any primary research or opinion from the HF is particularly notable and due, it will be covered by reliable, secondary sources, and we can still cover it. We don't need to send users to a website with potentially malicious activity. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 This seems like a drastic overreaction. Nemov (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- 5, and 3/4. If this had been asked a month ago, I'd've said 3 because, as Alalch and others laid out in the RFCBEFORE, they have a reputation for letting politics trump accuracy, leading to mis- and dis-information; in any situation in which their views are DUE, those will (by definition!) have been covered by other, reliable sources; and any ABOUTSELF statements needed on their own article can be handled as exceptions/whitelisted. But 5 is also in order: for a source to operate in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, is not only additional evidence that they do dishonest/untrustworthy things and are unreliable, the misuse of their domains in particular merits blacklisting. Pace those who think blacklisting their main domain is "security theater" because they'll also use other domains, I think it's necessary, as I (a) see no reason to doubt they're using their main domain for the same thing, and (b) view blacklisting them (under their main domain) as a necessary first part of blacklisting them (under any other domains they're caught using). -sche (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 given the explicit details of the threat they pose to editors here. (same reason that a site like Conservipedia should be blacklisted too). The content they produce would already make them generally unreliable (and I don't know if we ever considered them reliable before so deprecation doesn't sound possible), but we should go the step further to protect WP editors here. I can see limited exemptions to use them as a primary source only on a page about the Herigate Foundation itself if that absolutely needed, but likely not. --Masem (t) 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 5 This feels cut-and-dry. They're a propaganda wing for a specific hardline ideology and have a long and storied history of simply disregarding factuality. Ignoring all the concerns with them outing editors, I'm amazed it wasn't already considered unreliable.
Discussion: The Heritage Foundation
What exactly happens to the 5000 links if we blacklist them? Does a bot go through and remove the https:// from them so they are unclickable? (Seems reasonable.) Or are the citations deleted? (Seems a bit damaging.) Or something else? This will affect how I opine in the above RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae I'm just noting that it isn't 5000 but cca 1750, please see Special:Diff/1268481621. Sorry for propagating the incorrect number. —Alalch E. 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It could either of those two options or it could be that the bot goes through and replaces the references with a {{cn}}. I guess that should be discussed. TarnishedPath 23:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting says "Ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting." —Alalch E. 23:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The page Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see WP:RSP#Blacklisted) only explains what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an additional outcome may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —Alalch E. 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think a malware website can not be used as a reliable source. The intent is to misinform and endanger. Nothing reliable about that. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The page Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see WP:RSP#Blacklisted) only explains what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an additional outcome may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —Alalch E. 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I see arguments above that the Heritage Foundations declared hostility to Misplaced Pages's neutrality means we should treat them as a hostile organization. There are other entities hostile to our neutrality; Donald Trump and the Chinese government are two that come to mind. Neither is what I would call a reliable source, but we don't ban all links to them; they're treated as reliable for a very limited set of cases. What's the difference between these cases? There are governments who have imprisoned Misplaced Pages editors (so I gather; I don't have a reference but I've seen it said). Can those governments be cited for anything at all -- e.g. the names of their ministers? Option 5 seems inconsistent with the way we treat these other hostile entities. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Donald Trump doesn't have a detailed cyberattack plan to doxx editors here. The heritage foundation does plan on using web technologies to harm editors. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, but that vector doesn't seem as hostile as imprisonment to me. Why does the fact that this attack is digital mean option 5 is appropriate (instead of e.g. just using archive.org to avoid direct links)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment, a great many comments !voted purely out of retaliation to try and stop Heritage foundation from taking a certain action that some perceive to be "doxxing". I have a serious question though, "Does deprecating and removing any links to Heritage Foundation, IF the blacklist/deprecation retaliatory measure passes... does this actually stop them from initiating their plan, or parts of it? I am not familiar with all of the details, but with A.I. and other tools these days, couldn't they still try and do things to identify some editors with certain editing patterns or behavior completely independent of whatever happens with this discussion and then do the "doxxing" anyway? This seems to have larger legal implications, unless I misunderstand it, and if that is the case then this seems silly to try and solve with a angry RfC which might not have any real defensive benefit for the community. Has anyone taken this into consideration? Is anything being done about that? If not, why not? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Reference Subsection
References
- Washington, Haydn; Cook, John (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. London: Earthscan. p. 75,77. ISBN 978-1-84971-335-1. OCLC 682903020.
- Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
- McKie, Ruth E. (2023). The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19–50. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2. ISBN 978-3-031-33592-1 – via Springer Link.
Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...
- Wubbena, Zane C.; Ford, Derek R.; Porfilio, Brad J. (1 March 2016). News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-68123-401-4 – via Google Books.
For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...
- Kessler, Glenn (March 31, 2021). "The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 11, 2021. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
- Bensinger, Ken; Fausset, Richard (September 7, 2024). "Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2024. Retrieved September 7, 2024.
- Fields, Gary; Swenson, Ali (July 12, 2024). "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
- Foundation, Heritage (1 February 2023). "Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise" (PDF). The Heritage Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 November 2023. Retrieved 1 September 2023.
- Rosenfeld, Arno (2025-01-07). "Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to 'identify and target' Misplaced Pages editors". The Forward. Retrieved 2025-01-10.
- "Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom". www.heritage.org. Archived from the original on 21 May 2020. Retrieved 2022-11-12.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)
Are PCORI statements a WP:Reliable source for medical claims? Do PCORI statements pass WP:MEDRS as coming from a medical organization?
I say yes. The organization is non-governmental, but was established by the United States government, and they have awarded about US$2 billion in grants over the past 10 years. They are a large research organization which takes care in making conventional statements. Also, they have good alignment with wiki community organizations, and have hosted and joined wiki editing events in the United States and with Wikimedia Medicine for almost 10 years. That alignment is because of PCORI's patient advocacy, and because typical people find this organization's statements to be more relevant than those from more industry-oriented medical organizations. While PCORI does drive a lot of research through peer reviewed journals, they also make expert consensus statements in the name of PCORI which are not peer reviewed.
@Zefr: said that some PCORI statements are "neither vetted by peer-review nor is it mainstream clinical practice", which is correct, but I feel that they still meet MEDRS by being a statement from an authoritative organization. Similarly, @Whywhenwhohow: reverted saying the sources were not MEDRS compliant. FULBERT made the statements as Wikimedian in Residence at PCORI, and I collaborate with FULBERT through United States Wikimedia groups and through the University of Virginia, where I also am a Wikimedian in Residence.
Here are the talk notices about reversion. The statements are
- Talk:Modafinil#Clarification_on_a_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted
- Talk:Amantadine#A_recent_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted
- Talk:Methylphenidate#Update_on_a_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted
Here is an actual PCORI statement from the Modafinil article. The reverted claim from this statement was that 40% of patients using a drug have adverse effects.
I support using this source for this claim.
Thoughts from others about PCORI generally? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry - in the case of my revert at Modafinil, the PCORI report was just a summary of preliminary results (n=33, i.e., primary research) from the "Treatment of Fatigue with Methylphenidate, Modafinil and Amantadine in MS" (TRIUMPHANT-MS) trial, which had been funded by PCORI.
- At this early stage,TRIUMPHANT-MS was actually just a pilot study reported here. That study is not a MEDRS source for the article statement, "modafinil has been shown to be effective in managing fatigue in people with MS" when other more substantial sources, including a meta-analysis, are used.
- Further, the PCORI statement is that "These findings can contribute to clinician and patient discussions about treatments to reduce MS-related fatigue." In other words, the PCORI article is a) a progress report, and b) an advice source for a physician-patient discussion.
- In this case, such a brief update on funding for preliminary research is not an appropriate reference, and does not comment on the wider issue of PCORI as an organization. Zefr (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Reviewing the PCORI website leads to the conclusion that their strength is the cross-sectional diversity in how they evaluate, monitor, then disseminate summaries of research projects, described here. They are not the publication venue for completed research - the WP:MEDASSESS sources of journals, books or clinical organizations - but rather their reports are summaries of the research project. For this reason, I would ask why would we cite a PCORI summary when a peer-reviewed publication is the main source? Is there an example of a PCORI final report that you feel is a good MEDRS example?
- There was concern that funded research groups submitting final reports to PCORI had "spin" language, which was caught and adjusted by PCORI before publication.
- As of 2023, the National Academy of Medicine is collaborating with PCORI to improve the review process for evaluating research funding candidates.
- The PCORI article needs updating. There are fewer than 30 watchers/editors of the article. Zefr (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Zefr: Two issues here: The extent to which PCORI publications meet MEDRS, and then presuming that PCORI is reliable, WP:Verifying that Misplaced Pages reflects PCORI's claim in an appropriate context. Originally I think you were challenging PCORI, but here, I think you are challenging the claim. Do you agree with that distinction and separation, and if so, can you (or I) move your text discussing the claim to Talk:Modafinil#Clarification_on_a_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted?
- This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, so this is the place to discuss your comments about the organization and your question about why to cite PCORI's summaries instead of the original source. Briefly, there can be multiple approaches to healthcare. Most approaches originate in the healthcare industry, and it is challenging to escape that. PCORI speaks for itself, but I would describe it as remaining in the healthcare industry (as opposed to exiting it to seek alternative medicine), and within that context, recommending evidence-based medicine which prioritizes person-centered care. So for example, many medical recommendations from industry seek to maximize curing disease, but a patient-centered approach could emphasize managing side effects and planning the financial cost of treatment. Regardless of what kind of recommendations PCORI is making, I sustain the notion that per WP:MEDORG, Misplaced Pages includes expert institutional claims which may not go through the peer review process of a journal.
- I think the report we have been discussing is a good MEDRS example. It comes in different forms -
- for clinicians (we were discussing citing this one)
- for patients
- the peer reviewed research article for the trial
- Misplaced Pages typically does not cite trials, but here, PCORI is elevating the results of this case study into a special report and expert recommendation. We can attribute this to the organization following WP:ACCORDINGTO/WP:INTEXT guidelines, which was the original attempted edit.
- PCORI gets into cases like this which are fairly unusual. The situation is that there is an Off-label use for a drug (so it is not indicated or approved, but there is evidence for it) and then PCORI is giving an alert about that off-label use. I am not a physician, and I do not know how to untangle expert institutional critiques of off-label drug use, but in general, I just trust PCORI's process and think Misplaced Pages can include PCORI recommendations attributed to them. I do not see this as the same as citing a case study without the backing of an expert org.
- Base question back to you - how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence? Bluerasberry (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If PCORI published a summary of results from a multinational Phase III trial or a systematic review that it had helped to fund, then perhaps that would meet WP:MEDORG (although still not a national clinical guideline that would better meet MEDASSESS). In the case of the reference for modafinil, PCORI is giving an update on a pilot study, which clearly isn't MEDRS.
- "how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence?" Defined on the PCORI website under Evidence Updates:
PCORI presents findings from systematic reviews and some of our funded research studies in concise, accessible formats called Evidence Updates. Most Evidence Updates are available in two versions: one for patients and caregivers and one for clinicians and other professionals. These updates, which capture the highlights and context for these new findings, are created and disseminated in collaboration with patients, health professionals, and other organizations."
- Likely, the PCORI update for a systematic review would be more digestible for the common Misplaced Pages reader, but having the original journal publication would have to go with it as the more complete source. If there was a conflict with another source and both were MEDRS-qualified, WP:BALANCE would say discuss them both.
- It's ok to copy any of this to the modafinil talk page. Zefr (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: I do not think there is a term for nonprofit organizations which have strong government ties, but yes, I understand what you mean. PCORI is a 501(c)(3) organization which receives government grants through the Affordable Care Act.
- I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Law&Crime Network
Hello! I would like to know your opinion about Law&Crime Network youtube channel and their news site Law&Crime News. Are they reliable source for information about murders/trials? SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Youtube channels are generally not reliable sources. Please see WP:RSPYT for additional context. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't speak to their YouTube channel at all. Re: their website, Adam Klasfeld used to be their managing editor (he's now a journalism fellow with Just Security), and I found him to be a very reliable reporter on legal issues. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their website is RS. However many of the sources there, you have to deal with BLPCRIME, for which you must be cautious anyway. But I have found them to be fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Catholic-Hierarchy.org
Catholic-Hierarchy.org is a self-published source that has been featured in two prior discussions (2016 and 2020). Multiple editors appear to consider it a reliable source specifically because it is used in other independent publications. This is a noted exception for self-published sources that can be found in WP:RS/SPS. However, users also acknowledge that it should never be used in biographies of living people.
Is there more discussion that should be had? Should these details be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? This source is used several thousand times on the English WP, so centralized standards for it might be desirable. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has inclusion criteria and can be discussed on WT:RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @OldPolandUpdates: Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mid-paragraph here. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If Catholic-Hierarchy.org is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles.
- Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_203#catholic-hierarchy.org. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used enough by external publications.
- If you consider Catholic-Hierarchy.org not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The standard is mid-paragraph here "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which does not appear to be the case here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would also note that there appears to be a consensus from 2020 that this is a SPS, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Catholic-Hierarchy.org Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a subject-matter expert in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on Catholic-Hierarchy.org is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, there has to be works other than the self published ones and they have to predate the self published one. Generally only academics and journalists satisfy our requirements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on Catholic-Hierarchy.org is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have modified the WP:RSPSOURCES entry to better reflect this comment. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It still feels off, you're giving wayyyyyy too much weight to the group that thinks its reliable when that view isn't supported by policy and guideline. You also make the consenus that it isn't an expert SPS look like just an opinion, but we clearly have consensus that the author isn't a subject matter expert by our standards. It also isn't a general opinion that SPS can't be used for BLP, thats solid policy. This comes off more as apologism than what consenus actually is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a subject-matter expert in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mid-paragraph here. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a non-expert self published source. We have established that no such "noted exception" exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If it is used by reliable secondary sources then it shouldn't be difficult to find the information from the reliable source itself. Shankargb (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: The London Standard
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The London Standard, formerly known as the Evening Standard, has 18,703 links on the English Misplaced Pages. Its reliability has not been discussed since 2018, and there is currently no consensus on its reliability. Therefore, what is the reliability of the London Standard?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Marginally reliable, or additional considerations apply
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated
JJPMaster (she/they) 23:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should also post some examples of the articles from this publication. People would then know why this outlet is now up for discussion. Shankargb (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can we stop doing RfCs with no background? That is not what this is for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: I brought it here (a) because of its recent change in format and (b) because it hasn't been discussed in seven years. I figured that the previous discussions would have been sufficient for WP:RFCBEFORE, so I didn't think to start a regular discussion beforehand. JJPMaster (she/they) 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You don’t start off with the RfCs, for which you provided 0 context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: I brought it here (a) because of its recent change in format and (b) because it hasn't been discussed in seven years. I figured that the previous discussions would have been sufficient for WP:RFCBEFORE, so I didn't think to start a regular discussion beforehand. JJPMaster (she/they) 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Summoned by bot) I'm with Parakanyaa here. That it hasn't been discussed since 2018 is not sufficient reason for an RFC, in fact it's reason against one. I would have expected some recent discussion prior to an RFC, so that we have some context. TarnishedPath 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RFC because of lack of WP:RFCBEFORE. I have no context whatsoever here. Presumably if it's being brought up here, JJPMaster thinks there's some kind of problem with it, but if so it's not clear at all what problem(s) they think there is. Loki (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RFC due to complete lack of WP:RFCBEFORE. No discussion in any capacity since 2018. The Kip 04:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Procedural Close. There is no mandatory periodical process for the reliability of specific sources. A source is brought here for discussion only after what the instructions demand, in large fonts, right at the header:
Please supply the article is used in, and the claim it supports. RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions .
This is a bad RfC and should not be entertained nor continued. -The Gnome (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - Unless there's some new context in regard to it's reliability, disagreement between editors or discussion of London Standard's reliability in secondary sources, then there's no need for a new discussion let alone an RFC. Maybe the wording in header and edit warning needs to be stronger. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable per WP:NEWSORG. Since this newspaper is listed in RSP, we are within our rights to !vote on it. James500 (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Request withdrawn per above. Checking a wikipedia source
I'm curious as to whether in general I can copy an already existing citation from one Misplaced Pages article to another which says the same thing without having to check that citation. For example, on the page George Robert Russell there's a citation which I haven't checked, but I'm assuming the person who added it did: , and I want to use it to link his name on Jonathan Russell's page. This example is the specific one and a little complicated (and I apologize for that), but the question also applies for other cases. Can Do I have to check the citation myself first to do this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Wikieditor662 You should. Noone can force you, but sadly often, WP-sourcing is not what it should be. Gbooks and archive.org is sometimes helpful. Note also that you are close to have access to the WP:LIBRARY. WP:RX is sometimes useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You should be able to access page 190–191 via Google books here -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The advantage of checking sources yourself is that you're much less likely to see your edits reverted with a comment of failed verification, not in source later. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you guys very much, I added it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- The advantage of checking sources yourself is that you're much less likely to see your edits reverted with a comment of failed verification, not in source later. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- Jacques Downs, The Golden Ghetto (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1997), 191.
RE: Lambgoat
Lambgoat just got discussed recently, but I have a useage that hasn't come up yet in discussions that I want to get clarity on. Is an article like this, about heavy metal genres, acceptable for use on the relevant Misplaced Pages genre articles, with the exclusion of any BLP claims or controversial statements? I'm pinging the other editors who were involved in that discussion. JeffSpaceman, Sergecross73, MFTP Dan.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have to say, I have never seen LG do something like this and would not be personally inclined to use it. It's only just over a year old, so maybe it's a new thing they're doing and I didn't keep up. mftp dan 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I found another music history article from 2024, so it looks like this might be a new addition to the type of coverage that they do.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would recommend verifying with other, more established reliable sources, and potentially citing those instead per User:MFTP Dan. I think routine coverage (as you state, barring exceptional claims or third-party information about living people) is probably viable, but I'm not confident this source should be cited for what you are looking into it being used for. But I'll see what others think and where consensus goes. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They don't mention editorial staff or fact checking on their about us. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- They do have an editor, per the staff page, but the role is not explained.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)