Misplaced Pages

:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:41, 17 March 2024 view sourceDarkeruTomoe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users618 edits →The Shortcut: reliable source?: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:26, 24 January 2025 view source Markbassett (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,534 edits →Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu): I don't see the point to this 
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}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 430 |counter = 465
|minthreadstoarchivSee = 1 |minthreadstoarchivSee = 1
|algo = old(5d) |algo = old(5d)
Line 10: Line 11:
}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ }} __NEWSECTIONLINK__
<!-- <!--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--> -->
== ] - revisiting its reliability ==


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* {{linksummary|tasnimnews.com}}
Is it worth revisiting the reliability of the ] of Iran's ] in light of the referenced in the latest ] about a related state-backed propaganda and disinformation operation? ] (]) 22:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

:It doesn't seem that Tasnim is listed at ], so I'm not sure what any prior consensus would've properly been. Additionally, it's worth noting that article is an opinion piece, rather than an RS accusing it of a disinfo operation.
:''That said'', considering its extensive ties to the IRGC, I would be ''extremely'' wary of using it for anything but the stated positions of the IRGC, similar to how we've treated Russian and Chinese state-backed media. Their promotion of COVID conspiracy theories makes me think ] is a solid option, if not deprecation similar to ]. ] ] 22:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
::Worth a formal RfC then? It looks like there has been some past discussion of Tasnim (], ], ], ]) but no RfC. ] (]) 17:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Wouldn’t be a bad idea, considering the Signpost context. ] ] 19:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

=== RfC: ] ===

<!-- ] 20:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1710792084}}


==RfC: NewsNation==
What is the reliability of ]?
<!-- ] 13:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740574870}}
{{rfc|prop|sci|rfcid=5F45265}}
<!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}}
What is the reliability of ]?


* '''Option 1: ]''' * '''Option 1: ]'''
Line 35: Line 28:
* '''Option 3: ]''' * '''Option 3: ]'''
* '''Option 4: ]''' * '''Option 4: ]'''
] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


] of Iran's ] was referenced in a recent ] issue in relation a concerning systematic "disinformation and state propaganda" efforts on Misplaced Pages. Past discussion of Tasnim (], ], ], ]). - ] (]) 19:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


===Survey (NewsNation)===
* {{linksummary|tasnimnews.com}}
*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
**NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
***In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the ], Coulthart said {{xt|"... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"!}} . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including ] and ], all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
***Writing in ''The Skeptic'', Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: {{xt|"Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."}}
***He wrote a UFO book titled ''Plain Sight'' which ] described as a {{xT|"conspiracy narrative"}} and a {{xt|"slipshod summary"}}.
***The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for {{Xt|“espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”}}
***The ] did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking {{xt|"Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary?}} while strongly implying the former.
***The '']'' has described him as a {{Xt|"UFO truther"}} with {{xt|"little appetite for scrutiny"}}.
***Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked ] investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
**Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
***In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the ''Washington Post'': ), the channel {{xt|"was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health"}}.
***In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said {{xt|"... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing"}}. The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to ]'s analysis, a Boeing 737 .
:] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage ] (]) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. ] (]) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' per Chetsford. – ] (]&nbsp;<b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. - ] (]) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. ] (]) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' for non-UFO coverage, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. ]@] 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


===Discussion (NewsNation)===
'''Survey'''
*For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


== Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] ==
*'''Option 4:''' per nomination and arguments given by the user "The Kip" in the section above the RfC. "]" has been described by various sources as an "" outlet that disseminates "state propaganda and conspiracy theories" on behalf of Iranian political fronts affiliated with the IRGC.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Tasnim News Agency |url=https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tasnim-news-agency/ |website=Media Bias Fact Check}}</ref> ] (]) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article.
* '''Option 3/4''' per nom and arguments above. State mouthpiece that has published disinformation. Possible reliable source for Iranian gov statements and similar so preference for GUNREL over deprecate, but as more official press agencies exist for those hard to see any loss in deprecation. ] (]) 10:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:<br>
*'''Option 4''' -- it's a state disinformation and propaganda outlet, that is occasionally valuable as a self-published primary source about the Iranian government's own actions but typically even then there's a better source. Per the ] consensus, this should probably be deprecated. It's basically the exact same scenario. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 03:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and<br>
*'''Option 4''' per the consensus from ], this isn’t far off from being the same source. ] ] 09:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
2. {{tq|1=Yemeni state-controlled media outlets}} wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")
*'''Option 4''' as said above, this is a medium for spreading IRI propaganda. ] (]) 03:20, 27 February 2024 (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.
*'''Option 3'''. There are clear instances of misinformation, see the example below about the Medici being Jewish and founding the worldwide usury system (]). This source is used a lot and while some uses might be okay (]), a lot of them have to do with various controversial topics (for example ]) and it's quite likely that their agenda and biases would affect their reporting. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:00, 17 March 2024 (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>
]: This is the version that Jav wants to keep
Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):
*
*
*
* (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
*
*
Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:
*
''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in ''The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast'' (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. also seems to be a relevant document. ] (]) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|1=There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle}}<br>]?<br>{{tq|1=citing Portuguese records}}<br>That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above ''']]''' 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. ] (]) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). ''The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama''. pp. 290-291. () ] (]) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--] (]) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?''']]''' 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. ''The Independent'' is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. ] (]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the ] was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended).{{efn|Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)<br>High School Flags<br>Tuesday, September 17, 2024<br>After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.<br>May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.<br>The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.}} He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023 {{pb}}{{talkreflist|group=lower-alpha}} ''']]''' 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.] (]) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the ] ] and ] sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) ''']]''' 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. ] (]) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@] If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in , which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! ] (]) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Hi, @]. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
::::::"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." ] (]) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|1=capturing Al-Shihr}}<br>hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? ''']]''' 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
::::::::I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. ] (]) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city ''']]''' 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. ] (]) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{outdent|8}} {{tq|1="Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, '''capturing Al-Shihr''',}} (Never happened btw) {{tq|1= and how important it would be to conquer Diu."}}<br> ''']]''' 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::"Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? ''']]''' 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned ''']]''' 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::capturing a city != sacking it <br>your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here ''']]''' 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Now show me where in your sources does it say that ''']]''' 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{outdent|7}} What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? ''']]''' 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. ] (]) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:@] so we can finish with and archive this, can we use those sources in anything other than the battle section? like the other sections that I've mentioned being deleted here ] <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]&nbsp;] (])</span> 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. ] (]) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">]&nbsp;] (])</span> 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu ==
====Discussion====
<!-- ] 18:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740333680}}
This outlet has been mentioned only briefly in the article. Could you maybe add some details about the Covid disinformation that was added to Misplaced Pages using Tasnim, and provide other examples, if you have them? ]<sub>]</sub> 12:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
{{rfc|hist|bio|rfcid=5DC5768}}
The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C):
* '''A: Geni.com'''
* '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley'''
* '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav'''
:Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
:They should be:
* '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such)
* '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ])
* '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) ===
:Sure. Here's about Tasnim's Covid disinformation mixed with antisemitic tropes. - ] (]) 23:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
* A: See "Geni.com" at ].
::{{re|Amigao}} The ] is an advocacy organization. Although, I do understand which was closed and given the "green-light" at ], from my reading of the responses, most editors appropriately said it should be attributed, especially with regard to issues regarding claiming a person or entity is antisemitic. A blog whose title includes "Iran Regime Makes Jews its Bogeyman" and first section is titled "Accusing Jews of Sorcery" does not ring of objective reporting.
* 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.
::Regardless of just how reliable that opinion of what the Iran Regime is doing and their assessment of the Tasnim new articles mentioned in it (which are certainly worth looking at to see if the assessment they are as bad as the article says they are), the question {{u|Alaexis}} asked above, which I also have is: "Could you maybe add some details about the Covid disinformation that was ''added to Misplaced Pages using Tasnim?''" Misplaced Pages is not mentioned in the article at all from my search of the term. I would like to see if any of those outrageous claims lasted for more than a few minutes before being deleted. --] (]) 23:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
* C: See ] (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Oh, I somehow missed the response, thanks to @].
:::@], as to relying on ADL, we can sidestep their report and look at the original articles. , assuming that Google translate is correct, claims that the ] were Jewish and devised the current worldwide usury system. ]<sub>]</sub> 08:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
::::{{re|Alaexis}} I agree that article in Arabic is serious work of conspiracy. I tried--without success--to find the same article in English (or anything similarly outlandish) at , with or . I reviewed numerous English articles from the site, and I found nothing so outrageous. That one seems to be an outlier. Have you looked at ?
::::These are some of the articles I came across: , , , focuses only on everything negative they could come up with to say about the (U.S.-made) Pfizer vaccine--contrasting sharply with U.S. reporting that tended to focus only on the benefits, , , , . It didn’t seem to be any more or less scientific, objective, or a-political than U.S. mainstream media , , BBC or an article like from ]. Compare the articles you see in all these mainstream media with those you find on Google scholar: , , . --] (]) 11:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


=== Preliminaries ===
Can I suggest moving this RfC to the same section as the initial live discussion above, as it seems silly to split the conversation? ] (]) 18:06, 13 February 2024 (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)
:Done. ] ] 06:13, 14 February 2024 (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)
::Thank you! ] (]) 11:32, 15 February 2024 (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)
{{outdent}}
::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The RfC mentions an opinion piece on the Townhall website which referenced Tasnim. I did not find the TownHall article very persuasive. It only mentions Tasnim once, where it says it was used to add "false information about the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran". However, the Townhall article does not say what false information was added and does not provide a link to the claimed addition so that the claim can be verified. The article is poor in other ways. It makes a number of claims, including about Misplaced Pages editors and admins, without providing a way of verifying the claims. Two of the writer's claims can be checked by looking at the Misplaced Pages articles to which he refers. The writer says "in the Misplaced Pages article on the "Barakat Foundation," details about its connection to the powerful Iranian institution known as the Execution of Imam Khomeini's Order were deleted". The ] is mentioned eight times on the ] page. The writer also says "in the Misplaced Pages article on the "Mahsa Amini protests," a Guardian article was used to falsely claim that demonstrators chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," when the article actually reported on pro-government rallies as a response to the protests". Afaict, we have used The Guardian article correctly in the ] article, including its claim that pro-government protesters shouted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”. ] (]) 13:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== ScienceDirect Topics (AI-generated pages) ==
::These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::<strike>I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.</strike> --] (]) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Survey A: Geni.com ===
] are currently citing some page. These are machine-generated summaries of the articles published in a certain topic by Elsevier. They cannot be reliable sources because they obscure the real source and context of any given statement, potentially turning into its opposite for lack of understanding. After finding a useful statement on such a page, editors should find a suitable original source (possibly one of the academic papers listed in the page itself), confirm that it supports the claim, and use ''that'' as reference.
:'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate'''.<strike>'''Question'''. Isn't it already deprecated?</strike>--] (]) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate''' A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
: '''Unsure'''. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) ] (]) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate'''. Really bad. Needs to go away.—] 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Invalid RFC/No change''' - giving only options here that are highly negative is not a neutral stance. And there is no specific evidences shown or reason why this is even coming up or needs that all previous RSP should be declared invalid. (See discussions ). Cheers ] (]) 01:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley ===
I suggest adding ScienceDirect Topics to ] as banned source, to better inform editors. Elsevier is , and even though this is probably just some pretty standard machine learning (arguably less dangerous than ] machine generation based on ]), we'll probably see increased usage here as collateral damage. ] 08:30, 18 February 2024 (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)
:'''Deprecate''' per ActivelyDisinterested.—] 00:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No Change''' - no entry to RSP needed and seems has been accepted. This just is not something that often comes up for question and seems has not been hard to figure out the nature of so it also does not need a RSP entry. Yet as can be seen by , it is used and that seems evidence that common view *is* de facto RS by usage. Really seems like just declaring all those edits wrong is not a useful thing. Cheers ] (]) 02:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav ===
:Topics is already listed at RSP. I had no idea so many pages use it though. ] (]) 12:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate'''. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. ] (]) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
===RfC: ScienceDirect topics===
::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)
<!-- ] 00:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1711411283}}
::: 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)
{{rfc|sci|prop|rfcid=009D4C3}}
:'''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)
Should an edit filter be implemented to warn editors trying to add ScienceDirect topics pages to articles? ] (]) 23:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate'''. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
====Responses (ScienceDirect)====
:'''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)
*'''Yes''' As discussed at ], an implementation of an edit filter requires a discussion at RSN. As previous discussed several times on this noticeboard (see ], ], ]) these are not verifiable references as the cited content on the page changes over time. We have over 1,000 references to these pages which indicates that its usage is a problem. ] (]) 23:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:*'''Yes'''. Last night I started attempting to replace some of these links and was immediately discouraged by both the overwhelming number of them and by how many were ''very recently added''. It is definitely ''not'' clear to most people that SD Topics would have any problems at all, to the extent that I suspect almost no one casually using it would even consider the possibility it is GUNREL. I certainly didn't realize until I saw this thread yesterday that it was AI, despite repeatedly trying to use it to find background literature for my dissertation (and this explains why I occasionally encountered ''wrong shit'' in its summaries, and why I was never able to figure out how to cite what I thought were actual review articles...).
*'''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)
: ] (]) 00:02, 20 February 2024 (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)
*'''Yes'''. They are truthy bits of out-of-context information and most people adding them will not know they are unreliable. ] (]) 09:05, 20 February 2024 (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)
* '''Yes''' per above. --] 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
:'''Deprecate'''. ]. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—] 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Yes''' per above. In my own uses of "AI" (LLM) tools to try go generate summaries, abstracts, timelines, and other "this should be easy" digests of source material, the results have been uniformly awful, with virtually every single sentence having to be corrected in one way or another (from errors of omission to errors of focus/emphasis/nuance, to frequent outright factual errors, including "hallucinations" both of claims in particular sources and of entire sources). Maybe someday we'll be able to trust such tools to properly summarize material, but that some day is not today. Never forget that what LLMs do is try to provide an answer that will {{em|look like}} what should be a correct/expected result. It is not a fact-checking process of any kind, but a form of simulation. That we're able to get anything useful out of it at all (e.g. it can be used to generate simplex examples of correct, though often inelegant, Javascript or Python functions to do various things, as well as regular expressions as long as they are not very complex or do not have complex test cases to match) verges on astounding. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''No change to either of these''' - seems this is referring to two different sources, both of which are somewhat widely used in WP and neither of which seems suitable for an RSP entry. Just not seeing sufficient case or benefit from any entry either. Cheers ] (]) 02:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Yes''', as we're setting editors up for failure by not warning them. Would these be useful ELs, though? ] (]) 15:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. On topics for ], ScienceDirect is a commonly-applied, unsatisfying source typically providing limited search results from lower-quality journals. It is frequently selected by novice editors, requiring followup editing for source accuracy in the article. More experienced medical editors would have no difficulty finding better sources by searching PubMed with the appropriate search terms. Note for the cleanup if replacing 1000+ ScienceDirect sources is the outcome: a bot can be developed to remove them (consult user GreenC), leaving a {{cn}} tag, but laborious manual checking of the sourced statement and editing by a volunteer are needed to refill with a good source. ] (]) 19:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. Similar to everyone else, I have never seen it be a reliable source for research purposes, so it should be discouraged for novice editors.] (]) 00:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''': I was unaware that those topic pages are machine generated summaries, so an edit filter would be helpful. ] (])<sup><span style="color:Green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 03:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Sure''' if machine generated content. These can be problematic, but I use the sources Science Direct cites instead since as those are not AI generated and are instead published material by researchers.] (]) 05:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. It's just misleading. Editors should cite the articles directly. ] (]) 12:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)===
== Group of AI Generated "News" sites ==
{{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)
: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)
::@] Thanks for restoring the discussion from the archive; it evidently was not yet closed. It would seem that we've got a clear result though. Should I request a third party to formally close it with a conclusion, or how does this go with RfCs? ] (]) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The {{tl|RFC}} tag was missing, which would have added "DoNotArchiveUntil.." to the header to stop it from being archived. I've add the RFC tag which will list in for every to see (not just those to happen across it on RSN). I suggest waiting and seeing if any more comments come in, as they editors have taken part yet. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


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


==RfC: Jacobin==
I found a group of websites with news/blog posts that are pretty clearly AI generated, and use AI generated images on them. I don't think I've fully fleshed out the full list of sites, but this is what I have found so far (They all link to each others in various ways):
<!-- ] 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740070870}}
{{RfC|prop|pol|media|rfcid=857ECCA}}
Which of the following best describes the reliability of '']''?
* Option 1: ]
* Option 2: ]
* Option 3: ]
* Option 4: ]
— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


* Isp.page
* Ts2.ai
* Satproviders.com
* Isp.today
* elblog.pl
* ts2.space


===Survey: ''Jacobin''===
Some of these do seem to be used as references in various Misplaced Pages articles.
*'''Option 2''' I am opposed to the use of ] and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. ] (]) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2/3''', bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. ] (]) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. ''And it was fixed.'' There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. ] (]) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? ] (]) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
**::::I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including ] and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
**:::::You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***::::::You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***:::::::You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***::::::::No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***:::::::::I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we ]. I believe @] is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. ] (]) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***::::::::::Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. ] (]) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. ] (]) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) ] (]) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I note the failure to provide the requested source. ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
**:::::Right back at you.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
**::::::, your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***::::::Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
***:::::::Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? ] (]) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over ''Jacobin'' publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for ] which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation ()? <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --] (]) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Gamaliel}} Mostly ] and at ]. Kind regards,
:::::Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. ] <small>(])</small> 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment'''. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at ] and at ]. --] (]) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' (intext attribution) ] and ] cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of ] that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' ]: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. ] (]) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1-ish''' Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major ]. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that ''improves'' their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. ] (]) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC''' - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that ''Jacobin'' published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. gives ''Jacobin'' a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the ''New York Times'' (1.4) and ''Washington Post'' (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Option 2/3''' While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes ''Jacobin''. While ''Jacobin'' is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, ''How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba'' is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of ''Jacobin'' is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by ''Jacobin'' that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think ''Jacobin'' is "unreliable" ''per se'', I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. ] (]) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Of special note is ts2.space. Back in December when I was first investigating this (This was the original site that led me down this rabbit hole), they had a blog section filled with similar articles (and linking to the above sites). I don't seem to be the only one to notice this, as the ] has someone complaining about the AI Articles on it. Interestingly, the edit history of the TS2 page has some hints as to what happened, suggesting that someone bought them out and is "transforming" the companies (See and ).
*'''Option 1''' for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. ] (]) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: '''''Option 2''': mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory.'' I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: '' I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus.'' In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. ] (]) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—] 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''1 or 2''', I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. ] (]) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Weak option 2''' per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. '''Strong oppose option 3''', though, for somewhat obvious reasons. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1/2''' - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - ] (]) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1/2''' Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' <s>or 4</s> They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. ] (]) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of ''general'' reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the {{tq|no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2}} position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" ''always'' apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to ''how likely'' we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. ] (]) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as '']'' {{rspe|Reason}}. There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. ] and ] are quite clear.&nbsp;
:Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has ] for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a '''Bad RfC'''. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the ] where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant ] and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "]" which doesn't needs to be rehashed.&nbsp;<span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio''' Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated ] for deletion not long after the ], and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that ''Jacobin'' has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary ] and ]] sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias."
:I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that ] to falsely luring Americans into supporting ] based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable '']'' and contain no obvious factual errors. <b>]</b> ] 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 2''', mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from ] {{tquote|Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely.}} A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. ] is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by ] and ]. Notably, ] is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. ] (]) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , ] ] (]) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You should probably read farther than the headline. ] (]) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. ] (]) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::"The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it ''literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice''. ] (]) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
* (Summoned by ping in this thread) '''Bad RFC / No listing''' just as in 2021. Or '''Option 2''', it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as ]. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. ] (]) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*: <small>This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but ''Jacobin'' is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --] (]) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) </small>
*::For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. ] (]) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. ] (]) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' The current summary at ] acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' ] already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a ]. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. ] (]) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''3'''. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than ''Jacobin'' to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.


:It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The ''NYTimes'' has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, ''Nature'' finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the ] 'fact' that 80% of the world's biodiversity is found in the territories of indigenous peoples] are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in ], ], and ], and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the ''emotional hind-brain'' of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.
I'm pretty new to editing Misplaced Pages in general, so I'm not sure what the best next steps would be. ] (]) 05:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
:As this is a form of news aggregation, no, we should use the sources they use, and not them ] (]) 15:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
::Where did you see sources? Some articles (, , , ) are generated from YouTube videos, do you consider the videos sources?
::However, some other articles from this network do not mention any sources, or the source is not linked properly (, , , ). ] (]) 22:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
:Agree with Slater, we should use their sources. Regarding AI content in general, use is generally considered incompatible with Wikipedias policies (for good reasons). ] (]) 19:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
:I have checked them, and most of them indeed seem to be entirely AI-generated, often based on YouTube videos. I also found two more websites that post AI-generated articles from this network, cremasb.com and worldreportnow.com.
:I support blacklisting the ones that host the AI-generated articles themselves or directly redirect (cremasb.com, worldreportnow.com, elblog.pl, ts2.ai, satproviders.com, isp.today), which I believe is the appropriate protocol for spammy websites that may confuse Misplaced Pages editors. I did not find evidence of AI-generated content on ts2.space, ts2.tech and isp.page. ] (]) 22:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
::Regarding TS2.space, they definitely had AI articles before on their blog, which appears to have been scrubbed clean now. That was actually the first site that led me to discover all the other sites. If you look at the site in on the internet archive, you can see examples of it. And some of these now non-existent articles are used as references here and there on Misplaced Pages.
::Regarding isp.page, I included that one because some of their articles state that they were originally posted on the other links that use AI generated material (ISP.today and satProviders off the top of my head). Given the fact that they seem to link to multiple members, and the homepage has a icon for isp.today, I suspect that they are related.
::Additionally, I've been using the ] , and some of these are being randomly added to articles that have no relevance. An example being ], which just has a link to the isp.today homepage as a citation 22.
::What should my next steps be on dealing with these sources? ] (]) 03:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I recommend posting them in ]. ] (]) 22:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
::::I'll go post about it over there. Before I do, how did you find those additional pages posting the articles? Just a google search, or something else. I'm wondering if I should take a little more effort to try to flesh out this group of sites. ] (]) 22:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::I just followed some random links on the original websites you posted. I don't think it's worth investing more time in this for now. ] (]) 17:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::Sounds good. I'll post what you and I have found so far to ]. Thanks ] (]) 03:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{in progress}}. I'm in the process of removing citations of these self-published and/or AI-generated sites from article space. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 23:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


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


:They're big and smart enough that reporting their ''opinions'' are worthwhile, of course. "According to ''Jacobin'', consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine. As long as we include the qualifier. ] (]) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
* . Good essay. -- ]] 23:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
::{{Reply|Herostratus}} not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. ] (]) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Great article, spam on the internet has been growing immensely due to generative AI.
:::Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't ''all'' publications are completely reliable ''for their contents''? If the ''News of the World'' says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the ''News of the World'', the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we.
*:This analysis () is also worth reading on the topic.
*:I think the main issue is not the use of generative AI itself for content generation, but the lack of editorial oversight and quality control. Journalists and other content creators have to learn how to use generative AI responsibly, so that it is not done at the expense of quality.
*:With that said, sites with a complete lack of editorial oversight, or even of human presence, like the ones identified here, are nothing but pure spam and thus should be banned from Misplaced Pages.
*:] (]) 00:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
*:And things are going to get harder. I'm curious though about what happens when they start feeding back into themselves and we get an AI equivalent to ]. The feedback loop might eventually make it easier to identify AI generated stuff. ] (]) 22:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
*::If it makes you feel better—we've been at that point since at least 2018, in my mind. It's not particularly difficult to identify lexical slop being endlessly rearranged, whether by man or machine. ]] 22:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::Oh yeah. I just think its going to get worse in the next year or two before things get better. ] (]) 22:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
*::There is already some research about that phenomenon, and it is called "model collapse". Misplaced Pages has no content about it yet, but there are some sources (, , ). Maybe a mention about it could be added somewhere like ] or ]. ] (]) 18:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


:::What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that ''in our own words'' because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for ''all'' races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. ] (]) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Old-time Music (oldtimemusic.com) ===
::::I think the thing is our due weight policy says that due weight (noteworthiness) is apportioned based on the amount of attention given in reliable sources. I take that to mean opinion in generally reliable sources is worth reporting; opinion in generally unreliable sources isn’t. ] (]) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The Daily Mail is not reliable for its own contents, having doctored its archives. ] (]) 00:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per ] – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. ] (]) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Option 2''' My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to ''Jacobin'' should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --] (]) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Old-time Music () is an ] website that is currently used in {{duses|oldtimemusic.com|134 articles}}.
*'''Option 2'''. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. ] (]) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per {{u|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}}'s previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!
::{{tq| Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon {{RSP|Salon}}, Townhall {{RSP|Townhall}}). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with ]. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: {{tq|centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement}} . So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. ] identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. ] (]) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) <u>Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet {{RSP entry|AlterNet}} , Daily Kos {{RSP entry|Daily Kos}} , Raw Story {{RSP entry|The Raw Story}} , The Canary {{RSP entry|The Canary}} , and the Electronic Intifada {{RSP entry|The Electronic Intifada}} .] (]) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)</u>}}
:As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory ] (]) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation {{tq|would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge}}. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:
::# ''Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order'' Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
::# ''Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still.'' By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
::# ''THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK.'' By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 <small>(note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the ] but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)</small>
::#''The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy,'' Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
::So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? ] (]) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. ] (]) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? ] (]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. ] (]) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. ] (]) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is ''too biased to be reliable'' personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. ] (]) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. ] (]) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their page states they offer {{tq|socialist perspectives}} and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supporting {{tq|radical politics}} and {{tq|very explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism}}. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms ''are'' commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of ] notes {{tq|the political diversity of contributors, incorporating "everyone from social democratic liberals to avowed revolutionaries"}}, so I don't think either you or Simonm223 are wrong on this. Different people are gonna use different terms and apply different meanings to each of them. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center.}} Where outside the United States are you talking about? The world where ]? Where ]? Is it Japan, where the conservative ] has been in power since 1955? Or China, where a media outlet that is as critical of the ] as Jacobin is of the ] would have long been banned, and their writers arrested? I think we all need a reality check here, especially if we want to represent reality in our articles. ] (]) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing they probably had in mind specifically other western democracies, as it's common for European countries to have a mainstream Socialist Party with an ideology listed as social democracy (to name a few: ], ], ], ], etc).
::::::::I'm comfortable speculating this is their argument because it's one that's often repeated in American progressive-left circles. This argument is usually presented as follows: ] is viewed as the furthest left one can go in America, the things his supporters want are not radical to other developed countries (paid time off, universal healthcare, etc), therefore what is far left in America is only moderately left elsewhere.
::::::::Not saying I entirely agree or disagree with that argument, either how Simonm223 phrased it or how I interpreted it. Just saying I think they had in mind comparable democracies, not the entire world.
::::::::<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 16:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. ] (]) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::This has become a discussion about Overton windows rather than the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3 or 2''' - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be ''relied on'' (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like ''Jacobin'' that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like ''Quillette''). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in ''Jacobin'' are more noteworthy than they really are. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Jacobin's ] is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. ] (]) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*::This is no more a good argument than it would be to state that the raison d'etre of X publication is to promote capitalism and the geo-political interests of the United States, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting.
*::I could apply that faulty argument to shitloads of mainstream US publications that are currently considered to be generally reliable. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite ''Jacobin'', but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of ''The Economist'' or ''Reason'' (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to ''Quillette'', which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, on a hoax published in ''Quillette'', revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of ]) ] (]) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) ] (]) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Additional considerations apply'''. As I indicated in the ] which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that ] "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. ] (]) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. Our ] is explicit that {{tq|reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective}}. I may not personally love the political perspective of ''Jacobin'', but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding ''Jacobin'' as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.{{pb}}Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we ''expect'' from a reliable source; and B) a case where ], as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number was {{tq|Information provided in passing}}, and we already know that such info occasionally {{tq|may not be reliable}}, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the ]. For a topic like ], looks like ''Jacobin'' is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try from the journal '']''. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.{{pb}}Finally, when a piece published in ''Jacobin'' is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, ]. ''The Economist'' and ''The Wall Street Journal'' publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of ''The Economist'', {{tq|editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources}}. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


* '''Option 3''' or '''Option 2''', long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the ] was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. ] (]) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Their {{small|()}} lists authors with questionable profile pictures. For example, a few ]es on Bing and Google Images show that:
*:For the record, the that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of '']'', a book about the ], not the French. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
* "Joseph L. Hollen" has a profile picture taken from .
*::Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
* "Corey Hoffman" has a profile picture taken from <small>(To avoid LinkedIn's account login requirement, see: , )</small>
*::''The Black Jacobins'' is named so because the author analogizes the actions of the Haitians to that of the French Jacobins. It's just adding an extra step (not to mention that the word has a known meaning on it's face, so it's mostly irrelevant.). Regardless, it's clearly derived, and it's frankly silly to even argue semantics. ] (]) 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
* "Jennifer Bell" has a profile picture with near-identical facial features as ({{small|}}) of another AI-generated website called TechRushi ().
*:::Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing ]. Your objection doesn't make any sense. ] (]) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
* "Warren Barrett" has a profile picture with identical facial features as "Matthew Hook", whose name is attached to a testimonial on the AI-generated website of a supposed "hormone center" called HRTMedical (), which does not disclose its address or phone number.
*::::I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't ''inherently'' reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. ] (]) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::That is arguing semantics. ] (]) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::If that's your benchmark, then practically everything is arguing semantics, including this whole thread. "Jacobin publishes words -> what are the meaning of those words? (semantics) -> can we qualify those meanings as 'reliable?'" Clearly distinguishing factors, and I'm not interested in ''arguing semantics about the word "semantics"'' with you like a 12 year old. My vote's been explained, ]. ] (]) 17:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


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


*'''Option 1*''' Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. ] (]) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I propose a mass removal of all uses of oldtimemusic.com from Misplaced Pages, and anyone is welcome to help. There is a ] entry at {{slink|WP:RSPAM#oldtimemusic.com}} and a {{np|COIBot}} report is pending. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1:''' Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1/2''': generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. ] (]) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Bad RfC''' As on . ] (]) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on ]. In particular I found persuasive. Most recently cites a ''Jacobin'' article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find ''Jacobin'' worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow ''CJR''s lead? The arguments seem to be (1) ''Jacobin'' recently issued a major retraction and (2) ''Jacobin'' has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to ]. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat ''Jacobin'' differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like '']'' or '']''. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 or Option 3''': Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. ] (]) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. This is not a ]. Its stated purpose is . Compare to the missions of the NYT: ; or the BBC: . The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver ''reporting''. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. ] (]) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a '''Bad RFC''' because there's no reason for initiating it, I support '''Option 2''' or '''Option 3''' because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. ] (]) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''{{spaced en dash}}''Jacobin'' may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that ''Jacobin'' isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like ''The Economist'', ''Jacobin'' publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be ''better'' than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very '''bad RfC''' given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by {{noping|Tayi Arajakate}}) and a complete lack of any examples of ''actual uses on Misplaced Pages where the reliability is questioned''. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Misplaced Pages. An absurd reason to open an RfC. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard"><span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px lightskyblue, -1px -1px 4px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">]</span> (] • ])</span> 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' per Silver seren and Wugapodes (and thank you for providing actual reported information on their editorial process rather than speculation, heavy irony in this whole discussion). This whole saga is based on one correction? Really? ] (]) 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --] (]) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::Bias has plenty to do with reliability, or can. It's a worthwhile thing to take into consideration. ] (]) 21:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 3/4:''' An encyclopedia should focus on high-quality, fact-driven sources. Not on ones that report the news with ''heavy'' political agendas, at least not without qualifying it. Using a highly politically charged source (of whatever political persuasion) inevitably leads to
# '''Bias and lack of objectivity:''' Sources with extreme political leanings present information ''very selectively'' and often distort facts to support an ideological agenda. This can lead to biased or one-sided entries that undermine neutrality. It can also lead to including content that is not encyclopedic. See ].
# '''Erosion of credibility:''' Misplaced Pages is expected to provide balanced, factual, and well-researched content. Reliance on politically extreme sources can damage its reputation as a reliable and neutral reference.
# '''Misinformation and inaccuracy:''' Sources like ''Jacobin'' often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation.
# '''Cherry-picking evidence:''' Extreme political sources may ''omit contrary evidence'' or fail to represent the full range of perspectives. This results in incomplete or skewed coverage. Critical context is lacking.
# '''Harm to reputation of the field:''' Normalizing unreliable content can set a dangerous precedent here. Per Misplaced Pages policy, a fact worthy of entry in an encyclopedia would be covered by ''multiple'' reliable sources. It would be difficult to "counter" each instance of citing ''Jacobin'' with another source of equal repute but on the opposite political extreme covering the same story.
Further, ''Jacobin'' is mostly an ''opinion'' source. While it is not the worst source in the world, it hardly among reliable sources. According to Ad Fontes Media, which monitors news value and reliability, "Ad Fontes Media rates Jacobin in the '''Hyper-Partisan Left''' category of bias and as '''Mixed Reliability/Opinion OR Other Issues''' in terms of reliability."
The goal of Misplaced Pages, which prioritizes reliable ], is to present information with a sense of ]. There is no shortage of such sources, and those are the ones to use. --] (]) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


:Well said. ] (]) 21:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:I support removing them, and I think we have reached a consensus about it in the ]. Do you have any sources that could be considered for replacement, especially in terms of song interpretations? Or is it better to just completely remove the content too? ] (]) 08:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:: Thank you, {{Reply|Iljhgtn}}. I'd also like to add that {{Reply|Herostratus}} put it nicely above: "If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it." --] (]) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think it would depend, but perhaps the default should just be a {{tlx|cn}} tag. ]] 08:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::That is also a good point. I imagine that is why as a standalone source it likely should not be relied upon for reliable reporting on the facts, but that maybe it could work to bolster a claim made already by another reliable source. Option 2 of "Additional considerations" is where I am leaning. ] (]) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for starting the previous discussion, which I missed. I also support adding oldtimemusic.com to the ]. Since AI-generated content frequently draws from other web sources, I expect the site's song descriptions to heavily incorporate ] from song annotation sites such as ] and ], which cannot be cited on Misplaced Pages. Music publications (see ]) might occasionally cover the song meanings of popular songs, but the number of songs covered will certainly be much lower than 417,700. I would completely remove claims that only cite oldtimemusic.com unless a reliable replacement source is readily available, which might not be the case for most of these citations. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 09:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::The OP @] also spoke to this. ] (]) 21:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 09:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:# All sources are biased, it's a natural part of human nature. This is covered by ], if that bias effects accuracy and fact checking then that needs to be shown by examples. Biased sources are not unreliable simply because of their bias.
::::Great, I have cleaned up the pages now, the seem legitimate, from before an AI-content generator took over the URL. ] (]) 15:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:# People's opinions of Misplaced Pages are not a criteria for determining a reliable source.
:# Instances of errors or misinformation should be shown, saying they might exist isn't evidence that they do exist.
:# This is again covered by ].
:# This point relates to NPOV not reliability. Editors should take ], ], and ] into account, but ultimately whether a source should be used is not the same as if a source is reliable.
:-- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:Detachment is specifically not required of sources per RSBIAS {{tq|"... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."}} -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. They are an analysis/opinion magazine rather than a strait news source, so their pervasive bias has to be carefully considered when assessing its use as a source. ] (]) 00:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


===Discussion: ''Jacobin''===
== The New York Times ==
*Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Pings to {{yo|Feminist|The wub|Thebiguglyalien|Super Goku V|Simonm223|FortunateSons|Oort1|Burrobert|ActivelyDisinterested|Hydrangeans|Vanilla Wizard|Iljhgtn|Selfstudier|Horse Eye's Back|NoonIcarus|Harizotoh9|Springee}} who commented above. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Additional pings to {{yo|WMrapids|David Gerard|Bobfrombrockley|Shibbolethink|Crossroads|Herostratus|Dumuzid|Aquillion|Gamaliel|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|BSMRD|Wugapodes|Ip says|King of Hearts|Chetsford|Tayi Arajakate|MPants at work|Jlevi|The Four Deuces|Grnrchst|Szmenderowiecki|Dlthewave|Jr8825|Thenightaway|Nvtuil|Peter Gulutzan|FormalDude|Volunteer Marek|FOARP|Sea Ane|3Kingdoms|Bilorv|blindlynx|Jurisdicta|TheTechnician27|MarioGom|Novemberjazz|Volteer1}} who commented in the ]. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames ] and ]) and the discussions that followed at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6#Jacobin (magazine)}} and {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability}} led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a ], followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed.
], itself a ], has written an today exposing the NYT's deplorable fabricated article entitled 'Screams Without Words', written on 28 December 2023. This article went on to be the basis for many other stories in supposedly reputable media, and was largely used as a justification for the atrocities committed by Israel against the Palestinian population in Gaza in the weeks that followed. The blood of thousands of Palestinians is on the hands of the NYT for publicising such disgusting fabrications.


Ironically, there can be no article about the book because it lacks notability. It was only reviewed in Jacobin. We are basically working to prevent things that will never happen. Under current policy therefore this source could never be used.
Such a flagrant lack of journalistic integrity, not only to hire two non-journalists to begin writing for them in October and November 2023 (Anat Schwartz and Adam Sella, coincidentally nephews by marriage), but for at least one of those people (Schwartz) to be an anti-Palestinian extremist, having liked Tweets calling for Gaza to be turned into a "slaughterhouse", is reprehensible. This afront to journalism is surely enough to have the New York Times {{strikethrough|''permanently''}} removed as a reputable source{{strikethrough|, at very least}} for coverage of the ]. ] (]) 05:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.
:I'm not sure a ''permanent'' decision is in the purview of this noticeboard or the general community, but on reading the ''Intercept'' article, I do find myself concerned. There's been the bizarre coverage of trans medical care for the past couple years, now there's this un-journalistic badgering of family members of victims and stretching unverified claims without evidence into front-page spreads. I'm not sure at this point what the right step is, but I don't think it'll be right to consider the ''New York Times'', and certainly at least the article the ''Intercept'' is reporting on, ] for content pertaining to the state of Israel's actions in Gaza. ] (]) 06:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:In a conflict full of disinformation and high emotions on both sides, I would rather wait how this story unfolds. As of now, the original story stays on the NYT website. Note even The Intercept grudingly admits there may have been sexual violence during the terrorist attack, but veils it into some weird phrasing indirectly blaming "several hundred civilians" in a "second wave". ] (]) 06:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
::For clarity, the full context is {{tq|The question has never been whether individual acts of sexual assault may have occurred on October 7. Rape is not uncommon in war, and there were also several hundred civilians who poured into Israel from Gaza that day in a “second wave,” contributing to and participating in the mayhem and violence. The central issue is whether the ''New York Times'' presented solid evidence to support its claim that there were newly reported details “establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7” — a claim stated in the headline that Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war.}}
::The ''Intercept''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s critique of (and my concern about) the ''New York Times'' is not about whether or not ''any'' sexual assault happened, but about whether the ''Times'' presented sufficient evidence to support its {{tq|claim stated in the headline Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war}}, i.&nbsp;e. an organization systematically and deliberately deploying sexual assault. I wouldn't call this a "grudging" admission or "veil" language; the ''Intercept'' is honing in on precisely where the evidence apparently warrants ambiguity but the ''Times'' chose to say it as clear fact. ] (]) 06:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I take all bombastic revelations like in The Intercept or in the original NYT story with a grain of salt. NYT may remove the article and publish an apology, or stand by its content. Other RSs will probably add their own findings to this story. Then we may judge. ] (]) 06:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
:'''Strongly disagree''' the NYT has a decades-long history of (imperfect but) excellent reporting, is considered “the newspaper” by many and is broadly (directly or indirectly) cited by a great amount of significant RS.
:Its coverage of the war against between Israel and Hamas has definitely been imperfect, but so has Al-Jazeera's, the BBC's, and a long list of other sources considered RS. A topic-based depreciation would be inappropriate even if every claim you made was accurate, the best it would prove is that one specific article is insufficient to show that sexual violence in conflict was planned instead of incidental.
:Regarding the article itself - I don’t love it either, but as far as errors in journalism go, I wouldn’t consider it any worse than the hospital story that the vast amount of RS fell for - at least it’s conjecture instead of such a harmful translation error. I agree with my fellow editor above, we just have to wait for the benefit of posterity to figure this out, and I would encourage citation with attribution for controversial claims coming from RS newspaper regardless of the so-called ‘side’ they are on. ] (]) 08:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
::Looking back this morning I agree that calling for the NYT to be permanently removed was a little hasty, to say the least. However, my issue is not so much with what was contained ''within'' the article (though the hounding of Gal Abdush's family is abhorrent journalistic malpractice). My issue is more with the hiring of Schwartz and Sella, given the timing of their first articles, given the nature of these articles and given the following investigation into Schwartz' conduct on social media.
::If the NYT are essentially hiring friends of friends as journalists; people with no, or incredibly limited and amateur, prior journalistic experience, to write on such a contentious and delicate topic, I think they are setting a very dangerous precedent, ''especially'' given their reputation as "the newspaper" for so many.
::With relation to the article specifically, I accept that during such a chaotic time, and with so little access to the given area for foreign journalists, there will inevitably be mistakes or mis-reported stories. However, ]'s article on what Schwartz wrote is accusing her of far worse. In essence, they are saying that she was so desperate for a story that she failed to do her due diligence as a journalist - which is understandable given the fact that she is not one.
::Again, given that the NYT is so widely reputed as a very good source, her fabricated and sensationalised accusations were used in part as justification for Israel's response to the attack by Hamas on 7 October. To skew public opinion on ''such'' an important matter is criminal, and I've no doubt that a large number of people justified the slaughter of thousands of children because of Schwartz' words.
::I do believe that, given the deplorably callous actions by the NYT in the coverage of this topic, we should not use the NYT as a reputable source for any further reports on the Gaza genocide. At ''very least'', articles written by either Gettleman, Schwartz or Sella should be blacklisted. ] (]) 12:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you, I appreciate that you moderated your position.
:::I think this issue should be split into 3: journalistic conduct, story content, and hiring.
:::1. conduct: if what the intercept (which I would consider less reliable that the NYT, but reliable unless proven otherwise) alleges is true and complete, that is a set of actions that would disgust any journalist I have had the pleasure (and occasionally displeasure) of meeting/talking to. That being said, for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, I wouldn’t consider that that be significant; it is first and foremost a human issue, but not one of reliability.
:::I think it’s important to add that “skewing public opinion” is not really a good point here. If the content is untrue, that’s enough not to use this specific article, and if it isn’t and you consider the changing of public opinion to be sufficient, then we would have to depreciate all pro-Palestinian sources based on a (just to be clear, highly tenuous) claim that support for Palestinians may assist one or more terror organisations in their goals.
:::2. Content is something we cannot know at this time. Some of what the intercept writes is plausible, some less so, but unless you are a member of the NYT staff, none of us are going to be able to verify some or all of that. We just have to wait for more reporting (from both ‘sides’) and see how this plays out. Trust me, this is as annoying to me as it is to you, but our shared impatience is unfortunately not an adequate reason for taking quick and decisive action. In the same way, we shouldn’t depreciate the NYT on an entire topic based merely on the fact that one potentially inaccurate story may be used as what you describe as a genocide, a claim (just for the benefit of uninvolved readers) considered to be likely inaccurate by many including some legal scholars, governments and some judges at the ICJ (Germany, Israel, Uganda (?), but I could be wrong, so take this with a grain of salt).
:::That being said, anyone justifying the intentional, direct and legally and militarily unjustified targeting of children on either side of this conflict is an unpleasant person to say the least (and to stay within policy).
:::3. Hiring. Oh, hiring. While definitely a complicated issue, it is pretty normal to have nepo hires. While not great, if that was the deciding factor (experience in adjacent media and a relevant professional field, assigned to work with more experienced colleagues) we really would have to depreciate half of MSM or more, something I am opposed to for a long list of obvious reasons.
:::*Therefore, this article definitely needs attribution (and should be removed if a retraction occurs, which it hasn’t, afaik). Issuing a ban for the NYT on this topic as a whole or 'blacklisting' the (significantly more experienced) journalists is a widely excessive measure in my opinion and should not be undertaken. Regarding her, I would definitely recommend additional caution for future articles, but as caution is already encouraged for I/P, doing anything beyond that is unnecessary.
:::] (]) 13:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
:The Intercept article says {{tq|The central issue is whether the New York Times presented solid evidence to support its claim that there were newly reported details “establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7” — a claim stated in the headline that Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war.|q=y}} but I couldn’t see in the original NYT article that they do actually make this “deliberately” claim? ] (]) 08:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
::While there are some reasonable concerns about the NYT over some matters here (and over gender-related matters as someone noted earlier), we should not be leaning it on whether the headline was accurate, because headlines tend to be at best not precise. We don't accept headlines as reliable sources even when they're in a generally reliable source because (per ]), we acknowledge that they have neither the goals nor the vetting of the articles. As such, we cannot judge the reliability of a source based on the accuracy of its headlines. (This is not intended to derail any concerns over content of the article itself.) -- ] (]) 12:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
::While I do understand Nat Gertler's rationale above, I think that if you title an article "‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas '''Weaponized Sexual Violence''' on Oct. 7", you are quite clearly making the assertion that Hamas deliberately committed acts of sexual violence as a weapon of war. ] (]) 12:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
:::There is a legitimate concern here in relation to the particular events and I don't think the NYT should just get a free pass source wise for those events. Although they are apologizing in a roundabout sort of a way, which is a good thing in principle, but still. ] (]) 13:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
:I had been holding back on whether to believe these stories about October 7 and now this just makes the whole business even foggier. I just did not see militants on what was essentialy a suicide mission taking the time or even having the capacity to do rape, it is more the sort of thing that happens when they feel safe. Looking at this and ] just makes everything more opaque but I can see the New York Times first part about "the woman in black dress" was badly founded and they should have known it. Other bits may hve a better basis but how am I supposed to judge when a reliable source like the New York Times does that? I have noticed other sources biasing by going in for questionable stories instead of just leaving out stories they don't like which I'm used to. I'm not going to say the New York Times is unreliable yet, especially as they're all getting worse and yet I need some stakes in the ground, but it is extremely annoying. ] (]) 13:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
:While there are clearly some issues with how NYT managed the investigation of such an important topic, which is concerning, I don't think we should introduce any significant change in how we use NYT in general or indeed its other reporting on this topic. The most I would say is that we might want to avoid citing this particular investigation, or checking how it's been used if we do cite it. I also think that, given the what a long-standing RS the NYT is, we shouldn't rush into a decision. No doubt other RSs will scrutinise this (see e.g. ) and we can review in light of that. Finally, I felt the Intercept undermined its case by citing deeply unreliable sources such as Grayzone. ] (]) 13:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
::All co-signed. ] (]) 03:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:The Intercept article says {{tq|The central issue is whether the New York Times presented solid evidence to support its claim that there were newly reported details “establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7” — a claim stated in the headline that Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war.}}
:Therefore, the burden ''you'' have to show if you want to say the New York Times fabricated this article, is that there wasn't a pattern of gender-based violence on October 7th.
:Journalists are expected to gather their own information from disparate sources. They don't have to use inline citations like we do because it's expected that secondary sources are experts at determining what information is accurate. We judge a source's skill at gathering information based on whether their output is correct.
:Despite the claims otherwise here, systemic sexual assault was committed against Israeli civilians on October 7th. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 17:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not so sure. What we may be seeing is something else which is also awful which is a form of necroviolence. ] (]) 18:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
::@] {{tq| Despite the claims otherwise here, systemic sexual assault was committed against Israeli civilians on October 7th.}}
::Would genuinely be curious to know what you base this on? ] (]) 23:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
:::, , , and agree there was mass sexual violence on October 7th. You say {{tq|The blood of thousands of Palestinians is on the hands of the NYT for publicising such disgusting fabrications}} but the blood of Palestinians might as well be on the entire western media by that definition. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 19:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq| mass sexual violence}} Which source is that in? ] (]) 19:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::And mind the slippage of {{tq|systematic sexual assault}} versus {{tq|mass sexual violence}}, possibly systematic and possibly not. Dreadful violence took place, that sources agree upon; what is under question is what the structure of that violence was. ] (]) 19:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
:Reminds me of the coverage by numerous sources during the prelude to the Iraq war, Basically the media fell for the WMD crap. As a result, the public cheered the bombing of Iraq called “shock and awe”. In 2004, the NYT published a lengthy article highly critical of itself for putting too much faith in claims by government sources. I've noticed over the last month, NYT and CNN coverage has changed substantially. The NYT is printing regular stories about the mass killings of Palestinians. The overall tune is changing. Like so many things, I think we need to wait for the dust to settle. But clearly the NYT article mentioned by the OP should not be used as a source. ] (]) ] (]) 21:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
::What got me about that was the way they said he must be doing this that or the other to hide these weapons, and as each proved false people just said he must be even more evil and devious than we though rather that it is getting to look less likely he had these weapons. ] (]) 21:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
from The Nation and from Vanity Fair, couple more to go with the CNN source mentioned above.] (]) 18:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
:The article in question is not a good enough reason to have the NYT wholly (or even partially, as per the Israel{{ndash}}Hamas war) deprecated. The leaked flap over its imminent promotion via podcast - which led to its cancellation on that platform - speaks volumes. Still, I would not wait for the NYT to officially retract the discredited article, which has been shown to be nothing more than a thinly-disguised piece of wartime propaganda. Therefore it should not be used as a direct reference, but only mentioned in passing whilst referencing sources such as those mentioned above. ] <small>]</small> 19:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


Still reliable. The test for a generally reliable source is '''not''' "never fucks up ever". It's just disappointing to see that the lessons learned from the ] seem to have been forgotten. ] (]) 00:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC) *'''Bad RFC''' because we should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, but since we're doing this: Jacobin is clearly an opinion outlet, not a news outlet. We shouldn't be relying on them for statements of fact for that reason alone. ] (]) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. ] (]) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks.
*::That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. ] (]) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --] (]) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


*The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Chipping in just to note that The Intercept is not, in fact, a blindly reliable source; the RSP specifically notes that it is a biased source, and this bias needs to be taken into account when using it. '''] ]''' 20:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
*:They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like ''New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times'' to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at ]. ] (]) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. ] (]) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what {{noping|Volunteer Marek}} was concerned about was ]. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. ] (]) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. ] (]) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:It is not the case that a book review can ''only'' be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet ]. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. ] (]) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)


== The Heritage Foundation ==
:That’s a good contribution, thank you! If we read the AfDs, they are less than stellar to say the least. ] (]) 20:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
<!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}}
:All sources are biased, including the NYT. ] (]) 21:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion to|WP:Requests for comment/The Heritage Foundation|2=Due to how large the discussion has become, and size constraints on the noticeboard, this discussion has been moved to it's own page. <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::True, but some more than others, and this is definitely some. ] (]) 22:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Generic statements about reliability are beside the point. It has been shown that the NYTs, while using stringent criteria for selecting journalists who come from a pro-Palestinian background, flagrantly suspended this overrsight in publishing unverified claims by a genocidal propagandist for Israel with no professional credentials as a journalist, allowing itself to be a venue for extremist interpretations that, given its prestige, fed the flames of what we all know is an informational war game based on incenditary assertions. I've been reading for 20 years reliable reports of the , while duly observing these are treated as marginalia, if ever noticed, by the NYTs. It did not apologize when exposed, but reportedly engaged in a witchhunt to find the source of leaks.It undermined its own credibility here, already in question for making much of the 36 Israeli children murdered on Oct.7, while glozing over the point that 13,000 Gaza children have been killed in Israel's onslaught, with a further 17,000 left orphaned, without any kin in their once extended families alive to care for them. ] (]) 07:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Investigating leaks is standard practice for most companies, and so is some degree of bias. However, as many of the claims are now considered plausible by the UN while the Guardian claim is backed by UNRWA specifically, you can’t argue for the latter and then disparage the former.
::::Additionally, while wrong, nepotism is just normal in journalism and not a sign of unreliability. ] (]) 08:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Reliable'''. While the Schwartz piece turned out unreliable, like unreliable was NYT's reporting on WMD in Iraq, this does not mean all or most of NYT reporting is unreliable. Even the best academic journals retract articles from time to time, which however doesn't make them automatically unreliable. We have ] for that: {{tq|Whether a ''specific'' news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis}}. This is what's happening – editors seem to refrain from relying on Schwartz's garbage. — ]&nbsp;] 11:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
:Agree that the solution would be to follow context, and evaluate according to "the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports". Blanket bans bad. ] (]) 14:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
*One incident isn't going to make a source unreliable (certainly not a source with the history and reputation of the NYT.) That said, it might be worth eventually following up on this and seeing if things like this lead to it acquiring a reputation for bias ''in specific contexts'', which might eventually deserve a note on its RSP entry. Being wrong every so often is not a reliability issue. Being biased repeatedly in the same direction, especially if there's indications of institutional pressure within the org, isn't a reliability issue, though it might be worth noting. Being wrong repeatedly in the same direction, with an indication that there is institutional pressure sufficient to not just cause biases but to distort reporting to the point where it is actually inaccurate - that is to say, institutional pressure to actively ignore the truth, or to publish with reckless disregard for it - is a reliability issue (this was, I think, what ultimately got Fox downgraded)... but I don't think that we're there yet with an institution otherwise as venerable as the NYT. --] (]) 03:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*Remembering those weapons of mass destruction that were never found that NYT signal boosted the messaging on. '']''<sup>]</sup> 12:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


== Vaush, opinion sources == == RfC: TheGamer ==
{{atop|OP has withdrawn the discussion. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 21:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<s>TheGamer seems to be either user-generated content, or slop listicles. Additionally, it seems to source it's content largely from dubious YouTube content, Reddit posts, or Twitter/X threads. However it is listed as a source in articles such as ] purely in relation to one listicle that ranks Flowey in relation to other characters. What is the reliability of this site?


* Option 1: ]
The following sources are considered unreliable, but I don't think we should consider a source unreliable just because we don't like the platform. There is not a single "reliable source" that writes about this issue, because it is getting silenced by the media.
* Option 2: ]
* Option 3: ]
* Option 4: ]


]</s>
We should consider the sources on an individual basis. Please, don't reject them just because. Please, take your time to read through them. Most of them also have their own references and sources.


<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Sources:
* '''Bad RfC'''. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not {{tq|neutrally worded and brief}} as our ]. I would also ask why the ] about ''TheGamer'' available at the list maintained by ] isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about ], as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at ]. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Nevermind then. I'll delete the info on the Flowey page that provides no encyclopedic value. The reason I proposed this originally was because TheGamer's content has gotten worse and more sloppy since 2020.<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abottom}}


== Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer ==
#
#
#
#
#
# <nowiki/>
#
#


Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. ] (]) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ok, thank you very much. ] (]) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


==''Pirate Wires''?==
I still have some faith in society. I still believe there are people that don't want this issue to be silenced and forced under the rug. ] (]) 01:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
'']'' as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, ? — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.
:Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. ] (]) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:: So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of {{talk quote inline|as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher '']'' lists him as a senior editor|q=yes}}? I just wanted to make sure ''PW'' was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. ] (]) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — '''] &#124; ] &#124;''' 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think this is a case for ], but it seems like a reasonable option ] (]) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
: Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Invoking ] to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not ], and I would avoid using this publication for ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. ] (]) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:The fact that the matter is severe and deals with a living person is reason for us to be extra scrupulous about sourcing. I don't recognize every source here, but a few of them are immediately and clearly not sources that we would ever consider acceptable for this sort of material -- an open wiki, a self-published blog, a subreddit.... they all fly in the face of our ]. I'm not sure who is supposed to be silencing this, but it is in the nature of Misplaced Pages to follow reliable sources, not to lead them based on unreliable ones. -- ] (]) 02:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
* ''Pirate Wires'' should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered ] unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. ] (]) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::To clarify my statement: the ''topic'' is severe. The ''matter'' appears to be just an unpopular opinion, and assumptions that people wish to assert based on that. Thinking something could be legal is not the same as condoning something, much less engaging in it. (A friend and I once planned to take the "yes" side on a "should the Nazis have been allowed to stage a march in Skokie, Illinois" debate, but any attempt to cast us a pro-Nazi rather than taking the ACLU side of free speech would've been confronted with the fact that we were both folks that the Nazis would've gleefully killed.) -- ] (]) 15:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
:'''Obviously not'''. And do you really think there's some worldwide media conspiracy to cover for this youtuber? Sheesh. ] (]) 02:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC) *:It's Mike Solana's blog. ] (]) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. ] (]) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:This would be a clear violation of BLP, you need to wait for an RS. ] (]) 08:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link {{U|Selfstudier}} provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." ] (]) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:If you think we can source a child pornography accusation to anything less than a gold-plated RS, you may need to review ] - ] (]) 12:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
::::When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously ''his personal thing.'' ] (]) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:It is an interesting conundrum sometimes. A person's existence and basic activities are covered in enough reliable sources to justify an article, but then some social media outrage-of-the-moment fails to gain coverage by that same media, as it is just not as important as the fans and foes think it is. So to the outside non-Wikipedian, it looks like we're "censoring," when of course nothing of the sort is happening. Matthias197, consider the possibility that this just doesn't matter.
:I'd also like to take the liberty of toning town the section title, as putting a person's name and "CP" side-by-side is a bit overboard. ] (]) 13:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC) :::::There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. ] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. ] (]) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:<small>(coming from ])</small> Posting this here in case anyone comes across Evie Magazine (eviemagazine.com) in the future and wanted to check the archives. I went back today to their homepage and saw an article titled "" (), by the same author of the one linked above, which proudly misgenders a trans man and uses the phrase "gender ideology" unironically. The further it goes the less sane it becomes. Wholly not reliable if they cannot accept the widespread scientific consensus of ] & ]. ] (]) 19:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that ] and/or your own conclusion being reached? ] (]) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::The articles do indeed get weirder the deeper you go. Some light reading on the publication: , . We should not be using this in any way. ''] ]'' 00:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
:Considering that comment and the fact that founder ] is the chief marketing officer of ], Pirate Wires has a major ] with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-] source with respect to all related topics. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Rolling Stone and Vice are two left leaning publications which really are rooted in pop culture, similar to what Evie seems to be as a right leaning women’s publication. Simply pointing to the fact that those two don’t like Evie specifically for its political leaning is irrelevant. The basis of a valid source is NOT if it appeals to a certain side or not. Making arguments like this goes again ] ] (]) 16:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
::::lol, Evie publishes COVID conspiracy theories and election conspiracy theories. That's the sort of thing that tends to lead to deprecation. It's extremely clear that Evie is an unreliable source at the very least - ] (]) 15:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC) :Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - ] (]) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Marginally reliable, there seems to be a pretty wide spread quality wise because they seem to allow their writer a loose leash. This means that some articles are very good and some are very bad. Personally I've found them solidly reliable for the more wonkish techy stuff but have a lot of issues when they start to cover politics or culture/society in general. Crypto seems to be the only blindspot within their otherwise area of expertise, their crypto coverage is just awful and should be avoided like the plague. When used I would attribute and I would strongly advise against any use for BLP not covered by ABOUTSELF. I agree that pieces by Solana should be treated as self published and that coverage by Pirate Wire is not to be considered independent of the Founders Fund. ] (]) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::"Evie publishes COVID conspiracy theories and election conspiracy theories"
:::::Looking into it, the posted Vice article links to another Vice article which is complaining about various Evie opinion pieces which I went to. They have articles about Covid, but I couldnt find any "Covid conspiracy theories." The ones referenced in the Vice article were ones about the mortality rate of children from covid and the safety of getting the vaccine as a pregnant woman, but both of these were based on information from the ] and the ].
:::::As I pointed out, both Rolling Stone and Vice are two left leaning pop culture focused publications whos main gripe with Evie is that it is a right leaning pop culture publication, of course they arent going to like them and they are hardly authoritative sources themselves. Simply saying that you or a writer at the Rolling Stone dont like them is NOT a valid argument not to use them as a source. Misplaced Pages is not a partisan site. However, I would certainly say that we shouldnt use Evie as a source for issues like Covid of course, but when it comes to culture issues, in this case, their article on the internet streamer Vaush promoting child pornography and his disgusting history with that stuff, its very reliable. The article itself includes video clips of Vaush saying these things directly so theres really no excuse to not include this.
:::::] (]) 16:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::If you seriously think Evie is a sufficient source to make child pornography accusations in Misplaced Pages, then I must strongly urge you not to attempt to edit BLPs on Misplaced Pages on ] grounds - ] (]) 20:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Is this supposed to be some sort of counter argument? Because you arent even making a point. Again, the Evie article includes video footage of Vaush outright saying these disgusting things so its not an accusation, its literally his own words and this is a question of how to include that information in the article. I think its also important to remember that Vaush is a fringe e-celebrity, so this means that no serious publication like CBS or NBC is going to cover this stuff, only more lower level pop-culture publications will and pointing out that these lean right politically is not at all a reason not to use them as a source.
:::::::] (]) 22:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I think it would be beneficial if you familiarised yourself with Wikipedias policies before further engaging this discussion. ] (]) 23:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I am familiar which is why I pointing out that there is no real reason not to include Evies article as a source. I would suggest others take this advice themselves and read through the BLP guidelines. Feel free to point out specifically what policy you think Im misinterpreting and why though because comments like this are not at all productive.
:::::::::] (]) 23:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::] is pretty detailed about the high requirements for sources, let’s start there. ] (]) 07:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, we all know what BLP is. What specific part of that policy do you feel would be violated by including information about his own words regarding CP?
:::::::::::] (]) 12:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::“Misplaced Pages must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.” Evie is disputed as an RS at best, and clearly not a high-quality source.
::::::::::::“Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.” Therefore, even if there was RS coverage, inclusion in the article would not be guaranteed
::::::::::::”The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.” ] (]) 13:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The article on Vaush already uses “not high quality” level sources such as Daily Beast and his own YouTube videos as sources, so the argument that this is the issue is blatantly false. And per ] this is allowed concerning subjects publishing their own viewpoint. It is beyond debate and is an objective fact that Vaush has said some pretty disgusting things concerning child pornography, things like the Evie article simply add additional context to this. Like I already pointed out, Vaush is a fringe internet celebrity so legit publications are not going to care enough about him to cover his views on CP. This is evident by the Vaush article relaying heavily on publications like Daily Beast and Kotaku.
:::::::::::::The main contention mentioned is that Post Millennial and Evie are right leaning, which isn’t a valid excuse not to use them.
:::::::::::::] (]) 15:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Sources that are "not high quality" including self-published sources can sometimes be used in a BLP, mostly for routine details like events the subject attends, when a person was born, where they live, and other things like that which nobody would reasonably challenge. ''Contentious'' or controversial claims, positive or negative, must be sourced to only high quality sources. I can't think of any claim more controversial than support for child pornography. The highest quality sources are required for that, and it is non-negotiable. If there are other poor/marginal sources used to support contentious claims in the ] article, they should be removed too.
::::::::::::::I agree that Vaush is a "fringe internet celebrity" that doesn't have much coverage in those types of sources. When we have a choice between complete coverage of a living person based on questionable sources or incomplete coverage with good sources, then we must choose the incomplete coverage. I know how bad it can feel when we have information we can't share on Misplaced Pages, but that's the balance that we've struck in the interest of protecting real living people from harm. Maintaining that balance is a constant process but it is very important. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>'']''</small></span></sup> 16:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Given that the subject himself has made several videos clearly and publicly expressing his viewpoint, and is by definition ''the only authority'' on his viewpoint, how can we not treat his own statements as reliably sourced? We're not talking about leaked private conversations, this is his own expressed position. ] (]) 04:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Not for something like this ] (]) 07:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::“Not for something like this” what guideline is this based on? You’re allowed to use sources like YouTube when it comes to a person making claims certain claims about themselves like their personal life or their own personal viewpoints. The wiki articles currently already does this.
:::::::::::::::::] (]) 09:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::] we would have to fully include his narrative and only his narrative, which would provide minimal value and is not in accordance with policy ] (]) 10:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Ok, well including his view that child pornography should be legal as a fact of its own would at least be consistent with the rest of the article.
:::::::::::::::::::] (]) 20:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::I have no love for many of the things that Vaush believes in (which I believe is quite clear based on my own editing history), but his stated belief is that child slavery and child pornography should be illegal, which he has repeatedly clarified and which really isn’t controversial .
::::::::::::::::::::There are other views on can credibly criticise Vaush which he has not clarified or denounced (but which aren’t supported by RS either), but at this point, I would recommend you ] (pun intended). ] (]) 22:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::I don't know what "widespread scientific consensus of gender & sex" are you referring to, because there is no consensus. Conservatives insist that gender and gender are the same thing. Only liberals think otherwise. ] (]) 00:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Fascinating. Everyone has to be a 'conservative' or a 'liberal', and has to conform in every way to this, over every topic. No room for anyone to be anything in between, or to be undecided. Talk about enforcing roles on those who'd rather decide for themselves what opinions they'd like to hold... ] (]) 00:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
::I posted this in the other talk thread on the Vaush page, but again, you not liking a certain article from this publication is hardly a real justification not to use it as a source.
::] (]) 16:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
:These are all horrific violations of BLP and not remotely reliable as sources, absolutely not. ] ] 02:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
:Source 1 and Source 3 are unreliable by default as they are open wikis. Source 4 (the subject's own YouTube channel) may be usable in some contexts, but including it without any secondary sources is probably ]. ] (]) 07:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per RS and BLP. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


=== Need context before coming to RSN ===
== oko press Poland- propaganda can be reliable source? ==
At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. ] (]) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
* Per <s>{{U|Slatersteven}}</s> its founder describes it as a ] - it should be treated accordingly. ] (]) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Not me. ] (]) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per {{U|Selfstudier}} apologies. I will strike above. ] (]) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It is not ] and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. ] (]) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an ] would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the ''shape'' of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a ], according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yeah by that criteria this is a SPS, one guys blog is still one guys blog even if they let their friends post. ] (]) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Usage in ] ===
oko press is cited in Misplaced Pages but it described themselves as propaganda tool created by mainstream Agora media to create impression that it is independent. oko press own communication announced it https://oko.press/stoi-oko-press-szczera-bolu-informacja-o-naszych-finansach
Is the Pirate Wires piece by ] a reliable source of claims for the ] article? Rindsberg has published other content about Misplaced Pages on Pirate Wires, including . —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
if some tool is created only in order to fight other ideas it is propaganda. Can be propaganda a reliable source? i request to ecxlude oko press from list of reliable sources for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
:RFC discussion started below this. '''The ]''' (] 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


:It's at best, usable for the attributed opinion of Rindsberg only, but even then, it's obviously polemical and partisan. There's lots of right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages that I personally find disingenuous, but inevitably an article on "Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages" is going to have to include some partisan sourcing, but not framing it as fact is essential. I am unsure whether Pirate Wires is prominent enough a publication that it would be due to mention in any capacity. ] (]) 04:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
=== RFC: ] ===
::I don't even think its usable for that... Can't find anything that suggests that Rindsberg is a subject matter expert. ] (]) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:Sources in that article should have some leeway, as Misplaced Pages is obviously going to be criticised by such sources. But I totally agree with Hemiauchenia that framing is key. This is the opinion of a hyper partisan source, framing it as fact is wrong. Whether it should be included or not is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:It is more or less a group
:blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Misplaced Pages editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. ] (]) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Both unreliable and ]. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Agree fully. Unreliable and undue. ] (]) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:almost certainly no. the article attacking[REDACTED] has falsehoods and even ignoring that and arguing its an opinion piece we could use with attribution , it goes at it from a very marginal POV … there are more useful opinion pieces from more reliable outlets out there.] (]) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:How is it used by others or is it even used by others? If sources have cited their work then I think we can as well. However, I would be very cautious about using it as an independent reference. Very cautious to the point where I would generally say no. Perhaps in a case where it's spot on topic (ideological bias of Misplaced Pages) but then only with attribution. Speaking generally, these sort of sources are always difficult as they may provide very good information but other than editors reading the text and using their own common sense, OR, etc, we don't have a good way to judge the quality of the output. BTW, this is also why I think "use with caution" may not be specific enough. Some sources are more like "use with caution but probably OK" while others are more like "use with extreme caution but there is probably a case where it provides more than about self content". ] (]) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Pirate Wires itself is notable as it's had coverage in other notable outlets but its viewpoint about Misplaced Pages per se might not have been documented in RS yet. But I'm confused -- Why are some of these other media outlets' self-published viewpoints ] without them necessarily being considered RS themselves? ] (]) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::The term '']'' refers to sources without adequate editorial oversight, which includes most ]. ] are not self-published sources. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::Imo Having Misplaced Pages articles that discuss whether Misplaced Pages is reliable, biased, antisemitic, etc is silly. We're all too inherently conflicted as Misplaced Pages editors to give a sober assessment of these topics and what is/isn't due to include. These topics are best left to scholars. That said, Pirate Wires is a lot less established than these other publications you mention. ] (]) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Outright rejecting ] because it's "right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages" and has "a very marginal POV" is the issue with ] that the piece is trying to critique. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::But it does affect ] weight (which requires balance between sources, and which is the real concern for something that, as a ] or a website with no reputation, would obviously be opinion at best.) The article already contains a large number of right-wing sources with a similar perspective; does this piece add anything to them? My feeling is that articles like this are subject to problems where editors try to do this nose-counting thing where they add dozens of opinionated or biased sources saying the same thing because they feel it's a ''really important'' perspective - but that's not how opinion is really meant to be used. If we have twelve sources that are fundimentially similar saying the same thing, they ought to be condensed down to a single sentence or so saying "a bunch of sources said X" (unless some of them are individually noteworthy on their own merits somehow, eg. if they're an opinion from a significant expert, but that obviously isn't the case here.) --] (]) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] makes a perfectly valid point. ] (]) 14:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::It's being rejected because it's a random tech guy's blog - not because it's right wing. ] (]) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::One thing @] said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because <s>s</s>he's just some person with a megaphone. ] (]) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. ] (]) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Also, ] is a man. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Evidence has already been provided. In this thread. The founder brags about having no editorial board on twitter dot com. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Getting neither the gender {{tq|"she's"}} nor the spelling {{tq|"Ashley Rindberg"}} correct shows me you may not have looked into this very much. ] (]) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Oh do stop. That's an awful lot to take from a bloody typo. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Here's a freebee for all the people looking to say Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias. This is what a reliable source accusing Misplaced Pages of a left-wing bias looks like: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793846 ] (]) 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased ] (]) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a ]. --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. ] (]) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I should add that the Manhattan Institute was discussed previously ]; the discussion was never closed or added to ] but by a quick nose-count the total unreliable + deprecate opinions outnumbered the "unclear" opinions almost two-to-one (and there were almost no people saying it was GREL.) --] (]) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::What game? I literally provided a source accusing Misplaced Pages both of left-wing bias and of bias against women at the same time. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::*We don't actually require an RFC for every individual dispute; and sources certainly do not ''automatically default'' to reliable. Just doing a quick nose-count in this discussion suggests that it's extremely unlikely that an RFC on Pirate Wires' reliability would support your contention that it is reliable - numerous issues have been raised, especially regarding its lack of editorial controls and its lack of the {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} that RS requires. We can pull it through an entire RFC if you really think it's necessary but I think your time would be better-spent looking for more clearly reliable secondary sources covering this, if you want it in the article. This would also turn things back to the more fundamental ] problem I mentioned above - this looks identical to dozens of similar pieces posted by people with similar opinions; given that it's published in what's ''at least'' a low-quality source compared to the ones already in the article, what makes this one significant enough to highlight? --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:For disclosure, I originally wrote the ] article. I think the answer is ''no'' to this question specifically, and similar questions generally.<Br/>Pirate Wires is an advocacy media outlet. Its writing is in a punchy tone -- a tech-ish form of ] -- that blends opinion with explanatory reporting. They don't do spot news. So there's just no utility in using it for encyclopedia-writing.<br/>That's not to say it's either good or bad, merely that it doesn't serve the limited purposes for which we use sources here. (It ran a widely cited interview with ] and I don't think anyone believes they made-up the interview. But if we need to cite that interview in an article it can be referenced to any of the numerous RS that, themselves, cited it through précis', versus Pirate Wires directly.) In any case, anything it publishes that ''is'' encyclopedic will be covered in a second, more conventional RS and we should reference the second source. Anything not referenced in a pass-through outlet is probably undue. ] (]) 18:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


'''Respectful comment:''' This discussion would be more helpful if we focused on how reliable sources treat a specific startup news organization and less on original research and personal opinion. --] (]) 21:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- ] 00:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1712534477}}
{{rfc|hist|media|pol|rfcid=F68504B}}
What is the reliability of ]?


== CEIC data ==
* '''Option 1: ]'''
* '''Option 2: ]'''
* '''Option 3: ]'''
* '''Option 4: ]'''


I often see this site being used as a source for country-list data. They appear to be professional, but I'm not sure if they're considered a proper secondary source. They do not appear to be the same CEIC as the one owned by ], as they say they are owned by "ISI Markets". ] (]) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Previous RSN Discussion: ] {{strikethrough|(Considered generally reliable)}} & ] (Considered generally reliable)


:It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. ] (]) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
For some background, ] is mentioned or cited on 129 articles across English Misplaced Pages. After a talk page discussion on ], it was mentioned that the source may not be reliable. Given this source is cited in CTOPS articles (including ], LGBTQ articles, and Israel-Hamas war articles), an RFC is needed to reassess reliability. '''The ]''' (] 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
::If in question use secondary sources.] (]) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== Fantasy Literature ==
====Survey (OKO.press)====
*{{strikethrough|Undecided so far. I will do some research and make a determination !vote soon. '''The ]''' (] 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)}}
*'''Option 1''' — The source seems to be reliable in their reporting. I have not found inaccurate reporting in their articles. This may appear to be a little bit of an ], where '''if''' it is state-sponsored, the reliability of their reporting of facts does not seem to be impeded. As mentioned below this !vote by Kip, the original nominator/idea starter of this RfC, {{u|Jarek19800}}, was that OKO.press was propaganda based on , which I have to admit, I am unable to actually translate past a “please subscribe” style addition they have. As the idea of this was Jarek19800s, could you provide an article indicating OKO.press either reported something factually wrong or a secondary non OKO.press source saying it is propaganda? Unless that occurs, I must stick with option 1. '''The ]''' (] 23:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
::<small>P.S. The RfC was started by me due to duel-CTOPS nature involved with where the possible issue about this source originated from and I will note, COI is a very high possibility here, which was brought up at AN, leading to the perm EC protection on the page. Basically, RFC was a technicality since this has been at RSN before and is CTOPS related. '''The ]''' (] 23:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)</small>
::Re: Al Jazeera; as far as I can tell Agora, who partly funds OKO, is independent rather than state-controlled. ] ] 23:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


I see this source around a lot and I would like to have it settled for whether it is OK to use for reviews. It looks good to me and not promotional or any of the typical sorts of issues that plague these kinds of websites, but I am not sure, and I would like to know before I use it on pages, and sometimes books are cited to this at NPP and I am unsure how I should judge it. I would judge it as decently established but it looks to me to be straddling the line between online review publication and blog. It's used on about 160 already. Anyone else have any thoughts? ] (]) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' The claim above of the piece admitting they’re “anti-PiS propaganda” seems to be… off-base, to say the least. Admittedly I’m reading a Google machine-translated version, but from what I gather, the linked piece says they were founded independently with some funding from Agora due to about the PiS’ increasing control of Polish state media. Biased? Perhaps a little, but on the whole they seem to be doing valid research/reporting, and I’m not exactly sold by some of the original nominator (Jarek, not WEW) arguments regarding it being “blatant propaganda.” France24 and Politico’s endorsement of their reporting + the Index on Censorship award work even further in their favor. As per usual, attribute for opinion pieces, but facts-wise they seem a-okay. ] ] 06:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Thank you for your remarks. I will try to be as short as possible which can influence some clarity. Let's follow your logic: main media company in Poland Agora creates a platform Oko press in order to fight PIS. After eight years (current) there is a new govt anti PIS and 95% of media market is completely in hands of anti PIS media including Agora. If following your logic Oko press would be reliable source they shall go against this media monopoly now,shall not they? in fact they continue to fight PIS. More generally can be a media monopoly reliable by definition? Moreover head of Oko press Pacewicz is former Agora executive so let's forget about independent funding of Oko press.Personally I prefer to judge reliability of media by its origin and definition(for example it is obvious for all that any mainstream media in russia now is not reliable source) than on base of one or two false informations but I will check what I can do also in this direction. By the way how I can prove that some information was false when there is a media monopoly in the country and the false info is local from media which covers only local issues ? ] (]) 22:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:::You say: ''"for example it is obvious for all that any mainstream media in russia now is not reliable source"''. That idea did not get much traction on RSNB recently. But even if this is the case, Poland is a very different country. ] (]) 04:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Your argument essentially boils down to “they’re propaganda because they disagree with PiS and are popular,” which is entirely personal opinion, and your claim of a “media monopoly” is both wholly uncited and outright false in the first place. Sorry that I and others disagree. ] ] 05:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', same as ]. It seems to be a legitimate investigative journalism site. There are no indications they promote any falsehoods or unreliable. ] (]) 20:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' - Google Scholar search results are quite encouraging regarding the publication's quality<ref>{{Cite journal |last=du Vall |first=Marta |last2=Majorek |first2=Marta |date=2022 |title=Information management and engaged journalism in the conditions of manipulated mainstream media transmission – OKO.press as the example |url=http://hdl.handle.net/11315/31036 |language=en |issn=1899-6264}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Polynczuk-Alenius |first=Kinga |date=2024-01-31 |title=Russian imperialism, racist differentiation and refugees at the Polish borders: Media as ‘borderscapers’ |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02673231231224377 |journal=European Journal of Communication |language=en |doi=10.1177/02673231231224377 |issn=0267-3231}}</ref> Other peer-reviewed publications cite it,<ref>Fajfer, Alicja. ''CROSS'': 83.</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Radde-Antweiler |first=Kerstin |url=https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4vT6DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT327&dq=%22oko.press%22&ots=eQfzku_Snd&sig=SkovDRKYQgKo7gmWoVv439XU1WM#v=onepage&q=%22oko.press%22&f=false |title=The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Journalism |last2=Zeiler |first2=Xenia |date=2020-10-29 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-351-39608-0 |language=en}}</ref> so there's also a ] case to be made. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. {{slink|OKO.press#Awards}} mentions that OKO.press has received a number of awards, including the ] in 2020. As {{np|Rosguill}} mentioned, , published by the ], elaborates on the {{xt|"12 principles"}} methodology that OKO.press uses to perform fact-checking and rates it positively: {{xt|"The article presents the fact-checking logic of a Polish press title published online since 2016, OKO.press, which in the authors’ view is an excellent example of reliable journalism practiced to the benefit of the public."}} —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 01:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


:It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:. I'd be hesitant to use it for ] purposes. ] (]) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
====General discussion (OKO.press)====
::This is the terms its staff work under:
*I would not describe prior discussions about this source as having a consensus for reliability. ] discussion was not formally closed and did not have a clear consensus. The same can be said of the ] not identified above, which had a numerical majority for general reliability but saw a lot of sockpuppet disruption and didn't have much in the way of real discussion. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 23:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
::Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. ] (]) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::Whoops! I did not realize a 2nd discussion occurred. Would you be ok if I add that in the discussion? Also just to note, the prior discussion I linked earlier was considered in a different discussion (I don’t remember which of the 129 articles it was on), to be reliable under a 7-2 vote premise. That assessment was not my own doing, but more like a copy/paste of the assessment in that discussion…whatever article talk page it was on. '''The ]''' (] 23:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
::So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? ] (]) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, go ahead. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
* This move to RfC seems a bit abrupt. The discussion in the thread above didn't even get off the ground. ] (]) 23:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC) :::I'd say unusable for notability purposes. I'd likely leave it off other pages unless it had something significant to say that better sources didn't. ] (]) 14:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Not an RS. ] (]) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* Having an explicit political agenda doesn't make them unreliable (per ]). Are there examples of them publishing falsehoods? ]<sub>]</sub> 21:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
*:There doesn't seem to be; to be quite blunt, this issue seems to have been raised entirely on the argument that being founded as a counterweight to PiS-biased media and partly funded by a liberal-leaning news organization makes them "propaganda," which is an ''extremely'' flimsy basis for such a claim. ] ] 22:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
*:In 2018 polish Ministry of Justice published a statement accusing Oko.press of making false claims about financing public campaign by that ministry. I couldn't find any articles investigating it further, though. ] (]) 21:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*::let's focus on fake news spreaded by oko press. this one confirms that they are propaganda tool used to take part in political war without any link to reality. all articles will be in Polish unfortunately and from media which are not a mainstream (media monopol in Poland) but fact checking is more accurate here https://www.tysol.pl/a73905-ekspert-do-oko-press-jestescie-propagandystami-lukaszenki-i-putina-bede-was-rozliczal-z-fake-news ] (]) 22:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Considering the PiS government was , I’m not sure if I’d trust their word when accusing an independent outlet of making false claims. Governments are rarely reliable sources for criticism about themselves. ] ] 05:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::I ask you the Kip to be deleted from this discussion on the reason that you started to chase me on Misplaced Pages with a manner to delete my factual revisions of the articles. By chance you make it by hiding the facts concerning Soviet murderers which I hope has connection with defending left- wing media portal. of course we can try to say that only by coincidence you deleted my change on ] few days ago but such idea has is stupid so you have no reliability to discuss media reliability. ] (]) 21:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::You asserted on the article that he held sole responsibility for the massacre, when the source provided simply listed him as a co-signatory. Feel free to re-add with a source confirming the former claim, but on Misplaced Pages we don't engage in ]. Nice ], by the way. ] ] 21:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::::It is not opening the discussion on topic of if relevant was my add to article. it is about you chased my add ons to articles on[REDACTED] on base of this thread here. it is of course just coincidence in both you defend left-wing elements. anyway in my opinion it is not ethic and wikipedial to transport your personel feelings from one article to another one only on base of author. In my opinion you should not continue to comment this thread to keep Misplaced Pages neutral as much as possible. ] (]) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Again;
*::::::* Yes, I checked your edit history as I was slightly suspicious of your behavior given your assertions about OKO. This led to me finding your ] regarding Kalinin. I’ve addressed it at the talk page, if you have a source backing your claim feel free to add it but the source you utilized doesn’t.
*::::::* More PAs/violations of AGF won’t help your case here. If you truly feel I’m in the wrong, take it to ] and see what they think. Even without my “violations of neutrality,” the consensus thus far seems to heartily disagree with your assertions of “propaganda.”
*::::::] ] 00:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
*:"Having explicit political agenda doesn't make them (media) unreliable" true but on one condition: if there is no media monopoly in country or if opposite political media are not judged as unreliable. it means that political agenda in media is allowed only if media market is really and in reality free which is not a case in most countries including currently Poland. ] (]) 22:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Hi everyone, I'm following the discussion and just wanted to add my 2 cents on the issue: OKO.press seems to be one of the media sitting on the fence when it comes to reliability. I read some of their articles (translated, though), but I cannot say that I have sufficient knowledge on the Polish media landscape to make a definitive call here. Why I am writing this comment is to say that reliability is not a black-or-white type question, as some articles may have a more political lean than others, reliability can depend on the contributor writing the specific piece, and finally, reliability changes over time.
*::However, just to be on the cautious side, I suggest that we shouldn't use them as a sole or predominant source supporting the reliability of other sources, such as Visegrad 24 (because this is how the whole conversation began). ] (]) 08:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::Hi I agree . it will put us forward until I will have time to present more comprehensive analisys of the total lack of reliability of oko press and open new thread. In meantime I found pretty reliable summary of current situation with media in Poland
*:::https://deadline.com/2024/03/poland-tvp-donald-tusk-recovering-1235844739/
*:::it is not perfect because forgets that for example in tv market we used to have 3 mainstream media Polsat- owned by Polish oligarch who was secret collaborator of communist secret police,TVN- owned by US left- wing owner and Public TV which was invaded and taken over in night by current left- wing govt security forces. by accident all 3 tv's are fiercely pro-government and have ca.95% of tv market. Conservative part of population which is not less than 30% has 5%. if this is media monopoly or not judge yourself ] (]) 21:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Anyone CU watching this conversation? This discussion being found by three accounts, none newly created but with a total of only 30 edits between them, strains credulity. ] (]) 14:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


== Is “Zannettou, Savvas "A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitism". a reliable source for ] ==
:I also propose to summarize and finish this conversation with verdict: Generally unreliable. I found a final proof supporting such verdict on their official page in english https://oko.press/about-us they say that they will in same way question and control any govt. in Poland current or future. It is proved drastic lie as you will not find even one article made by them with criticism on current govt.after 3 month of its activity but you will find in same time dozens on current opposition. it is manipulative, propaganda media so Generally unreliable is adequate verdict. ] (]) 23:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
::exxact citation is "We are a civic tool to control the government. The current one and every one after it." ] (]) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
::Once again, bias does not automatically equal unreliability, and besides that,
::{{tq|I also propose to summarize and finish this conversation with verdict: Generally unreliable.}}
::One editor cannot unilaterally label a source unreliable, especially when three other editors besides myself have come to the same conclusion that it is reliable. If you still fail to understand that, there may be other issues at play here. ] ] 02:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Comment for {{u|Jarek19800}}: A slight add-on to what The Kip noted. Misplaced Pages is based on ]. You may want to check out that part of Misplaced Pages policy. Everything on Misplaced Pages is build by a community consensus between editors. No matter what happens, ]. A key thing here is ], but rather building and making a consensus, not based on the number of "votes" (commonly known as ]), but rather based on the merits of their discussion.
:::This does not apply to this situation directly, but I wanted to point out the main theme of Misplaced Pages is ]. Everything on Misplaced Pages has to be verifiable by a secondary source. If you believe or know something to be true, but don't have a secondary source for it, it means nothing on Misplaced Pages. Again, not directly related to this situation, but a while ago, there was a confirmed instance of that ideology (based on community consensus) and I wrote up a short essay on it {]}. In that instance, a primary source confirmed new information after secondary sources had published the then-outdated information. After a long discussion occurred, it was found that Misplaced Pages needs to abide by the secondary sources and technically published a factually inaccurate table that was verifiable. I don't know if that was helpful or not, but hopefully it was. '''The ]''' (] 03:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::I fully understand the concept of verifiability. if I say about truth I exactly have this meaning. mu beliefs are not important at all. I exactly gave min 2 undisputable examples that oko press itself directly writes" I am a liar, i was established to manipulate with fake news" It is a fact. no-one questioned that my links are unreal. It should give immediate effect of giving such verdict ( to get consensus). if my links are not true as experienced editors you should easily prove it. if verification is real than you should agree on consensus even if it is against your feelings. it is the logic you were kind to present which i fully agree. ] (]) 00:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|WeatherWriter}}, I feel as though ] may be taking effect here. ] ] 01:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::In discussion I found that you seem to put a big importance to examples of fake news as a proof of unreliability of the source. I was reluctant to this idea because I was afraid it will be hard to find facts given by mainstream media. Oko press is rather niche media in Poland and due to media monopoly mentioned by me earlier ,it rather favorized by other media platforms. Fortunately I quickly found some sound proofs as below. Good to notice that mainstream media like rmf,wp, rp.pl,money.pl confirmed lack of reliability of oko press. In min.one case court confirmed it. There is also interesting info on special treatment of negative comments by oko press (www.donald.pl)
::::::https://www.tysol.pl/a74121-polacy-przepedzaja-kurdow-przez-rzeke-a-na-zdjeciu-litewski-slup-graniczny-fejk-dziennikarza-oko-press#.YYT_XnMK4hw.twitter
::::::https://www.rp.pl/polityka/art1316381-godek-wygralam-w-trybie-wyborczym-z-oko-press
::::::https://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/informacje/aktualnosci/pellet-z-lasow-panstwowych
::::::https://wykop.pl/link/5605383/obnazamy-fakenewsa-klamczuszki-z-oko-press
::::::https://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/polska/news-oko-press-klamstwo-i-manipulacja,nId,7122926#crp_state=1
::::::https://kresy.pl/wydarzenia/misiewicz-chcial-pozbawic-gen-skrzypczaka-stopnia-mon-dementuje-to-fejk/
::::::https://www.gov.pl/web/udsc/oswiadczenie-ws-artykulu-portalu-okopress
::::::https://www.donald.pl/artykuly/VZQaxXC6/to-tylko-teoria-zarzuca-okopress-lamanie-etyki-dziennikarskiej-i-kasowanie-komentarzy-pod-artykulem
::::::https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/tylko-w-wp-trzy-falszywe-historie-wiceministra-patryk-jaki-odpiera-zarzuty-oko-press-skandal-absurd-kuriozum-6086449113904257a
::::::https://www.money.pl/gospodarka/wiadomosci/artykul/sebastian-lukaszewicz-oko-press,152,0,2245272.html
::::::https://www.press.pl/tresc/60211,oko_press-przeprosilo-konrada-wojciechowskiego_-_fakt_-prosi-o-wyjasnienia Jarek19800 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 20:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


I can’t find evidence it’s been published. ] ] 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==
At ], the opening sentence of the lead is:


:I'm not up for reading it right now, but it's been published, and the correct citation is: Zannettou, S., Finkelstein, J., Bradlyn, B., & Blackburn, J. (2020, May). A quantitative approach to understanding online antisemitism. In ''Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Web and Social Media'' (Vol. 14, pp. 786-797). Google Scholar shows where it can be accessed. If it's kept, the references to it in the Notes section should change "Savvas" to something like "Zannettou et al." ] (]) 21:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
The '''weaponization of antisemitism''', also described as the '''instrumentalization of antisemitism''', is the making of false charges of ] for political purposes.<ref>{{cite book |last=Consonni |first=Manuela |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4GquEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA170 |title=The Routledge Handbook of Judaism in the 21st Century |date=1 March 2023 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=9781000850321 |editor=Keren Eva Fraiman, Dean Phillip Bell |pages=170 |chapter=Memory, Memorialization, and the Shoah After 'the End of History' |quote=In 2013, the Committee on Antisemitism addressing the troubling resurgence of antisemitism and Holocaust denial produced two important political achievements: the "Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion"...and the "Working Definition of Antisemitism"....The last motion raised much criticism by some scholars as too broad in its conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. The exploitation, the instrumentalization, the weaponization of antisemitism, a concomitant of its de-historicization and de-textualization, became a metonymy for speaking of the Jewish genocide and of anti-Zionism in a way that confined its history to the court's benches and research library and its memory to a reconstruction based mostly on criteria of memorial legitimacy for and against designated social groups.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=H77dDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT29 |title=Enforcing Silence: Academic Freedom, Palestine and the Criticism of Israel |date=15 May 2020 |publisher=] |isbn=978-1-78699-653-4 |editor=David Landy, ], Conor McCarthy |quote=The weaponizing of antisemitism against US critics of Israel was evidenced in 2019 when Floida's upper legislative chamber unanimously passed a bill that classifies certain criticism of Israel as antisemitic}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=15 February 2024 |title=The Interview :We need an ethics of comparison |url=https://www.medico.de/en/we-need-an-ethics-of-comparison-19392 |website=] |quote= "I do not doubt that antisemitism exists across German society, including among Muslims, but the politicization of the definition of antisemitism—for example, the way that the IHRA definition is used to stifle criticism of Israeli policies—makes it very difficult to reach consensus on what is and what is not antisemitic."&"The far-right instrumentalization of antisemitism and solidarity with Israel is one of the most disturbing developments of recent years."].}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Roth-Rowland |first=Natasha |date=July 28, 2020 |title=False charges of antisemitism are the vanguard of cancel culture |url=https://www.972mag.com/weaponization-antisemitism-cancel-culture/ |website=] |quote=Increasingly, however, those canards coexist with right-wing actors — above all those in power — increasingly labeling Jews as perpetual victims who must be protected, even as these same actors invoke well-worn antisemitic tropes elsewhere. By and large, these charges of antisemitism — especially as they relate to Israel — are made in order to gain political currency, even if the controversy at hand has no bearing on actual threats to Jews. Using the antisemitism label so vaguely and liberally not only stunts free speech, but also makes actual threats to Jewish people harder to identify and combat. This weaponizing of antisemitism is not only "cancelling" Palestinian rights advocates and failing to make Jews any safer; it's also using Jews to cancel others.}}</ref>
::I should add that the Zannettou et al. citations that currently exist in the article are preprints, which generally are not RSs, per ]. The other citation was also subsequently in conference proceedings. Conference proceedings might or might not be reliable sources for specific content, depends on the conference and the content. ] (]) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's important to keep in mind that ''most'' of the preprints people link to as sources were eventually published; we just link to the preprints as courtesy links because they're usually what's available. PREPRINT even mentions this. --] (]) 15:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, but in that case, you still need the correct citation for wherever it eventually appeared, and if there's a link to that final version in full, then you should link to the full final version rather than a preprint draft. In this particular case, the citations themselves were not for the final version, and the final versions are both available in full elsewhere. ] (]) 15:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:What's the context for this question? Where is it being cited/do you want to be able to cite it? ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. ] ] 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Sorry; that's my bad. I was running on low sleep and shouldn't have been on Misplaced Pages, and I read your prose where you don't include a link but glazed past the header text where you did include a link. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:See https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7343/7197 ] (]) 15:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Apologies, I missed another one, also apparently never published."Zannettou, Savvas, Tristan Caulfield, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Michael Sirivianos, Gianluca Stringhini, and Guillermo Suarez-Tangil. "On the Origins of Memes by Fringe Web Communities." arXiv.org, September 22, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12512." ] ] 08:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


:I provided a link to the published version of that one in my second comment above. The citation is Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018, October). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. In ''Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018'' (pp. 188-202). There's an alternate citation at the top right of the copy where it says "ACM Reference Format." ] (]) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Is + 972Mag reliable in support of the sentence (cite 4)? The most recent substantive discussion of 972Mag was in 2015 . ] (]) 13:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::@] ACM is reputable, but I seem to have forgotten that we can use published conference papers, but not papers simply presented at a conference. Sorry. ] ] 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are ] in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. ] (]) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I mean when is a paper submitted to a conference run by a reliable organisation an RS? When submitted? If published as part of the publication of the conference papers? ] ] 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::A paper that's been submitted to a conference should be treated like a preprint. A paper that appears in conference proceedings is more likely to be an RS, but that will depend on whether the conference is one that reviews all papers in a way that's similar to peer-reviewed journals, and — as always — on the WP content that it's being used as a source for (a paper can be an RS for some content and not for other content). Assuming that the papers do substantiate the WP text, I'm guessing that they're RSs (Google Scholar indicates that they've been cited over 200 times). ] (]) 16:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It is published, Conference proceedings of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 14. AAAI has been around since 1979 with respected associations. Submission to a conference is not sufficient to meet any standards. Acceptance by a reputable conference after peer review (some conference talks are invited and not peer reviewed) is a good indicator of reliability though not a guarantee (the conference paper may well be revised between acceptance and publication in a proceedings and even then might in the long run not be considered reliable). As it stands, I would say reliable for the use of Happy Merchant online unless other sources can be found undermining its reliability. ] (]) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I would consider a paper published in the proceedings of a respected conference a reasonably reliable source. If it was contradicted by peer-reviewed research or, even better, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of available literature I would give it a bit less due than those sources. But I'd say that yes, at its base, this looks reliable. ] (]) 16:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Thanks all. I'm really cross with myself for not checking on Google Scholar - ironically I've just done that with another paper. I would have saved you all a lot of time if I had done that. ] ] 18:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
:If this was an RfC, 972 would be a 2 (probably). They have a significant left-wing bias and can be rather ‚anti-Israel‘, so I would recommend all the grains of salt and clearly attribute opinions, specifically on Judaism, Israel (and Israeli orgs) and Antisemitism.
<!-- ] 19:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1751745462}}
:That being said, they do decent reporting, including investigative, and do provide value, so many uses are acceptable. ] (]) 14:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Should we be using articles from the Hawar News Agency, especially in relation to the (geo)political side of Rojava? This also includes articles in the scope of the Syrian civil war. It has ties to the SDF, which means there is a significant conflict of interest here; <s>I should also add that the YPG/YPD/SDF , which raises concern over its reliability.</s> I want to get community consensus before I do anything, especially because the article in question (]) is related to a CTOP. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Regarding this specific use case, I would probably refrain from using them, as they have some rather niche/fringe views, particularly in regards to the IHRA definition. ] (]) 14:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:(Copying this response from the talk page of the ]:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It ''shouldn't'' be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in ''The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics'', ''The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts'', ''Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State'', and ''Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria''.<br>(The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as ‎ Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). ] (]) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::The source is not being used in reference to IHRA and the cited quote does not mention IHRA either. ] (]) 14:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:Having read through the article you linked it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be: <br>{{tq|"In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."}}<br>As well as:<br>{{tq|"Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."}}<br>So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).<br>Hawar News Agency has some ] and would probably be covered by ]. Issues of bias (]) and opinion (]) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|Discussion has gone far off topic, focus on the source itself. ] ] 05:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)}}
:Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. ] (]) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, but a disagreement with the most main-stream definition of antisemitism is less than ideal when discussing if antisemitism is weaponised; in addition, there are actual cases where IHRA and other definitions are genuinely being weaponised, but I’m not confident that 972 could recognise them due to their own highly polarised views. ] (]) 14:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that ] the reliability of ''Hawar'', I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --] (]) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The IHRA is a political body, not an academic one. Calling its definition {{tq|the most main-stream definition of antisemitism}} absent peer-reviewed backing is misleading. Our article on its ] only uses the word "mainstream" in the following context: {{tq|mainstream academic and legal opinion was overwhelmingly critical of the IHRA definition}}. The source attached to that claim isn't ideal, but the overall content of the Criticism section is well-backed by peer-reviewed publications and is rather damning with respect to the IHRA definition. If anything, criticism of the IHRA definition is a sign of aligning with the dominant position in academic RS, not a sign of a marginal view. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:If we consider TRT sub-optimum in relation to Rojava and the Syrian war because of its affiliation to the Erdogan government (see above on this noticeboard), the same should apply to Hawar. It’s fine for reporting the statements by AANES/PYD/SDF or uncontentious facts, but it should always be attributed and triangulated for anything at all contentious. I’d rate it above Al-Masdar and below the SOHR for reporting facts about eg battles in the Syrian war, but like them is a weak source. ] (]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::IHRA is broadly adopted by around 30 countries and is (at least partially) used by major organisations and companies. While there are competing definitions, IHRA is what is most commonly used in practice (to the best of my knowledge). Additionally, that article has a wide range of issues, but that is a problem for another day. ] (]) 14:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Political decisions by political bodies are not scholarship and not what we base our articles on. ''']''' - 15:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} from the ]: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the '''SDF-linked''' Hawar news agency said...". 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::No, but political decisions are a strong indication for being „the most main-stream definition of antisemitism“, no? ] (]) 15:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::::That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::No, it's not. Political bodies frequently make statements because they think that the message will win them votes, not because they think it's true or best. As an example, some years ago, one of the politically minded health groups put out a definition of ] that included friends and family members. Why? It's popular with family members to say "When Grandma had cancer, we all had cancer together", and they wanted support from the voters whose loved ones had cancer. It wasn't because they thought that the cancer was spread across a whole family's worth of bodies. ] (]) 23:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::The difference between Hawar and TRT seems to be how they are treated by independent academics and subject experts; as far as I know, TRT has been repeatedly accused of spreading outright falsehoods (), whereas Hawar is seemingly deemed to be mostly reliable despite its connections to the PYD and SDF. ] (]) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Here is an RS claiming it to be the most wide-spread: https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-728773 ] (]) 15:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
* Being censored is a ] issue and a reason to use a source with caution (with attribution for anything remotely contentious), but it doesn't automatically render them completely unreliable. The big question is whether they're yielding to pressure to publish things that are actually inaccurate rather than just one-sided. If not, they can still be used with caution - we'd want to cite better sources when possible and avoid giving ] weight to a source with a clear bias, but there's some advantage to having sources that are close to conflicts. And a major problem with removing sources simply for being subject to censorship is that it could produce systematic bias by removing every source from a particular region; I'm not familiar with the Syrian press specifically, but in other regions with similar censorship, there's still a difference between sources that carefully report as much as they can get away with and as accurately as they can within the restrictions of government censors, and sources that full-throatedly broadcast misinformation to support the party line. --] (]) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The Jerusalem Post, a paper with a consistent partisan slant, is a considerably lower quality source than scholarship, especially for something that is not news. And it is reporting on its adoption by political bodies, not what scholarship has to say about it. ''']''' - 15:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I disagree on your assessment of JP, but that’s also simply not the question at hand. ] (]) 15:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The question at hand is if 972 is reliable for this material, and despite you not liking their views they are. ''']''' - 15:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The messages you are responding to are about a specific, only tangentially related claim about which definition is most main stream, which is IHRA. ] (]) 16:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Again, mainstream here does not mean adopted by political bodies, when academic sources are largely critical of something it is not "most mainstream". You can keep trying to make it so that your preferred views are the ones on which everything is judged, but that isnt how it works. ''']''' - 16:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Cambridge Dictionary disagrees with you ; while I believe that some of the other definitions definitely have merit, IHRA is simply the most broadly adopted one. ] (]) 16:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::The political bodies that have adopted that definition absolutely are not "most people", and there is no evidence that most people have accepted the IHRA definition. ''']''' - 16:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::So which definition do you think has broader or comparable acceptance? ] (]) 16:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Let's stay on topic @], @]. ] (]) 16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::If I had intended to say academic consensus, I would have gone with that, but I haven’t (for good reason, as there is no consensus for any version.) ] (]) 16:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Good thing this is an educational project. Where we care more about an academic viewpoint over a political one. Im going to stop on this completely pointless tangent youve taken us on, toodles. ''']''' - 16:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That's true, but I wouldn't use the word ''mainstream'' to describe ''academic consensus''. The ''mainstream'' belief is that ghosts exist. The academic consensus is that they don't. ] (]) 23:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::Here is a second (more left-wing) , which refers to IHRA as „A leading definition of antisemitism“ (in the headline and critically). ] (]) 16:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::] and "a leading" is not "the most mainstream". This isnt ]. ''']''' - 16:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Nobody is forcing you to engage with my response to another users comment. I’m just giving them the opportunity to engage with their criticism of my point, and responding to them and not you to allow you to ''stop on this completely pointless tangent youve taken us on, toodles.'' ] (]) 16:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::This does appear to be a diversion from the topic at hand, so enough already. ] (]) 16:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:Solid source, attribution at most. ''']''' - 14:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*A good source, a fair amount of ] without qualification in peer-reviewed literature: , , (this was just the first page of Scholar results for {{tq|"972 mag" -972mag.org}}, and ignoring a few MA theses that also popped up). <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Use by others is a good way to measure reliability. Seeing these citations in peer-reviewed academic periodicals, I'm optimistic about this magazine's reliability. At this time, I support a ] assessment. ] (]) 18:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*No. 972's anti-Israel slant means it should be avoided in statements of fact regarding Israel, Palestine, Judaism, and antisemitism. Better sources should be used. ] (]) 19:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
{{hat|Personal beef. ] (]) 03:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)}}
*:That is precisely the opposite of what our policies say, and even if it were true that this Israeli publication that predominately publishes the work of Jewish Israeli journalists were "anti-Israel", you dont get to say that only Zionist sources are allowed here. ''']''' - 19:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Nableezy, I never said that. Dial back please. ] (]) 20:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::You said that because of a supposed anti-Israel slant it should not be used in these topics. That is, again, precisely the opposite of what our policies say, and even if it were true that this Israeli publication that predominately publishes the work of Jewish Israeli journalists were "anti-Israel". And, again, you dont get to demand that only "pro-Israel" sources be used. NPOV does not mean censoring viewpoints one does not like, and reliability has nothing to do with bias. Even if the completely unsupported notion that this source is biased was true. ''']''' - 20:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{tqb|text=You dont get to demand that only "pro-Israel" sources be used}}I never said this. ] (]) 20:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Yes, you just said the obverse, that supposed "anti-Israel" sources may not be used. ''']''' - 20:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I'll let the remaining misunderstanding sit, since it looks like you're done accusing me of "demanding" that "only Zionist sources are allowed here". {{pb}}To any editors reading this thread who would like some clarity on my view: I think +972 has an anti-Israel bias, and an opinion editorial published by the magazine should not be used as a source to define a concept pertaining to antisemitism. Notable views expressed in said source can be included in the article, if attributed. ] (]) 20:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::::: is not an "opinion editorial", it is by , somebody who has written at , , , , , , and I can keep going. 972 is a professional news and analysis site run by professional journalists and editors, and no it does not have "an anti-Israel bias", an assertion made with 0 supporting evidence. ''']''' - 20:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::The piece's authorship has no bearing on whether or not it is an op-ed. You should go hassle FortunateSons for asserting exactly what I said without links to back his view up. Or you could AGF, explain your view, and ask for substantiation of views that aren't yours. I'm out of patience for your weird, unprovoked aggression, though. ] (]) 20:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Responding to bogus assertions made without evidence and showing they are bogus and lack evidence is not {{tq|weird, unprovoked aggression}}, and claiming bias has anything to do with reliability shows a failure to understand ] at its most basic level. ''']''' - 21:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::You didn’t show anything to be bogus. You pointed out that I hadn’t backed up my evaluation of the source. A source’s bias does pertain to how it ought to be used. But if you so strongly disagree, you’re sure of your interpretation of my comments, and you have competence concerns, go ahead and raise them. ] (]) 21:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Let's stay on topic @], @]. - ] (]) 22:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*:::I will grant to nableezy that even if saying that a periodical being critical of the state of Israel means it {{tq|should be avoided in statements of fact regarding Israel, Palestine, Judaism, and antisemitism}} isn't the exact same as saying {{tq|only Zionist sources are allowed}}, it's very close to saying that. If editors avoid sources that criticize the state of Israel, doesn't that end up with the remaining 'usable' sources being those which are not critical of the state of Israel—those which either implicitly are uncritical of or which explicitly favor elements of Zionism. ] (]) 21:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::Clarified above: "I think +972 has an anti-Israel bias, and an opinion editorial published by the magazine should not be used as a source to define a concept pertaining to antisemitism. Notable views expressed in said source can be included in the article, if attributed."{{pb}}I also didn't say "sources that criticize the state of Israel"—that's every good source—I said that +972 has an anti-Israel ''bias''. ] (]) 21:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*:@Zanahary - Could you please briefly and concisely explain why you've stated that 972 has an anti-Israel slant or bias that affects its reliability? ] (]) 22:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*::The site's short "About" section says that it specifically "spotlights the people and communities working to oppose occupation and apartheid", which are charges pertinent to Israel and shows that it is openly a source with an agenda to criticize particular aspects of Israel's policies (as opposed to thorough coverage of the Israel-Palestine region, with no stated aim to "spotlight" any one opposition cause). In 2021, the outlet published criticizing the labeling of Hamas as a terrorist group. I don't even think 972 would deny that they have a bias, considering their stated advocacy aims in their mission statement. Thus, I think that statements of fact in this article should be sourced to better outlets (and also, not to opinion pieces like this one in question). ] (]) 22:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::These supposed biases you've pointed out here (is "opposing occupation and apartheid" anti-Israel bias?) have no bearing whatsoever on the factual reliability of the publication. ] (]) 23:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::As I've stated several times, my comment pertains to the use of a 972 opinion piece as a source for a statement of facts/the definition of a term or concept. I've explained my position on that matter clearly. ] (]) 23:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::It sounds to me like you have conflated "Israel itself" with "a set of policies", as if anyone opposing the current policies is automatically opposing the country itself. However, perhaps they see their view as so pro-Israel that they want their country to be free of apartheid and occupation.
*:::Imagine someone saying that a source is "opposing racism" and that means they have "an anti-American bias", because there is so much racism in America's history and societal structure. Another person would say "Of course they oppose racism. Americans believe that ]. Opposing racism is a pro-American position." ] (]) 00:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::I don’t think that analogy applies here. It’s more like if an outlet that only writes about Israel and Palestine said that they’re committed to opposing a culture of martyrdom and religious repression of women’s rights. It’s not ambiguous which of the two nations they make it their mission to criticize. ] (]) 00:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::::WhatamIdoing's comment demonstrates that "opposing occupation and apartheid" can be labelled as either anti-Israel or pro-Israel depending on who is doing the labelling. It's not a useful way to talk about sources in the context of reliability. ] (]) 07:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::::And I think it would be clear that an opinion piece published by that outlet would not be an appropriate source to define and establish a phenomenon of bad-faith rhetorical charges of Islamophobia or racism or anything similar. ] (]) 00:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::::There is nothing in the piece to indicate it is opinion. ''']''' - 00:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Anyone curious to see if this is an opinion piece or a piece of news should go ahead and read it. ] (]) 01:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::It's analysis (not opinion) by a resident editor, so higher than news. ] (]) 07:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
* The first sentence of the article gives the meaning of the title phrase as a way of defining the article topic. The question of source bias would matter if there was any other definition of "weaponization of antisemitism" out there, in which case we would need to present the alternatives or change the title. But there isn't. Even if the consensus was that this phenomenon doesn't exist, it wouldn't make a difference as we have plenty of articles on non-existent phenomena. Here we have an article on the topic that usefully provides the definition. Some of the article consists of opinion ''about'' the phenomenon, and we can consider whether those opinions should be attributed if they are cited in the article body. But for the definition itself, which is all that the lead sentence requires, it is a perfectly fine source. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
* Bias of the magazine aside, while the piece reads a bit like an op-ed I don’t see why it’s unusable as a source here. Would probably shy away from its reporting on the conflict, though. ] ] 05:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
* 972 is mostly opinions and carries the voices of the Israeli extreme left. It is a very small website, with little editorial oversight, and doesn't have a favourable reputation. Occasionally it hosts experts who belong to the same extreme left groups who post worthy content that is quoted by others, but other than that it is mostly garbage. ] (]) 08:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*:"Mostly garbage"? Really?
*:Also can I ask how you came upon this discussion?
*:- ] (]) 08:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*: Actually it is not small and has a large editorial board of experienced journalists. It has a bad reputation among the extreme right, but so do most reliable sources. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*:A range of sources are actually needed for balance, so if you're saying that it represents a portion of Israeli society that is otherwise marginalised, that's a great thing and a point in its favour. Not sure what "extreme left" means, but I assume it isn't militant communist. If we are talking Israeli politics, and we just mean to the extreme left of the extreme right, well then that just gets you back to the center, so presumably they're just ordinary chaps that oppose occupation, apartheid, genocide etc., i.e. normal positions that anyone from anywhere on the political spectrum in most countries would get behind. ] (]) 14:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*Misplaced Pages's article ] in the section on Reception has "The same year, Israel's right-wing NGO Monitor accused +972 of being antisemitic for applying the apartheid analogy regarding Israel's treatment of Palestinians", which I think is a pretty straightforward example of what weaponizing antisemitism as described in the magazine's article is about! The author is well respected journalist and can be considered an expert in the field. I can see no problem with use for the definition though other parts of the article would need attribution. ] (]) 11:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*::For interest, that was added by an NGO Monitor employee , and given that 21% of the edits to that page are by dishonest people that are now blocked for abuse of multiple accounts, ban evasion etc. the article may not exactly be a high quality source. ] (]) 13:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::I wasn't agreeing with NGO Monitor! Perhaps they have also been at ] which seems to be used quite often against Jews who criticize an action of the Israeli gvernment - but that isn't mentioned in the lead. ] (]) 13:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
* The reliability is not the problem here. I'm 100% sure that no one's words have been misrepresented in the article. The relevant policy is ]: whether this particular view is sufficiently widespread to be mentioned in the first sentence of the article. ]<sub>]</sub> 14:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*:It's not clear that the views in source even factor into the page at this point. The source is simply used as one of four for a very generic, straightforward and common sense definition. ] (]) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*::The implicit POV is that this is a notable phenomenon. ] (]) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::Bring it to the NPOV noticeboard, this is RSN. ] (]) 17:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::The source's POV is pertinent to their reliability for specific subject areas. ] (]) 17:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Really not how NPOV works. ] (]) 19:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Can’t argue with that! ] (]) 19:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::After that is done, it can join the referral to NOR noticeboard , which also went nowhere. ] (]) 17:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*They're a solid outlet, and they've become surprisingly well-established when it comes to ]. I've seen them cited by French newspapers of record like Le Monde (mainstream) and Liberation (centre-left). And in The Guardian (which also publishes some of their reporters). Same with WaPo and NPR in the US. There was good praise in usually-conservative magazine Tablet , which covers all the key points we'd care about, from the previous professional journalistic experience of their contributors, to the quality of their journalism: {{tq|the magazine’s reported pieces—roughly half of its content—adhere to sound journalistic practices of news gathering and unbiased reporting}} (for the opinion pieces, go ahead and attribute them, as per usual). That TabletMag piece also includes an anecdote of +972 delivering an in-depth investigation that contradicted a report by a mainstream outlet, and +972's reporting then getting endorsed by the rest of Israeli media. But I'm just scratching the surface here. Become familiar with them and you'll see they provide a lot of substantive high-quality original reporting. Solidly <s>GUNREL</s> generally-reliable territory. ] (]) 21:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) <ins><small>edited 11:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)</small></ins>
*:You've said GUNREL but presumably meant GREL. ] (]) 21:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Right - tired. ] (]) 11:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*It's a very solid source in general imho, generally reliable. This particular use may be problematic and in fact the lead and article in question might be problematic, for NPOV/OR reasons. Essentially, in this instance it's an opinion piece in a reliable source being used as a primary source for the existence of an opinion, in an article about an opinion, which suggests to me the article is never going to be a good article. ] (]) 04:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*:I think if the article were rewritten to emphasize the best source of Waxman et al rather than a scan of opinion pieces for a common charge, it would be much improved. ] (]) 12:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*::What has that to do with the topic here? ] (]) 12:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{tqb|This particular use may be problematic and in fact the lead and article in question might be problematic, for NPOV/OR reasons.}}
*:::responding to this. ] (]) 15:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::Both at the wrong board, then. ] (]) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Good source, serious reporting and referenced in many other works by Reliable Sources (as enumerated above). <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 21:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
{{reftalk}}


== RfC: LionhearTV ==
== Books by ] ==
{{Moved discussion from|Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources#RfC: LionhearTV|2= Royiswariii, 19 January 2025 00:55 (UTC)}}<!-- ] 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740135721}}


I want your comments about the reliability of LionhearTV, I can't determine whether it is reliable or not, on ], the Lionheartv is in the unreliable section, but, despite of that some editors still using this source in all Philippine Articles. So let's make a vote:
Norman Finklestein is a political scientist and activist. He writes on the ] and the ]. He has written a few books on the latter, and I wanted to know if they were reliable for verifying general statements in related articles due to their contentious and controversial nature. <br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Thanks,<span id="Davest3r08:1710113680142:WikipediaFTTCLNReliable_sources/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>(])</sup> 23:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)</span>
*'''Caution''' While originally an academic, he has not held any academic position for decades (as far as I know) and he is indeed controversial. That doesn't mean he can't be right on fact, but probably wiser to have other sources to back it up. I wouldn't rely only on him, especially not for any contentious claim. ] (]) 23:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*:While I would agree that relying on him alone could be problematic, and I am in disagreement with a number of his views, the claim that {{tq|he has not held any academic position for decades}} is incorrect even according to our own article on him. He left DePaul in 2007, and also taught in Turkey in 2014-15, I assume as a visiting lecturer. Cheers. ] (]) 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:It's hard to give a more specific answer without more specific information. He has written a number of works, and the fitness for citation may depend on which and in what context. For instance, some of his books were published with academic presses,, and university-press published books are usually the gold standards of reliability (though we continue to use a ] and don't necessarily adopt the tone of the author, who in this case is known for a bold tone). That said, book reviews can provide additional information and may provide reasons for additional considerations, though be careful to comb thoroughly. A sample size of just one or two reviews (either negative or positive) may not capture the broad reception of books that have stirred as much attention as some of Finklestein's.
:Being a published subject matter expert in general does lead us as Wikipedians to think other sources written by such an author are reliable, but at the same time, there is probably some wisdom in caution. The subject you are interested in citing his corpus for is designated a contentious topic, and Finkelstein has been considered a contentious man. In general, where academic scholarship is available, we'd do well to favor such over other sources, even ones written by academics (blog posts, to give a random example). ] (]) 03:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::I’m not sure why you think we should favor one side of a debate - talking about his older books here. ] ] 19:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:Biased perhaps but a perfectly respectable source, books such as ] and ] are top drawer sources. That Israel and its supporters do not approve of him is immaterial. If some view is particularly contentious, it should be rather straightforward to back those up with secondary sources and if not then, attribute. ] (]) 11:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:'''Caution/questionable reliability/GUNREL''' when it comes to facts: he has been credibly accused of questionable/misleading citations by Morris and others, has a high degree of bias bordering on fringe views (regarding Hezbollah, Hebdo, the Holocaust, and others) and has been highly controversial as a person. Some of his older works are of decent quality and can be used very selectively, but I would avoid citing him on anything in regards to law or the military due to a repeated failure to understand the subject appropriately, seen well in his coverage of the flotilla incident. ] (]) 14:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:Highly reliable source, his works are published by respected academic presses, such as University of California Press, and in peer-reviewed journals. His latest work, ''Gaza: An Inquest in to its Martyrdom'', is from . People not liking Finkelstein's positions is not relevant to this, he is absolutely a subject matter expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his academic works are ]. The above comment is astounding in its attempt to dismiss one of the most cited scholars on the topic of Gaza because is is supposedly a "highly controversial person". Top tier source, and totally fine for usage here. If some source disagrees with him and it is of equal reliability then attribute the different views. ''']''' - 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:'''Extreme caution''' - I'd avoid using him for anything beyond actual opinion; he's a wildly controversial resource, hasn't held a , and has genuinely ] on a variety of topics, including Holocaust denial and discredited anti-Semite ] and support for the October 7 attacks. There's very little reason to use him when far superior and less inflammatory sources, without fringe baggage, are widely available. '''] ]''' 14:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::That is a straightforward BLP violation and if you do not substantiate the wildly inappropriate claim that the son of Holocaust survivors has denied it in any way I’ll be asking for a BLP and PIA ban in short order. ''']''' - 15:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::His stance that is absolutely, unequivocally fringe. That's what I'm referring to - well, that and supporting the "scholarship" of ], which is pretty uniformly regarded to be discredited. That your first thought was to threaten a noticeboard report is really unfortunate. '''] ]''' 15:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::Oh for Christ's sake. Like Chomsky, Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, whose whole life and scholarship reflects the impact of their witness, has no fear of fools, denialists. Their maniacal obsessions with apparently incongruent details in the Holocaust literature occasionally stimulates close re-examination of things by now taken for granted - not the holocaust in all of its overwhelming realities, but details in the narrative. Great scholars don't tremble and run. They chase down anomalies even among crank literature because their self-assurance about the general narrative will never be troubled by tidbits of discrepancy. That is not fringe. That is the pursuit of meticulousness, even when analysing motherlodes of bullshit (which is what Finkelstein in his analytical works on the endless misreportage of events in the I/P conflict, does professionally. Had you read that article carefully, you would have noted that its reasoning, far from being fringe, draws on the liberal tolerance of dissent, all the better to challenge it, espoused by ]. ] (]) 16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::::This question should not be posed. Finkelstein is an outstanding historian of the I/P conflict, and like everyone else writing academically about it, he has a decided point of view. The refusal to allow him tenure against the consensus of his colleagues, under external pressure, in no way disqualifies him as an historian or political scientist. The University of California published, after a decade of ostracism, his work, , and his earlier works were unconditionally supported by the founding father of Holocaust studies, ]. His citation index by peers shows the depth of the ] (]) 16:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::::His view is you don't win a debate by shutting down the opposition, you win by proving it wrong. That isnt fringe, and it has nothing to do with his academically published works. ''']''' - 04:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::It is absolutely fringe to suggest holocaust deniers should have any role in the education system whatsoever, let alone that holocaust denial should be taught in schools. And that's not the only thing he's fringe on - since being fired in the 2000s (he - as of 2016, he had been ), his work and viewpoints have become increasingly problematic. This includes, as I listed above, the strong defense of ] (an unrepentant Holocaust denier whose works have been generally regarded as discredited), the advocacy for teaching holocaust denial in schools, a staunch defense of antisemitic tropes (specifically, ) and more recently, the (). In other words: whatever credibility he had during his early academic career, it's been nearly two decades since he had a job in academia, and it really shows. '''] ]''' 13:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::Can't see anything there about his academically published works, see section title. ] (]) 13:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::He hasn't been in academia in nearly 20 years at this point. '''] ]''' 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That isn’t true and his last book, again published by University of California Press, is from 2021. ''']''' - 14:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::From the sourceI linked: That's from December 2023. So I suppose he has been in academia, insofar as being an adjunct professor qualifies. I think broadly, my point still stands though - there's a clear divide between Finklestein's work before and after his leave from academia. '''] ]''' 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::He was at ] 2014–15. And he still is considered an expert source by the well regarded academic presses that publish his work, as recently as a book from the ] in 2021. A scholar who is writing in the area of his expertise in works published by well regarded university presses is ], and no amount of whining about views you dont like changes that. ''']''' - 14:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::{{yo|Toa Nidhiki05}} You should strike the part where you say his views include Holocaust denial. That's a BLP violation because it's not true. He's the son of Holocaust survivors, he doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened. ] (]) 13:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I did not say his views include Holocaust denial. I said he has fringe views on Holocaust denial, specifically that he supports teaching it in schools, and has publicly defended ], a notorious Holocaust denier whose work has been discredited. I can clarify that specifically, but I have not accused him of being a Holocaust denier, and my wording was fairly careful, I think. '''] ]''' 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Ok I appreciate the clarification, thanks. FWIW, the way it was phrased, I read it as you saying that "Holocaust denial" was one of the fringe views on a variety of subjects that he held, not that he held fringe views ''about'' Holocaust denial, but I understand what you mean. I'm not sure his views are actually fringe (as opposed to a significant minority viewpoint), but I agree that's not a blpvio. ] (]) 21:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:'''Reliable'''. He's a ''major'' political scientist, his book '']'' has 900 Google Scholar cites , he has written other works that are also widely cited and well-reviewed, he is a bona fide scholar in the field. Being "controversial" does not make someone unreliable, and pretty much ''all'' high-profile scholars are controversial, like ], ], ], ], and ] come to mind. That doesn't mean we say things in Wikivoice ''just'' because Finkelstein wrote them, but Finkelstein's works are definitely ]. ] (]) 18:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::These 900 citations confirm that ''The Holocaust Industry'' was culturally important, but not that he is seen as serious from a scholarly point of view. I looked at one of t he first page hits at random (Byfield on conspiracy theories) and the reference to Finkelstein was about his work being used to legitimate antisemitism. ] (]) 04:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::900 citations doesn't mean it's the mainstream view, but it DOES mean that it's taken seriously. If it wasn't taken seriously, it wouldn't have been cited so many times! Even if all 900 citations are debunking Finkelstein (and of course they're not), it would still show he was taken seriously, seriously enough to be thoroughly debunked. Benny Morris is a direct parallel: widely cited, very often to be criticized, but still widely cited. ] (]) 04:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*Extreme caution: Extremely controversial and increasingly fringe. His early work is definitely noteworthy in relevant debates, but his views should always be attributed and his work in the last decade or two would rarely be noteworthy. For recent positions, use secondary sources to ascertain noteworthiness before using. ] (]) 04:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*:In what world is not a serious academic work that is noteworthy? That, from 2021, has . , from 2003, has 470 scholar citations. How does a scholar with these many scholarly works cited this often in other scholarly works add up to "secondary sources to ascertain noteworthiness before using"? He ''is'' the secondary source, and he is an expert one, and treated as an expert by both the well regarded academic presses that publish his work and by the scholars that cite it. All of the objections here are on the basis of not liking his views, and that is not, and has never been, an acceptable criteria for reliability. An academic expert writing in a book published by a well regarded university press is a reliable source by definition, and no amount of baseless personal opinion on {{tq|xtremely controversial and increasingly fringe}} trumps that. If somebody wants to challenge a scholar writing in peer reviewed journals and books published by the University of California Press they can try that, but they are arguing in direct opposition to what ] says. Which is rather surprising from you tbh. ''']''' - 04:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Bob. Finkelstein gets its in the neck from the left and the right. The left hate his polemic against ] and the BDS movement, the right, or rather, people who skimread only with eyes for possible political fallout for Israel, can't come up with any serious evidence outlining some putative failure on Finkelstein's part to observe the strictest criteria for closely documenting from the historical record. It all boils down to "instrumentalisation". Finkelstein, also as the son of Holocaust survivors, one of whom got a mere pittance from Jewish institutions lucratively sueing banks, argues that Holocaust discourse is 'instrumentalized'. ] and others ply the worry bead that Finkelstein's results might be "instrumentalized" by antisemites. So one gets the absurd situation that if one analyses the way the Holocaust discourse is being "instrumentalised" you get attacked for providing possible grounds for antisemites to "instrumentalize" your results. So it is no longer the merits or otherwise of a 'forensic' scholarly study of a phenomenon that receive attention, but the politics of the way that critical knowledge may be manipulated and abused. Of the handful of names who count in evaluating his book on ] what sticks out are the assessments by the former doyen of the discipline,] (Hilberg was a Republican-voting political conservative whose methodological and empirical integrity was underlined by the fact that he defended the views of an ex-Maoist like Finkelstein, whose scholarship was judged of a high order and whose 'controversial' results he deemed 'conservative') and by ], against their informed authority we then get a list of take-'em-or-leav'em newspaper opinionists like ], and some empty dismissive obiter dicta hearsay about ]. In the wiki list, the only serious scholar who challenges Finkelstein's work in terms of imputed flaws, is ]. Good, finally an evaluation that is not just shouting, but scholarly. Finkelstein duly replied, point by point. That is how serious scholarship works, beyond the breezy screedy argie-bargie of casual newspaper-type reviews which our page on the book selects, to give the impression he is 'controversial'. I don't get the impression here that many commenting editors are familiar with the field, let alone Finkelstein's work, as opposed with what can be googled up searching for polemical negativism about the man and his scholarship. He is a loner, deprived of an income for having written uncomfortable books on a topic where vast financial resources will guarantee one's career and professional security if one cautiously steps tippity-toe round the minefield of discourse on Israel , the Holocaust, where the only trump card invariably played is to accuse anyone diffident about the homely narrativization of the politics of an ethnic state and its 'normalcy' is 'antisemitism'. That is what your '''extreme caution''' really refers to in my view, extreme caution about allowing the factual record produced, for example, by Finkelstein in his recent Inquest into the Tragedy of Gaza', to get an airing. Very few reviews could elicit any notable distortion in his analysis of the '''facts''' laid out there. ] (]) 07:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Serious''' scholarship, a bit too strident for the taste of many but passes RS. Attribute opinions as always. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Reliable'''. Not just reliable, but he is among the best sources you can get on Israel/Palestine. His scholarship is based on detailed, painstaking research that few can match. BTW, I don't think he is attacking Wokeism, but rather the (obvious) sloppy reasoning that its activists sometimes use. --] (])
*''' Caution/Questionably reliable''' -- per FortunateSons and frankly per his own article's criticism section of him. At a bare minimum it would require attribution and probably should be avoided on contentious topics. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::That makes no sense. He is an acknowledged scholarly authority on, precisely, a 'contentious topic' .] (]) 17:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::People don’t like his views so they pretend that’s a basis for challenging his reliability. It isn’t and never has been. ''']''' - 17:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::::That's a very unfair characterization of people objecting to his use as a reliable source. How does that productively contribute to this discussion? '''] ]''' 18:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think it's a fair characterization when there are editors voting that Finkelstein is not reliable, not based on evidence of his unreliability, but on evidence that he holds controversial views. Has he ever made a factual claim that was debunked? Has his work ever had to be retracted? Is his work widely cited by other scholars? Etc., etc. The fact that he says, e.g., Israel is a Jewish supremacist state, or that there is a Holocaust industry exploiting the Holocaust, makes him controversial but not unreliable. ] (]) 18:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::Well obviously he's said things that are untrue - like, for example, that no people were raped on October 7, and that no children were taken hostage, or that David Irving - a notorious Holocaust denier and discredited academic - was an excellent historian. But these don't directly relate to his academic career, I'll admit. Here's a counter: has his work in the last two decades out of academia been deemed widely cited and reliable? Even he admitted in the interview I've posted several times that nobody cared about his 2019 book, which sold a few hundred copies. I don't have an issue with his early career, insomuch as his very public, non-academic descent into some very dark places in the last two decades. Simply put: there are dozens of credible historians who don't have the specific bias problems or extreme viewpoints Finklestein does, and would be far better served as reputable sources in his place. There may be circumstances where Finklestein's opinion is noteworthy, but that's as an opinion, not an objective source of fact. I think that's a fairly nuanced take. '''] ]''' 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I’ve posted the citations to his 2021 work published by University of California Press already. ''']''' - 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::And I'll say it again: if Finkelstein is unreliable because of the controversial views he holds, then Benny Morris must also be unreliable because of the controversial views he holds (like, "they should have finished the ethnic cleansing"). But of course that's not how WP:RS works. ] (]) 18:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::This is a discussion about Norman Finkelstein, not other people. I wouldn't be inclined to think anyone who supports ethnic cleansing should be regarded as a reliable source. '''] ]''' 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::(replying to both here) In both cases, you're judging a source's ''reliability'' based on the ''opinions'' the author holds. The idea that we shouldn't use a source because we disagree with the author's opinion is totally wrong, that's nothing but censorship. Finkelstein's comments about Oct. 7 have absolutely zero relevance to whether his works prior to then, e.g. 2000's ], are reliable or not.
:::::::"deemed widely cited and reliable" is such a nonsense phrase, Toa. You know damn well that ''nobody'' "deems" works to be "widely cited and reliable" ... well, except Misplaced Pages.
:::::::But yes, his works have been widely cited. I already linked to Holocaust Industry's 950 citations. His 2018 book ] has , not exactly overwhelming, but certainly enough to call it "widely cited" (in this field), and it's been favorably reviewed (see cites in the Misplaced Pages article).
:::::::More impressive is his 2005 book ], which has .
:::::::So, yeah, still a scholar, still widely cited, and his controversial opinions are not a reason to call him unreliable in the Misplaced Pages sense. ] (]) 18:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Relative to academic historians in the field, 59 citations doesn't actually seem like a lot. Your other example is from his academic time, which I'm not contesting. Aren't there other historians who have actually been in academia in the last two decades, without a track record of genuinely inflammatory remarks (again, the David Irving thing - I've not seen a response to this, at all, but defending his status as a historian is a very, very big red flag. He's widely and uniformly regarded not just as a Holocaust denier, but a fraud). I would say the same thing about a historian from the Israeli side with a similar record, too - there is no shortage of academic work on this matter. '''] ]''' 18:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Which books not reliable, according to you? ] (]) 18:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I would consider his post-academic body of work one that should be used with extreme caution. I believe I've said this multiple times now. '''] ]''' 18:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::So not this one? 2012: Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End, OR Books, New York (2012) ISBN 978-1-935928-77-5 which seems right on the money, at least going by the title.
:::::::::::Just to be clear, you assert that all of his published material since 2007? is unreliable? ] (]) 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::His 2018 Gaza book getting 59 cites is not a lot but it's not nothing, either. For comparison, ]'s 2017 book about Gaza has . ] (]) 06:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


==] and article by Wharton statistician==
What is the reliability of the aforementioned source? I find nothing in RSN, unless I'm not looking in the right place. I see nothing in Perennial Sources. The context is the possible inclusion of a mention of by in relevant articles on the Israel-Hamas conflict.

So I imagine there are two issues: Tablet's reliability and the author's. ] (]) 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:I think it's probably better to be specific about the content that would be supported by information in this article. Specificity seems to help at this noticeboard. One obvious reason for specificity is because the conflict has been going on for over 5 months now (since 7 October 2023) and the scope of the analysis covers a 2 week window . Helpfully, there are also the and investigations over more or less the same window. ] (]) 03:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:Not sure it's a reliability question, unless you believe that Tablet misrepresented his findings.
:I think the relevant policy here is ]. The weight that this analysis should be given in our articles should depend on how much weight this analysis is given by RS.
:The AP article mostly examines the procedures and doesn't perform statistical analysis. The Lancet article performs a statistical comparison of MoH and UNRWA data and finds "no evidence of inflated rates." The same DUE policy applies to those sources. ]<sub>]</sub> 10:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::I'd like to add that the concerns about the cherrypicked initial data are indeed worrying. I stand by my response above - that we need to follow RS which will evaluate this study - but personally I trust the article a bit less now. Hopefully it'll be clarified one way or another. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:Looking at the article and the author I would say it's a reasonable minority view. The source has the editorial oversight we expect from a reliable media site and the author certainly appears to have expert credentials. If this is the only source suggesting the MOH numbers may be misleading I would suggest giving it very little weight. However if other sources also claim the numbers are incorrect then I would be less inclined to leave this out. As a sticky RS question, yes, this looks to be reliable but that doesn't answer the question of weight. ] (]) 11:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::Several editors have said the report is fringe. The idea that Hamas might want to exaggerate the Gaza death toll in a war they started hardly seems fringe. . Treating the article as representing a minority view seems appropriate but out right dismissal as "fringe" is not appropriate in this case. ] (]) 11:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:::The claims that follow his analysis are
:::*The total civilian casualty count is likely to be extremely overstated.
:::*If Israel estimates even reasonably accurate, then the ratio of noncombatant casualties to combatants is remarkably low.
:::*this is a remarkable and successful effort to prevent unnecessary loss of life while fighting an implacable enemy that protects itself with civilians.
:::] (]) 12:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Bibi is once again going around questioning the figures and claiming that (no evidence for this, US says 6,000) are included in the figures (but they could as well be under the rubble and US says they are more likely an undercount). ] (]) 12:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::It's bizarre. It's literally impossible for that number to be included in the ministry count unless one is counting women and/or children as well. The US state department called an undercount likely. (If not already obvious.) ] (]) 13:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
{{tq|The context}} is actually here where the intent appears to be to cast doubt on what nearly all reliable sources are saying. Lancet is a scholarly source and peer reviewed info, unlike the other, which is not peer reviewed and in a somewhat dubious and certainly biased source. Also what info is going to be cited, is there any reason why such a minority view of one should be cited at all? ] (]) 11:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:We aren't censoring minority views. ] (]) 11:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::If they are undue and/or fringe, we are. ] (]) 11:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::That was a commentary on your "minority view" argument. Regarding "If they are undue and/or fringe", it's not proven. ] (]) 11:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::That nearly all reliable sources disagree is a good indication that it is undue. See (others elsewhere as well). ] (]) 11:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::What is undue? ] (]) 11:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::Per the above linked convo and what I have already said, {{tq|Recent article provides statistical analysis that calls into question the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry death tallies}}. ] (]) 11:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It's unclear what do you mean by "undue" and why should Tabletmag article be censored based on that. ] (]) 12:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::What is it you want to add to the article based on this source? ] (]) 12:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't feel like I'm gonna edit, but the article should not be censored because of some wrong argument. ] (]) 12:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:The professor produced a fringe study in 2011 debunking the hockey stick graph in climate change . And in 2020 argued , I can't say the argument there was bad just iffy. As well as , including all the bits in its examples about criticizing Israel being antisemitic. ] (]) 12:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::A fringe? ] (]) 12:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Yep fringe. See 'Guided by Mark DeLaquil, one of Simberg’s attorneys, Wyner suggested that Mann and his hockey stick co-authors could have “cherry pick” data and used misleading statistical techniques to produce their desired outcome. “My opinion is that methods were manipulated” to understate uncertainty in Mann’s results, Wyner said. I think his 'Occasionally drawing smiles and laughs with self-deprecating jokes, Wyner described scientists’ process of selecting data and choosing which statistical techniques to employ as a “walk through a valley of forked paths,” suggesting to the jury that researchers could, if they chose, select a path that would yield the results they were seeking' might describe himself as far as the article being discussed here is concerned as it is so bad. ] (]) 12:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Even from this journalist article it would be very far fetching to brand Wyner's work, cited by many, as "fringe". ] (]) 13:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::: gives the issue with the paper and some discussions and a rejoiner. My real reason for branding as fringe is that even with the various discussions in the journal which pointed out all sorts of problems with what they did he still had the gall to stand up in court and defend some climate change denier bloggers against Mann and said he had cherry-picked datas to support the hockey stick graph. ] (]) 13:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::Which article? ] (]) 13:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Fringe, highly unreliable.''' One of my professional hobbies is debunking of statistical BS. I'll only consider the first claim: that the number of daily deaths doesn't vary as widely as one would expect. His first bar chart shows a visually straight line (a standard trick, since plotting the individual days makes it look much more irregular and it strongly fails a statistical test for uniformity; I'll leave that aside as it isn't the main point.) Wyner says his data comes from ] and gives . Note how it is only for a short period. There was a truce immediately afterwards, which justifies the ending date, but the starting date of Oct 27 seems arbitrary, and my experience is that arbitrary choices in the data are the first place to look when fishing for problems.{{pb}}Turn to to see that the "total killed" numbers for the three previous days were much larger. To be explicit, including the three previous days would have changed the ] of the sample from 1785 to 25065, a factor of 14! Look after the truce to see even greater variation. Wyner not only fails to mention that the data as a whole shows a different picture, but misleadingly writes "there should be days with twice the average or more and others with half or less", when such days are indeed present. In summary, this claim of Wyner was manufactured by cherry-picking a fraction of the data. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
: ADDED: If you'd like to see what I meant about the trick of displaying cumulative data rather than the daily counts, see of ]. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Ah, so in fact exactly the same trick used to manipulate climate data to produce charts over short periods that seem to contradict the longer trend. ] (]) 13:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*:I suppose that the reason he started with October 26 (so that the first daily difference is October 27 vs October 26) because this is when the ].
*:Still, it's certainly concerning that he doesn't explain why he decided to analyse this period and why he hasn't looked at post-truce casualty trends. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Maybe, but given that he relies so much on the numbers of women and children killed and inferences based on those, it is a bit puzzling that the window starts on Oct. 26 rather than Oct. 20. It suggests that his sampling strategy was not based on data availability, even though more data should strengthen his case if he is on the right track. It's all a bit odd. But perhaps we are missing the point. Perhaps the purpose of the article is not to figure something out, but to provide some comfort to readers so that they don't have to think about all those dead people. That might explain why it's in the Tablet rather than a more technical publication. Anyway, that's enough pointless speculation from me for now. ] (]) 02:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*Zero nails it, and the Lancet is considerably more reliable than the Tablet, so it would have considerably more weight to it. ''']''' - 13:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:That's really bad, far worse than I thought! Perhaps the range was chosen by 'Salo Aizenberg who helped check and correct these numbers'! ] (]) 13:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:*It's not obvious why they picked the "From Oct. 26 until Nov. 10, 2023" window for analysis. Their statement "From Oct. 26 until Nov. 10, 2023, the Gaza Health Ministry released daily casualty figures that include both a total number and a specific number of women and children." is not wrong, but their source, the ochaopt daily reports with the ministry's numbers, started including the number of women and children killed from 20 Oct 2023 . Either way, no editors should be trying to support or undermine the MoH figures because that would be inconsistent with the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct. ] (]) 13:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::If I saw a source that genuinely did undermine them then I'd certainly look around for a reliable source for it! I don't see how it would undermine any code of conduct. But this was just straight propaganda. ] (]) 13:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::*I meant this. , specifically the part that prohibits "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view". In other words, willfully biased editing is not okay. ] (]) 14:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::You asked earlier ''I think it's probably better to be specific about the content that would be supported by information in this article.'' Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.
::As is evident from the comments here, as this is essentially a continuation of the Talk page discussion, there are editors in the Talk page of ] who want '''zero '''content from that article and '''zero '''content from Tablet. So it doesn't matter what "content" is involved. Editors want ''no'' content from the article. ] (]) 14:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Its cherry picked data, and the cherry picking has distorted the results so spectacularly I cant imagine a reason why somebody would pretend like it belongs. No, none of this should be included in an encyclopedia article, as it is both completely bogus and contradicted by considerably more reliable sources. But that is being based on the content, so please dont pretend like that it is about editors want '''zero''' content from Tablet. Though Tablet also isnt the best source either. ''']''' - 14:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::*Tablet is used extensively. It is presumably fine in many circumstances. I see 2917 links to Tablet, almost all in mainspace. ] (]) 14:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::*:"Others noted that AJS is simply keeping pace with evolving opinions of Tablet, and of its approach to presenting even anti-democratic and hyper-nationalist views as simply one side of an argument." https://jewishcurrents.org/ajs_tablet ] (]) 14:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::Maybe, but if you look through the titles of all the links used in Misplaced Pages there's some interesting stuff. An interview with Wallace Shawn. Who doesn't love Wallace Shawn? Articles about Ben Katchor, a unique genius, (I have everything he has ever drawn/written). Anyway, the set of articles is so diverse that general statements about the source are probably not very useful in practice. ] (]) 15:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I agree, there's lots of stuff Tablet would be a fine source for. This less so. ''']''' - 15:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I agree the context matters and in the current context, I am sceptical about the value of this source. ] (]) 15:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

*<s>NadVolum above provides reasonable evidence to doubt this statistician's reliability given past work on climate change in particular, while</s> Zero above provides compelling evidence that the study's conclusion is cherry-picked. ''']] (])''' 15:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tqb|text=NadVolum above provides reasonable evidence to doubt this statistician's reliability given past work on climate change in particular|by=Starship.paint|ts=15:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)|id=c-Starship.paint-20240311154900-Selfstudier-20240311110700}}No, they just claimed "fringe", turned out to be unproven. ] (]) 15:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::In 2011 it was well established. It was just about okay to say the evidence for the hockey stick was not good, people doing analysis and having it shot down doesn't automatically make them fringe. However he then went on to defend two climate change denial bloggers in a court case and alleged that Michael Manns statistics were cherry picked, see the National Enquirer case in ]. That definitely places hime on the climate change denial side. ] (]) 16:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::It's okay for researchers and their works to be correct or incorrect, or to be accepted now and be rejected later. ] (]) 16:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::Agree. It is not our job to act as "experts" and determine if Wharton professors have their heads screwed on right. There seems to be an urgent, almost frantic desire to exclude this expert's view from the article. I am glad to see that Tablet itself is accepted as an RS source. Now let's make a quantum leap and realize that a Wharton professor who dares to differ with the Hamas casualty counts is not some kind of insane jughead who is unworthy of being quoted. ] (]) 16:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::He's differing with the large number of sources that have said the counts are reliable. His view here is extreme minority and bordering on fringe, and his methods here are cherry picking to distort the data. ''']''' - 16:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Says who? Who calls him fringe? You? Other Misplaced Pages editors? What source says he is fringe? What source says he is some kind of whack job? ] (]) 16:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Sources dont need to call an extreme minority view an extreme minority view for it to be an extreme minority view. I dont believe I called him a whack job, so we can drop that strawman any time now. But he is presenting a view that other sources have debunked, and he is doing it with cherry picked data, ignoring data that blows his thesis up. As Zero wrote, he {{tq|misleadingly writes "there should be days with twice the average or more and others with half or less", when such days are indeed present.}} ''']''' - 16:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::'''Who''' says he used cherry-picked data? Some user named Zero? He is your source? Where did he publish that critique? ] (]) 16:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You and other editors have pointed out that Tablet is a reliable source that is frequently used as a source on Misplaced Pages. But this guy, who you don't like, should not be used, he is to be shunned, treated like a conspiracy theorist, why? Because of whom? Says who? Other than you, that is? ] (]) 16:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Seriously, you are arguing for the inclusion of material that is provably bullshit, and you are doing it without even attempting to refute that it is bullshit. ''']''' - 16:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I see. So a group of Misplaced Pages editors believe that a Wharton professor, published in a publication that they concede is used copiously in Misplaced Pages, should not be used because in ''their opinion'' he is "provably bullshit." Who is doing the proving? Who has criticized his work as "bullshit"? You say he differs from stuff in other publications like ''Lancet''. Have the authors of ''those'' articles criticized him? ] (]) 16:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Have you read any of the responses here? Ill re-post the proving it bullshit part for you:<blockquote>the first claim: that the number of daily deaths doesn't vary as widely as one would expect. His first bar chart shows a visually straight line (a standard trick, since plotting the individual days makes it look much more irregular and it strongly fails a statistical test for uniformity; I'll leave that aside as it isn't the main point.) Wyner says his data comes from ] and gives . Note how it is only for a short period. There was a truce immediately afterwards, which justifies the ending date, but the starting date of Oct 27 seems arbitrary, and my experience is that arbitrary choices in the data are the first place to look when fishing for problems<p>Turn to to see that the "total killed" numbers for the three previous days were much larger. To be explicit, including the three previous days would have changed the ] of the sample from 1785 to 25065, a factor of 14! Look after the truce to see even greater variation. Wyner not only fails to mention that the data as a whole shows a different picture, but misleadingly writes "there should be days with twice the average or more and others with half or less", when such days are indeed present. In summary, this claim of Wyner was manufactured by cherry-picking a fraction of the data.</blockquote>Now you dont even attempt to respond to the fact that what he says does not exist does in fact exist, or the fact that by selecting these specific dates he gives a distorted view of the complete dataset. You just keep saying Wharton. Whatever, you asked a question and its been answered, you want to keep arguing go right ahead. ''']''' - 16:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I am not interested in original research by Misplaced Pages editors. ] (]) 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thanks for demonstrating your inability to respond to math. ''']''' - 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Hold on. Am I mistaken? What reliable source published that? ] (]) 16:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The numbers are from OCHA, simple calculations are not OR. Showing a source is wrong on a talk page or noticeboard is also not OR. ''']''' - 16:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::] ] (]) 16:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::lol ''']''' - 16:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Because a pointed opinion piece in a non-scholarly publication masquerading as statistical analysis is not just any ordinary opinion or material. ] (]) 16:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::That you keep repeating phrases like ”Hamas casualty counts" (to refer to the Lancet-affirmed Gaza Health Ministry figures) does not really support the case that this discussion is truly about balance or encyclopedic value. ] (]) 16:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::I found another source analysing GHM numbers. Haven't had a good look at it yet. ] (]) 16:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Should probably look up WINEP before bringing an avowedly pro-Israel lobby organization as a source. ''']''' - 16:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::At least WINEP is an outside source.The sources I'm seeing cited to exclude this Wharton prof's work are a group of Misplaced Pages editors. ] (]) 16:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::A lobby with ties to the Israeli government is not an "outside source". You can keep up this charade but the source you want to use is cherrypicked bullshit that is directly contradicted by considerably more reliable sources. ''']''' - 16:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::You keep saying that the Wharton professor is "contradicted." Who found his work to be faulty? Again, please don't respond by saying "Editor X,. Y and Z have analyzed his work, and doggone it, they find it is no good." I am looking for reliable sources, not the original research of Misplaced Pages editors. ] (]) 16:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Since you refuse to read responses elsewhere, I guess Ill repeat it here. , , various have all agreed the MOH numbers are accurate. ''']''' - 16:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And their refutation of the Tablet article is where? ] (]) 16:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It is a refutation of the claim that the numbers are inaccurate. I think you know that, but whatever. ''']''' - 16:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::... and another - ''Mr Baker, who also reported from the Palestinian territories in 2006, said reports referring to “Palestinian officials” were “misleading”, because of Hamas’s grip over the health ministry.<br>“There was a time when the figures from the ministry could be relied upon. The doctors and administrators knew what they were doing.”<br>But following Hamas’s take-over, media organisations should be sure to refer to the health ministry as controlled by the terrorist group every time they mention its figures, he said.<br>European officials have also questioned the reliability of the figures published by the Hamas-controlled ministry.<br>One source told the Telegraph: “The numbers from Hamas cannot be trusted, although even one killed or injured child or innocent person is one too many.<br>“In the end it is not really about exact numbers but about the fact that undeniably innocent people are dying or being injured.”'' ] (]) 16:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Y'all should make up your minds, are they overcounting or undercounting? And why is no one talking about all the bodies under the rubble? ] (]) 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That is very old and has been discussed at length on the talk page. Israel has agreed the counts are roughly accurate, the US has since said they are likely an undercount. And a ton of sources have contradicted that claim by a former Reuters bureau chief. ''']''' - 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::This is to counter your "extreme minority" argument. ] (]) 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::That doesnt do that at all. , , various have all agreed the MOH numbers are accurate. This has gone way past RSNs purpose though, if there is a dispute on weight that should be held at NPOVN or the article talk page. We previously had an RFC on how to attribute these numbers, if somebody wants to challenge that they are welcome to open a new RFC. ''']''' - 16:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::What they have ''not'' done is contradicted the article in question. It is a differing viewpoint, and all I see here are editors who are ''extremely'' anxious for it not to be used in the article. Yes, they have performed original research. According to them, they are experts in the field. Hell, they know more about stats than this Wharton professor published in a reliable source. I can't believe I have to say it, but no, we do not use Misplaced Pages editors as reliable sources of such weight and eminence that they can simply wave off sources they don't want to be used by branding them as "fringe" and "bullshit." ] (]) 16:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::They have explicitly said that the numbers are accurate. OR is about article content, not about determining what sources are misrepresenting the underlying data. Which you, again, completely ignore. Yes, we most certainly can perform basic calculations to see that what you are pushing to include is a lie. He wrote ''there should be days with twice the average or more and others with half or less'', but there are indeed such days. The source you are pushing to use here is cherrypicking data to present a distorted summary of the dataset. I cannot believe I have to say it, but intentionally pushing in material that is provably false is not how an encyclopedia editor acts. ''']''' - 16:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::That's right. I am not interested in "statistical analysis" by anonymous Misplaced Pages editors. ] (]) 17:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You think it is "statistical analysis" to look at the OCHA data and see what this person said does not exist does indeed exist? Ok, thats cool for you I guess, but nobody else has to stick their heads in the sand as well. ''']''' - 17:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Like to raise an RfC to get other people on this noticeboard to agree with you then because I am definitely convinced by the evidence that the article is bullshit. And by the way as well as bodies under the rubble people writing about men missing should ask the Israelis exactly how many bodies of men they have taken back to Israel to stick in freezers or their cemeteries of numbers. We simply don't know how that affects the tallies of men killed. ] (]) 17:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Read ] – editors doing basic counting, which is all that is apparently required here to show that this article is bunk, is not "statistical analysis", or original research, or anything like that. It is what it is – just basic counting. And the follow through is just observing a naked contradiction. ] (]) 17:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::If the Tablet article is as terrible as is being claimed here with such fervor, then I imagine there must be quite a body of criticism out there to cite. If there isn't, please stop repetitively quoting yourselves. ] (]) 17:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::There is quite a body of contrary evidence out there. Although I still don't know what anyone is trying to cite this source for (a requirement, btw, for posting here) nor can I see anything anyone would want to cite this source for, either. ] (]) 17:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::*As numerous people have explained to you, the author is a ] figure in the field of statistics, and the methodology he is applying here is specifically the same fringe methodology he applied elsewhere. "You have to provide something to debunk this ''specific'' thing a fringe figure has said!" is a common argument in fringe topics and isn't any more convincing here than it is anywhere else - fringe figures often repeat the same junk science over and over and rarely get an individual rebuttal every time. This is the principle behind ], after all. So if you want to include it, you ought to be trying to demonstrate secondary ] coverage of it yourself - if your argument is that anything published in Tablet is automatically reliable and due, regardless of context, I'd have to disagree. Statistics is a rigorous scientific field and claims made in that context require ]; a cultural magazine isn't a good source for claims about statistical inferences (as can be seen from the fact that they credulously published this nonsense by a fringe figure.) Beyond that the general principle of ] applies - when you have exceptional claims that only appear in a single low-quality source, the conclusion isn't "nobody has debunked this, so it should be included", the conclusion is "given how shocking this is, the fact that it doesn't have higher-quality coverage means it's likely bunk and we can't include it." Given how shocking and ] his claims are, if they ''are'' accurate, he'll probably get them published in a peer-reviewed journal sometime soon, and they'll get proper coverage from higher-quality secondary sources that can analyze the context and tell us if he's actually got something right this time; once that higher-quality or secondary coverage appears we could always revisit the question. But this source alone isn't enough to use for anything. --] (]) 18:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::*:Thanks. Much appreciated. If I ever encounter an article by Michael E. Mann I'll keep that in mind. The article in question is by Abraham Wyner,Professor of Statistics and Data Science at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. ] (]) 18:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::*::Oh you deleted "Michael E. Mann." . How nice. Maybe you should have crossed it out. Anyway, I'm glad we cleared up that point. The article is not by Michael Mann but your opinion is the same. Gotcha. ] (]) 18:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::*:::It's generally considered perfectly fine to edit your comment including deleting stuff without strikthrough provided not much time has passed and no one had replied. Both of these applied here, and indeed the total time of under 4 minutes is likely on the low side for edits. It's unfortunate you happened to see the earlier version in the 4 minutes between initial posting and correction, but ultimately if you are hit with edit conflicts you need to either deal with them, or accept your comment might be outdated. And it makes sense that there was zero need for Aquillion to modify anything about their opinion since I think we can be sure they weren't meaning to refer to Michael E. Mann who is not a fringe figure. I don't know how that happened, but I guess either a brain fade when typing out the name, or maybe they initially referred to Abraham Wyner failed attempt to dispute Michael E. Mann's worked but then removed this and made a mistake when editing. If I say 'The history of the UK is full of terrible things. Look at their extreme institutionalisation of slavery to the extent that their constitution had a provision to count slaves as three-fifths of a person and ending it resulted in civil war. Look at how even after ending slavery they continued to treat people unequally based mostly on skin colour, including denying the vote and provisioning different facilities which were supposedly separate but equal, but were far from equal. Look at how they often meddle in other countries for their own benefit with great cost to these other countries' then later change that to the US, I don't need to reassess what I wrote since I was always thinking of the US as shown by most of what I said, the fact that the last part could also apply to the UK not withstanding. ] (]) 13:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Well I'd be very careful about doing anything like that in an article. But yes there is no reason for us to act stupid in a talk page. ] (]) 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Upon further review I'm going to be neutral on the climate change issue, so I have struck part of the comment above. ''']] (])''' 09:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

*All else aside, it's clearly an ] claim about statistical inference which isn't suitable to be cited to a single non-academic study by a fringe figure, published in a magazine with no background on the topic whatsoever. Not usable for anything and shouldn't be cited anywhere. --] (]) 18:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Director of Undergraduate Program in Statistics and Data Science at Wharton and he's a "fringe figure"? Someone better tell Wharton. ] (]) 19:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Why should they care? He hasn't made a major thing of it (if you disregard the $100,000 he got for that court case) and it is practically a requirement for Republicans. Besides he is tenured. ] (]) 20:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::*It is possible for someone to hold fringe views and still be a professor, especially if they're not actually teaching their fringe views in class. But either way, I feel like your question has been answered exhaustively by many people - that piece is simply not usable. As I said above, its claims are ] and the piece itself is a ] source for them; despite the shocking nature of his statistical claims, the author has so far declined to present them to peer-review or to otherwise publish them at a source actually qualified to evaluate them. If there's validity to them, and they're as significant as you seem to believe they are, they should eventually get substantial secondary coverage elsewhere, so you can just wait until that appears. But right now, one piece of junk data science inexplicably published in a culture magazine obviously isn't enough for something so shocking. Even if it were ''academically published'', which is is not, ] warns us to be cautious about single studies like this, which are often not borne out later on. --] (]) 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
* I agree with others here that the claim made in this article appears to be ] (in the sense that its claims are not widely supported by reliable sources). I hardly think a single story in a magazine passes ] that would warrant inclusion of a claim like this. ] (]) 22:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Very reliable and mainstream'''. Tablet is a reputable magazine, is tenured at an Ivy League university and his works are . An expert commenting on his own field, unlike editors here. ] (]) 07:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::How do you know what the qualifications of other editors are? Anyway one can apply the ] to the article, have a look for what Zero says above after 'Fringe, highly unreliable'. This noticboard is allowed to use some common sense in its assessments, in fact that's about its main purpose. ] (]) 09:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:::It looks like Wyner's also on contact with scrutiny and practical data issues. ] (]) 12:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::Tablet is definitely not mainstream either. ''']''' - 10:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:And we have WSJ article discussing and referring to Wyner's article: . ] (]) 12:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::An opinion on the opinion. ] (]) 13:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::Opinion piece with a clear position. Calls it "intriguing" :) Got that right. ] (]) 13:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::If there's one thing I don't trust about the WSJ, it is using their opinion articles for facts. ''']] (])''' 09:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

== Using ''Decider'' / Decider.com for interviews and reviews ==

I know '']'' is owned by the '']'', which is unreliable. The website also seems tabloid-y. However, I'm planning to use these two sources for my article: and . Both are authored by established journalists (the about pages for the authors on ''Decider'' sucks, but with a quick Google search you can see their portfolio). I just want to make sure before using these sources that they are okay. ] ] 01:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
: I've started a request for comment at ] to find an answer to this question. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 21:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

== Telegraph reliable for Israel-Palestine conflict? ==

I have been getting a lot of questionable articles from ] recommended in my MSN news feed. Stuff like this: and and and . There was even one that can be taken as a personal attack against Muslims . Obviously some are opinion but it is filed in "news". Full list of Israel articles from Telegraph for reference:

Since the Israel-Palestine conflict (and surrounding protests) is a contentious topic, I want to know if it is possible that Telegraph.co.uk is not reliable for this particular conflict area as of recent. If not, how an RfC could be built to properly assess the reliability for ARBPIA. ] ] 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

:"no go areas" is pure conspiracy nut rubbish, yes. Is anyone objecting to these clearly opinion articles being removed as opinion and not news? - ] (]) 23:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:It is an RS, with a reasonably well known bias, but that would not be enough to change its overall reliability rating. ] (]) 23:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:A brief look at the articles that aren’t clearly labeled opinion suggests there is no issue here; they are reporting on comments made by prominent politicians, not making the comments themselves.
:What issue do you see? What aspect do you think is unreliable? ] (]) 23:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:It's generally reliable like ] says. It says there it is biased for politics - it is right wing and they copy some strange American ideas, but I agree with the assessment there. ] (]) 23:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

:"They hurt someones feelings" is not a valid reason to challenge the reliability of a source. ] (]) 23:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
::Not sure that is relevant in this case. There isn't anything in the post about feelings. There is a potential reference to a value system in which an attack against a religious group in a source would be considered troubling. ] (]) 04:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::Obviously, but the issue once again is there isn't this good distinction between news and opinion. This is something I have seen at a similar level on ], ], etc.
::Like what is and with respect to ]? I think I am failing to see how non-neutral sources can be high quality sources on a ]. ] ] 13:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:::There is no such thing as a neutral source on a political issue. All sources have biases as they are written by people who have political viewpoints. If we exclude sources based on the fact they are biased, we would be left with very little. --] (]) 06:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:Two of those articles are comments i.e. option pieces. They are not suitable as sources unless you want to source the writer's personal views. ] (]) 12:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:Established RS with right-wing bias. The "comment" articles should be treated as opinion pieces not usable as sources for facts. The news articles reporting the views of politicians etc are reliable as sources and the fact that a mainstream RS is reporting the views of the politicians etc is a good indicator they might be due. ] (]) 04:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The Simcox "no-go areas" thing has been widely reported in other British media. While the phrase itself is clearly sourced to conspiracy theory nonsense, a charitable interpretation is that he is saying that some Jewish people feel scared to go near the protest marches. This is probably true, despite the presence of a large Jewish block on the demos. In any case, the article linked is accurately reporting Simcox's stated opinion and so doesn't really affect our assessment of the Telegraph's reliability.] (]) 06:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not a reliability issue. There is no doubt that Simcox did say it. The question is whether we should report it, so WP:DUE is the relevant policy. Since Simcox is not some random guy but the government's counter-extremism commissioner, his opinion is probably noteworthy. ]<sub>]</sub> 09:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Generally Unreliable''', another one of Murdoch's Australian tabloid's which should be avoided and definitely not be used for BLPs or other contentious topics (climate change, gensex, etc.). See ] where I collated some past discussion on one of Sydney's Daily Telegraph's sister newspapers. While the Daily Telegraphy is not quite as bad as Melbourne's Sun Herald it's not far off. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)</s>
**This section is about the UK Daily Telegraph, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ , which has been green-rated up to now for news - not the Australian Daily Telegraph - ] (]) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
**:My apologies, when I opened up the link to ] I must have been reading to fast. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

== Is donsmaps.com a reliable source for ]? ==

Source.
I'm also concerned that the 3rd source, goes to 3 papers none of them with that name. ] ] 16:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

:'''Unreliable'''. The states: {{xt|"I live in New South Wales, Australia, and I am a retired high school mathematics/science teacher. The Donsmaps site is totally independent of any other influence. I work on it for my own pleasure, and finance it myself."}} It's a neat site, but it is ] by a non-expert and not usable for factual claims in the ] article. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 09:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

==''The Athletic''==
'']'' ({{Duses|theathletic.com}}) is a sports website that has been cited nearly 6,000 times on Misplaced Pages, but I have yet to see it in the perennial sources list. Opening this discussion to seek consensus on the reliability of ''The Athletic''; I hold that it is generally reliable, but consideration should be made for opinion pieces, which is why I have taken this source to RSN.

A note that ''The Athletic'', though it is owned by The New York Times Company and replaced ''The New York Times''{{'}}s sports department last year, is not held to the same editorial standards as the ''Times''. ''The Athletic''{{'}}s editorial guidelines can be found . <span style="font-family: monospace;">] (he/him)</span> 17:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

===RFC: ''The Athletic''===
<!-- ] 20:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1713297678}}
{{Rfc|soc|rfcid=6991FE7}}
What is the reliability of ''The Athletic''?
* '''Option 1: ]''' * '''Option 1: ]'''
* '''Option 2: ]''' * '''Option 2: ]'''
* '''Option 3: ]''' * '''Option 3: ]'''
* '''Option 4: ]''' * '''Option 4: ]'''
<span style="font-family: monospace;">] (he/him)</span> 19:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


] ] 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
====Survey====
*'''Option 1'''. However, it has the caveat that its articles are often mixtures of opinion and fact, and care needs to be taken to distinguish between the two.] (]) 19:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. Owned by ], is consistently cited by other reliable sources in their own reports. See , and . ] (]) 20:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. Thoroughly reliable in its news coverage, and its writers distinguish between fact and opinion. ] ] 21:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*It's reliable but just to be clear, it won't be entering the RSP list if that's what you were implying/expecting, due to failure of ]. that this source has been perennially challenged, and being widely-used is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for list inclusion. ] (]) 23:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::According to the criteria you linked, an uninterrupted RFC is sufficient. <span style="font-family: monospace;">] (he/him)</span> 04:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::That seems like an interpretation of the criteria in a way that it was never meant to serve, and a misuse of the purpose of the RSP list. Where has the reliability of the source been legitimately challenged or questioned before? If everyone already agrees it's reliable and there has never been a reason to challenge it, we don't need an RSP entry to affirm that. Being omitted from the list doesn't make it any less reliable. We don't just add entries to the RSP list willy-nilly like this; it's already long enough as it is, and this sets a bad precedent. Please also see the explanations at ] and ], which refers to a similar type of source (widely-used sports journalism outlet that virtually everyone already agrees is reliable) for why this isn't RSP-worthy. ] (]) 05:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. ''The Athletic'' is what ''Sports Illustrated'' used to be. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 01:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' per all above. One of the better sports-journalism sites out there. ] ] 07:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. ''The Athletic'' is quite good, and has the sort of detailed sports reporting that is increasingly rarer. It is written with the tone and style of a magazine, so it can have some ''flavor'' and opinion to its writing, but I trust that Wikipedians will know when to not treat hyperbole, metaphor, or other forms of figurative language as if they were intended to be read literally, and won't treat statements of opinion as fact. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''', highly regarded sports journalism. It's not at all clear there's any serious dispute to address here - ] (]) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Reject RfC''' as unnecessary ] 21:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This should probably have been rejected as no reason was given as to why it should be unreliable. But anyway, '''Option 1'''; well-regarded online news source with some excellent journalists. ] 21:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


:'''Deprecate'''. The Philippines has plenty of ] to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. ] (]) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
== Is an adult industry site reliable for reporting on legal cases in their industry? ==
* '''Comment''': For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:
::LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as and .
::In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the , which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ] and ]. Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees.
::A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the ] talk page in September 2024 (see ]). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (]) and the ] (]). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about ], which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented, {{tq|It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.|quotes=yes}}
::At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as '''unreliable''' on ] as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN.
:<span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? ] (]) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It's immaterial on how we determine ]. What could be very important that other ] missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of ]. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. ] (]) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Option 3'''. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. ] (]) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)<br/>Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024)
::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)<br/>Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)
::These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:
::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)<br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024)
::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024) <br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)
::I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of ]. <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Option 3''' - As much as possible, LionhearTV and its sibling sites under the eMVP Digital should not be used as sources when more reliable outlets have coverage for a certain event, show, actor and so on. Even if a certain news item is exclusive to or first published in a eMVP Digital site, other journalists will eventually publish similar reports in their respective platforms (refer to some examples posted by AstrooKai). -] @ 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::What I fear in these kinds of low quality sources is that people will find something very specific about someone, e.g. "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group," and this low quality source is the only source that carried this fact, and since this it is not blacklisted, this does get in as a source, and most of the time, that's all that's needed. We don't need articles on showbiz personalities tracking their every movement as if it's important. Blacklist this. ] (]) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hat|Discussion about moving RFC to RSN}}
:::@], @], @], if you don't mind we can move this discussion to ] to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. ] ] 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::'''Support'''. ] (]) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::'''Support'''. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*'''Option 3'''It's a blog. That means ] applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for ] or under ] (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. ] (]) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is , and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. ] (]) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. ] (]) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 4''' Their reportings are obviously flawed and a per example above copypasting is a not a good look nor a good indication for "reliability" and it is often used in BLP, yikes. '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


== Hatebase.org ==
Looking for a possible carve out for the legal news section of Fleshbot.com to see if it can be used for the ] article mainly, but also if it can be used elsewhere.<br>
I had added that the case against one of the parties in a pending defamation suit was seemingly dropped due to a public apology issued by one of the parties in a tweet which was later removed, per the article cited.<br>
It was removed at ] with the summary of {{tq|
→‎Defamation lawsuit: This is a contentious issue. Fleshbot should not be used here. Further, better to describe why there is a lawsuit rather than quoting legalese}} (the other portion regarding legalese was directed at a previous edit by a different user)<br>
The original lawsuit was covered by Xbiz, which is considered a RS. However, they never updated the outcome of the lawsuit, and it seems the only source showing the published apology from one of the parties is a screenshot of said tweet on a Fleshbot article, which was removed and not archived elsewhere. Going by ], I feel like this is something readers to her article would have a reasonable interest in learning the outcome of, because it is unfortunately one of the things she has received coverage for. The only prior discussion regarding the site in question was , but it seemed more geared towards interviews and not using them because they have a financial interest in selling dvds. It was noted in that discussion that if that was overlooked, they could be used for basic non contentious claims. I believe ] would factor in to if this could be used or not in this instance, since I see nothing that can be gained from a third party reporting on a apology or a tweet in a lawsuit for which they were not involved in.
<br>
If we are considering allowing the legal section in as a whole, or judging the reliability on a case by case basis, the relevant link to the archives is


] (]) 18:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Is a reliable source? ] (]) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 18:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


: My first question would be whether the records of the Los Angeles Superior Court reflect such a change in the suit. ] ] 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC) :Is there an ] for this? And/Or some context for the use case? ] (]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::I have checked and I can't find any previous discussion, hence why I opened this one. There is ] about the site. I intend to use it to expand list of slurs articles. ] (]) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::<small>I’m not making a statement on the source, as I’m not familiar with it .</small>Then this doesn’t require an RfC, just a normal source discussion, if you’re concerned about reliability. Do you mind removing the descriptor from the title? And best of luck! :) ] (]) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Okay, I just added it because I saw some of the other discussions had it. I am removing it from the title. ] (]) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::That happens, don’t worry about it! Thank you! ] (]) 20:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:used in 4[REDACTED] articles, seems highly premature. use best judgement until it can't be resolved in an article's talk page between editors, and needs wider[REDACTED] community feedback. ] (]) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::I wish this were otherwise because it looks like a really interesting website but it uses user-generated content. Which is a problem from an RS perspective. ] (]) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::None of the uses are for anything other than Hatebase itself, and as the site was been retired since 2022 it's unlikely it will see much more use ('retired' as it's been closed to editing, all user data deleted, and may go offline at any point, so not quite closed but very close). As most of the supporting data is gone, and what there was was user generated, I don't think it could be used as an RS. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== LaserDisc Database? ==
::I checked court records, and the case was not dropped, but is continuing against both defendants. Nor do I read the Fleshbot article to say that the case was dropped. I’m going to note here that the case is Banuelos v. Correro, No. 21STCV37675, mainly so I won’t have to look it up again if there are further questions. Obviously, these court documents cannot be used in a BLP article. ] (]) 22:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


I'm working on adding citations to ]. I'm looking for a source that supports the sentence "Image Entertainment released another LaserDisc" . I've found the laserdisc in question on LaserDisc Database . Can I use it as a source? The "register now" box states that users can "submit" new Laserdiscs, which implies some editorial oversight compared to other websites with user-generated material (although it looks like there ). My other options are or interlibrary loaning the original Laserdisc. ] (]) 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== Inaturalist.org ==


:The bottom of the page has {{tq|"Disclaimer: The data on this webstite is crowd-sourced..."}} and from the page you linked it's unclear what amount of checking is done before any submitted updates happen. Worldcat is the better option. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I noticed this source and that it is cites Misplaced Pages (]) as well as letting anyone upload to the site, after searching the it I can see it's used over 2,000 times on Misplaced Pages.
::oops, I missed that. Thank you for the advice. I'll use WorldCat if I can't find a news article. ] (]) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Previous discussions are here: . The latter is only about photos.


== Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles ==
Use of the source varies but in the first result of ] it's used in a way that seems like original research to claim it has high biodiversity. On ] it's used to identify species inhabiting the area as well as the notability/recognition of this.


I don't consider it a reliable source and fail to see how it could meet reliability given the circular content but I'm not sure on what to do given the site is used so much. ] (]) 19:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Is reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


:Per their about page they are not a normal news source, but a promotional platform. Their articles, etc are likely based on press releases and information from the subject of the article. So they might be reliable as a ] source within the limits of ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm not an iNaturalist expert, but the impression I get is that it's quite highly regarded (essentially the Misplaced Pages of botany, birdwatching, etc). I don't think it cites Misplaced Pages for the actual observations; it seems to me like what it cites is, e.g., the explanatory text it has in the sidebar. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 06:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:The particular example of Suriname (which is replicated in ]) is a weird choice to establish that claim, since there are better sources that outright state the same thing (, )without having to infer it by all the different observations. I believe ] is a pretty good source for corroborating that something exists in a location but citations like these aren't necessarily unreliable but a little hard to follow/draw conclusions from. ]] 15:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


== Global Defense Corp ==
: I am very familiar with iNaturalist. It's fun and useful for personal or off-Wiki research purposes, but completely unreliable for the vast majority of factual claims made in an encyclopedia. The observations themselves are ], even if verified by community experts, which can easily be used to mislead or perform ] or ]. As a user-generated database, its location-specific species checklists or search results such as and should not be used as at all as references per ]. The taxon descriptions are pulled from various sources, including Misplaced Pages, which raises ] issues. While sometimes new discoveries (e.g. ) are initially made on iNaturalist, these are unreliable or ] at best until reliably published in a journal or other credible source (Misplaced Pages should never be the first place publishing breaking news or novel information, regardless of how 'true' it is). Similarly, it's much better to cite a reliable source for a statement like "X National Park is known for these prominent species" or "Species Y occurs in X National Park", as opposed to mining observations to highlight arbitrary primary occurrences which gives a myopic view based on the known biases of iNaturalist users (e.g. flowers and birds get much more photographed than worms and spiders by the general user). Certain iNaturalist pages may have use as an External link (with respect to ]), and indeed, iNaturalist taxon pages are linked in many instances of {{tl|Taxonbar}} as well as External link sections, but this should be considered on an indvidual basis, and External links are not held to the same standards as reliable sources. ] (]) 17:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


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


1. they've claimed that Azerbaijan using either an Israeli or Turkish drone was able to destroy a Armenian nebo-m radar which is impressive considering Armenia doesn't even have that radar or has at any point Displayed any interest in buying that radar there evidence for this is a footage of Azerbaijan destroying a p-18 radar and them claiming it's the nebo-m and they didn't just claim this once they've claimed it at least twice in two different articles.
Would you consider https://www.yourbasin.com/ and/or https://www.donnaglamour.it/ as reliable sources? ] (]) 20:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


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


3. in this article they talk about how the S 400 range decreases against objects at low altitudes which is true but fail to explain that this is true for all radar guided Sam systems thanks to an effect known as radar horizon where objects at low altitudes are able to hide behind the curvature of the earth and therefore can only be detected at certain distances but not only do they not explain this to the reader creating a false impression that this is an issue unique to the S 400 but they even claimed that Turkey accused Russia of fraud because of this. which is weird for several reasons one Russia has at no point claim that the S400 range does not decrease with altitude but also because it implies Turkey believed the S 400 could defy the laws of physics they also have no source of this claim and no other articles on the Internet claim this.
Hi. I have been recently finding Funding Universe as a ref on quite a few corporate pages. I don't think it is that accurate. Take Walkers Crisps for example, on Funding Universe it says Frito-Lay purchased the business, however articles in business magazine UPI and the New York Times from the time definitely reported PepsiCo Inc directly purchasing the business, not its subsidiary. ] (]) 11:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
: There was actually an RfC on Funding Universe in 2019; see {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 257#Rfc: Fundinguniverse.com}}. The says, {{xt|"PepsiCo, Inc. acquired Walkers Crisps and Smith Foods from BSN (later Danone) for $1.35 billion (£900 million)"}}, so this page (which is actually a republication of ''International Directory of Company Histories'') seems accurate. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 15:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


4. In this article they claimed SU57 lacks sensor fusion which it doesn't and then just ignore that low probability of intercept radar is a thing .
== Where do the RfC options come from? Who decided these were the official four? They're bad ==


5. in this article they berate the S 400 for not intercepting Israeli F35’s in Syria but forgot to mention that Russia and Israel were long believed to have an agreement in the Syrian civil war to not engaged each other.
Every time there's an RfC on here, the person opening it presents four options, which are invariably these:
*Option 1: Generally reliable
*Option 2: Additional considerations
*Option 3: Generally unreliable
*Option 4: Deprecate


There bias is also evident in just in the words that they say frequently attacking Russian equipment with ad hominems such as cooling the S 400 ,another lame duck missile system, or starting there articles with stupid Russians or Russian equipment exposed. they also lack of any transparency no one knows who owns the website none of the articles say the names of the people that wrote them making the website Even more suspicious but despite all of this they are still frequently cited all the time on Misplaced Pages.
This seems extremely sub-optimal to me. First of all, they're all stupid: the first one is "always good" and the others are "always bad". We can quibble over definitions, but the fact of the matter is that one of these is literally shaded green and the rest are shaded yellow or red or black. There are countless talk page discussions and noticeboard threads about people removing sources for the reason of them being one of the bad colors, and some even do it with scripts, all the better for not having to bother with evaluating them individually.
Sources
1.https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/02/01/turkey-exposed-fatal-flaws-in-russian-made-s-400-surface-to-air-missile/


2. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/11/rostec-nebo-m-radar-is-it-a-scam-or-propaganda/
Most importantly, there's no option that preserves the original status of the source: we are forced to either declare it good or declare it bad. There's no option given for "editors are expected to use their heads and evaluate whether source is reliable when they are citing it", which is bizarre, because this is the default for every source in existence. We don't operate on a whitelist basis! We expect editors who write content to be capable of looking into a publisher and seeing whether it is credible. This is how the sourcing guidelines work: unless somebody opens a RfC at the reliable sources noticeboard, apparently, then it's assigned a color and you aren't allowed to do this.


3. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/12/28/russian-su-57-will-carry-four-missiles-in-the-internal-weapons-bay/
Some{{who?}} might argue that this is the same as "Option 2", but this is clearly not true; in innumerable discussions where people suggest "Option 2"ing a website, they are suggesting to "downgrade" it from Option 1. Everyone has seen discussions on talk pages where somebody says that a source is yellow and we should try to use a green one instead.


4. Radar Horizon. (n.d.). www.ssreng.com. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.ssreng.com/pdf/Radar_Horizon.pdf
Why are these the four options? Can't we just have an '''Option 5: follow ]'''? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:I think the main problem is with this interpretation: "the others are "always bad"". To me, it is clear that Option 2 is not "always bad", and it is more informative than "follow Misplaced Pages sourcing guidelines", since it tells you that there has been a discussion about this particular source, so you are not completely left to your own devices when it comes to figuring out reliability (see ]).
:With that said, I have also been noticing that at least some editors claim sources that are not always good are always bad by default. But I would argue that this is mostly their fault, not the system's. So overall, I would prioritize helping editors who are willing to make an effort to understand why it's marked ], rather than prioritizing preventing invalid arguments from those who are not willing. ] (]) 19:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::The thing is, most of the time, people don't get into disputes over anodyne things that could be sourced to any ] source - they get into disputes over stuff that's controversial, ], often ]-sensitive, and so on. Those tend to be things that require higher-quality sourcing, which means that if someone wants to use a MREL source for them they often need to at least give an explanation. MREL sources are used all over Misplaced Pages without objections; but the specific things that come up in disputes tend to overlap with the situations where they are less than ideal. --] (]) 19:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Possibly, but it could also be because those particular ] sources are always about a controversial topic. The concrete example I've experienced is medical journals that focus on controversial medical areas, such as ]. In these cases, I think pretty much all uses of the sources could attract controversy, but that still doesn't mean they are always unreliable, or even that their usage requires special handling, apart from the general applicable guidelines (such as ] for my example). ] (]) 20:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:The four options seem fine to me. If editors are taking an overly reductive approach to interpreting the categories, that’s a behaviour we should discourage. A ''generally'' reliable/unreliable source could be unreliable/reliable in a ''specific'' context. Another thing we sometimes see is editors trying to bless an opinion as a fact because it is stated in a green source, notably when trying to apply ]s to subjects. “My green source called him a poopyhead so we need to call him a poopyhead in the first sentence!” ] (]) 19:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
* We're always supposed to follow sourcing guidelines, so option 5 amounts to "do nothing." And people do sometimes take that position, but it's mostly only reasonable to take when a source hasn't been discussed much (often RFCs here are objected to as premature.) I'd say that if we were going to have a fifth option, it'd probably just be "premature" for that reason, ie. there's no evidence there's actual disputes over the source that an RFC is needed to resolve. Once significant numbers of disputes start coming up, though, I don't think "just follow the guidelines" is useful, because that by definition means that editors can't agree on what the guidelines mean in that case. --] (]) 19:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:Remove Option 1. We should either yellow-list ("caution"), red-list ("don't use in an article"), or black-list ("don't even link to it anywhere") a source, or else do nothing. "Too bad to use" is OK to say, but "generally reliable" is something we should not be declaring about any source. All sources make mistakes, and if we want to rank sources we should do so categorically (like ]) not individually. ] (]) 21:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::"Generally reliable" should account for the fact that all sources make occasional mistakes. We're not saying "totally reliable". ] (]) 21:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:Even with these four options, there can be made fair exceptions to them, though that would require consensus on the talk page. A source that we list as always good means we should start with that presumption, but if a given article from it is very inconsistent with other sources, then we can say that particular instance is not good. We also can say a source is good in one area but bad in another, or establish periods where it may be good, or establish certain authors may only be good from a source, etc. It's really not four options, but four options with many a la carte variations.<span id="Masem:1710367417032:WikipediaFTTCLNReliable_sources/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 22:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)</span>
:Isn't it ''generally'' reliable, as in "usually"? --] (]) 23:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:Option 2 generally means that the sources have good reliability and are usable. It does not mean they are unreliable at all or that they should not be used. Even "generally reliable" sources have additional considerations depending on the context of their usage.] (]) 01:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:I don't see a problem. "Generally" does not mean "always", and "additional considerations apply" obviously doesn't mean "always bad". ] (]) 04:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::Indeed. It seems OP misunderstood what those options actually stand for. Only option 4 is an "always bad" option, and it doesn't apply to all that many sources. ] (]) 10:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::It is completely untrue that an "Option 2"ed source is equivalent in standing to a source which has no RfC consensus; what I am saying is that we should not have a process which ''regardless of its outcome'' is guaranteed to change our official standing on a source.
:::I am quite aware of "what the options actually stand for". What I'm saying (and indeed, what I wrote two paragraphs to explain in detail in the original post) is that a source being "yellow" -- in actual practice -- means in almost every instance that people will argue for it to be removed when it is used. Typically, in the English language, when something is "downgraded" this means that it has been lowered, or made worse. There are widely-used and officially-recommended scripts that highlight sources according to their color in the RSP table, in which yellow is explicitly denoted as inferior to green (to say nothing of the universally used green-yellow-red color scale).
:::There should not be a process where, no matter what people say or what their opinions are or what the policy is, anybody who opens a proceeding permanently changes the status of a source across the project; there should be a status quo option in the RfC. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 22:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::::While status quo on a source is not always going to be option 2, from the POV of an individual editor it will always fit into one of the options, and so I don't think a "status quo" option makes sense. The whole point of having an RFC is that people disagree about the reliability of the source.
::::For some sources, status quo is fine: if the New York Times weren't on ] it would still obviously be a green-level source. But the fact that a source is being brought up for an RFC proves that there is some disagreement about it, so in practice a status quo option in RFCs here would be the same as a no consensus close. There's no other process where we explicitly let people advocate for no consensus and IMO for good reason. ] (]) 22:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::::This seems untrue? ], for example, is listed at yellow, and I would wager it's one of the most cited of ''any'' source on Misplaced Pages. ] 00:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'd say it varies widely depending on the source and the article it's used for. A yellow-at-RSP will generally be removed on that grounds from a contentious topic article, whereas something like AllMusic might still be widely used with attribution in articles about songs. Salon.com is another example of a widely-used yellow-at-RSP, and I think it's because it's used in pop culture and entertainment articles, but it'll usually get removed from contentious topic articles. (Disclosure: I remove yellow-at-RSP sources from contentious topic articles.) ] (]) 05:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
* The original post makes some very good points. When I was a new editor, I wanted such a list. Then as a more experienced editor, I immediately had serious concerns about the categorical judgment about the quality of a publication. Even the best publications like the NYT have items posted of different reliability based on the expertise of the writer(s) and their political or ideological biases. An article originally published in the NYT, could find its way to the AP and to Fox News. That article republished by Fox News does not make it unreliable. I doubt most new (or younger) editors understand this.
:Now I have mixed feelings, because when I want to add material to an article, the list helps me figure out which sources are more likely to pass muster. Going through the reliable sources archives to see what people had said about the source in the past is a lot of work and often not that helpful.
:Where I strongly agree with {{u|JPxG}} is about these points:
::(1) I am quite troubled by scripts that go around deleting sources from articles.
::(2) I am even more troubled by blacklists where it is impossible to use a source at all, ever. I do not believe ] has ever justified that, until it showed up in 2020.
::(3) I agree with JPxG's description of how if you use a source that does not have the "green light", editors are likely to do exactly what JPxG said: They will try to use it as "proof" that your source is not great, that the content is ], you should find something better, and any number of ways to try to undermine the use of that source in that article--simply because it didn't have the "green light". Even if they are wrong and *should* instead follow the RS guidelines, it can create an undue burden on the editor trying to say, "No. It's not that simple"--especially if multiple editors misunderstand the limits of the perennial source assessments.
:Last, one big problem with the list is that it reinforces the U.S. State Department propaganda that is distributed and echoed throughout U.S. media and media of NATO and other allies. The U.S. and Western media has long been vulnerable to State Department propaganda--as described by ]'s --yet, the U.S. media seems to only notice the propaganda problem in other countries' reporting, as if it couldn't possibly happen here in "the land of the free" with the 1st Amendment protections. One need only look at coverage of the lead up to 2003 war in Iraq as evidence of media's echoing of Bush's propaganda in favor of the war and the suggesting that Iraq was on the verge of launching ] at the U.S.
:
:If the U.S. State Department identifies a source as a "foreign agent" or propaganda, the U.S. media--including "green-lighted" NYT and Guardian--parrots that position. Then Misplaced Pages editors can point to the NYT's claim that the foreign publication is unreliable propaganda, and Misplaced Pages will blacklist it. These are exactly the kind of sources that would have been critical of the Iraq war and are likely to be censored here by the blacklists. --] (]) 23:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82
== Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) ==


6. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2022/01/24/sukhoi-su-57s-x-band-n036-byelka-and-n036l-1-01-l-band-radars-are-not-what-you-think/
Are ] (FARMS) publications (e.g., '']'', '']'') reliable sources for statements in Wikivoice? Are their publications in ] with publications by academic publishers (like Routledge, T&F, etc.)?


7. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/09/22/over-hyped-s-400-and-s-300-surface-to-air-missile-failed-to-detect-f-35i-adir/
FARMS publications are currently used in, e.g. ], ], ], among others, either for statements in Wikivoice or in parity with other sources (in the sense of, "some say X, others say Y," with a FARMS publication being the Y).


8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from
I could not find FARMS discussed directly in the archives, but there were prior related discussions that mentioned its publications ] and ]. I have previously asked about religious-affiliated publishers ], and the consensus in that discussion (my reading) is that a publisher is not unreliable merely because it has a religious affiliation. This question, though, is asking about a specific publisher and not about religious publishers or ] publishers in general.
https://thearabweekly.com/when-israel-bombs-syria-russia-turns-blind-eye ] (]) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:Do we use them? ] (]) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::The S 400 Misplaced Pages page has 20 citations from them and the su 57 Misplaced Pages page has four. ] (]) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:I agree that they're generally unreliable but I'm not so sure I'd chalk it up to bias rather than incompetence. They seem to be suggesting that the news they publish is a sideline to their core business of international security consulting... But they're spamming the cheapest ads on the internet alongside that content suggests that this is their primary income. To me it looks like a vanity site, I also suspect they are ripping stories off or using generative AI. ] (]) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. ] (]) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think the one thing that seems to be universally agreed on is that this is not a reliable source. ] (]) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would agree, that regardless of whether it's bias or incompetence, it all adds up to unreliability. Cheers. ] (]) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== Should we trust ] for statistics ==
My opinion: FARMS is ], and to quote the Misplaced Pages article about them, "While allowing some degree of academic freedom to its scholars, FARMS was committed to the conclusion that LDS scriptures are authentic, historical texts written by prophets of God." For this reason, I think its publications should not be used for statements in Wikivoice, and should not be in ] with traditional mainstream academic publications (like those published by Routledge, T&F, etc.).


Certain pages about certain living subjects contain an infobox template that really emphasises view counts and subscriber statistics. However, that data is often sourced from ]. Here's what WP's page about Social Blade says;
I've advertised this on the talk pages of the three articles linked above, at ], and at an ongoing related discussion at ]. Thanks in advance for your thoughts, ] (]) 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


"An official YouTube Twitter account, @TeamYouTube wrote that "Please know that third party apps, such as SocialBlade, do not accurately reflect subscriber activity." Social Blade's Twitter account responded to that tweet, commenting "We don't make up data. We get it from the YouTube API. We rely on it for accuracy." Social Blade's community manager Danny Fratella suggested that YouTube content creators may notice subscriber and view count purges more due to a higher accessibility to data-tracking tools like Social Blade."
:Routledge publishes anybody and everybody — I might as well be inclined to say ''yes'' (i.e. it is good to have university presses as yardstick). In any case, ] is currently published by the University of Illinois Press — with no connection to FARMS — and is far from a Mormon-apolegetic journal; at the same time, it undeniably used to be one even a decade ago but had many gems of articles. In contrast, ] is probably guttable; there was a huge fracas when UoIP semi-acquired it and from the looks of it, had (has?) a terrible reputation. ] (]) 17:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::The University of Illinois Press maintains a connection with the Maxwell Institute which FARMS was absorbed into in 2013. I don't believe that the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies was "semi-acquired" by UoIP, it appears to be "published on behalf of" the Maxwell Institute which is a commercial relationship (that would mean that the Maxwell Institute is paying the UoIP to publish it and UoIP is adding no academic or professional endorsement to the content). ] (]) 18:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I am pretty certain that ] — as of today — has no link with FARMS/Maxwell Institute; can you provide evidence to the contrary? As to JBMS, I am unsure; all I recall is that many were up in arms against whatever agreement UoIP was entering into (with FARMS/Maxwell) for this journal. ] (]) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::: Funding for publishing JBMS appears to come from the Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies which is a constituent body of the Maxwell Institute . If UoIP has a link then whatever UoIP publishes does as well. I'm not saying its a major one, but its not no link or no connection. ] (]) 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
* Note that for much of the period in question FARMS is just part of the ] (which doesn't appear to be any more reliable it must be said). ] (]) 18:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
* In general I would say unreliable, but as TrangaBellam has pointed out there are exceptions, for example I would say that Mormon Studies Review post 2020 or so is a pretty mainstream reliable source but by then any connection to FARMS/Maxwell is tangential. The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies is not a reliable source either when self published or when published on Maxwell's behalf by another press. I share TangaBellam's desire to get in a cheap shot at Routledge but in general I would say no, they are not on parity with publications by academic publishers. ] (]) 18:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Generally unreliable''' and undue. Recent editions of MSR are excluded. ] (]) 19:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Unreliable''': FARMS, like ] and ]'s ], is an LDS apologetics mill, and is unreliable for neutral, scholarly articles, and has a strong conflict of interest (]). It's staffed and funded by people (if not the church itself) extremely defensive of an institution (the ]) with a long history of suppressing factual publications about its history (e.g. ]). It's not interested in true scholarship so much as trying to make a controversial organization look good. I wish this were not the case but here we are. ] (]) 01:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Unreliable''': I think it is ok to use for a specific viewpoint within the LDS church, but absolutely not for archeological information or in Wikivoice. I wanted to point out that ] includes a list of sources related to the Latter Day Saint movement. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it should be added to this list. ] (]) 18:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks for mentioning LDS/RS. I see ''Journal of the Book of Mormon Studies'' is listed as green, as a UIP publication, no mention of FARMS. That should probably be updated with the result of this discussion as well. ] (]) 21:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


The question is should we trust it?
== CounterPunch and MondoWeiss as BLP reliable sources ==


Plus, why do pages about gamers and vloggers place so much emphasis on what appears to be arbitrary, trivial information that is prone to fluctuation?]] 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion on that topic to which RSN-versed editors might want to contribute. ] (]) 04:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


:It is ] - I don't think ] applies since it is drawing its data out of an API but I'd say it's a marginal source. ] (]) 16:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
== zvukibukvy.ru ==
::It certainly isn't a source that I would trust but it is frequently cited in certain articles to populate value statement parameters such as subscriber count, view count, like count etc in ]. My understanding is that ] sources shouldn't be used to verify value statements? ]] 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:Prior discussions for reference; ], ], ], ]. The general opinion appears to be that it's marginal at best. Personally I doubt how reliable their data is, if it's available from the original source that should be used and if it's not available from the original source I wouldn't trust it. They also have 'rankings', which are worthless for anything other than the opinion of Social Blade. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


== RfC: EurAsian Times ==
Can anyone figure out who publishes this site. {{user|Kelly The Angel}} added it and I it, but I am not fully happy with the replacement as well. (The author only gives her first name so it seems blogish.) zvukibukvy.ru has no ads, but the contact page allows sending messages to the "editors". So how do they pay these editors? ] (]) 06:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


<!-- ] 23:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740610876}}
:,
{{rfc|prop|pol|rfcid=11A50DD}}
:Hello @]. How do you feel about these links being used as sources? ''']<small>]</small>''' 07:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::Howdy {{re|Kelly The Angel}}. The first, reverso.net, is AI-generated that obscures the true source. The second, academic.ru, seems usable as it cites it sources. I found and have added it to the article. That should cover it. I still am interested in who is behind zvukibukvy.ru. ] (]) 07:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:::It's unclear, there is zero information about the owners on the website. There are many published dictionaries of Russian slang, and academic.ru helpfully references them, so I'd prefer to use that source. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


The (used to have its own article but it was apparently PRODed) is cited in several hundreds of articles, mostly pertaining to Russian military hardware and South Asian issues, but not exclusively. It was mentioned ] ] ] on this noticeboard but only on a surface level.
== March 14 ==


In light of all this, how would you rate the EurAsian Times?
Can anyone verify if this source is reliable? And may I use it for citing? A user has recently removed the citations for using this source by saying that "the author is not even a historian" although according to the back of the cover of the book, at "About the author" section, it states that he's a historian. ] (]) 11:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


:I can't find evidence that Venkatesh Rangan is or isn't a historian. That said, the book is published via Notion Press, an Indian self-publishing company, which calls the credibility of the book into question. ] (]) 11:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::Well the book is published by Subbu Publications , and can anyone (who has more expertise in verifying Indian books) give his conclusions here? That is whether I can use it for citing in Misplaced Pages pages? ] (]) 12:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure I'd trust any "myth-busting book" unless it's widely cited by reputable historians. Seems like a ] if the publisher needs to say it.... ] (]) 14:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::::A publisher publishing isn’t a reliable source. ] ] 19:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::::I am still perplexed because here in the first paragraph it mentions :
::::{{quote|Venkatesh is a senior finance professional working in Mumbai with a deep and passionate interest in Indian history. Over the years, he has researched the original 18th-century records, such as bakhars, daftars, kaifiyats, hakikats, thailis, tarikhs, residency correspondences and foreign diplomatic dispatches. With an academic and professional experience spanning multiple continents, he believes in understanding Indian historical events in a global context. With a reading list drawn from regional and world non-fiction literature, he is enthusiastic about exploring hidden connections between the past and the present.}}
::::And here :
::::{{quote|'''About the Author'''</br>Venkatesh Rangan is an author and historian who has written acclaimed non-fiction works such as "The First Republic" and "Age of Pi and Prose" previously. He has also participated in several national and international academic seminars, conferences and literary festivals on Indian history.}}
::::Also here :
::::{{quote|About the author (2022)</br>Venkatesh is a historical non-fiction writer who has written books and research papers and presented his ideas at several government and private academic institutions. His first book, The First Republic, was well received by a wide spectrum of readers and won acclaim from several celebrated public intellectuals. For the current work, Venkatesh has researched several rare historical Sanskrit and Prakrit manuscripts and inscriptions. He has also studied Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic and Persian texts for the same.}}
::::Does that still makes his historical books, historical researches and credibility unreliable? ] (]) 13:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::All of those author bios were provided by the author or publisher. Self-publishers like Notion Press often use a bio provided by the author or write something favorable and flattering. In either case, we can't use it. To prove the author's credentials, we need to see what reliable, secondary/independent sources say about Venkatesh Rangan. Unfortunately, I looked and couldn't find much at all—which suggests that he isn't a source we should cite on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:Not sure why I wasn't pinged (or even asked to elaborate before posting this here), considering I am the said user who removed it. ] (]) 18:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::I am still perplexed because in that paragraph itself it mentions :
::{{quote|Over the years, he has researched the original 18th-century records, such as bakhars, daftars, kaifiyats, hakikats, thailis, tarikhs, residency correspondences and foreign diplomatic dispatches. With an academic and professional experience spanning multiple continents, he believes in understanding Indian historical events in a global context. With a reading list drawn from regional and world non-fiction literature, he is enthusiastic about exploring hidden connections between the past and the present.}}
::And here :
::{{quote|'''About the Author'''</br>Venkatesh Rangan is an author and historian who has written acclaimed non-fiction works such as "The First Republic" and "Age of Pi and Prose" previously. He has also participated in several national and international academic seminars, conferences and literary festivals on Indian history.}}
::Also here :
::{{quote|Venkatesh is a historical non-fiction writer who has written books and research papers and presented his ideas at several government and private academic institutions. His first book, The First Republic, was well received by a wide spectrum of readers and won acclaim from several celebrated public intellectuals. For the current work, Venkatesh has researched several rare historical Sanskrit and Prakrit manuscripts and inscriptions. He has also studied Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic and Persian texts for the same.}}
::Does that still makes his historical books, historical researches and credibility unreliable? ] (]) 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:::@], please stop posting the same or similar messages. This is your third time posting what is effectively the same comment. ] (]) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I was unaware of a rule as such, and I don't remember posting the same or similar reply 3 times. ] (]) 14:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::Venkatesh could read all the books in the world, still does not change that he is not ] per the comments that have been presented to you. ] (]) 23:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

== Joseph Edelman ==

I'm currently trying to improve the page for ] and another editor ] my ] saying it is not eligible for use on Misplaced Pages. This is a placing information on charity about all contributors, not just one person. I'm looking to verify if this source can be used or shall I search for more eligible source here? The text I want to add:

In 2015, Edelman donated $470,000 to ] for the Advancing College Mental Health (ACMH) pilot program, aimed at supporting undergraduates pursuing mental health professions.

. ] (]) 21:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

:What I am noting is that the recipient of a large donation is blatantly not a third-party source, and thus does not show inclusion is ''due''. (The editor who inserted that has also been to the page based on a ] source, the Edelman Foundation's tax filings.) -- ] (]) 21:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::Frankly, I'm not even sure the page belongs in Misplaced Pages. I have a suspicion that its purpose is to promote supposed good works by this person, and make sure the world knows about them. ] (]) 21:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::@], I improved the page per ] of the Misplaced Pages founder @] following our conversation on his talk page. He suggested to expand the page, so let's invite him here as well. If the page is not notable and should be deleted, anyone is welcome to nominate it for deletion and reach the consensus among the editors. By the way, we are discussing a particular source on this Noticeboard, so why don't you take the issue of deletion somewhere else? I'm looking for help related to a particular source here. ] (]) 20:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:::: Nat Gertler has stated a clear objection; do you understand the objection. ] (]) 11:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

== Sonic ==

@] @] Good evening I hope I am not disturbing you Mr. David and Mrs/Mr. Kip but I wanted to ask you something please, I would like to be able to fix something in Sonic X wiki regarding the plot of the seasons and episodes obviously my reliable source is the anime itself with the original version, however there is a problem how can I put a source which in this case is a streaming site (precisely https://archive.org/details/sonic-x-complete-series-discotek-media-japanese-language-collection-bluray-rips-mp4-english-subs/Season%2B3%2B(Subtitled)/3-26%2BWhere%2BPlanets%2Bare%2BBorn%2B(Subtitled).mp4 )? Is it possible to put him as a reference? Or can I at least put in parentheses the scene, the character who says the speech at tot minute until tot minute? Because I wouldn't know how to do to prove that I'm not making things up and I checked the site of http://web.archive.org/web/20130617034121/http://www.teamartail.com/sonicx/51/ but but it only has the screenshots not scripts or text or anything else how could it be solved in this case for the source? Is it possible to do as I said before? Please I need some help 😔
Best regards ] (]) ] (]) 00:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

:With all due respect, I’m probably not the correct person to ask about this. ] ] 00:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

*{{u|Crystal890}} You usually don't need a source for a plot summary, but if other editors disagree on what you put in the plot, you will have to strive for ] at the talk page. Please see ], which says, "Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." There are some exceptions such as interpreting the work. If it has not been released yet, I don't know what the rule for that is.--] (]) 00:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

== RfC: ] ==
<!-- ] 23:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1713654079}}
{{rfc|media|prop|rfcid=C685727}}
What is the reliability of Allkpop for K-pop-related articles?
* '''Option 1: ]''' * '''Option 1: ]'''
* '''Option 2: ]''' * '''Option 2: ]'''
Line 894: Line 692:
* '''Option 4: ]''' * '''Option 4: ]'''


Thank you. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 22:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) <small>PS: it is the first time I create an RFC, I hope it is not malformed</small>
Allkpop is the English-language K-pop and celebrity gossip site and fan blog owned by 6Theory Media, which also owns Tokyohive. The site contains extensive Korean culture-related news coverage and rumours that are aimed at non-Korean audiences, this does not itself as a generally reliable source and also claims to be cited by major news organizations. They also made occasional interviews and special reports, which counts as first-hand journalism. It also licensed to stream ]. I consider the site itself was generally unreliable for K-pop articles.


===Survey (EurAsian Times)===
{{linksummary|allkpop.com}} ] (]) 04:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


*
:You should provide more context but here's all the previous discussions that are about allkpop:
:It's also listed under ] as being unreliable although that's just a Wikiproject. ] (]) 04:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
::{{re|traumnovelle}} Some articles like are poor for using as a source. Although this site publishes rumours and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts, however, some information on this site may or may not be true and Allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of the claims. ] (]) 07:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:::If the site itself doesn't consider itself reliable I fail to see how it can be considered reliable for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 09:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:::“Makes no warranty as to validity” is just a standard legalese disclaimer; websites of many RS have similar disclaimers. Judge reliability based on substance. ] (]) 11:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


=== Survey === ===Discussion (EurAsian Times)===
* Previous discussions at ] (2024) ] (2023), and ] (2022). It looks like there's already consensus that it's unreliable and an RfC is not necessary. ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Yes, there is already strong consensus for its general unreliability (with just one dissenting editor in all of those discussions). I guess the only question is whether it should be deprecated, given its quite frequent use ] (]) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I agree that most opinions expressed about it were negative, but it felt a bit like shaky ground to be able to know if it could still be used for some specific things, be treated as generally unreliable, or to actually deprecate. That is why I wanted clarification before potentially going on a hunt. Sorry if an RfC was overkill for this one, but I figured that since it is used quite a lot it could be good to clarify. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 10:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Discussion === == flightconnections.com ==
{{small|Hi {{u|SarahJH07}}, I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading to prevent confusion since this discussion was not set up as a formal ], which would solicit input from editors through the ]. If you would like to make this discussion a request for comment, please apply the {{tl|rfc}} template to this discussion according to the instructions at ] and add "RfC:" back to the section heading. Thanks. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 21:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)}}


I wonder if flightconnections.com is a reliable source. Examples of it use are on and . In both cases ] asks for {{tq|airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet ]}}. I have doubt if flightconnections qualifies as reliable. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 02:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== The Shortcut: reliable source? ==


:I can't find any information about who runs the site or where it gets it's information from. There are quite a few articles promoting it or about how to use it, but that is unsurprising as it operates an affiliate programme. From a Google book search it has some extremely limited USEBYOTHERS (note several of the results are not reliable sources), but not enough to be meaningful. I couldn't get any useful results from Google Scholar. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The author would be Matt Swider, who created this site on November 8, 2021. He has 25 years of experience being a renowned technology journalist, is the former US Editor-in-Chief of TechRadar and is among the top tech reporters in the US on Twitter.
:I do see it as reliable. They are from one of the large brokers (likely either Cirium or OAG, I wish they said who) and simply providing a wrapper to explore that data, and selling ads and subscriptions to pay for the extremely expensive subscription the brokers charge. ] (]) 19:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
He has his journalism degree from Penn State University and launched Gaming Target while also contributing to publications Ars Technica, G4TV, GamePro, PlayStation: The Official Magazine and even some local US newspapers.
::It can work at least as a starting point. It lists both charter and regularly scheduled flights. You can find the flight number of a given route and then cross-reference it on another source as well. --] (]) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
https://www.theshortcut.com/about


== Pegging ==
I want to highlight, that my intention is to add this source to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/Sweet_Baby_Inc%2E to add the relevant addition of targeted harassment by Sweet Baby Inc. employees to a specific user and the ban of this employee by this action on twitter as the source of the controversy, not any form of opinion by the article itself. The sole purpose of the source "The Shortcut" would be simply as a secondary source (WP:PSTS) to explain the facts.


At this point, after educating people about pegging for the last 14 years, I do indeed qualify as an expert. I am the go-to person for information about pegging in the sex education world.
It is in this function a material cited to produce a more neutral perspective on the whole controversy, because other reliable articles try to state bias opinions of the authors about the ideology of members of this group as facts about the origin of this whole controversy. To solve this Problem:(WP:ACHIEVE NPOV) Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective.


perhaps be reviewed? I am the only sex educator I know of who ''specializes'' in pegging. I have taught countless classes since 2012 (in person and over Zoom) for beginners, equipment, and advanced pegging, and written many, many articles about pegging as well. Were they published in magazines or on websites that made me edit the crap out of what I'd written until it lost its meaning? No. Wouldn't play that game because the message was too important to me, and because they wanted free material.
To allow a neutral perspective, it is necessary to highlight the whole context of the source of the controversy. The controversy happen over the things Sweet baby employees have done on Twitter prior to it.
Without this information the whole topic can only be based on bias opinions. The text of Misplaced Pages articles should assert facts, but not assert opinions as fact. It is a fact, what a certain individual wrote on twitter and how twitter reacted to this comment. It is not a fact, what an author want to see as the political or social source for the support of a group afterward. This can be mentioned in a neutral manner after a statement of the fact, that it was not the actual source of the controversy.


I am not a person of notoriety like Tristan Taormino or Dan Savage, but that does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about or what I put out into the world about pegging is just my 'opinion'. There have been no 'studies' on pegging and there aren't likely to be anytime soon, for obvious reasons.
i want to highlight, that this is my first post on this board. This post was created after a talk about this source with the user Rhain on his talk-page and after his suggestion to post this to this board.
--] (]) 11:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


Since when was the only measure of an expert their notoriety? I have gone down the rabbit hole of pegging and remained there. I have held space for all the different expressions of pegging during that time, which are numerous. I have advised hopeful and how to approach their partners, while also educating them about the (intensely) common misconceptions and assumptions about the sexual act, and so many more things that are a part of pegging. Masculinity, role reversal, communication, etc, etc.
:It seems quite doubtful this is an RS we could use on Sweet Baby Inc. The about page makes it clear their focus is on '{{tqi|pass on that time-and-money-saving information to people in their inboxes, like any good journalist would want to do}}'. Their are some mention of reviews, but it's not the main focus and even for reviews they say '{{tqi|Brevity – no one wants to read a 10,000-word review. Often, people just want to ask: “Is this good? Should I buy something else?”}}' While they do mention '{{tqi|independent journalism}}', whatever the credentials of their writers and editorial team, there's barely any mention of any focus of the site on the sort of more basic journalism needed to cover anything remotely contentious so I think there's strong reasons to doubt they do a good job at it. The site may or may not be okay for opinions on reviewed products, and for info on stocks levels etc. ] (]) 12:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
::I'd add while perhaps they're not a pure ] like most Substacks are since they have an editorial team, I'm not totally convinced it's the sort of editorial oversight we'd expect, especially when it comes to anything involving living persons. I mean their 'senior editor' seems to be the writer of an awful lot of articles covering contentious stuff making it very unclear who's the one who actually reviews these sort of things. ] (]) 12:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I just want to highlight, that the opinions of the site and their editorial actions is not part of my question about RS, i am aware, that The Shortcut opinions are probably not RS, but i want to stress, that this source could be used as a secondary source (]) for specific and vital parts of the controversy to achieve ]. ] is probably the case for the article opinion, but not in the specific small content, that would be used as a source, because the article is the source of material about a living person, that was original written and published by the person themself (]). The Shortcut would only be the secondary source of this self-published, primary source to avoid ]
:::--] (]) 23:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
::::To make it a bit easier to understand. I could misunderstand something. But to quote ]:
::::]
::::''Policy: Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.''
::::The Reliability is necessary to insert an analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim of the secondary source.
::::]
::::''A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.''
::::I just want to use the primary source in the secondary source without inserting strictly any form of analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim by the secondary source to remain in the primary policy. ] (]) 00:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:The Shortcut currently appear to have two articles directly about ] They are; , and . There is also that mentions Sweet Baby Inc in passing. All three were written by the same author, Adam Vjestica, formerly a writer turned hardware editor for ], and current senior editor at The Shortcut.
:I would be sceptical of ruling this source reliable, solely for the purpose of laundering screenshots that purport to be tweets made by staff employed by Sweet Baby Inc. Even if it were reliable, there would be a question of whether this actually constitutes ] that would need to be assessed at the article's talk page. They are asserting certain things as factual that no reliable source that I've read about the recent events have asserted, while also downplaying the intense level of harassment and doxing attempts made against the company and its staff. However some of it does match with what some unreliable culture war focused sources, like Bounding into Comics, FandomWire, and That Park Place have said. The first article by The Shortcut on the Sweet Baby Inc situation does come across as more than a bit like victim blaming, and their second one about our article on the company takes umbrage with our content, despite it being verifiable to actually reliable sources.
:In terms of ], I've not been able to turn up anything substantial from a quick search, aside from one brief mention in an article about Twitter restricting the reach of links to Substack. Nor have I been able to find any RS writing about the site in general. It's possible I'm using the wrong search terms though, given the publication's choice in name it's difficult to filter them from background noise about shortcuts in games, or use of shortcuts on computers. ] (]) 00:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::'s claims that some of ] is incorrect—despite it being very clearly sourced to reliable sources—is certainly not helping its case. I would also hope that a news article claiming to have "the unbiased context" would do better than to present an out-of-context quote from the company's CEO about convincing employers to listen to one's ideas (as if that somehow proves the company is "forcing diversity"), or the completely unrelated quote from an "<s>ex-employee</s>" (former intern) whose comments have no relevance to the company whatsoever. The article also focuses on the accusations by "gamers" but does little to give any context from the other side (besides "journalists staunchly defend their version of events" and "this is something that Sweet Baby Inc. has denied"). Reliable sources ] but to claim you're not—while, in my opinion, proving otherwise—is not a good start. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 02:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Heh, I'm actually kinda sceptical of the research The Shortcut claims to have done. They said {{tq|According to The Shortcut’s research, there was also no encouragement given to “avoid the games” that Sweet Baby Inc. had been involved in.}}, which is odd considering the still live Steam curator group has sixteen reviews in it, all of which are "Not Recommended" because the involvement of Sweet Baby Inc in each game's development process. Now it's true that the curator's about description does say that it's a tracker for games involved with the company, but the researchers at The Shortcut clearly couldn't have looked too deep into the group as they clearly missed the reviews. ] (]) 02:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::::''I just want to highlight, that the opinions of the site and their editorial actions is not part of my question about RS, i am aware, that The Shortcut opinions are probably not RS.''
::::I once again state, that i honestly don't care about the opinions of editors of the Sweet baby Inc article on[REDACTED] or the opinion of The Shortcut to somehow push a claim, that one of these opinions about this controversy would be RS etc. This is not a topic to make critics about the articles of The Shortcut, explicit articles released after the opening of this topic.
::::In the same sense it is highly not ] to call tweets, made by a staff employed by Sweet Baby Inc only "purport" for this topic, while the actual RS used on the Sweet Baby Inc. here on Misplaced Pages article used the same account tweets and even some of the same tweets in their articles and even Misplaced Pages is using this right now to state facts in this article.
::::To claim at the same time, that these tweets would be ] is inconsistent as well, because it would make a large area of this topic in the Sweet baby Inc page about these tweets again on Misplaced Pages similar undue weight and it would have to be removed, thereby making the whole controversy missing a huge part of its origin.
::::it should be highlighted, that the review system of Steam doesn't give any other option of wording for a review, except recommendations and that a recommendation is not a call for avoiding a game, it is the typical word used on Steam for any review. Maybe a lack of understanding about Steam gives you there a unjustified sceptical view.
::::--] (]) 03:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|This is not a topic to make critics about the articles of The Shortcut, explicit articles released after the opening of this topic.}} In this discussion, per your request, we are assessing the reliability of The Shortcut. This is absolutely the place for us to be critical about their content, whether or not it is factually correct, and whether or not they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That is what this noticeboard does.
:::::Now if you're asserting that The Shortcut is not a reliable source, then we don't really have anything more to discuss here. If it's not reliable, there's no way we would use it in any article, let alone one that's currently at the focal point of a controversy. ] (]) 04:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::And my request was 3 times already to differ between primary facts in a single article and the opinions of the site and their editorial actions as this is not part of my question about RS, i am aware, that The Shortcut opinions are probably not RS, but i want to stress, that this source could be used for a primary source(WP:PSTS) for specific and vital parts of the controversy to achieve NPOV in a vocal point of a controversy.
::::::I even explained this heavily with quotes by Misplaced Pages:
::::::But to quote ]:
::::::]
::::::''Policy: Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.''
::::::The Reliability is necessary to insert an analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim of the secondary source.
::::::]
::::::''A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.''
::::::I just want to use the primary source in the secondary source without inserting strictly any form of analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim by the secondary source to remain in the primary policy.
::::::It is oblivious, that someone, who is trying to judge the same Tweets once as a fact and than as unreliable and as "purport" and than even tries to argue about ] ignores simply huge parts of this argument, that
::::::a) these tweets are partly backed by already RS sources to be self-published primary source. A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. ]
::::::b) ELNO#10 makes it necessary to give a different reliable source for the primary source, that the tweet in itself.
::::::c) it is possible to use The Shortcut as a source for a primary source by simply following ] Policy, to not make in the article an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic <big>claim</big> with The Shortcut, because it is not for itself a reliable secondary source. It still can be a reliable source of a primary source.
::::::--] (]) 05:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{Tq|to achieve NPOV}} NPOV does not mean ]. There is no need to compromise on sourcing standards to try to reach a balanced article. More generally, it seems it is indeed your hope to use the Shortcut to 'launder' the primary sources / tweets themselves (as Sideswipe9th mentions above), so you can then insert them into the article. This {{Tq|as a source for a primary source}} concept you have come up with is novel, but it is not supported by Misplaced Pages's policies in letter or in spirit. You're not going to find some loophole that lets you get tweets into the article no matter how much ] takes place, particularly not when you are conceding that ''The Shortcut'' is not a reliable source. ] (]) 12:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::thx for linking these 2 links, as i am new to this format of writing, i will lay down my case and excuse my Lawyering, if it took place. But i will hint, that certain elements of this controversy is clearly a matter of WP:UNDUE or WP:FALSEBALANCE and despreatly need to be fixed.
::::::::For example: ''The curator group received increased attention in February when a Sweet Baby employee asked others to report it for failing Steam's code of conduct.'' in the article in question was for no reason altered from the actual RS quoted for it.
::::::::"They asked their followers to report it <u>and its creator</u> due to it failing Steam’s code of conduct," ] (]) 17:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Since you are new here, I'll mention that ] has some advantages. ] (]) 18:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|that the review system of Steam doesn't give any other option of wording for a review, except recommendations and that a recommendation is not a call for avoiding a game}} Not only is a "not recommended" tag a clear recommendation to avoid the game, back at the end of February before the social media stuff happened the logo for the was the Sweet Baby Inc company logo with the red ] superimposed onto it. The curator list itself contains only games that Sweet Baby Inc have been involved with in some way, with verification taken from the company's website, newsletter, game credits, or in the case of one game a blog post by the game's primary developers saying they had brought in Sweet Baby Inc for narrative consultation. The curator list was very clearly intended to tell its followers to avoid games that this company had some sort of involvement in. ] (]) 17:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::This is a typical example for the reason, why Editors, who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. One of these actions would be to demand, that you are in a similar discussion on the talk page on this article, that uses WP:PROVEIT for your argument, but ignore this policy in this case.
::::::Once again you ignore the simple facts, that Steam calls any negative review a recommendation. The negative recommendation to a game in public is not a public statement to avoid it, even if this is claimed by others/you.
::::::In the recommendation description is simply a link to the prove of involvement of the company in a game. This is not a statement to avoid the game.
::::::The curator list was very clearly intend to list the games Sweet Baby Inc was involved in without even giving any reasoning for the dislike. The about page clearly state the actual purpose of the list to be a tracker for games involved with Sweet Baby Inc. ] (]) 18:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::and RS actual stated, that the curator list doesn't give a reasoning for the negative recommendation beyond a proof of their involvment. --] (]) 18:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::93.237, this would be so much easier if you just said exactly which source(s) you want to cite and what statement(s) you want to cite it/them for. ] (]) 18:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::] - If you're going to accuse someone of blockable offenses, provide diffs. and reasoning.
:::::::Saying a game being tagged as "not recommended" by a steam curator means the curator isn't telling you to not buy the game is a terrible hill to pick to die on and hurts any arguments for inclusion on the source.
:::::::It is, in my opinion, an argument made in bad faith by the author that hurts the credibility of the article. Given people followed the group to know which games not to buy, I would go as far as to say the entire statement is irrelevant.
:::::::That being said, there may very well be statements inside that it can be sourced for which we needed the door to open on in a secondary source, which this is.
:::::::Maybe something in there is worth attributing to him, or is worth sourcing to the article as something that indisputably happened. I don't know what, but that's why we have the discussion process. I won't make a sweeping statement like "the entire thing has no value,"
:::::::It would be nice if you proposed some sentences or additions from the source, because right now, I don't think it's appropriate for every statement contained within. ] (]) 23:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think even SBI's biggest detractors would claim the group isn't about telling people what games to avoid, that's what "not recommended" means. ] (]) 02:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::> ...that the review system of Steam doesn't give any other option of wording for a review, except recommendations and that a recommendation is not a call for avoiding a game
:::::Reviews on the Steam Store page only allow positive or negative reviews. Curators on the other hand (such as ) have the option to give an 'Informational' review instead. At the current time they have 0 positive, 0 informational, and 16 negative reviews. ] (]) 11:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
:I think this source is reliable when it comes to factual basis of the material. Other sources previously used in the article don't really affect reliability of this one for one simple reason - these sources, for the most part, don't even mention information used here, and when they do mention it, some part of information gets omitted. I don't think that information provided here contradicts any major points in previously used sources, please do correct me if I'm wrong - with citations. Cheers --] (]) 06:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
::My main issue is "to what extent is it reliable." We would probably have to use it with a caveat that any statement which would need to be attributed, so anything which doesn't reference a tweet or otherwise summarize primary source material should likely not be included. Which, I'm fine with. ] (]) 10:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


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


My apologies if I sound a little irritated. My intentions are good. Famous people are not the best sources, necessarily. In sex education circles I am widely known as the go-to expert.
Is ] generally reliable for Indonesia-related articles?
* '''Option 1: ]'''
* '''Option 2: ]'''
* '''Option 3: ]'''
* '''Option 4: ]'''
{{linksummary|https://thejakartapost.com}} ] (]) 13:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


https://peggingparadise.com/ (my original website)
:Is there an actual editorial dispute on Misplaced Pages over its reliability? - ] (]) 16:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
::No. ] (]) 02:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Based on the WP-article, my default assumption is "Probably as good as any (Indonesian) newspaper, context matters." ] (]) 18:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


https://www.theartofpegging.com/ (my educational and patron platform)
== La Teja (Costa Rican newspaper) ==


https://pegging101.com/ (pegging with no kink for the vanilla people)
I was planning to write an article where one of the main sources would be from lateja.cr. I see that it is used sometimes as a resource for Costa Rican subjects. Can anyone more experienced than me in what constitutes as an RS weigh in? ]<sup>] • ]</sup> 15:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:La Teja is a national newspaper and seems to be part of other useful sources . What are you planning on using this source for?] (]) 03:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::I was planning to write about a sort of ] that was formed in the 90s. The source is this: @] ]<sup>] • ]</sup> 03:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


With Respect For All That You Amazing People Do,
== naval-encyclopedia.com ==
Ruby Ryder ] (]) 05:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)


:Ms. Ryder,
This source appears to be a self published site - about page , and as an editor is insisting in removal of any reliable sources tags (i.e. , I've brought the source here to review whether or not it is a reliable source.] (]) 16:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
:What would help here is if you could point us to either reliable, independent sources citing your work, or of you writing for publications that you don't publish yourself.... something that helps us see that, as you say, "in sex educations widely known as a go-to expert." I fully believe that you are.
:The problem with someone using your sources as a reference has to do with Misplaced Pages's rules on using self-published sources, which your websites, videos, etc, count as. We can use such sources as reference (if within some limits), but only if we can see that the creator is a ''recognized'' expert in the field... and by recognized, that means either cited by or hired to write on the topic by reliable sources. I know that it seems like your voluminous experience and the visible quality of your materials should count for something here, but alas it does not. I don't think we'd be expecting, say, the New York Times or the Journal of the American Medical Association in this case, just some recognizable source that takes such sexual matters seriously. It doesn't even have to be material that is online (although that would help.) Articles that quote you or recommend your sites or training services would really help. Can you point us to such citations? -- ] (]) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:I appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages editors cannot use their own judgement to assess the expertise of someone. There are people who research topics and work in a field their entire lives who become experts in those fields and publish their work on their own websites. But there are also pseudo-experts who do the same thing. Editors on Misplaced Pages are not allowed to use their own judgement to discern the difference between the two, but must rely on a third party to establish their expertise. If you have ever given an interview on pegging for a newspaper or a magazine, or had your website cited by a sexologist or another recognizable sex expert as a good resource on pegging, for instance, then that would allow us to recognize the reliability of your site for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:Could you comment on and notify the article talk page you want to edit? We really cannot help without context around what changes you want to include.
:that conversation from 2017 is old. I have no clue if that is what Misplaced Pages editors believe today, nor the state of the article you want to change. ] (]) 19:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::I am highly confident that ] is the main article on the topic. ] (]) 19:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would concur. ] (]) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Their comment wasn't asking which page the 2017 discussion was on (which is linked to), but was asking RubyRyder to leave a comment on the talk page of that article. ] (]) 20:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::* Is the only reason we want to include this information because its from RubyRyder and it would be good publicity? or is there a specific bit of info that they want to include that is missing?
::::* have they tried including it and seeing what happens? (see ]) Are regulars who wrote and watch the pegging article notified that this debate is happening?
::::* This post seems mostly like rehashing and trying to start up an argument from 2017 for the sake of a debate. would like info on what we are doing here, exactly, and what the debate is?
::::] (]) 20:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion from|Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_23_January_2025|2=Thank you for your response. I understand the reasoning. I was asked for other sources, and below I am listing well-known sexologists and people with letters after their name who have interviewed me on their podcasts.


Cam Fraser - the Power and Pleasure of Pegging with Ruby Ryder: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0naA7WaumMhL1t5wE2vaj5?si=IFqLYzGzT_aQomGXWKvSww&nd=1&dlsi=3c896a210a7d4408
:I agree that it's not reliable and I don't see this as a close call. It's self-published and the owner makes no claim to be an expert (]). Some articles (like the linked one) have good references, but many don't, and point back at Misplaced Pages, creating a potential ] problem. If an article on an unreliable self-published site uses good sources, then cite those sources. ] ] 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
::Yup, clearly doesn't meet WP:RS. 17:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
: I think your assessment is on-point, its not a reliable source. Note sister sites tanks-encyclopedia.com, truck-encyclopedia.com, and plane-encyclopedia.com. ] (]) 01:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


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


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


Smart Sex, Smart Love with Dr Joe Kort - Ruby Ryder on Pegging - https://joekort.com/ruby-ryder-on-pegging/
In part 382 of the current wikisaga that started earlier this week, I have been considering ]. I am a little worried that this is forming something like ], but I'm also sensitive to the fact that this more general page may be overloaded and so separating discussions to WikiProjects may be appropriate. Here, it seems a lot of the consensus formed among what I judge to be ''to small'' a cadre of editors, but maybe that can be fixed with RfCs and the like. Or, maybe this could be incorporated wholesale (if you all agree) into ]. Or maybe we send it to deletion? I don't know, I'm just hoping to get some guidance for those who may know about this sort of thing better than I, because WikiProject-specific guidelines like this are a new one for me. Whaddya think?


Please let me know if you have further questions or if I can help in any way - and if there is a better way to respond to this conversation.
] (]) 23:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
* I don't see a problem with the page you are referring to . It of interest to that particular WikiProject. Edits by its members still need to conform to Misplaced Pages editing policies and guidelines. I think there are bigger fish to fry, such as the state of a number of LDS articles. Personally, I don't see the need to worry about this. Also, I think WikiProject guidelines are not so uncommon. Check out WikiProject Books guidance for writing non-fiction book articles . There is general guidance for WikiProject Book members . There is guidance for members at WikiProject Physics . ---] (]) 00:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:During recent extensive discussions with a few LDS project members, I think the page you are referring to was mentioned once. I don't see this being used to preempt Misplaced Pages site-wide policies and guidelines. No one is pointing to this page as some kind of authority. ---] (]) 00:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:One more example: WikiProject Medicine also has guidance for members/editors: . ---] (]) 00:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::Actually, I was pointed to it a few times by more than one person as though it represented authoritative consensus. My concern is not with "guidance". My concern is strictly about there being an entirely separate page of sources with claims that the reliability had been determined, but it seems the discussion did not happen here. ] (]) 00:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::Another example is ], mentioned in a section above. ] (]) 13:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:A WikiProject source list like that only represents "consensus" among a niche group of editors who are interested and involved enough in a certain topic to join said WikiProject. In this particular case, it is quite possible (even likely) that most of the editors who built that list and participated in the pertinent WikiProject discussions are personally members of that religious movement, which would create a systemic bias. So take it with a grain of salt, and feel free to raise any sources here that have an assessment you question or disagree with, to gain broader community input. ] (]) 01:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::Should we reassess all those sources? Like, I'm not sure about any of them. The ] being listed as "reliable" is pretty concerning given the current arbcom case and discussions about that specific organization being embroiled in a COI scandal at AN/I. ] (]) 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Summoned from jps's post on the wikiproject. Seven of the sources listed there have links to archived discussions at this noticeboard, so I doubt those represent a local consensus, and rehashing here might not be the best use of time. I see that the obviously problematic sources (apologetic, self-published, and primary sources with questionable accuracy) are marked red. Sources that may not be completely independent are marked yellow with "additional considerations" like "should only be used to demonstrate an official viewpoint of the LDS Church". Those notes seem reasonable to me. The green ones mostly look reasonable too. Deseret News is apparently the most controversial and has been discussed here 4 times. The notes in the description say, {{tq|"The Deseret News is considered generally reliable, however, it is owned by a subsidiary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and there is no consensus on whether the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church, so it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should be attributed."}}. Based on the "description" notes alone, I might switch ''Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'' to yellow ("additional considerations") due to the additional considerations listed there. It might be a good idea to discuss Association for Mormon Letters because of the Arbcom case, but it would be unfortunate if that discussion became a drama outlet for pent up frustration with wiki-politics or whatever. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 15:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:In theory, providing a list of subject-specific RSes is one of the most helpful things a WikiProject can do. In theory. ] (]) 15:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
*In general I find WikiProject subject-specific source lists to be helpful, they come with some downsides but those downsides are I think largely reflective of the downsides of WikiProjects in general (NPOV, OWN, fan club, etc) rather than limited to these lists. ] (]) 16:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::Cool. Perhaps we should link back from ] then so that people know about these other lists? ] is way more extensive than even the one I brought. ] (]) 18:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::There's a partial list at {{slink|WP:RSP#Topic-specific pages}}, which can certainly be expanded, and the category ]. These topic-specific lists are useful for indexing source discussions for sources that do not meet ] and source discussions that take place outside of this noticeboard. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

==Reviews from unreliable sources==

In the process of cleaning up references to trash-tier sources that have been found ] in a broad general RFC, I've been removing reviews of material that are published in such GUNREL sources - on the basis that unreliable sources are prima facie ], and generally don't meet the bar of being required in order to present an ] of the topic.

Some have objected to this on my talk page - though they (repeatedly) didn't want to bring the sourcing discussion to ] for discussion. So I am.

The question for a given case is: Would it be a violation of NPOV not to include particular opinion statements sourced from a non-RS? Would the particular statements meet the high bar for author-sourced opinions per ] to be ]? I didn't find many that IMO would reach that bar, but of course that's a matter for per-article discussion.

In almost all cases there are plenty of reviews in solid RSes, that clearly meet RSOPINION because they are in an RS - and where there aren't, it's arguable we shouldn't need to go to non-RSes for coverage. Non-RS reviews don't count for notability, for example.

Some posited that being a solid RS wouldn't be required for a review source. I must admit I don't buy this one.

A ] of reviews in ''deprecated'' sources wasn't keen to make a carveout for them. The main issue was that the source was not reliable, so was unlikely to be an RSOPINION - that RSOPINION requires an RS. There's more chance for a merely GUNREL source meeting the RSOPINION bar - but it's prima facie unreliable so not DUE.

Something presented as RSOPINION in a GUNREL source requires that the author's opinion itself is notable. This gets fraught when a reviewer is slightly notable and has written in RSes previously or after, but the example at hand is in a GUNREL source.

The general opinion of RSN on notable persons' opinions that they've chosen to present in an unreliable source and not a reliable one has not been positive, any more than them presenting a blog post would automatically count as an RS or an expert SPS for RSOPINION. Individual cases ''may'' pass. (There's a Max Hastings cite from the deprecated Daily Mail on ] that's so far been kept on the basis of tremendous expertise, for example.)

Review statements on BLPs should be considered as a separate matter. If it's not from a solid RS, it ''cannot'' be used to make any statement about a living person. That sounds extremely broad because ] is broad. This is set out very clearly in RSOPINION as well. We will generally have quite sufficient reviews from solid RSes, thus providing an RSOPINION that complies with ].

Broadly speaking: do we have the policy justification for a carve-out of RS sourcing rules for review opinions from GUNREL sources?

It would indeed be a carveout in cases where there had been a reliability RFC, meaning the carveout would require another RFC, I'd think - ] (]) 18:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

:Generally unreliable isn't a policy designation, it's a guideline. The question is if the source is reliable for the specific use. This really should be answered on a case by case basis and blanket/blind removals should be discouraged. ] (]) 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

::This presumes blanket/blind removals, which you haven't shown is happening here. What particular edits would you defend? - ] (]) 20:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::You asked a generalized question. I gave a generalized reply. ] (]) 00:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

:Some reviews are there for a reason, no matter which source it came from and you removing them makes it less encyclopedic and literally takes away to what critics say about any films that has those sources. ] (]) 19:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

::This doesn't in any way address the policy issues or sourcing policies detailed above. Do you have a response to the points raised? The case where this would require an RFC-level carveout from an existing RFC needs addressing, for example - ] (]) 20:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:] sources are presumed to be unreliable and should normally not be used unless there is specific consensus that an article (or group of articles) published by these sources is reliable or otherwise usable. ] lowers the reliability of opinion pieces published in ] sources; it does not elevate the reliability of opinion pieces published in generally unreliable sources and cannot be used as a method to enable generally unreliable sources to circumvent sourcing requirements. Opinion pieces from sources identified as unreliable are subject to ] just like any other articles published in sources identified as unreliable, and the use of ] is further restricted by ].
:Per ], {{xt|"The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content"}}, and per ], {{xt|"Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."}} —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:In the earlier discussion that David Gerard pointed to, which (using Gerard-like words) wasn't keen to give David Gerard a licence to destroy what many other editors had put in, my comment was: Closers of the Daily Mail RfC stated that . See also the November 2019 thread and the February 2020 thread . And David Gerard's mention of "policy" is misleading -- WP:NPOV would only be relevant if the source was in fact not reliable in the situation we're talking about, WP:RSP is essay class, RfC on WP:RSN is about misinterpreting a guideline, the actual real "policy" is ], if we followed it we would be requiring David Gerard to self-revert all the unjustified changes and apologize to the editors whose work he reverted without the courtesy to notify them. Here's a recent example: in the BLP of Philip Klein, ] had in 2020 added a , David Gerard in 2024 -- and by destroying the statement made it seem that an accusation against Philip Klein had not been refuted. (An IP fixed it around the time that Philip Klein .) (Last I checked there was no RfC that conclusively supported the claim that Free Beacon was GU anyway.) Yet another objection: the topic heading here "Reviews from unreliable sources" is a ] violation, it's still allowed to think that a review in X is a reliable source for what a reviewer on X thinks. ] (]) 21:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::: ] is not a valid justification for violating the ] policy or a valid method for overriding ]. Listings on ], including ], are sourced from discussions on this noticeboard and represent community ] (a policy). If you take issue with the entry for the {{rspe|Washington Free Beacon|''Washington Free Beacon''}}, you are welcome to start a new discussion or ] about the reliability of that source on this noticeboard, or start a discussion at ] to suggest a revision to that entry. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 21:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::::And David Gerard is welcome to start a new RFC on the reliability of the ''New York Post''. But alas, here we are with this discursive and disruptive nonsense. ] (]) 21:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::There's clearly ongoing disagreement about the reliability of the ''New York Post''{{'s}} entertainment coverage, so I've gone ahead and started the RfC at ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 21:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC) {{small|Updated RfC link —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 09:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)}}
Overreach to remove all of these citations. As per ] NYP is problematic on NY politics and NYPD in particular; these are movie opinions. I don't edit movie pages and I do not read New York Post <shudder>, but ] is a perfectly reputable critic and these mass deletion campaigns are hurting Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages should remain ]. GUNREL has carve-outs precisely for situations such as this. When did Misplaced Pages go from being an attempt at building an encyclopedia to an effort at dismantling an encyclopedia? <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 21:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:The ''New York Post'' has been found to be generally unreliable for '''factual reporting''' vis-à-vis stories like the ]. But now David Gerard is waging an inane crusade to remove basic review criticism. Because apparently an established film critic's opinions on is not trustworthy and must be removed. Because apparently we are concerned about the factual basis of these subjective evaluations. Or that they are somehow given undue weight. And every single instance should be sought out and summarily removed. And we must believe this is an important task that is worth any of our time and improves the encylopedia. David "raised a lot points" here I guess to confuse people into concern. The RFC was clear enough. We do not need a carveout. ] (]) 21:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

== RfC: Entertainment coverage of the '']'' (including '']'' and '']'') ==

<!-- ] 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1713650479}}
{{rfc|media|prop|rfcid=563822D}}

What is the ] of entertainment coverage, including reviews, from the '']'' ({{duses|nypost.com}}) and its sub-publications '']'' ({{duses|decider.com}}) and '']'' ({{duses|pagesix.com}})?
* '''Option 1: ]'''
* '''Option 2: ]'''
* '''Option 3: ]'''
* '''Option 4: ]'''
—&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 21:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
: Added '']'' to RfC question per {{u|Endwise}}'s suggestion in the ]. In your response, please clearly specify the publication and/or sub-publications that your evaluation refers to, and the types of coverage (e.g. film reviews, celebrity news) that you are evaluating. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


With respect,
=== Survey (Entertainment coverage of the ''New York Post'') ===
Ruby Ryder ] (]) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)}}
*'''Option 3''' or '''Option 4'''. There is no need to make a carveout for the New York Post. The Post's entertainment coverage is part of it being a gossip tabloid at absolute best. This is not a paper of quality or renown. Given that so much of its entertainment coverage is about living persons, and the previous RFC noted the Post's fondness for ''fabrication'', allowing any such carveout is likely to be a ] danger. There's a consistent flow of fresh BLP-violating trash from the Post, especially from Page Six but also from the rest of the paper/site. I would suggest the safest thing is to deprecate its entertainment coverage entirely. At the least, we must note that the New York Post ''must not be used'' for ''any'' statement concerning living persons - ] (]) 22:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
*I don't know enough to speak on the ''Post'', but for ''Decider'', I'd say '''option 2'''. Some of their articles are clickbaity gossip and tend to over-dramatize stories (for instance, ), but those tend to fall under ]. On the other hand, they have some longer-form articles/interviews (, ) and reviews () that seem perfectly fine and where I have no reason to suspect their reliability. Given that the least reliable articles seem to come from sources that shouldn't be used in any case, I see no reason to extend the "generally unreliable" moniker to all ''Decider'' articles. ] (]) 00:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3'''. I've found the NY Post entertainment coverage to be mostly gossipy and i'd avoid it... In fact really all i would use the Post for is sports coverage, which is mostly ok as they employ some good sports writers.. everything else there I would avoid. ] (]) 00:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Question''' - what does "entertainment" mean in this RFC? Celebrity gossip or film reviews? <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 01:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Yeah... +1. For example from NYPost is a pretty standard concert review (not unlike other such reviews they post), and I'd have no issues with someone using it on ]. The celeb gossip crap posted on NYPost, Decider, and Pagesix.com is a different beast however and something I'd probably argue is generally unreliable. ] (]) 01:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
*::I assumed we were talking about entertainment news reporting rather than reviews. ] (]) 02:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
*: This RfC examines all entertainment coverage (including the entire scope of ''Decider'') from these publications, which encompasses both film reviews and celebrity news. If you consider one of these publications to be more reliable for some topics than others, please say so. Please be detailed and specific in your responses, so the RfC closer can carefully evaluate the responses and give a comprehensive closing statement. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''', weakly – ''The Post'' is tabloid-y but entertainment as a whole has elements of tabloid-y content. For instance, if I was working on an article about internet slang such as ], I wouldn't have much of an issue using ''The Post'' for some cultural reception info. Also concurring with Endwise, I wouldn't have an issue with it for music or a film review. Celeb gossip shouldn't really be used from any tabloid anyway? I don't know much to speak on the other ones. <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:darkgreen">]</span><sup>]</sup> 03:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' on Decider <ins>and Page Six</ins>. I can't find many (or any significant) examples of RS referencing its reporting based on a cursory Google News search for terms like "Decider reported" or "according to Decider", etc. That said, I also can't find any instances of its reporting being specifically identified as inaccurate or unreliable. Given that, I think Option 3 is the best bet. ] (]) 03:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC); edited
03:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. I understand why the New York Post can be problematic, but film/music/television/etc reviews are fine. I guess we have to explicitly allow that carve out so overzealous editors don't go around removing them. ] (]) 04:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 2'''. Frankly I don't see the reason why reviews from well known film critics (like the ] listed above) or interviews that asks the right questions cannot be used as a primary source just because they are posted onto an unreliable platform. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


:I will quickly note that Sunny Megatron is an XBIZ Sexpert of the Year award according to our ] page, and is used as a reference elsewhere. ] is clinical director of The Center for Relationship and Sexual Health. So these aren't random peoplecasts. That does not establish, of course, what information you are to be cited for... and as others have, I suggest that you take the issue back to ] for fresh discussion. -- ] (]) 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Discussion (Entertainment coverage of the ''New York Post'') ===
::agreed. I think RubyRyder seems useful as an expert. their information could be used, if correctly attributed. ] (]) 23:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The ''New York Post'' has been discussed nine times on this noticeboard, including a {{rsnl|312|RFC: New York Post (nypost.com)|2020 RfC}} which concluded that the source was {{xt|"''Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics'', particularly NYC politics with 2 qualifications: a/that it was more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and that it is particularly unreliable for coverage involving the NYC police"}}. Discussion at ] indicates that there is an ongoing disagreement over the reliability of the ''New York Post''{{'s}} entertainment reviews, and the currently unanswered question at ] indicates that the reliability of '']'' (a publication of the ''New York Post'') is an open question. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 21:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you. These look like good sources. Ultimately the reliability of a source is dependent on the specific article text that it is being used to support, so your site still wouldn't be reliable to support a ], for instance, but it should be reliable to support general statements about pegging. ] (]) 01:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: ], ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 22:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: ], ]. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 22:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
: NYP I don't read and so have no opinion. I sometimes read Decider's "stream it or skip it" and haven't gotten any feeling their reviews are noticeably inferior to most other entertainment venues... What would be the justification for changing Decider's entertainment coverage to "generally unreliable" or "deprecated"? I am asking because this discussion needs to clearly summarize any reasons put forward to blacklist this site (and "please read several miles of previous discussion, it's all up there" doesn't cut it). ] (]) 23:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:: I'm not aware of any proposal to ] ''Decider''. Since ''Decider'' is operated by the ''New York Post'', which was found to be generally unreliable for factual reporting in the {{rsnl|312|RFC: New York Post (nypost.com)|2020 RfC}}, one of the goals of the current RfC is to determine whether ''Decider'' should be considered likewise or otherwise. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 23:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I think this should also cover , a celebrity gossip site ran by NYPost which does as well. ] (]) 01:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


== NationalWorld.com ==
:Checking the page, it seems like the only (if not primary writer) right now is , and per his about page, {{Tq|He joined the New York Post in 2021 after nearly six years at Us Weekly, where he started his career. He graduated from Hofstra University on Long Island in 2016 with a bachelor's degree in journalism.}} ] ] 01:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
: I think that is a reasonable suggestion, since ''Page Six'' is already listed as a sub-publication of the ''New York Post'' at ]. I've added ''Page Six'' to the RfC. Thanks. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
: {{warnsign|Do not pre-empt any conclusions}} Please don't act as if your preference has already achieved consensus, ], as you did {{diff2|1213869938|here}}. Your edit summary {{tq|NYP is generally unreliable, prima facie WP:UNDUE}} is '''inaccurate'''. The current (pre-discussion) consensus is that NYP is generally unreliable "for factual reporting especially with regard to politics", not that it is generally unreliable in every aspect. ] (]) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::"generally" means "generally", not "not generally" - ] (]) 10:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


What do we think about being used for ]'s month of birth? Courtesy ping to {{yo|Diademchild}}.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) ==


:Based on ], not necessarily crap. ] (]) 21:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The U.S. Agency for Global Media is a U.S. government agency that runs the U.S. external service (]) and the surrogate services (RFE/RL, ], ]), etc. Prior to 2017, these broadcasters were collectively controlled by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a semi-independent board. After 2017, the board was abolished and they all now answer to a unitary appointee of the President of the United States (serving as his/her pleasure) and are 100-percent funded by the U.S. Government.<br/>
:Remember that ] says full names or birth dates should be widely published by reliable sources and that the standard for inclusion isn't just verification. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
<small>As a reminder:
* An ''external service'' reports on the sponsor nation from the sponsor nation's perspective (e.g. the BBC World Service uses British presenters to broadcast information about the UK to other nations).
* A ''surrogate service'' reports on a target nation using presenters from the target nation and is designed to act as a "surrogate" for the perceived absence of certain perspective in the target nation's own media (e.g. Russia's RT uses British and American presenters to broadcast information ''to the'' UK and USA largely ''about'' the UK and USA).</small>
Questions:
#Is the U.S. ''external service'' (Voice of America) RS pre-2017?
#Is the U.S. ''external service'' (Voice of America) RS post-2017?
#Are the U.S. ''surrogate services'' RS pre-2017?
#Are the U.S. ''surrogate services'' RS post-2017?
] (]) 03:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''For what it's worth I think all four are non-RS''' but I'm interested in feedback from the community.</br>Issues with the functional independence of ] in our article on the subject, and we could probably have an entire article just about it. And most of these controversies are pre-2017. Until 1971, RFE/RL was secretly controlled by the CIA - this only stopped after an expose revealed that fact. The ITU and others (e.g. , ) have said the broadcasts of Radio y Television Marti are designed more to foment subversion in Cuba than disseminate news, and even the U.S.' own audit agency (the GAO) has said it engages in "propaganda". There's a parade of individual examples of serious issues associated with its reporting that are too numerous to mention (e.g. ). The U.S. State Department famously ordered VOA to spike an interview with ] , etc. etc. ] (]) 03:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
*{{re|Chetsford}} Since {{rspe|Radio Free Asia|]}} and {{rspe|Voice of America|]}} have both had their reliability examined in previous requests for comment {{rsnl|333|RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA)|in March 2021}} and {{rsnl|353|VOA (Voice of America)|in September 2021}}, respectively, would you like to make this discussion an RfC? —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
:*I'm concerned that may be premature at this point and am mostly trying to get an informal sense as to whether it might be appropriate to treat all of the USAGM brands (either pre or post-2017) as a single evaluative unit for a future RfC. But maybe I'm unnecessarily elongating the process. What do you think? ] (]) 03:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
:*:I think your approach is reasonable and I like how your framing of the questions forces editors to consider aspects of these broadcasters that may be overlooked with a broader "Is X reliable?" question. Personally, I believe these four questions would make an excellent RfC statement (though I'd rephrase them to replace {{!xt|"RS"}} with something clearer), with the remainder of the text in ] positioned underneath. Editors who want to offer separate evaluations for each broadcaster can do so in their responses and the RfC closer should be able to summarize the consensus for each broadcaster separately.{{pb}}If the only thing holding you back from launching the RfC is uncertainty on the phrasing, I'd wait for a couple more comments to confirm that the phrasing is appropriate, then I'd move straight to the RfC. The {{rsnl|333|RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA)|2021 Voice of America RfC}} had high participation, so a new RfC would be needed to overturn its results. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 05:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the feedback, ] - that makes total sense. My reticence in treating each of these one-by-one is that they're essentially just different logos on a single organization (not unlike Taco Bell and KFC being two different menus of ] versus two different companies) with a single controlling mind and editorial staff who seamlessly float between the various brands; ergo I find it hard to believe we might say "X is reliable, while Y is unreliable". In any case, I'll plan to follow your advice and reformat this as an RfC after a few more comments. ] (]) 05:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:26, 24 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
    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

    Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.


    Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

    List of archives , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
    20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
    30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
    40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
    50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
    60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
    70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
    80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
    90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
    100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
    110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
    120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
    130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
    140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
    150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
    160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
    170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
    180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
    190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
    200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
    210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
    220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
    230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
    240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
    250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
    260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
    270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
    280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
    290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
    300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
    310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
    320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
    330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
    340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
    350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
    360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
    370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
    380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
    390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
    400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
    410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
    420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
    430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
    440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
    450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
    460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465

    Additional notes:

    Shortcuts
    • RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
    • While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
    • This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.
    Start a new discussion

    RfC: NewsNation

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

    What is the reliability of NewsNation?

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


    Survey (NewsNation)

    • Option 2: Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
      • NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
        • In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings, Coulthart said "... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"! . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including Jamey Jacob and Mick West, all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
        • Writing in The Skeptic, Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: "Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."
        • He wrote a UFO book titled Plain Sight which Jason Colavito described as a "conspiracy narrative" and a "slipshod summary".
        • The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for “espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”
        • The Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking "Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary? while strongly implying the former.
        • The Sydney Morning Herald has described him as a "UFO truther" with "little appetite for scrutiny".
        • Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked 60 Minutes (Australian TV program) investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
      • Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
        • In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the Washington Post: ), the channel "was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health".
        • In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said "... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing". The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to Mick West's analysis, a Boeing 737 .
    Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Discussion (NewsNation)

    • For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)

    This thread is opened at the request of @Kovcszaln6 following the dispute between me and @Javext in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) on the multiple issues regarding that article. I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:
    1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and
    2. Yemeni state-controlled media outlets wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets") Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article. Special:diff/1266430566: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used.
    Special:diff/1266448873: This is the version that Jav wants to keep Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):

    • (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)

    Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:

    Abo Yemen✉ 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle
    WP:AGE MATTERS?
    citing Portuguese records
    That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above Abo Yemen✉ 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama. pp. 290-291. (link) GordonGlottal (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the Quaiti Sultanate was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended). He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023

    References

    1. Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)
      High School Flags
      Tuesday, September 17, 2024
      After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.
      May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.
      The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.

    Abo Yemen✉ 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the Special:diff/1266430566#Background Special:diff/1266430566#Losses and Special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city Internet Archive a txt version of the book that can get machine translated can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) Abo Yemen✉ 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hi, @GordonGlottal. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
    "Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." Javext (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    capturing Al-Shihr
    hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? Abo Yemen✉ 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
    I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. Javext (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. Javext (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, (Never happened btw) and how important it would be to conquer Diu."
    Abo Yemen✉ 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned Abo Yemen✉ 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    capturing a city != sacking it
    your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here Abo Yemen✉ 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? Javext (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? Abo Yemen✉ 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. Javext (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    @GordonGlottal so we can finish with and archive this, can we use those sources in anything other than the battle section? like the other sections that I've mentioned being deleted here #c-Abo_Yemen-20250108072200-GordonGlottal-20250107223800 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu

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

    The following genealogy sources are currently considered Generally unreliable at WP:RSP (A), or in repeated inquiries at WP:RSN (B and C):

    • A: Geni.com
    • B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
    • C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
    Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
    They should be:

    NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)

    Preliminaries

    Probably need to add the website Genealogics.org to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be WP:CIRC. --Kansas Bear 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. NLeeuw (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Read Background: B. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Survey A: Geni.com

    Deprecate. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. JoelleJay (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate.Question. Isn't it already deprecated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unsure. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate. Really bad. Needs to go away.—Alalch E. 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    Invalid RFC/No change - giving only options here that are highly negative is not a neutral stance. And there is no specific evidences shown or reason why this is even coming up or needs that all previous RSP should be declared invalid. (See discussions RSP discussions here ). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

    Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley

    Deprecate, per background discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Comment. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.
    Deprecation of this source will reduce the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.
    Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Generally unreliable. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) Generally unreliable is the one which says this: "questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published" I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would only allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be prohibited. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the Generally unreliable category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then only as far as we have to. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Generally reliable, in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. Ghirla 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate per ActivelyDisinterested.—Alalch E. 00:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • No Change - no entry to RSP needed and seems has been accepted. This just is not something that often comes up for question and seems has not been hard to figure out the nature of so it also does not need a RSP entry. Yet as can be seen by this search, it is used and that seems evidence that common view *is* de facto RS by usage. Really seems like just declaring all those edits wrong is not a useful thing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

    Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav

    Deprecate. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. JoelleJay (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as genealogy.eu and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Lancaster (talk • contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Comment. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the Europäische Stammtafeln, Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. Ghirla 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". NLeeuw (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecate. WP:SPS. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—Alalch E. 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    • No change to either of these - seems this is referring to two different sources, both of which are somewhat widely used in WP and neither of which seems suitable for an RSP entry. Just not seeing sufficient case or benefit from any entry either. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)

    @ActivelyDisinterested: my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @ActivelyDisinterested Thanks for restoring the discussion from the archive; it evidently was not yet closed. It would seem that we've got a clear result though. Should I request a third party to formally close it with a conclusion, or how does this go with RfCs? NLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    The {{RFC}} tag was missing, which would have added "DoNotArchiveUntil.." to the header to stop it from being archived. I've add the RFC tag which will list in for every to see (not just those to happen across it on RSN). I suggest waiting and seeing if any more comments come in, as they editors have taken part yet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I don't see the point to this. I can see there being concerns about quality of niche sources, but do not see a reason why a RSP entry should be made or benefit for trying it. Why should the source choice of hundreds or thousands of editors at thousands of entries be disregarded ? How can they all be effectively replaced ? I'm thinking that their de facto opinion has to be given great weight and that all those cites would either stay or that holes would be made in the affected articles -- so any RSP entry seems just pointless or causing lots of trouble rather than making any improvement. Am I missing some magic wand or an urgent concern worth the trauma ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

    RfC: Jacobin

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

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

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


    Survey: Jacobin

    • Option 2 I am opposed to the use of WP:GREL and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2/3, bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. And it was fixed. There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      • I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including User:Iljhgtn and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? Volunteer Marek 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
        You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
        • You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
          You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
          No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
          I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we WP:FOC. I believe @Horse Eye's Back is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
          Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? Volunteer Marek 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error. Volunteer Marek 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      I note the failure to provide the requested source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Right back at you. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
        , your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
        • Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that. Volunteer Marek 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
          Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over Jacobin publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for The Heritage Foundation which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation (and has a team of paid staff working around the clock to target, dox, and threaten Misplaced Pages editors)?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Gamaliel: Mostly Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). Kind regards,
    Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 (intext attribution) WP:RSBIAS and WP:RSOPINION cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. TFD (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1-ish Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major WP:NEWSORG. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that improves their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. Loki (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that Jacobin published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. Media Bias/Fact Check gives Jacobin a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the New York Times (1.4) and Washington Post (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. Ivanvector (/Edits) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2/3 While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes Jacobin. While Jacobin is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of Jacobin is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by Jacobin that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think Jacobin is "unreliable" per se, I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. Chetsford (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: Option 2: mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory. I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus. In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—blindlynx 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • 1 or 2, I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Weak option 2 per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. Strong oppose option 3, though, for somewhat obvious reasons. The Kip 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1/2 - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1/2 Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 or 4 They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources. Volunteer Marek 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1, with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. Astaire (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of general reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2 position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" always apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to how likely we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1, it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as Reason (RSP entry). There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED are quite clear. 
    Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has due weight for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a Bad RfC. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the previous RfC where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant use by others and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which doesn't needs to be rehashed. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated David Joyner (business executive) for deletion not long after the Killing of Brian Thompson, and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that Jacobin has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias."
    I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that we spend a paragraph attributing it to falsely luring Americans into supporting an illegal invasion based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable New York and contain no obvious factual errors. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2, mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from CANZUK Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely. A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. Alaexis¿question? 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. WP:GREL is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL. Notably, The Economist is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is WP:GREL. TarnishedPath 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    You should probably read farther than the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    "The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • (Summoned by ping in this thread) Bad RFC / No listing just as in 2021. Or Option 2, it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as WP:RSOPINION. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but Jacobin is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- Patar knight - /contributions 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 The current summary at WP:RS/P acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 WP:GREL already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a WP:NEWSBLOG. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. Silverseren 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? TarnishedPath 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • 3. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.
    It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The NYTimes has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, here we've got Nature finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in BioScience, The Lancet Planetary Health, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the emotional hind-brain of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.
    Which just strengthens my point, there're no blinders like ideological blinders, so its not so much a matter of how many fact-checkers you have as in how you maybe are presenting facts which, while individually true, are cherry picked or incomplete or out of context or one-sided or otherwise misleading. It might not even be intentional, exactly. Mind-sets are like that. Better to stick with Time or other people who are more into just blandly attracting a broad readership rather than with people who have points to make.
    They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine. As long as we include the qualifier. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Herostratus: not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't all publications are completely reliable for their contents? If the News of the World says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the News of the World, the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we.
    What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that in our own words because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for all races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. Herostratus (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the thing is our due weight policy says that due weight (noteworthiness) is apportioned based on the amount of attention given in reliable sources. I take that to mean opinion in generally reliable sources is worth reporting; opinion in generally unreliable sources isn’t. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    The Daily Mail is not reliable for its own contents, having doctored its archives. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per WP:NEWSBLOG – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to Jacobin should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!
    Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon (RSP entry), Townhall (RSP entry)). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with WP:WEIGHT. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement . So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. James Wolcott identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet (RSP entry) , Daily Kos (RSP entry) , Raw Story (RSP entry) , The Canary (RSP entry) , and the Electronic Intifada (RSP entry) .Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory Springee (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:
    1. Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
    2. Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still. By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
    3. THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK. By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 (note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the Claremont Institute but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)
    4. The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy, Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
    So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. Springee (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. Springee (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is too biased to be reliable personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? Springee (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their About Us page states they offer socialist perspectives and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supporting radical politics and very explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism. Crossroads 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms are commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of Jacobin (magazine) notes the political diversity of contributors, incorporating "everyone from social democratic liberals to avowed revolutionaries", so I don't think either you or Simonm223 are wrong on this. Different people are gonna use different terms and apply different meanings to each of them.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. Where outside the United States are you talking about? The world where barely 20% of countries recognize same-sex marriage? Where sixteen countries have banned the burqa? Is it Japan, where the conservative Liberal Democratic Party has been in power since 1955? Or China, where a media outlet that is as critical of the Chinese Communist Party as Jacobin is of the Democratic Party would have long been banned, and their writers arrested? I think we all need a reality check here, especially if we want to represent reality in our articles. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing they probably had in mind specifically other western democracies, as it's common for European countries to have a mainstream Socialist Party with an ideology listed as social democracy (to name a few: Spain, Portugal, France, Albania, etc).
    I'm comfortable speculating this is their argument because it's one that's often repeated in American progressive-left circles. This argument is usually presented as follows: Bernie Sanders is viewed as the furthest left one can go in America, the things his supporters want are not radical to other developed countries (paid time off, universal healthcare, etc), therefore what is far left in America is only moderately left elsewhere.
    Not saying I entirely agree or disagree with that argument, either how Simonm223 phrased it or how I interpreted it. Just saying I think they had in mind comparable democracies, not the entire world.
     Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    This has become a discussion about Overton windows rather than the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 or 2 - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be relied on (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like Jacobin that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like Quillette). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in Jacobin are more noteworthy than they really are. Crossroads 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      Jacobin's raison d'etre is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. 2601:340:8200:800:30C1:6FF8:F57B:FCF8 (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      This is no more a good argument than it would be to state that the raison d'etre of X publication is to promote capitalism and the geo-political interests of the United States, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting.
      I could apply that faulty argument to shitloads of mainstream US publications that are currently considered to be generally reliable. TarnishedPath 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite Jacobin, but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of The Economist or Reason (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to Quillette, which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, here's some solid reporting by Jacobin on a hoax published in Quillette, revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of this past RSN discussion.) Generalrelative (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Additional considerations apply. As I indicated in the discussion above which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that Blackstone Inc. "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1. Our guideline on reliable sources is explicit that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. I may not personally love the political perspective of Jacobin, but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding Jacobin as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we expect from a reliable source; and B) a case where context matters, as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number was Information provided in passing, and we already know that such info occasionally may not be reliable, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the best sources. For a topic like Mark Fisher, looks like Jacobin is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try an article from the journal Urban Studies. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.Finally, when a piece published in Jacobin is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, per our guideline about opinion pieces in reliable sources. The Economist and The Wall Street Journal publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of The Economist, editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3 or Option 2, long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the Reign of Terror was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. Just10A (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
      For the record, the founder has said that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of The Black Jacobins, a book about the Haitian Revolution, not the French. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. TarnishedPath 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      The Black Jacobins is named so because the author analogizes the actions of the Haitians to that of the French Jacobins. It's just adding an extra step (not to mention that the word has a known meaning on it's face, so it's mostly irrelevant.). Regardless, it's clearly derived, and it's frankly silly to even argue semantics. Just10A (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing semantics. Your objection doesn't make any sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't inherently reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. Just10A (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      That is arguing semantics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      If that's your benchmark, then practically everything is arguing semantics, including this whole thread. "Jacobin publishes words -> what are the meaning of those words? (semantics) -> can we qualify those meanings as 'reliable?'" Clearly distinguishing factors, and I'm not interested in arguing semantics about the word "semantics" with you like a 12 year old. My vote's been explained, get over it. Just10A (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1/Keep the current RSPS summary I think a few people arguing for additional considerations are misremembering the current RSPS legend. Additional considerations doesn’t refer to things like weight, or bias, or that you need to attribute opinion pieces because those are all standard considerations that apply to all sources. The current RSPS summary already says (in part) Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'. I can't find anything that indicates that's not still a perfectly good summary. CambrianCrab (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1* Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. BSMRD (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1: Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1/2: generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Bad RfC As on 25 July 2021. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on our guideline for use of biased sources. In particular I found this 2019 assessment by the Columbia Journalism Review persuasive. Most recently this January 4, 2025 article from the Columbia Journalism Review cites a Jacobin article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find Jacobin worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow CJRs lead? The arguments seem to be (1) Jacobin recently issued a major retraction and (2) Jacobin has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to WP:BIASED. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like The New Criterion or The Atlantic Monthly. — Wug·a·po·des 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2 or Option 3: Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2. This is not a WP:NEWSORG. Its stated purpose is "to foster class consciousness and build the institutions that can tame and eventually overcome capital". Compare to the missions of the NYT: "We seek the truth and help people understand the world."; or the BBC: "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain". The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver reporting. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a Bad RFC because there's no reason for initiating it, I support Option 2 or Option 3 because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 – Jacobin may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that Jacobin isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like The Economist, Jacobin publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be better than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very bad RfC given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by Tayi Arajakate) and a complete lack of any examples of actual uses on Misplaced Pages where the reliability is questioned. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Misplaced Pages. An absurd reason to open an RfC. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 per Silver seren and Wugapodes (and thank you for providing actual reported information on their editorial process rather than speculation, heavy irony in this whole discussion). This whole saga is based on one correction? Really? Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1 bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Bias has plenty to do with reliability, or can. It's a worthwhile thing to take into consideration. Herostratus (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3/4: An encyclopedia should focus on high-quality, fact-driven sources. Not on ones that report the news with heavy political agendas, at least not without qualifying it. Using a highly politically charged source (of whatever political persuasion) inevitably leads to
    1. Bias and lack of objectivity: Sources with extreme political leanings present information very selectively and often distort facts to support an ideological agenda. This can lead to biased or one-sided entries that undermine neutrality. It can also lead to including content that is not encyclopedic. See Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not.
    2. Erosion of credibility: Misplaced Pages is expected to provide balanced, factual, and well-researched content. Reliance on politically extreme sources can damage its reputation as a reliable and neutral reference.
    3. Misinformation and inaccuracy: Sources like Jacobin often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation.
    4. Cherry-picking evidence: Extreme political sources may omit contrary evidence or fail to represent the full range of perspectives. This results in incomplete or skewed coverage. Critical context is lacking.
    5. Harm to reputation of the field: Normalizing unreliable content can set a dangerous precedent here. Per Misplaced Pages policy, a fact worthy of entry in an encyclopedia would be covered by multiple reliable sources. It would be difficult to "counter" each instance of citing Jacobin with another source of equal repute but on the opposite political extreme covering the same story.

    Further, Jacobin is mostly an opinion source. While it is not the worst source in the world, it hardly ranks among reliable sources. According to Ad Fontes Media, which monitors news value and reliability, "Ad Fontes Media rates Jacobin in the Hyper-Partisan Left category of bias and as Mixed Reliability/Opinion OR Other Issues in terms of reliability." The goal of Misplaced Pages, which prioritizes reliable secondary sources, is to present information with a sense of detachment. There is no shortage of such sources, and those are the ones to use. --Precision123 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Well said. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, @Iljhgtn:. I'd also like to add that @Herostratus: put it nicely above: "If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it." --Precision123 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    That is also a good point. I imagine that is why as a standalone source it likely should not be relied upon for reliable reporting on the facts, but that maybe it could work to bolster a claim made already by another reliable source. Option 2 of "Additional considerations" is where I am leaning. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    The OP @Feminist also spoke to this. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    1. All sources are biased, it's a natural part of human nature. This is covered by WP:RSBIAS, if that bias effects accuracy and fact checking then that needs to be shown by examples. Biased sources are not unreliable simply because of their bias.
    2. People's opinions of Misplaced Pages are not a criteria for determining a reliable source.
    3. Instances of errors or misinformation should be shown, saying they might exist isn't evidence that they do exist.
    4. This is again covered by WP:RSBIAS.
    5. This point relates to NPOV not reliability. Editors should take WP:DUE, WP:BALASP, and WP:FALSEBALANCE into account, but ultimately whether a source should be used is not the same as if a source is reliable.
    -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Detachment is specifically not required of sources per RSBIAS "... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 2. They are an analysis/opinion magazine rather than a strait news source, so their pervasive bias has to be carefully considered when assessing its use as a source. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion: Jacobin

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

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

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

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

    • Bad RFC because we should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, but since we're doing this: Jacobin is clearly an opinion outlet, not a news outlet. We shouldn't be relying on them for statements of fact for that reason alone. FOARP (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also used by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks.
      That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    • The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way. Volunteer Marek 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right. Volunteer Marek 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at WP:VPP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? TarnishedPath 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade The Economist. TarnishedPath 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what Volunteer Marek was concerned about was WP:VPP. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is not the case that a book review can only be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet the relevant wiki-notability standard. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    The Heritage Foundation

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

    RfC: TheGamer

    OP has withdrawn the discussion. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 21:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    Link to previous discussion

    Kaynsu1 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer

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

    The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose LinkedIn profile references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. John M Baker (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ok, thank you very much. HelixUnwinding (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    Pirate Wires?

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

    Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.
    Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. FortunateSons (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher Pirate Wires lists him as a senior editor? I just wanted to make sure PW was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. FortunateSons (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think this is a case for BRD, but it seems like a reasonable option FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Invoking George Soros conspiracy theories to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not generally reliable, and I would avoid using this publication for claims about living people. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link Selfstudier provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously his personal thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that WP:OR and/or your own conclusion being reached? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Considering that comment and the fact that founder Mike Solana is the chief marketing officer of Founders Fund, Pirate Wires has a major conflict of interest with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-independent source with respect to all related topics. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Marginally reliable, there seems to be a pretty wide spread quality wise because they seem to allow their writer a loose leash. This means that some articles are very good and some are very bad. Personally I've found them solidly reliable for the more wonkish techy stuff but have a lot of issues when they start to cover politics or culture/society in general. Crypto seems to be the only blindspot within their otherwise area of expertise, their crypto coverage is just awful and should be avoided like the plague. When used I would attribute and I would strongly advise against any use for BLP not covered by ABOUTSELF. I agree that pieces by Solana should be treated as self published and that coverage by Pirate Wire is not to be considered independent of the Founders Fund. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Need context before coming to RSN

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

    • Per Slatersteven its founder describes it as a WP:SPS - it should be treated accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
      Not me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
      Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per Selfstudier apologies. I will strike above. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
      It is not WP:SPS and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an WP:RS would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the shape of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a WP:RS, according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --Aquillion (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah by that criteria this is a SPS, one guys blog is still one guys blog even if they let their friends post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Usage in Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages

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

    It's at best, usable for the attributed opinion of Rindsberg only, but even then, it's obviously polemical and partisan. There's lots of right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages that I personally find disingenuous, but inevitably an article on "Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages" is going to have to include some partisan sourcing, but not framing it as fact is essential. I am unsure whether Pirate Wires is prominent enough a publication that it would be due to mention in any capacity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't even think its usable for that... Can't find anything that suggests that Rindsberg is a subject matter expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sources in that article should have some leeway, as Misplaced Pages is obviously going to be criticised by such sources. But I totally agree with Hemiauchenia that framing is key. This is the opinion of a hyper partisan source, framing it as fact is wrong. Whether it should be included or not is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is more or less a group
    blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Misplaced Pages editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Both unreliable and WP:UNDUE. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agree fully. Unreliable and undue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    almost certainly no. the article attacking[REDACTED] has falsehoods and even ignoring that and arguing its an opinion piece we could use with attribution , it goes at it from a very marginal POV … there are more useful opinion pieces from more reliable outlets out there.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    How is it used by others or is it even used by others? If sources have cited their work then I think we can as well. However, I would be very cautious about using it as an independent reference. Very cautious to the point where I would generally say no. Perhaps in a case where it's spot on topic (ideological bias of Misplaced Pages) but then only with attribution. Speaking generally, these sort of sources are always difficult as they may provide very good information but other than editors reading the text and using their own common sense, OR, etc, we don't have a good way to judge the quality of the output. BTW, this is also why I think "use with caution" may not be specific enough. Some sources are more like "use with caution but probably OK" while others are more like "use with extreme caution but there is probably a case where it provides more than about self content". Springee (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Pirate Wires itself is notable as it's had coverage in other notable outlets but its viewpoint about Misplaced Pages per se might not have been documented in RS yet. But I'm confused -- Why are some of these other media outlets' self-published viewpoints included without them necessarily being considered RS themselves? Manuductive (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    The term self-published refers to sources without adequate editorial oversight, which includes most group blogs. Well-established news outlets are not self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Imo Having Misplaced Pages articles that discuss whether Misplaced Pages is reliable, biased, antisemitic, etc is silly. We're all too inherently conflicted as Misplaced Pages editors to give a sober assessment of these topics and what is/isn't due to include. These topics are best left to scholars. That said, Pirate Wires is a lot less established than these other publications you mention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Outright rejecting Pirate Wires because it's "right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages" and has "a very marginal POV" is the issue with WP:RSN that the piece is trying to critique. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    But it does affect WP:DUE weight (which requires balance between sources, and which is the real concern for something that, as a WP:SPS or a website with no reputation, would obviously be opinion at best.) The article already contains a large number of right-wing sources with a similar perspective; does this piece add anything to them? My feeling is that articles like this are subject to problems where editors try to do this nose-counting thing where they add dozens of opinionated or biased sources saying the same thing because they feel it's a really important perspective - but that's not how opinion is really meant to be used. If we have twelve sources that are fundimentially similar saying the same thing, they ought to be condensed down to a single sentence or so saying "a bunch of sources said X" (unless some of them are individually noteworthy on their own merits somehow, eg. if they're an opinion from a significant expert, but that obviously isn't the case here.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Chess makes a perfectly valid point. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's being rejected because it's a random tech guy's blog - not because it's right wing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    One thing @Hemiauchenia said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because she's just some person with a megaphone. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, Ashley Rindsberg is a man. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Evidence has already been provided. In this thread. The founder brags about having no editorial board on twitter dot com. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Getting neither the gender "she's" nor the spelling "Ashley Rindberg" correct shows me you may not have looked into this very much. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Oh do stop. That's an awful lot to take from a bloody typo. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Here's a freebee for all the people looking to say Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias. This is what a reliable source accusing Misplaced Pages of a left-wing bias looks like: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793846 Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased Iljhgtn (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I should add that the Manhattan Institute was discussed previously here; the discussion was never closed or added to WP:RSP but by a quick nose-count the total unreliable + deprecate opinions outnumbered the "unclear" opinions almost two-to-one (and there were almost no people saying it was GREL.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    What game? I literally provided a source accusing Misplaced Pages both of left-wing bias and of bias against women at the same time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • We don't actually require an RFC for every individual dispute; and sources certainly do not automatically default to reliable. Just doing a quick nose-count in this discussion suggests that it's extremely unlikely that an RFC on Pirate Wires' reliability would support your contention that it is reliable - numerous issues have been raised, especially regarding its lack of editorial controls and its lack of the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that RS requires. We can pull it through an entire RFC if you really think it's necessary but I think your time would be better-spent looking for more clearly reliable secondary sources covering this, if you want it in the article. This would also turn things back to the more fundamental WP:DUE problem I mentioned above - this looks identical to dozens of similar pieces posted by people with similar opinions; given that it's published in what's at least a low-quality source compared to the ones already in the article, what makes this one significant enough to highlight? --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    For disclosure, I originally wrote the Mike Solana article. I think the answer is no to this question specifically, and similar questions generally.
    Pirate Wires is an advocacy media outlet. Its writing is in a punchy tone -- a tech-ish form of gonzo journalism -- that blends opinion with explanatory reporting. They don't do spot news. So there's just no utility in using it for encyclopedia-writing.
    That's not to say it's either good or bad, merely that it doesn't serve the limited purposes for which we use sources here. (It ran a widely cited interview with Jack Dorsey and I don't think anyone believes they made-up the interview. But if we need to cite that interview in an article it can be referenced to any of the numerous RS that, themselves, cited it through précis', versus Pirate Wires directly.) In any case, anything it publishes that is encyclopedic will be covered in a second, more conventional RS and we should reference the second source. Anything not referenced in a pass-through outlet is probably undue. Chetsford (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    CEIC data

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

    It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. EEpic (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    If in question use secondary sources. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Fantasy Literature

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

    It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:. I'd be hesitant to use it for WP:N purposes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is the terms its staff work under:
    Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd say unusable for notability purposes. I'd likely leave it off other pages unless it had something significant to say that better sources didn't. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    I'm not up for reading it right now, but it's been published, and the correct citation is: Zannettou, S., Finkelstein, J., Bradlyn, B., & Blackburn, J. (2020, May). A quantitative approach to understanding online antisemitism. In Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 14, pp. 786-797). Google Scholar shows a few places where it can be accessed. If it's kept, the references to it in the Notes section should change "Savvas" to something like "Zannettou et al." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I should add that the Zannettou et al. citations that currently exist in the article are preprints, which generally are not RSs, per WP:PREPRINT. The other citation was also subsequently published in conference proceedings. Conference proceedings might or might not be reliable sources for specific content, depends on the conference and the content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's important to keep in mind that most of the preprints people link to as sources were eventually published; we just link to the preprints as courtesy links because they're usually what's available. PREPRINT even mentions this. --Aquillion (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, but in that case, you still need the correct citation for wherever it eventually appeared, and if there's a link to that final version in full, then you should link to the full final version rather than a preprint draft. In this particular case, the citations themselves were not for the final version, and the final versions are both available in full elsewhere. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    What's the context for this question? Where is it being cited/do you want to be able to cite it? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Hydrangeans I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry; that's my bad. I was running on low sleep and shouldn't have been on Misplaced Pages, and I read your prose where you don't include a link but glazed past the header text where you did include a link. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    See https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7343/7197 GordonGlottal (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I provided a link to the published version of that one in my second comment above. The citation is Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018, October). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018 (pp. 188-202). There's an alternate citation at the top right of the copy where it says "ACM Reference Format." FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    @FactOrOpinion ACM is reputable, but I seem to have forgotten that we can use published conference papers, but not papers simply presented at a conference. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are published in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry, I mean when is a paper submitted to a conference run by a reliable organisation an RS? When submitted? If published as part of the publication of the conference papers? Doug Weller talk 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    A paper that's been submitted to a conference should be treated like a preprint. A paper that appears in conference proceedings is more likely to be an RS, but that will depend on whether the conference is one that reviews all papers in a way that's similar to peer-reviewed journals, and — as always — on the WP content that it's being used as a source for (a paper can be an RS for some content and not for other content). Assuming that the papers do substantiate the WP text, I'm guessing that they're RSs (Google Scholar indicates that they've been cited over 200 times). FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is published, Conference proceedings of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 14. AAAI has been around since 1979 with respected associations. Submission to a conference is not sufficient to meet any standards. Acceptance by a reputable conference after peer review (some conference talks are invited and not peer reviewed) is a good indicator of reliability though not a guarantee (the conference paper may well be revised between acceptance and publication in a proceedings and even then might in the long run not be considered reliable). As it stands, I would say reliable for the use of Happy Merchant online unless other sources can be found undermining its reliability. Erp (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would consider a paper published in the proceedings of a respected conference a reasonably reliable source. If it was contradicted by peer-reviewed research or, even better, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of available literature I would give it a bit less due than those sources. But I'd say that yes, at its base, this looks reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks all. I'm really cross with myself for not checking on Google Scholar - ironically I've just done that with another paper. I would have saved you all a lot of time if I had done that. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hawar News Agency

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

    (Copying this response from the talk page of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It shouldn't be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics, The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts, Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State, and Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria.
    (The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as ‎ Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). Applodion (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Having read through the article you linked it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be:
    "In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."
    As well as:
    "Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."
    So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).
    Hawar News Agency has some WP:USEBYOTHERS and would probably be covered by WP:NEWSORG. Issues of bias (WP:RSBIAS) and opinion (WP:RSOPINION) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. CMD (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that question the reliability of Hawar, I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    If we consider TRT sub-optimum in relation to Rojava and the Syrian war because of its affiliation to the Erdogan government (see above on this noticeboard), the same should apply to Hawar. It’s fine for reporting the statements by AANES/PYD/SDF or uncontentious facts, but it should always be attributed and triangulated for anything at all contentious. I’d rate it above Al-Masdar and below the SOHR for reporting facts about eg battles in the Syrian war, but like them is a weak source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    @ActivelyDisinterested: "Misdirected US strike killed 18 allied fighters in Syria" from the Associated Press: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the SDF-linked Hawar news agency said...". 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    The difference between Hawar and TRT seems to be how they are treated by independent academics and subject experts; as far as I know, TRT has been repeatedly accused of spreading outright falsehoods (such as here), whereas Hawar is seemingly deemed to be mostly reliable despite its connections to the PYD and SDF. Applodion (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Being censored is a WP:BIASED issue and a reason to use a source with caution (with attribution for anything remotely contentious), but it doesn't automatically render them completely unreliable. The big question is whether they're yielding to pressure to publish things that are actually inaccurate rather than just one-sided. If not, they can still be used with caution - we'd want to cite better sources when possible and avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to a source with a clear bias, but there's some advantage to having sources that are close to conflicts. And a major problem with removing sources simply for being subject to censorship is that it could produce systematic bias by removing every source from a particular region; I'm not familiar with the Syrian press specifically, but in other regions with similar censorship, there's still a difference between sources that carefully report as much as they can get away with and as accurately as they can within the restrictions of government censors, and sources that full-throatedly broadcast misinformation to support the party line. --Aquillion (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

    RfC: LionhearTV

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

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

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

    Deprecate. The Philippines has plenty of WP:RS to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment: For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:
    LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as DailyPedia and Philippine Entertainment.
    In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the RAWR Awards, which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ABS-CBN and GMA Network. Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees.
    A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the Bini (group) talk page in September 2024 (see Talk:Bini (group)/Archive 1 § LionhearTV as a reliable source). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 52 § Lionheartv) and the WP:RSN (Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 452 § LionhearTV). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about SMNI, which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented, It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.
    At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as unreliable on Misplaced Pages:New page patrol source guide#The Philippines as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN.
    AstrooKai (Talk) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? AstrooKai (Talk) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's immaterial on how we determine WP:RS. What could be very important that other WP:RS missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of WP:RSSELF. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Option 3. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. Borgenland (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
    1. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)
      Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024)
    2. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)
      Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)
    These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:
    1. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)
      Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024)
    2. LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024)
      Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)
    I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of churnalism. AstrooKai (Talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Option 3 - As much as possible, LionhearTV and its sibling sites under the eMVP Digital should not be used as sources when more reliable outlets have coverage for a certain event, show, actor and so on. Even if a certain news item is exclusive to or first published in a eMVP Digital site, other journalists will eventually publish similar reports in their respective platforms (refer to some examples posted by AstrooKai). -Ian Lopez @ 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    What I fear in these kinds of low quality sources is that people will find something very specific about someone, e.g. "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group," and this low quality source is the only source that carried this fact, and since this it is not blacklisted, this does get in as a source, and most of the time, that's all that's needed. We don't need articles on showbiz personalities tracking their every movement as if it's important. Blacklist this. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    Discussion about moving RFC to RSN
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    @AstrooKai, @Borgenland, @Howard the Duck, if you don't mind we can move this discussion to Noticeboard to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. Royiswariii Talk! 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support. Borgenland (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Support. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). AstrooKai (Talk) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 3It's a blog. That means WP:SPS applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF or under WP:EXPERTSPS (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
      FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is Fashion Pulis, and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 4 Their reportings are obviously flawed and a per example above copypasting is a not a good look nor a good indication for "reliability" and it is often used in BLP, yikes. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Hatebase.org

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

    Is there an WP:RFCBEFORE for this? And/Or some context for the use case? FortunateSons (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have checked and I can't find any previous discussion, hence why I opened this one. There is an article about the site. I intend to use it to expand list of slurs articles. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’m not making a statement on the source, as I’m not familiar with it .Then this doesn’t require an RfC, just a normal source discussion, if you’re concerned about reliability. Do you mind removing the descriptor from the title? And best of luck! :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Okay, I just added it because I saw some of the other discussions had it. I am removing it from the title. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    That happens, don’t worry about it! Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    used in 4[REDACTED] articles, seems highly premature. use best judgement until it can't be resolved in an article's talk page between editors, and needs wider[REDACTED] community feedback. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wish this were otherwise because it looks like a really interesting website but it uses user-generated content. Which is a problem from an RS perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    None of the uses are for anything other than Hatebase itself, and as the site was been retired since 2022 it's unlikely it will see much more use ('retired' as it's been closed to editing, all user data deleted, and may go offline at any point, so not quite closed but very close). As most of the supporting data is gone, and what there was was user generated, I don't think it could be used as an RS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    LaserDisc Database?

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

    The bottom of the page has "Disclaimer: The data on this webstite is crowd-sourced..." and from the page you linked it's unclear what amount of checking is done before any submitted updates happen. Worldcat is the better option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    oops, I missed that. Thank you for the advice. I'll use WorldCat if I can't find a news article. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

    Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles

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

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

    Global Defense Corp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82

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

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

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

    Do we use them? Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The S 400 Misplaced Pages page has 20 citations from them and the su 57 Misplaced Pages page has four. Madnow2 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree that they're generally unreliable but I'm not so sure I'd chalk it up to bias rather than incompetence. They seem to be suggesting that the news they publish is a sideline to their core business of international security consulting... But they're spamming the cheapest ads on the internet alongside that content suggests that this is their primary income. To me it looks like a vanity site, I also suspect they are ripping stories off or using generative AI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. Madnow2 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the one thing that seems to be universally agreed on is that this is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would agree, that regardless of whether it's bias or incompetence, it all adds up to unreliability. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    Should we trust Social Blade for statistics

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

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

    The question is should we trust it?

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

    It is WP:PRIMARY - I don't think WP:SELFPUB applies since it is drawing its data out of an API but I'd say it's a marginal source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It certainly isn't a source that I would trust but it is frequently cited in certain articles to populate value statement parameters such as subscriber count, view count, like count etc in this template. My understanding is that WP:PRIMARY sources shouldn't be used to verify value statements? 𝔓𝔓 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Prior discussions for reference; Aug 2021, Jan 2024, June 2024, RFC June 2024. The general opinion appears to be that it's marginal at best. Personally I doubt how reliable their data is, if it's available from the original source that should be used and if it's not available from the original source I wouldn't trust it. They also have 'rankings', which are worthless for anything other than the opinion of Social Blade. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

    RfC: EurAsian Times

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

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

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

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

    Survey (EurAsian Times)

    Discussion (EurAsian Times)

    flightconnections.com

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

    I can't find any information about who runs the site or where it gets it's information from. There are quite a few articles promoting it or about how to use it, but that is unsurprising as it operates an affiliate programme. From a Google book search it has some extremely limited USEBYOTHERS (note several of the results are not reliable sources), but not enough to be meaningful. I couldn't get any useful results from Google Scholar. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I do see it as reliable. They are buying the data from one of the large brokers (likely either Cirium or OAG, I wish they said who) and simply providing a wrapper to explore that data, and selling ads and subscriptions to pay for the extremely expensive subscription the brokers charge. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    It can work at least as a starting point. It lists both charter and regularly scheduled flights. You can find the flight number of a given route and then cross-reference it on another source as well. --Precision123 (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

    Pegging

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ms. Ryder,
    What would help here is if you could point us to either reliable, independent sources citing your work, or of you writing for publications that you don't publish yourself.... something that helps us see that, as you say, "in sex educations widely known as a go-to expert." I fully believe that you are.
    The problem with someone using your sources as a reference has to do with Misplaced Pages's rules on using self-published sources, which your websites, videos, etc, count as. We can use such sources as reference (if within some limits), but only if we can see that the creator is a recognized expert in the field... and by recognized, that means either cited by or hired to write on the topic by reliable sources. I know that it seems like your voluminous experience and the visible quality of your materials should count for something here, but alas it does not. I don't think we'd be expecting, say, the New York Times or the Journal of the American Medical Association in this case, just some recognizable source that takes such sexual matters seriously. It doesn't even have to be material that is online (although that would help.) Articles that quote you or recommend your sites or training services would really help. Can you point us to such citations? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages editors cannot use their own judgement to assess the expertise of someone. There are people who research topics and work in a field their entire lives who become experts in those fields and publish their work on their own websites. But there are also pseudo-experts who do the same thing. Editors on Misplaced Pages are not allowed to use their own judgement to discern the difference between the two, but must rely on a third party to establish their expertise. If you have ever given an interview on pegging for a newspaper or a magazine, or had your website cited by a sexologist or another recognizable sex expert as a good resource on pegging, for instance, then that would allow us to recognize the reliability of your site for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. Photos of Japan (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Could you comment on and notify the article talk page you want to edit? We really cannot help without context around what changes you want to include.
    that conversation from 2017 is old. I have no clue if that is what Misplaced Pages editors believe today, nor the state of the article you want to change. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am highly confident that Pegging (sexual practice) is the main article on the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would concur. Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Their comment wasn't asking which page the 2017 discussion was on (which is linked to), but was asking RubyRyder to leave a comment on the talk page of that article. Photos of Japan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Is the only reason we want to include this information because its from RubyRyder and it would be good publicity? or is there a specific bit of info that they want to include that is missing?
    • have they tried including it and seeing what happens? (see WP:BRD) Are regulars who wrote and watch the pegging article notified that this debate is happening?
    • This post seems mostly like rehashing and trying to start up an argument from 2017 for the sake of a debate. would like info on what we are doing here, exactly, and what the debate is?
    Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2025 – Thank you for your response. I understand the reasoning. I was asked for other sources, and below I am listing well-known sexologists and people with letters after their name who have interviewed me on their podcasts.

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

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

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

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

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

    With respect,

    Ruby Ryder RubyRyder (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will quickly note that Sunny Megatron is an XBIZ Sexpert of the Year award according to our XBIZ Awards page, and is used as a reference elsewhere. Joe Kort is clinical director of The Center for Relationship and Sexual Health. So these aren't random peoplecasts. That does not establish, of course, what information you are to be cited for... and as others have, I suggest that you take the issue back to Talk:Pegging (sexual practice) for fresh discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    agreed. I think RubyRyder seems useful as an expert. their information could be used, if correctly attributed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. These look like good sources. Ultimately the reliability of a source is dependent on the specific article text that it is being used to support, so your site still wouldn't be reliable to support a medical claim, for instance, but it should be reliable to support general statements about pegging. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

    NationalWorld.com

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

    Based on National World, not necessarily crap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Remember that WP:DOB says full names or birth dates should be widely published by reliable sources and that the standard for inclusion isn't just verification. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic