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

Revision as of 05:01, 19 January 2008 view sourceEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →What is “published”?: 'Secondary' is a stretch for college transcripts← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:16, 11 January 2025 view source JJMC89 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators345,054 edits Adding {{pp-sock}}Tag: Twinkle
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}}
	{{editabuselinks}}
			{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
	{{shortcut|]<br>]<br>]}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}
	Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in . If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{tl|resolved}}.
	The ''guideline'' that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is ]. The ''policies'' that most directly relate are: ], ] and ]. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to ].
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
	|maxarchivesize = 250K		|maxarchivesize = 250K
	|counter = 4		|counter = 463
			|minthreadstoarchivSee = 1
	|algo = old(28d)
			|algo = old(5d)
	|archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d		|archive = Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
			}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__
	}}{{Archive box|auto=yes}}
			<!--
			------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	__TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__
			NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION
			------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	]
			-->
	== References ==
	<references/>
	== Robert Spencer ==
	Is Robert Spencer a reliable source in the field of Islam? He is the author of ], ], amongst other books.
	He is also the director of "Jihad watch" which is considered a hate and Islamophobic website. (Sources:, ).
	I think he violates ], what do you guys think?] 07:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
	:I agree - he would certainly seem to qualify as an extremist source (in the sense of being on the fringes). I would be very, very wary of using him as a source for anything much. -- ] 09:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
	::In general, I would agree... At best, he could be cited for a statement of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact. Something along the lines of: ''According to Robert Spencer, "blah blah Islam is bad blah blah" <nowiki><citation></nowiki>''. This really depends on whether Mr. Spencer is considered an expert on Islam, and whether his opinions on Islam are notable or not. If he is simply a crank who wrote a book and runs a website, then his opinion does not rate mentioning per ]. ] 14:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
	:<B>Agree</B>, per ChrisO. I remember reading how he has very little in terms of scholarly publications. In addition, I doubt he is considered an expert on Christianity either, if he were trying to do a study on comparative religion.] 14:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
	::Hmmm, on looking into the subject a bit further... I'm not so sure about that... according to our article on him (see: ]) he does have ''some'' credentials in the field (He has an MA in Early Christianity). He has authored six best selling books on Islam, and has been an op-ed contributer to several mainstreem newpapars. While his views are controversial, he does have notable supporters. So he is not a complete crank.
	::Extreme? Possibly... but even extreme views might still be considered notable and worthy of discussion in an article. Controversial? Definitely. I don't think we can simply write him off as ''unreliable'', but I do agree that we should be very careful not to give his statements more weight than they deserve. I would definitely say that anything that is included about his views be carefully attributed as ''being'' his views, and not stated as absolute fact. It really depends on the article and how he is being used in that article. This one has to be taken on a case by case basis and argued out in the article talk page. I don't think we can make a blanket determination here. ] 15:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::Note that I have severe doubts on the context in which he is quotable. As an expert on Islam, for example, he has limited qualifications, and might be considered extreme. As a notable critic of Islam, I thought at first he could be considered quotable in relevant situations, ''except that he then serves as a primary source of criticism'', and we should quote instead those who have analysed his work and those of others and can represent his views in reliable secondary sources. ] 20:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
	::::I think you slightly misstate ] here... while secondary sources are preferred in general terms, and certainly for any statement of fact, there is no rule in Misplaced Pages that says we can never cite a primary source. We simply need to do so with extreme care. In fact, when discussing a particular person's views it is ''better'' to cite the primary source directly rather than getting it second hand from a secondary source (who might take something the source says out of context). Once again, we have to ask whether we are talking about statements of fact (where we should cite reliable secondary sources) or statements of opinion (where we should attribute the opinion directly and cite the primary source). I really think this gets us far beyond WP:RS... we have to consider what our three core policies (WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV) say. Please note that I am not arguing that the views of Mr. Spencer ''should'' be discussed in an article on Islam... I am simply pointing out that, under some cicumstances, it ''may'' be appropriate to do so... and in those circumstances, then we can and should cite him. I ''don't'' think we can simply exclude his views as "extremist", or declare his books ''unreliable'' by fiat under WP:RS. It depends on the context of what is said in the article. ] 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I don't think he qualifies as a reliable source in any way on comparative religion in general. However, I strongly disagree with But I am more concerned with your belief that I have misinterpreted ].Where in PSTS does it indicate that for statements of opinion we should cite the primary source? It would be remarkable and inappropriate if it did so, because in ''our'' citing of PSes we are almost certain to fall into the trap of choosing those statements which are outrageous, or unrepresentative. In fact, PSTS says the direct opposite:"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source", and a PS should not buttress "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." In any case, choosing 'representative' statements of opinion from a primary source is the same as saying "here, I argue that this is this source's main thrust", which is clearly original research (for an example, see the history of ]). I do not claim that this is necessary everywhere - obviously no one would intend it to apply to plot synopses, for example - but for anything even reasonably contentious or challenged, we need secondary sources. ] 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::If we include a statement such as: ''According to Robert Spencer, "blah blah Islam is bad blah blah"<nowiki><citation></nowiki>'', you have to cite exactly where he says this. In this case, it is best to cite the original work and not someone else quoting that work. Note that such wording does not contain ''any'' interpretation of the primary source. It simply quotes the source and attributes it to its author. Doing this is definitely ''not'' Original Research. Now, if the article contained any further comment on the quote... ''that'' would be OR. It would also be OR if we took the statement out of context. Thus the strong caution about using Primary Sources that is contained in WP:NOR... but it is a caution, not a ban. WP:NOR definitely does NOT say we can never use primary sources. There are times when doing so is appropriate, and citing a direct quote is one of them. ] 14:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::You are quite wrong. In choosing a quote, we are choosing to represent the author's views. When the author himself is a primary source - "an individual very close to the subject of the article" - then we are, in effect, structuring an argument based on primary sources. In such occasions, we are ''required'' to use reliable secondary sources that discuss such arguments as far as possible; wikipedia users ourselves should not be given license to assume we can place all possible statements in the correct context. When Spencer is himself the subject of the article, or primary source, we can quote him directly only if that particular quote is considered relevant by secondary sources, which should also be cited. We should ideally say that "blah blah Islam is murderous blah blah according to notable critic Spencer", but source this to somebody who is an expert on Spencer. Can you seriously look at the second paragraph of , and tell me that this is not precisely the kind of OR that a lax approach you suggest to implementation of policy will allow?] 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::In the example you raise, the statements being made are not given with direct attribution or quotes. The language used constitutes an editor's interpretation of what MM said. I would say that ''was'' OR. But that isn't what I am talking about here. I am talking about directly quoting the source (keeping the statement being quoted in context) and attributing that quote to the source. Doing so is not OR in any way shape or form. But to settle this... I will ask for the opinion of those editing at WP:NOR. ] 16:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::::No, I think we should exclude his views as .--] 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
	::::::That source is an ] attack against him. '''] ]''' 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
	*I think his views should be allowed to be presented only in "criticism of Islam" and related articles, and then, attributed to him with ''According to Robert Spencer...'' I do not believe he is an extremist in his views, but rather partisan. '''] ]''' 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
	**Should the ] be used as a resource on Jews? And the source provided by Aminz is a reliable and scholarly one.] 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
	Blueboar and others, here is a reasonable compromise. Spencer's views should be quoted whenever another ''reliable'' source quotes it. Thus, if CNN considers some of his views noteworthy, then we quote those views. This ensures that only the most notable of Spencer's views are quoted. Otherwie we shouldn't be quoting extremist views. This is how we treat other extremist sources (such as ]).] 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
	:My view was that he should be given space only in "criticism of Islam" and related articles not because of him being reliable in anyway but because he is a notable critic of Islam: The "criticism of Islam" article is supposed to record notable criticisms of Islam and these criticisms may come from every corner. But in practice we encountered a problem: Spencer is only a contemporary critic of Islam. Islam has been around for hundreds of years. It is thus recentism and undue weight to use him too much. Furthermore most of what is attributed to Spencer does not really belong to him. We should not credit Spencer with the criticisms that he has not himself proposed but is repeating those before him.
	:In my view we should have a section on "contemporary criticisms" and there we include the ''new'' criticisms coming from Spencer and people like him. Right now, the criticism article rely too heavily on Spencer. --] 05:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	::That sounds about right.... although I would allow for quoting him directly. In any case, I certainly agree that his views should be limited to "criticism" sections and articles and should not be given undue weight. This is really more of a WP:NPOV issue than one of RS. ] 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::As I say in my reply above, his views are notable in relevant articles, but WP editors should not be given license to decide which of his views are. Experts on Spencer or on the criticism of Islam more generally should. ] 15:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	::::Absolulte rubbish... While we can debate whether it is appropriate to discuss Mr. Spencer and his views in any given article, if you ''are'' going to discuss his views you should quote him directly, and with proper citation so that editors can check to see that the quote is in context. I seriously doubt that there are "Experts on Spencer" to quote. ] 16:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Hold your horses. Why should we trust editors to check the context? Show me the policy that says that. And as for 'experts on Spencer', I meant, of course, experts on the criticism or political controversies surrounding Islam who discuss Spencer, of which there are many. ] 17:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	::::::...and the names are? ] ] 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	::But again, that is not what I am talking about. I am saying that, as a noted critic of Islam, it ''might'' be appropriate to discuss what Spencer has to say. Once that discision has been made we have to deside ''how'' to use him. Now, given his biased (and possibly even extremist) views, I would not use him to support a bald statement of fact (ie "Islam is blah blah blah"), but instead we should use him only for a statement of opinion (ie "According to noted Anti-islamist Robert Spencer, 'Islam is blah blah blah'"). And if you do ''that'', you should cite the quote to where Spencer says this. No more, no less. And while there is no rule that says editors have to check that sources are in context... I know plenty of editors who ''do'' check them. I know I do... Since I edit on some fairly controvercial topics, I frequently check the sources in criticims sections, and make sure that POV editors are not taking things out of context. I agree that, all to frequenlty, such quotes are used in ways that constitute OR. But (and this is a big "but") quoting someone directly is not ''automatically'' a form of OR. It can be done properly... As long as you keep the quote in context, and do not go beyond what the source is saying, it isn't OR. ] 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::this passage may be of relevance from ]: "However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article ], then it is also inadmissible at a spinout ]. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Misplaced Pages's content policies." Spencer wouldn't be reliable for content on ], ] etc. - not even for criticism - except in the instance of a reliable source (i.e. book review in a reliable publication) covering the claims made by Spencer (that is, after all, how someone becomes noted for criticism). in theory, this restriction should extend to Criticism of X articles, to prevent them from becoming slanted. primary source usage in this instance has major drawbacks, as can be seen in a few such articles, where ] is given to the every musing, argument and deduction emanating from him. he has plenty of books published - and thus, there is virtually no limit to the amount of content that can be added citing Spencer's works. i disagree with using a partisan source (just because it happens to be partisan) in an article which analyses partisan views as documented by reliable sources - or at least, that's what an article should be doing. ] 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	::Itaquallah, in this case, there already is a well established ] article. And, in that article, it would be appropriate to discuss what Spencer has to say (he is, after all, a noted modern Critic of Islam). The key is not to give his views undue weight, and not to present his views as being fact, but only as his opinion. Also, according to the folks over at WP:NOR, he counts as a secondary source on Islam. Thus, the cautions about primary sources do not really apply. I would still use him sparingly and with caution, but the point is that he ''can'' be used. ] 19:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::'''''Comment on definitions used in above discussions''''': Spencer is not a primary source on Islam. He's a secondary source. He may not be a good source, he may be a "one trick pony" who writes of nothing else, he may not be a source worthy of note, but he is a secondary source. Examples of primary source texts on Islam would be the Koran or Hadith texts. Neither primary sources nor secondary sources are totally unacceptable sources in every situation, so I think it would be more constructive to the dispute to focus on whether or not Spencer's views are worthy of note in a general encyclopedia. For example, where else in academia is he being cited? If the claims on the wp article about him are accurate, then his views appear notable but controversial. Where and when controversial sources can be used is the core issue here, and the "primary source" objection is just a misapplied technicality to excuse ruling out this particular source.] 19:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	::::this is how i see the issue (corrections welcomed): Spencer is a secondary source on Islam (albeit unreliable). he is, however, a primary source for his own views on Islam (meaning, he's a primary source for criticism). when the actual article subject is critical views, such as ], then the critical sources are themselves primary sources for those critical views. the scope of the article (in this scenario) isn't Islam, it's what ''critics say'' about Islam. Blueboar, yes - it would be completely appropriate to discuss the views of Spencer in an article like criticism of Islam - but only to the extent that it's been covered in sources secondary to such criticism. as a noted critic of Islam, it's expected that at least his most significant or important claims will have been covered to a reasonable degree in books, newspapers, journals and so on. ] 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::::just to clarify, this works both ways as well. in an article on `Muhammad in Islamic piety` (as a theoretical example), those texts in the form of pious or devotional passages, or other texts reflecting Islamic views, would constitute primary sources in relation to the topic, while studies on such texts and ideas would be secondary sources. ] 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	<unindent> Confirming my agreement with Itaqallah, Spencer appears not to be a reliable secondary source to base the article on, but in terms of WP:NPOV his views may be notable enough to be represented as a minority view, subject to undue weight requirements. He's a primary source for that view, and if notable enough then there should be reliable sources about his view from a mainstream perspective, which should be used as the basis for the section. However, like all primary sources, he can be cited and, if appropriate, quoted for his views providing care is taken not to introduce original research in interpreting or citing quotes out of context. .. ], ] 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	There is a logical disconnect here... Can someone explain difference between Spencer ''discussing'' Islam (where you say he is a secondary source) and Spencer ''criticising'' Islam (where you say he would be a primary source)? Are you saying that if he is saying something positive about Islam he is secondary, but that he suddenly becomes primary when saying something negative? ] 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	::Not at all. It depends not on what he is saying, but what the subject of the article is. If we are considering quoting him about Islam, whether or not he is reliable, whether or not he is critical, he is a secondary source. If we need material for an article on Criticism of Islam, whether or not he is reliable, he is a primary source, as he is one of the most popular living critics of Islam, and as such is a major constituent of the subject of the article. ] 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
	:that's not the implication here. speaking in very general terms (this includes Spencer and others) - a partisan (pro- or anti-) source discussing a subject is a secondary source when the article topic is about that subject ("X"). when the article topic itself is the very partisanship of the partisans ("positive/negative view of X") - the original partisan source is no longer secondary, it is primary. that's just how i believe the sources are classified, and why i think a secondary source on ] is a source which discusses critics and the views they express, not sources which themselves synthesise critiques (IMO primary). ] 22:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	I see that there are RS and NPOV issues, and some PSTS disputes. I suggest focusing on RS, NPOV, and NOR ''as a whole'', without obsessing over PSTS. ] 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
	:The PSTS issue emerges from OR. The question is who can correctly interpret Spencer's comments and ensure they are taken in context. One solution is that we only quote reliable sources quoting Spencer, making the assumption that reliable sources have done their homework.
	:Another issue is what to quote. Certainly some of Spencer's opinions are notable and certainly some aren't, and we should quote only notable opinions. One very reasonable way determining which opinion are notable, is that the notable opinion will have appeared in reliable sources, while non-notable opinion will be ignored by reliable sources.
	:Finally, saying that Spencer is unreliable, but still may be quoted is setting a dangerous precedent. If unreliable, yet popular sources, such as Spencer can be used, then what else? Can I use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, quite popular, to talk about the Jews? (Obviously not, nor should I be able to use Spencer).] 01:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
	::I find it quite appalling that you compare Spencer to Protocols of the Elders of Zion; there really is no comparision. Spencer criticizes Islam (and maybe Muhammad), but doesn't specificly call muslims some of the names Protocols does. '''] ]''' 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::Both are unreliable sources, as far as WP:RS is concerned. Spencer specifically calls Islam as "the World's most Intolerant Religion". His writings are considered "bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice". Anyways, I got a sufficient response out of this. Whether the Protocols are a reliable source (I beleive they aren't) is the topic of another notice.] 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
	::::You think your "resolved" tag is a funny joke, because I don't think it is funny; it really is disruptive, considering the discussion isn't resolved. Reguarding your arguement, Spencer calls "islam" intolerant. That is not bogotry. He doesn't say "all muslims are intolerant" which would be bigotry. That quote is one view, which you seem to be repeating throughout this argue. For criticism sections and articles, though, he is a reliable source, as he is a notable critic. '''] ]''' 02:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Yahel Guhan, when he calls Islam "the World's Most intolerant religion" he is calling all Muslim intolerant. This is because, '''by definition''' a Muslim is someone who follows the teachings of Islam. If someone doesn't believe in Islam, then they are not a Muslim.] 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::::While I agree that you have a point that Spencer needs to be covered in Criticism of Islam article, please note that as demonstrated above, he is not a reliable source in such articles, he is a primary source.] 08:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::Relata, I disagree... Spencer is a secondary source (allbeit a biased one), even for criticism's of Islam, and from the comments at the WP:NOR Talk page, others agree with my view of the matter. But... even if he ''were'' a primary source, you are incorrect in saying that a primary source is automatically unreliable. You seem to equate reliability with "true" or "unbiased"... that is not the case. Your comparison with the Protocols is off base... what makes the Protocols ''unreliable'' is not the fact that it contains all sorts of unsubstantiated, hateful and biased allegations against jews... It is unreliable for a host of ''other'' reasons, the main ones being: The original was not reliably published. There is no accountability or editorial oversight... We do not know the author, so it is unattributable, even as a statement of opinion.... In Spencer's case, we ''do'' know who wrote it... We know who published it... And when we question the accuracy of what he says, we can phrase things as being Spencer's opinion. ] 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
	::::I miswrote that: he is a reliable source, but a primary source, and thus to be used with accompanying care. Blueboar, the points you've made on NOR, while interesting, have all been satisfactorily answered, I believe.
	::::I didn't mention the Protocols ( I wouldnt) and the comparison was made precisely because it was claimed that Spencer is a sufficiently extremist source: and, thus, we should avoid using it (though not by me, and I disagree with that.). ] 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Though I agree that Spencer may be covered on Islam related articles, he should be covered by a reliable secondary source. Why? I'm outlining the problems below.] 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	::::::It just doesn't make sense to quote him from second hands when we can quote him directly. ] ] 08:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	===Section break===
	Why directly quoting Spencer is inappropriate:
	#Spencer holds some views which are notable, and some views which are non-notable. How do we decide which views are notable? We see if those views have been covered by a reliable secondary source.
	#Quoting Spencer from a reliable source ensures that a reasonable limit is put on how much space he is given.
	#I argue that Spencer is an extremist source per ], because he is "anti-religious". Am I right? If yes, he "should be used only as source about self and activities in articles about self, and even then with caution." Using a reliable secondary source, however, solves this problem.
	#Finally, if we quote Spencer directly, we are setting a dangerous precedent: namely that popular extremists who are not at all experts in the field may be used as sources. Do we really want wikipedia filled with hate-speech that characterizes the faith of 1.2 billion as "most intolerant", that says that the ] teaches "cutting people's heads off", that "Islam has always rejected it ", and last but not least "Islam is a violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the destruction or subjugation of other faiths, cultures, and systems of government." ?] 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	I gave the Protocols as an example. If I dig down deep enough I could find extremist publications that demonize not just Muslims, but Jews, Christians, Hindus, women, non-whites, and all of the publications would be notable. Is this the type of encyclopedia you want?] 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	Responding to the points above:
	#"''Spencer holds some views which are notable, and some views which are non-notable.''" You postulate this distinction, but provide no evidence that it is in any way meaningful.
	#No, these are good writing, a sense of measure, and adherence to ] that put a limit on how much space is given to any individual author.
	#"Anti-religious" is vague. ] is fiercely anti-religious, but is he not quotable as a critic of religion in general and Christianity in particular? I don't think so.
	#This is based on the assumption that Spencer is an extremist. You have asserted his extremism, but provided no proofs.
	Regarding your last paragraph on Jews, Christians etc., please mind ]. ] ] 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	::The question of whether he is an 'extremist' is irrelevant to the point that in articles that focus on the subjects to which Spencer is 'close', as in articles about himself, his institute, and critics/criticism of Islam we should, wherever possible, use secondary sources rather than relying on the dubious abilities of wikipedians to extract the most notable and representative strands of his thought.
	::Extremism is relevant to how much he can be quoted elsewhere, of course. (So is ]).] 21:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	::The Russell example above is interesting in that it might help clarify the approach; in a ] article, quoting large parts of ''Why I am not a Christian'' would clearly be OR; we would need to find a secondary source that would summarise Russell's arguments, delineate their context and importance. In a Criticism of Christianity article clearly ''Why I am Not a Christian'' is a ''source text''. ] 21:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::Relata... I have to respond to one of your points above... you say "I argue that Spencer is an extremist source per ], because he is "anti-religious". Am I right?"... Short answer: No you are not right. Long answer: Being anti-religious does not make you automatically extremist. In Spencer's case, he is certainly an ardent critic of Islam, but he falls way short of being extremist. For example, he does not call for the illimination of Islam, or for the eradication of Muslems the way true extremists will. Compare his comments and actions with recognized extremist groups like Hamas, the Neo Nazis, Arian Nation, the KKK etc. and you see a vast difference. No, Spencer is definitely biased, bigoted and POV... but he is not ''extremist''. The point of ] is to say that religious or anti-religious ''extremists'' have limited reliability... not to say that anyone who has a religious or anti-religious view is by definition extremist. ] 21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	::::As I said before, I have no opinion on whether Spencer himself is extremist, so your points are irrelevant if addressed to me; I suggest those who do think Spencer is extremist should respond. Incidentally, if that is the interpretation of ], that section needs to be rewritten. And you appear to confuse extremism with militancy. Extremism can be non-militant in nature. ] 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::I don't understand your argument, Relata. "''...quoting large parts of ''Why I am not a Christian'' would clearly be OR.''" Why? Is he an extremist? Is quoting small parts not OR then? I am lost. ] ] 22:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::::As I said, extremism has nothing to do with OR. Quoting large parts of a primary source is the very definition of OR. Small parts of a primary source that have been indicated by secondary sources as being central, might perhaps be quoted. ] 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	::::::How then do you propose writing articles on current events, for instance, where we have primary sources (news reports) only? ] ] 10:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Newspaper reports are not primary sources for events they cover, but are primary sources for articles about the media. ] 08:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Blueboar: Yes bieng anti-religious doesn't make you extremist. But holding ''extreme'' anti-religious views does. One doesn't need to explicitly call upon the eradication of one religion to be considered an "extremist". Spreading hatred for a particular religion, without calling upon its destruction, is also extreme. Beit Or asked me to find some evidence for Spencer's extremism.
	::::::"The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism ... bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice." Source: Carl W. Ernst William Kenan Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations University of North Carolina)] 10:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::One man's remark on his personal website is not sufficient to establish Spencer's extremism. And where and how does Spencer spread hatred for a particular religion? ] ] 22:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	::::I will also point out that ] starts off by saying that it is talking about: ''"Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist..."'' So, I think real question here should be: is Spencer ''widely acknowledged'' as an extremist. In other words, before you can write him off as an extremist, you have to show that a whole bunch of reliable sources have called him an extremist. Biased, partisan, POV... all those I will give you. ] 23:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
	===Regarding Jihadwatch<!-- My own name for a subsection-->===
	The original poster indicated that Jihadwatch was recognized as a hate site by the ] and ]. I don't think we can trust either of ''those'' sources on anything related to US Foreign Policy. To me, Jihadwatch has been more of a website that attacks radical Islamic terrorism, rather than Islam itself. ----] (]) 18:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Oh my goodness, your opinion of the Guardian is drastically at variance with established consensus and ]. It has an established reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Some, mostly American, commentators see it as a haven for ultra-leftism and fabrication, but if that were the case, the UK's notoriously strict libel laws would have knocked it out of business years ago. Excluding the Guardian for facts because of its liberal/social democratic editorial line would be like excluding Canada's ] because of its conservative/neo-conservative editorial line. &lt;]/]]&gt; 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
	===New section; no, he's not an extremist, yes, he is a WP:RS===
	I argue that Spencer is a reliable source, not an extremist, and not 'anti-religion' (as someone stated above). He is anti-Jihad, and there's nothing extreme about being that, but rather, very rational. Look, this entire opposition to citing Robert Spencer on Misplaced Pages, comes entirely from biased Muslims who are opposed to Robert Spencer, not because he is wrong about Islam, but ''because he is critical of Islam''. He is not conspiring against Islam. He is simply telling the truth about Islam, from Islam's own sources, whether it be from the actual ] or by quoting truthful Muslims like ] and ]. I am seriously beginning to doubt if any of you have read his stuff or seen him in action. &mdash; <small><small>]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 11:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)</small></small>
	:I am not a Muslim, but a Christian, and I have read material by Spencer and find it biased and unreliable. In my view Spencer is an anti-Muslim bigot and a conspiracy theorist, and I am not alone
	:*"Regnery, a conservative publisher, has seen fit to publish another Robert Spencer book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)1. Perhaps some readers will consider this spiteful and rather vile book a camp classic, a hoot. But we Muslims will not. These assaults hurt, not because they hit home, but because they are so wildly off the mark. Spencer's reckless, scattershot approach harries the Muslim American community and leaves very little ground for moderates and humanists..." by Adem Carroll, ''The Public Eye Magazine'' - Summer 2006.
	:You don't have to be Muslim to abhor Islamophobia.--] 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
	::From Public Eye's "about us" page: "Political Research Associates is a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society. We expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights." Nice unbiased source there, c.... ] 13:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::So they are biased against "movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights?" Yeah that's a horrible bias. We should add here that the constitution of the United States of America is likewise biased. In fact I think this may be one of the worst systemic biases around in that wretched place we call "the free world." Personally I blame the ].] 15:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::: ] -- ] 15:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Excuse me, but you find &ldquo;Islamophobia&rdquo; ABHORRING?!?! Anyone in his right mind should be anti-Islam as much as possible. There is nothing good about Islam and if you abhor criticism of Islam, that makes you in alliance with extremists. To criticise Islam, is common sense and a rational thing to do. There is nothing extreme about it. To answer your fallacious arguments: ''I have read material by Spencer and find it biased and unreliable.'' &mdash; On what grounds? What is unreliable about his books as far as his truthful criticism of Islam goes? How has he misrepresented his sources? Never mind his 'conservative Regnery publisher' because I don't care about which publisher he's released under, what I care about is how Robert Spencer's expertise on Islam meets a ]. Also, he is a notable best seller, which qualifies him as a notable critic of Islam. Being that he is a notable best seller, would he have been a 'right wing extremist' as his opponents on the left are trying to portray him as, he would have been a lot more condemned than he is today. So tell me: how is Robert Spencer misrepresenting genuine Muslims like the righteous Muslims found in ''In my view Spencer is an anti-Muslim bigot and a conspiracy theorist, and I am not alone'' &mdash; Your view of Islam does not count since you don't know anything about Islam anyway, and to claim that you are not alone, is ]. Calling Spencer an anti-Muslim is extremely disingenuous. He is simply anti-Jihad, which means, in reality, that he is anti-Islam (as a political and religious ideology). He is not anti every Arab, Indonesian, or whatever. He is simply anti-Islam (and that's good thing). Calling him anti-Muslim is just a false tactic used in order to portray him as some sort of racist (as if Islam had anything to do with race or any kind of racial aspect for that matter). What matters here is '''Spencer's reliability as a notable critic of Islam''', not your left-wing agenda; for the record, ] has a long history of political controversy with Robert Spencer's boss, ], as can be read more about This isn't a personal attack on Chip Berlet, but I'm just warning about the political POV here from his part, and that admins must have this in mind that there is a serious NPOV issue going on here. &mdash; <small><small>]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 20:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)</small></small>
	:::::::You are totally right. There is a serious NPOV problem here. Lets also warn the admins about the person who posted this: "Anyone in his right mind should be anti-Islam as much as possible. There is nothing good about Islam and if you abhor criticism of Islam, that makes you in alliance with extremists. To criticise Islam, is common sense and a rational thing to do." He/she should probably be topic banned ... don't you think?] (]) 04:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::whatever the solution... this verbose, incendiary use of Misplaced Pages as a soapbox must stop. ] 14:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Topic banned? Why? I personally don't edit Islam related articles that much to begin with, and when I do, I keep my personal POV out of the articles. It's not like I go berserk and add text that says '''Islam is a tool for terrorism''' (which is what Islam essentially is; after all, Muhammed himself stated that he had been made victorious with terror). All I demand is that Islam-related articles be more NPOV and allow writers critical of Islam to be reflected in the articles (which is sort of an impossibility right now due to the influence of Muslim Wikipedians tightly controlling the articles; violating ]). I have been critical of Islam on talk pages before. But what I say on the talk pages is my personal point of view. The topics/articles is a different matter, where I try to be more professional. And for the record, this discussion is not about me, it's about Spencer's reliability as a ]. If you're going to topic ban me for being critical of a terrorist religion, then you better make sure you follow through with your logic and topic ban all the atheists working on the ] article. &mdash; <small><small>]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 05:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)</small></small>
	::::::From Public Eye's "about us" page: "''Political Research Associates is a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society. We expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights''." &mdash; How about, '''we protect movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights'''? Seriously, that's Islam in a nutshell, and it seems that the PRA is protecting Islam. &mdash; <small><small>]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)</small></small>
	:::Oh god, I didn't realize that Chip had referred back to the group he's part of in his initial BLP violation on Spencer. ] (]) 01:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Yes, it seems more like a political catfight between two different political organisations, rather than anything remotely concerning Spencer's reliability as a critique of Islam. &mdash; <small><small>]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 04:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)</small></small>
	===Al insan al kamil===
	] is a very good example of how Robert Spencer is being censored on Misplaced Pages by Muslim Wikipedians trying to push their POV. See the article's history regarding the link to Robert Spencer's entry on al insan al kamil Examples: &mdash; <small><small>]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 04:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)</small></small>
	:Spencer is not a scholar on Islam. he isn't in a position to discuss concepts in Islamic or Sufi theology. if you have any academic, non-partisan links or references you'd like to use, please do so. ] 14:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	::I respectfully disagree. See his bio in his article. His course of study in university included Islam as a focus. He's not a Muslim theologian, but his degree is related to theology. ] (]) 14:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::as far as i know, his MA is in Early Christianity. you don't need to be a Muslim to be a reliable source on Islam. the general required standard on Misplaced Pages is a qualification in ] or in Near East/Oriental studies (as a verifiable demonstration of competence and expertise in the field, the same way a qualified biologist is a reliable source on biology-related topics). most major universities offer them. examples of some prominent scholars include ], ], ], ], ], and the list continues. Spencer isn't in the same league as these individuals - scholars in general don't give his publications the time of day. ] 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::His degree is Religious Studies, same as the department Esposito chairs. His thesis was on monophysitism and the Church of England, but a religious studies degree doesn't necessarily focus on any one religion, especially in the case of the religions of the Book. They're all very linked and, based on my own experiences, you study them together. (Especially if he focused on early christianity, that's the heart of judaism and islam, the ME). ] (]) 15:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::as yourself, i respectfully disagree. i don't believe a general qualification in Religious Studies (and the specific extent of his education in Islam is unknown) necessarily reflects competence in Islamic history, theology, treatises, and associated topics. a contraindication is in the comments of (part of the same dept. from which Spencer qualified) who dismisses Spencer's credentials and publications. ] 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Does it matter if his major was Monophysitism and not Islam? The opposition to Robert Spencer is purely because of his critical books on Islam, not his qualifications to speak on Islamic issues (although, that is being used as a case in point against him). His arguments about Islam are well founded and in perfect agreement with Muslims like Bin Laden and Anjem Choudary. He is not misinterpreting Islam. &mdash; <small><small>]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 16:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)</small></small>
	::::::i suppose it's telling that those two aren't scholars either. ] 16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::I would say they know Islam better than most scholars. &mdash; <small><small>]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 16:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)</small></small>
	:::::Two professionals in a field, who have strongly held viewpoints will disagree. This doesn't discredit either of them. They are both carrying degrees in the study of religion, of theology and are published authors in the field. Your, my, hell Allah's opinion doesn't matter. They are published authors writing on their field of expertise. Spencer is a notable author writing for a publishing house. This meets our credentials. Because others, and perhaps you, disagree with his statements does not make them any less reliable and it violates ] to discredit them in the manner you are attempting to. If you can find rebuttals to his exact statements, those could be used via talk on the articles his words are being used in to discuss the content of his work. He meets RS as it is written. His individual statements... may be up for discussion and review but calmly and in a calculated, reasoned manner. With all due respect, ] (]) 17:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::it's one thing when there is scholarly difference amongst peers (scholars know how to disagree without making it personal), it's another thing when one questions the other's very education on the topic ("... he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity", says Ernst - i am inclined to believe him, he is an Islamic studies professor at the university from which Spencer graduated). i don't oppose scholars just because i disagree with their views - as one who frequents academic journals, i customarily come across views i am at odds with, whether that is Caetani's, Friedmann's, Crone's, or anyone else's . however, if a writer has a noticable lack in pedigree, does not have his work peer-reviewed by scholars nor published by academic press, then the unreliability is self-evident - irrespective of whether he is Ahmed Deedat or Robert Spencer. ] 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::How many times should we discuss Spencer? He is only notable as a critic of Islam but he does not have any reputation as an scholar. --] (]) 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
	===Spencer's reputation===
	According to reliable sources are "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
	What reputation "for fact-checking and accuracy" does Spencer have?
	Please don't answer this by arguing Spencer has a degree, because this would imply that anyone with a degree is a reliable source.] (]) 03:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
	: See ]. He seems to be claiming that his critics have failed to show him to be inaccurate. If he were obscure and his work not examined that would be a weak argument. He seems to have provided plenty of material for critics. Google Scholar isn't much help (notice the other Spencers with work before 1980 aren't him). -- ] (]) 05:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::SEWilco, his work doesn't appear to have received peer-review, nor any sort of review in academic publications. as with most polemic, scholars just don't give it the time of day. ] 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
	::''What reputation "for fact-checking and accuracy" does Spencer have?'' &mdash; He has never been proven wrong by Muslims. Only personal attacks on his reliability has been made. But never ever have they proven him wrong on Islam. In fact, most Islamist pretty much agree with him on what he's saying about Islam. That said, there's nothing wrong with his reliability as far as Islam is concerned. &mdash; <small><small>]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 12:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)</small></small>
	:::reliability (and reputation) is ], not ]. this non sequitur about not being "proven wrong" is also incredibly subjective. some may indeed argue that they have proved him wrong on various issues (], or even ) although - again - it has nothing to do with the criteria specified in WP:RS. Islamists might agree with some of what he says (just as they might with ]), certainly not most or all - but that means nothing here. this issue has been discussed ad nauseum... perhaps it's time to give the discussion a rest until some new evidence of reliability surfaces. ] 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Spencer meets the criteria at WP:V where it states, and I quote: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." He is published by Regnery Publishing and Prometheus Publishing. Do you dispute that these publishing houses exist and are, albeit sometimes controversial, respected? ] (]) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::a publishing house is not necessarily reliable by default. respected? are they known for peer-reviewed, high quality publications on Islamic studies (or is this where they are, as you say, controversial)? (not a rhetorical question) it goes without saying that a publishing house should have a record of competence or pedigree in the topics it publishes on (Regnery's focus appears to be conservative politics and 'Politically Incorrect Guides™') and that is the spirit of the ] you quote when read as a whole, regardless of the semantics of 'respected'. ] 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Dear Itaqallah, do you know what a ] is? ] (]) 18:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::i did indeed pick up on it, but it does not exempt publishing houses from needing to possess some sort of authority in a particular field to be considered a reliable source there. peer-review is a standard facet of most reliable sources. ] 18:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Let me let you in on a very well kept secret. Journals are peer-reviewed. Non-fiction books for the most part are not. They have editors, not a peer-review process. This does not make them not reliable, actually it fulfills the same sort of fact checking required by RS... ] (]) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::let's assume that peer review is not a feature of standard published texts in Islamic studies - do you concede that a publisher should be known for good quality academic material/books in the field it publishes (non-academic material is also usable where it is mainstream, see ] and ]) for it to be considered a reliable source on that topic? ] 19:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::You do realize that Regnancy has published at least 1 New York Times best selling book? It is a mainstream publishing house. ] (]) 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
	<reset>Kyaa, your first sentence i agree with. lots of books, including some written by Spencer, are known to be best sellers. that simply means that the book has been widely sold - something true for many controversial books which inevitably entice peoples' interest. not that it makes the books - or its publishers - ]. as for 'mainstream' - if you mean the publishing house is well-known, then yes. if you mean that it reflects mainstream literature (in this case, on Islamic studies) - then i'd have to disagree. ] 21:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::Look, he has been published and has a few bestsellers as well. If he totally made shit up about Islam, some academic scholar on religion would have proven him wrong on what he has written in his books. So far, no one has, because they can't since they know what he's writing is the truth about Islam. All they've done so far is to attack his publisher for being, and get this, "Conservative" (wow, how evil). Let's face it, he passes as a WP:RS. &mdash; <small><small>]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 10:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)</small></small>
	::::::::::scholars don't waste their time on every ] publication released - to claim it's because they secretly know the crankery is true is extremely naïve and reflects a ] of the issue at hand. in any case, he has been criticised precisely for his fundamental lack of scholarship and expertise - - and his publishers have been criticised for pursuing a partisan agenda (not surprised after looking at ). it's mind-boggling how a controversial writer and publisher, writing specifically for a Christian Republican target audience (do the staunchly anti-darwinist, anti-feminist, anti-liberal stances give it away?), can be hailed as a reliable resource for information on Islam. ] 19:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::You keep repasting that Carl Ernst link as if it had any validity at all. You also make it seem like there's some universal scholarly consensus that Spencer is a fraud, by posting that link when you write 'by ''real'' scholars'. There has never been any academic debate involving "real" scholars and Robert Spencer where they have proven him wrong. All you have is one shitty scholar who was probably paid to trash Spencer's publisher (as if his publisher had any relevance beside publishing the books). Again, that link is not worthy of paying attention to, simply because it does not focus on his content. Do you understand what I am saying? Either prove Spencer wrong (not his publisher, but Spencer's statements in his book), or just accept that he is right about Islam. ''do the staunchly anti-darwinist, anti-feminist, anti-liberal stances give it away?'' &mdash; What kind of a question is that? What does anti-darwinism have to do with Spencer's truthful and accurate criticism of Islam? And what's wrong with anti-feminism and anti-liberalism? &mdash; <small><small>]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)</small></small>
	:::::::::::::Elias, your conditions about whether or not Spencer has been proved wrong have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages policy - please stop these verbose ]. as per what Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines actually say, sources are judged by their authors' qualifications, reputation for scholarly works (Spencer fails on both counts, which is what what the link shows), the presence of a peer-review system, the nature of the claim made by the source. few of your arguments have tackled these issues. ] 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Does the criticism of the New York Times, Fox News or any other media outlet make them unreliable sources? No. ] (]) 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::New York Times isn't a ] in itself to begin with. And Faux News is obviously biased (although they can make a good point every now and then). &mdash; <small><small>]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)</small></small>
	::::::::::::comparing journalism with academic disciplines doesn't work, IMO. all news media outlets offer a perspective, but at least they are established in their journalism. Regnery's forte is clearly conservative politics - and its publications on that topic might very well be reliable sources (i've not maintained that Regnery is an unreliable publisher as a whole, only that it's evidently not a reliable one in the field of Islamic studies).
	::::::::::::however, when it publishes in areas of academic discipline - biology, anthropology, orientalism, and so on - then partisan goals (pro-Islam or anti-Islam, for example) cannot precede scholarly endeavour. to be honest, you've a problem if you find a source or publisher declaring it will challenge mainstream understanding of an academic discipline (that's the impression i get from many of the books in the P.I.G series). when these kinds of publications are rightly criticised as polemic tracts by qualified experts, then that raises a ]. at the end of the day, if you are going to invest in exploring a scholarly topic, you at least publish authors who have the ]. ] 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
	I think there is a serious confusion. Please see ]. The burden is upon those who add or restore the material. This would be anyone supporting the inclusion of Robert Spencer. Thus users like EliasAlucard (assuming he/she supports the inclusion of Spencer) must '''provide''' (not ask for) evidence that Spencer has a reputation for accuracy.] (]) 05:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
	:That is a unique interpretation of WP:V. Whoah. ] (]) 14:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
	===Don't use this===
	This is a no-brainer - we use the author of the book ] the day we use the author who writes: ]. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
	:We link to Chip Berlet's work and Theocracy Watch's work in the ]-related articles. These sources are as religiously extremist as you alleged Robert Spencer is. We use sources from ALL points of view. ] (]) 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
	::there's a lot to be said about current day muslim intolerance and about past christian violence also. the issue is not that of a flamboyant book title, but whether or not the material inside is considered reliable. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Chip Berlet's (or at least, it's web-site) does not appear to be a home of extremism, nor to pander to the violent and hate-inspired. It specifically targets those with significant political and religious influence/power, and it objects to their apparent interest in introducing religion-based government. It specifically disavows attacking individuals: ''"This web site is not about traditional Republicans or conservative Christians. It is about the manipulation of people of a certain faith for political power. It is about the rise of dominionists in the U.S. federal government."''.
	:Whereas Robert Spencer's most probably does pander to the violent and hate-inspired. Today's lead story targets individual clerics and people of a minority faith, linking them directly to the killing of a 16-year old by her family. ''Imam Alnadvi said that judging from the information he received, hijab was only one of the issues. "This girl she refused to stay at home," he said. "There were feelings that she is going in some wrong direction ... going with some other boy or some other thing."'' This campaign is directed against a group that understandably feels oppressed, excluded from air-lines, discriminated against in employment and harassed in their charitable works. (Note - I've no problem with him campaigning in this fashion, I might easily agree with him - but that doesn't mean we should treat him as an acceptable source).
	:Unless you have different evidence to hand, it seems reasonable to describe the former as regular participation in the democratic process and the latter as "extreme", as fails ].
	:I don't believe there are any circumstances in which you should take it on yourself to interfere with my contributions. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	::PR, it's not just about whether these opinions are extreme or not. it is about whether they are competent to comment in a particular field of study. the question that has been posed here is if Spencer is a reliable source for information on Islam. the answer, taking into consideration his lack of study and competence in this discipline, his publishers' general lack of pedigree in publishing academic works on Islamic studies, and denounciations from qualified scholars in the field, can only be a resounding no. ] 18:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::I agree with you (or perhaps I should say, I'm sure I'd come to an identical conclusion if I examined the output of this writer in more detail). But judging someone's literacy and reliability seems to cause a lot of editors rather a lot of difficulty - in fact, if we could do this reliably, we might discover a lot of dross in the editing pool and save ourselves a whole lot of grief. It's often easier to finger particular sources as "hate-sources" (or, in the more restrained language of the encyclopedia, those expressing "extreme" views).
	:::The advantage of this approach is that we have quite well-understood red-lines eg quoting from Holocaust Deniers is a no-no, liable to lead to an indef-blocking (nobody's even bothered to write that into policy, we just accept it). David Irving is a useful touch-stone, since it's often quite difficult to prove that he was guilty of "gross historical fabrication" (it cost Deborah Lipstad some $10 million to prove, as far as I recall, just a handful of cases). It's much, much easier to prove he's an extremist.
	:::Thats why I contributed as I did - not only is unnecessary (and potentially quite difficult) to prove Spencer cheats - making such allegations raises BLP issues. Hate-sources are barred anyway, on a much lower level of proof. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	===Any source on religion is extremeist===
	No source on religion is un-biased, they are either strongly pro the religion or anti that religion. The idea that Spencer can't be used but hundreds of Imams can be used because they are un-biased about Islam is a joke. ] 09:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	:As I've posted on PR's talk page, its less a matter of Spencer being a reliable source (which cannot be denied seriously) it is more a matter of making certain his views are attributed to him properly and being shown as his viewpoint on a controversial subject not as fact. ] (]) 11:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	::''(which cannot be denied seriously)'' ... seriously, it can. the evidence for reliability, which, let's face it, is pretty paltry, cannot stand up to the contraindications. use of partisan sources might be accepted on political-oriented articles like Israel/Palestine or Democrat/Republican - but on topics of academic discipline - they aren't. and Hypnosadist, you are grossly mistaken. see the ], or any other academic work for that matter. ] 17:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Not all sources on religion are strongly pro or anti. There are many reputable academics who have spent most of their lives studying religion and are capable of writing in a neutral impassionate way, and who have their work peer reviewed to ensure they don't stray from this.
	:As for the argument over this particular source, I have never heard of him, but it should be pretty simple to establish whether he is a reliable source or not. If his work has previously been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and he is widely credited by reputable academics as being an authority on Islam, then you should be able to cite these accolades, and that will establish that he is a reliable source. If not, then he isn't a reliable source. The onus is on the editor claiming that a particular person is a reliable source, to establish that he is considered a reliable source by other professionals in the field. Whether or not you personally think that his work is valid, true, or reliable, is irrelevant; the only relevant thing here is the opinion of other experts working in the same field. The fact that he is notable and has a personal opinion is not in dispute, but that doesn't make him a reliable source for anything other than his own article, and perhaps an ] or something similar. ] (]) 18:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	===Musings: Why do some editors insist on this type of source?===
	For the life of me, I can't understand it. Robert Spencer writes on issues that are ''extensively'' discussed, debated, and disputed by reputable sources. It's not as if there's a shortage of academic interest in, for example, the status of minorities under medieval Islamic regimes. And yet, the views of popular ideologues and polemicists like Robert Spencer and Bat Ye'or metastasize through our encyclopedia, sucking away the blood supply from respected scholars writing in university presses. It's as if our articles on particle physics were sourced predominantly to back issues of ''Popular Science'' and a smattering of crackpot "unified theory" websites. Not to mention that every — single — book — these clowns publish seems to have a ~50kb article stuffed with praise from the "in-crowd" of Muslim-bashers.
	One of the strangest things about this affair is that patrons of Spencer, Pipes, Ibn Warraq et al. ''genuinely don't seem to realize'' that their favorite writers are in any way less than mainstream. In fact, they seem to believe that Middle Eastern Studies departments in the West are just stuffed full of Hamasniks and cowed "dhimmis", and that the ideologues are thus ''better'' sources than the mainstream academics! It's not uncommon on Misplaced Pages to see a titled professor of Islamic Studies, heading up a department at a prestigious university, paired with some B.A. Econ with a job at a shady neo-con think tank in "He said, She said" fashion — a violation of ] if there ever was one.
	The ideological biases of many editors undoubtedly play a role here, but so, I think, does simple laziness. People like Spencer write mass-produced missives for a general audience, they have frequently updated websites and blogs, and their ramblings tend to be quoted and mindless-link-propagated across the conservative "blogosphere". Finding legitimate academic views of a subject may actually requre — gasp! — ''going to the library'', in order to ''find out something you don't already know''.
	In the final analysis, the views of the Spencers and Ye'ors should be confined to articles which are about them specifically, and in a limited fashion, to articles like ], as long as their view is clearly set-off from the views of proper scholars. They should ''not'' be quoted in most other contexts. Notoriety and popularity do not "a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" make. &lt;]/]]&gt; 18:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Yes we need more ] and what his 20 million dollar cheque paid for him to say. ] 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Yes, exactly. We need what more mainstream, respected scholars like John Esposito say, and less of what idiot conspiracy-mongers like the people who perpetuate that dumb smear say. &lt;]/]]&gt; 20:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::20 million from a man who supplies british school kids with the Protocols of the elders of Zion clearly speaks to his bias. I don't listen to what a scientist paid for by a oil company says on global warming. Just read what the donation is for, its not for academic critique of islam. ] 04:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Have you any sources for that libelous claim? &lt;]/]]&gt; 06:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Search for Protocols and British schools on say the BBC news site, you won't believe me or the Jewish Chronicle . ] 07:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Editors of the encyclopedia will be keen not to re-cycle propaganda or give any credibility to hate-sources by eg treating the likes of JihadWatch and Robert Spencer as reliable. It's possible this story is true or partly true, but some/many regular secular sources seem to think it's been tampered with - see ''"BBC2's Newsnight said examination of receipts provided by the researchers to verify their purchases showed some had been written by the same person - even though they purported to come from different mosques."'' That was on Thursday, so we don't know how this will pan out.
	::::::Let me remind everyone that the hate band-wagon is not just targetted on Muslims - more of this bile is aimed directly at the British, see this denial by the of a nonsense story that has nothing to do with Islam.
	::::::I've had a massive slew of allegations levelled at me, most of them obviously false. I face an indef-block with no further warning or possibility of appeal. The ax could very easily fall on me because of what I've said here - apparently, providing evidence in TalkPages is proof of ] and in my case that's a capital crime. Sorry about that - but I came to editing to find and document "truth", not give a veneer of respectability to propaganda. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::And i could have read ] for more on this. ] 11:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Even if we ignored the forgery, none of your sources mention the name al-Waleed bin Talal. Stop wasting our time with this nonsense. &lt;]/]]&gt; 23:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::The school admitted to having and teaching the Protocols to kids until 2004. ] 13:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::It would appear that you have no RS for this smear on John Esposito or him handing over $20 million to anyone. Furthermore, he's an American academic, unlikely to have funded anyone - and certainly unlikely to have funded a British school. Increasingly, this looks like an attempt to waste the time of good-faith editors. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	===So you woudn't quote from ] or ] either?===
	They are just as scathing about Islam. This is daft. You can quote him as long as it does not violate POV or UNDUE WEIGHT. ] (]) 01:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Er, no you wouldn't quote from either of these on the topic of Islam, as neither of them are experts on the topic. Dawkins on evolution - please go ahead. ] (]) 14:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Agreed. Dawkins is an expert on evolution and certainly citable in that article. He isn't an expert on Islam or Christianity, so his views probably aren't relevant or desirable to cite in those articles.
	::I am surprised that anyone would argue against this - I mean, hypothetically, if George Bush said that he thinks atoms don't exist, then you think that because he's notable his point of view should be added to the article on ]? Do you honestly believe that Dawkins' views on religion should be added to the ] article? If not, then why would citing him be appropriate in Islamic articles? You can't have it both ways. ] (]) 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	== MEMRI ==
	Is ] http://www.memri.org/ a reliable source. I think it is based on the content it has. '''] ]''' 00:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Brian Whittaker of the Guardian (who has a Masters' in Arabic language) has exposed at least two cases where MEMRI promulgated translations which were misleading at best, and probably knowingly fraudulent. MEMRI has also been extensively criticized for its extreme one-sidedness in the guise of "Media Research". Finally, all of MEMRI's founders are former Israeli military intelligence officers, Israeli neo-cons with deep links to Likud, or both.
	:That being said, MEMRI might sometimes be a reliable source for ''opinion and commentary'', but I'm very leery about using such a group for factual information in the absence of independent confirmation. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
	: Agree. It can be used if properly attributed, and when describing opinions and not facts. ] <small>]</small> 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
	::See for a related discussion. ] 19:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::I have a related question which is a little trickier, and pertains to the use of sources like MEMRI and CAMERA for opinion purposes.
	:::Basically, these organizations can be counted on, every time, 100%, to praise Israel and condemn perceived enemies of Israel. Pretty much anything that happens in and around Israel, they'll express an opinion on it, and it's always the same opinion. They are well-funded and active, but it's very difficult to know how ''significant'' their views actually are. Nonetheless, such groups tend to be used heavily in Middle East articles as sources of criticism and commentary.
	:::Now, there are some occasions when these groups do get play in actual media outlets. There was a fraudulent ]-bashing editorial in the Boston Globe recently by a CAMERA member, and MEMRI scored a media home run with their mis-translation of ] material. Obviously, those controversies deserve mention. But a lot of the supposed controversies MEMRI, CAMERA et al document don't seem to exist outside of a narrow partisan "echo chamber" environment. ] is an excellent example - Israel wonks are obsessed with it, but the media don't take it seriously and probably haven't even heard of it.
	::::"mis-translation" or not! The difference between the tomorrows pioneers translations are minute and well within slight veriation you get when you translate anything. Given this is all that can be said against an organisation that translates thousands of TV broadcasts as well as newspaper reports every year this is clearly a very accurate translating service (used by the BBC). MEMRI does not have a news agenda it just translates what is said in the arab media. ] 12:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::So, what is the guideline for judging when an opinion is important enough to be mentioned? Personally, I would favor keeping to reliable factual sources and only using partisan sources when it's been established, factually, that a genuine controversy exists. Is that the usual practice? <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 20:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::For evaluating whether or not they are echo chambers and to what degree they should be quoted outside their narrow concerns, I would suggest ]. ] 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I use the FTN often and greatly appreciate it, but I am leery of bringing such a fine, effective institution into the Israelistinian tarpit. <tt>&lt;]/]]</b>&gt;</tt> 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Fair enough, I just thought that Moreschi and co. might be able to evaluate the notability of opinions quite dispassionately. ] 20:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
	More specifically the question (at least the question I have) is whether MEMRI is a reliable source on the Qur'an, its ], the ]/] or classic ]. If yes, what makes it a reliable source in any those fields? I think the best way to go about this is to look at each individual author, and evaluate him/her for his/her credentials.] (]) 18:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
	:First of all, you are asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is Is MEMRI a reliable source for views on the qur'an, ], the ]/] or classic ]. Any answer your second point. Either it is or it isn't. '''] ]''' 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
	::The MEMRI seems to talk of Islam as if it is an expert. The question is, should we consider it as one? Also, "''Either it is or it isn't''" never works, since there are exceptions.] (]) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::It is very, very easy to quote from someone else's scriptures in ways liable to incite hatred. So severe and obvious is this problem that, if MEMRI really claim to be a source on Islamic Scripture (do they?) that would be another reason never to use them.
	:::There used to be a ] who insisted on exposing what appear to be serious extremism within Judaism. Our article on him doesn't discuss his apparently well-founded views on the religious exhortation to kill civilians. Instead of which, we re-publish the very most unpleasant things his opponents said about him ("diseased mind, Nazi views"). Why would we give a body like MEMRI, an attack-dog of well-funded anti-Muslim propaganda and extremism, better treatment than an individual who put his career and personal safety on the line to oppose extremism? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
	I don't see why this is relevant. MEMRI is a serious organisation, that it can be argued that they have erred in translation on two occasions, just goes to show what a RS it is. Any major news source print ''daily'' corrections and apologies, so 2 mistakes should invalidate a source? Please! ] (]) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	== Wikinews redux ==
	Same Wikinews interview that inspired ] and this ]. The interview is with ], noted journalist who tried to sell the ] in the early 90's and has recently published two books about conspiracies in relation to the Bush administration. This interview has been added as a source by the author to these articles:
	* BLP problem?
	* an especially strange block quote
	* basically the topic of Unger's new book, so he is probably notable in the field, but I suspect the book should be used instead
	* also citing the ''Daily Mail'', so probably fine if the interview was removed
	My understanding is that most editors thought citing Craig Unger's book would be more reliable than a Wikinews interview recording his off-the-cuff remarks. Some editors also expressed uneasiness that the author himself was inserting the story, but I don't think this matters: they're either permissible or not. The route shouldn't matter.
	I asked user to cite to the book directly, but got no response. I don't want to merely delete these additions because I'm unsure of where the community stands and I also promised to try not to revert this user. So, to what extent may Wikinews interviews be used as a source? '''My view is that interviews should only be used as a source ''on the commentator'' unless the interview itself is notable in relation to some topic (that is, unless it has been covered elsewhere).''' ] '']'' 18:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Wikinews conducts interview with notable people. It's one of the things we do, it's one of the things we were set up by the Wikimedia Foundation to do. Those interviews are not unreliable, as they are the transcribed words of the people. I'm not quite sure what the issue is, but if the issue is "We should not use Wikinews interviews as sources" then I think we should alert ] and Wikimedia. The links you point to are an interview with Unger about the book, not "off-the-cuff" remarks but questions related to his research. It's surprising, Luke, that you just can't seem to stop focusing on my work, but okay. Let's see how the conversation goes and whether we need to have Wikimedia involved in it. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	::What I mean by "off the cuff" is they're a record of his extemporaneous remarks and they are less reliable because the commentator ''must rely on memory'' and the ''claims are not vetted by a publisher''. If you look at the two previous discussions I cited:
	::*], ], and ] said that interviews were not reliable for these reasons. AnonEMouse specifically suggested citing the book instead, which I think is appropriate.
	::*] was concerned about interviews being marginally related to the topic, Wolfowitz in that case (which goes to WEIGHT, I think).
	::*] thought it was OR (which I disagree with).
	::*], ], ] and apparently ] went further and claimed that Wikinews is simply not a reliable source. I don't don't agree with that&mdash;not in all cases, at least. (Apologies if your views are more nuanced.)
	::In my opinion, interviews are certainly reliable, but only for views of the person giving them. I think there was a consensus that they are not reliable for third-party commentary, and I would like to confirm that. You wouldn't reply to me, so this looks like the correct forum.
	::It's not an issue with Wikinews, it's with interviews generally. Unless the remarks are established as notable, we can't assess their ] let alone their veracity. ] '']'' 20:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::So what, exactly, is your point? That a journalist talking about a book he wrote and the research he discovered on, for instance, ] or ] or ] is unreliable? The issue, to me, was the prominence of a Wikinews box that led to an entire interview, and not quoting the remarks of a notable person and the source for those remarks. So, perhaps you can clarify with a statement exactly your issue is if it was to be written as a guideline. And regarding the book, there is a link to a chapter wrote and was re-printed on Salon ''along'' with the interview. So, some kind of guideline that fleshes out your concern would be in order. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::I don't think the guidelines need to be changed, but if I were to make something explicit, I would include interviews as self-published sources. As mentioned in the previous discussions, interviews (and perhaps Wikinews interviews in particular) share all the characteristics of self-published sources. As such, they should never be a source in third-party BLPs, and they should be used sparingly otherwise considering that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (See ]). ] '']'' 20:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, and the paragraph on Wolfowitz has four sources, including a fifth (David Nelson). So I don't see your issue. I think a broad-based "Interviews are self-published sources" argument is hurtful to Misplaced Pages; it depends upon with whom the interview is conducted. If it's Bob Gioevans who believes the world is flat, then probably it would be a "Self published source". If it's with a notable person who is published in other areas, or is notable in some field, then I disagree. All interviews are not equal. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I agree. Interviews published by sources that might be held liable for defamatory remarks are ''more likely'' to vet comments and be held accountable than Wikinews, but I don't think such speculation is helpful.
	::::::If "it's with a notable person who is published in other areas" then the views are likely to have been picked up in reliable sources. Indeed, we know they were in this case. Simply: if the remarks are worth reporting, they would have been quoted in news stories. For example, if we were writing about a company and wanted to cite a conference call. There would be no context or weight for including, say, the chairman's claims that the company is being plagued by a conspiracy of short-sellers. If and when news articles are written about these remarks, then we would have reliable sources. ] '']'' 20:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::So your issue appears to be with a Wikinews interview being used ''at all'', since Salon published the pertinent chapter and the interview backs it up? Because the paragraph on Wolfowitz is not only heavily cited, the interview in fact backs up already published sources. So, again, I don't understand your issue. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 21:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::I cited four examples of its use. I said myself that Wolfowitz would be fine if you cut the cite to the interview. If this were just an issue with Wolfowitz, I would have used that talk page. I found the first examples more problematic. Concentrate on Rumsfeld. ] '']'' 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::Why would we cut the cite to an ''additional'' cite to the source backing up Salon? What use would that serve? --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 21:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	===Wikinews convenience break===
	What Luke is arguing is that we should not use interviews with primary sources, the newsmakers themselves, on Misplaced Pages. There is no cause for us to not use the words of notable primary sources, the people directly involved with events and research. This is a major change in policy Luke is espousing and is currently covered nowhere in our established guidelines and policies. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 22:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	: I don't see why we shouldn't treat Wikinews interviews any differently than we would treat other self-published remarks by otherwise notable people. ] (]) 22:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	:(Aside: Newsmaker's ''work products are sources'', but they remain people.) My claim is simply that we should treat interviews like self-published sources. ] '']'' 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	::That makes no sense. If ] makes a statement about what he knows about the ]'s whereabouts, and it hasn't been reported in another source, that doesn't make his words a "Self Published Source" since he represents the Tibetan government in exile, who is in a place to know such information. That makes Wangdi a primary source. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	===Two scenarios for policy examination===
	Question. Would both of these be reliable sources for "new" information? Both are hypothetical and fictional(obviously, for BLP concerns), and are both issues that could be seen as possibly ''touchy'' along the lines of the Wolfowitz scenario.
	* If ] appears on ], and announces a previously unknown fact about ]: ''"Hillary in college at ] was briefly married to ]."'' As Bill Clinton is clearly an authority on his wife of 30+ years, would this be sufficient to source the fact that (again, fictionally for this example!) that Hillary briefly was wed to Rumsfeld? In this scenario, Bill's statement is not vetted nor screened--it went out live on the air, but there is no way anyone can argue that Bill is not a complete expert on this third party, his wife. Is this a valid source for this statement, about third parties? If the answer is "Yes", then why would it be any different if Bill Clinton made this statement in an interview on Wikinews, as opposed to Larry King Live?
	* If ] is interviewed by ], and says (again, fictional example): ''"It is my understanding that the US Department of Justice this week is going to offer a full and unconditional written apology and settlement to ] for bothering us so much about trust laws, and US Attorney John Jacob Jingle-Heimer Schmidt has confirmed this to me."'' Is this a reliable source for the fact that the USDOJ will be giving MS an apology and settlement? In this scenario, Bill is clearly a recognized expert on Microsoft, and their relationship to the USDOJ with anti-trust laws. Is this a valid source for this statement, about third parties? If the answer is "Yes", then why would it be any different if Bill Gates made this statement in an interview on Wikinews, as opposed to in Time Magazine?
	Are both scenarios fine to use for sourcing? If both of those are, I fail to see why Wikinews wouldn't be a fine source in the same vein--it's journalist are vetted, known to the Foundation by name, and acreddited journalists. Please tell me if I'm reading these wrong, and I'd like views on my two scenarios.
	I'm wondering if the problem isn't with the fact that the known expert, Unger, made the statement, so much as it is the fact that this appeared in a Wikinews interview. If that is the case--do we need to let the Foundation as David mentioned know that Misplaced Pages does not consider Wikinews a viable tool for the project? Thanks. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	:No, this commits the same error as Shankbone: assuming that ''people'' can be reliable sources. Reliable sources are characterized not just for their human expertise, but also for fact-checking. This is why we value peer-review and publications with a reputation for fact-checking. Using Bill Gates' statement to impute behavior to a living U.S. Attorney is not allowed. Luckily, such quotes would be so sensational that they would practically guarantee reliable coverage: news stories reporting the comment and trying to get confirmation from the implicated parties. This is a central axiom to ]: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
	:Incidentally, noting Unger's checkered past, and the interview's complete failure to ask a single challenging question, I would also challenge the notion that he's an expert. I won't argue that point, but it's a worthy aside. For various reasons, interviews are often biased in favor of those being interviewed. Because the interviewee often cannot carefully choose their words, and because they must rely on memory, blog posts could actually be a better source in some cases. At any rate, we should grant an expert interview no more deference than an expert blog post, and ] is the proper analysis. ] '']'' 22:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	Luke is saying several things here:
	#That people are not sources. That's not true. People ''are'' sources. If Bill Gates, involved in Microsoft litigation, can't be taken as a source of what the Attorney General is doing, then who can be? Who would a fact checker corrborate Gates' words with? Gates? The Attorney General? If the Attorney General said, "No, that's not true" and Gates stuck to his guns and said it was true, then you have a case where two people are saying something different. What if the Attorney General is lying? We aren't here to decide that a source is unreliable. Our policy is ]. One sees this throughout history, that notable people (generals, politicians, etc.) are often quoted as saying one thing, and others say another thing. That is how history gets recorded. The question is: who is the one saying what? There is no "truth computer" that people can go to in order to "fact check"--it always comes down to people's words, whether it be Bill Gates or a journalist who spoke to someone who was supposedly "in the know". How are we to take ] at his word? The fact checking a publication would undertake is "Did Bill Gates say this" and not "Can anybody else substantiate Bill Gates?"
	#That Wikinews is in itself not reliable to be used; in other words, that if a person says something at Wikinews, then it should be notable enough to have been said somewhere else, and by default we should use that source instead of Wikinews. This prejudice against a website doing important work is unfounded. My interview with ], the Dalai Lama's representative, fleshed out ''many'' issues related to religion, Tibet-China and the Tibetan government-in-exile's position on a variety of issues, and was appreciated by many people on those pages. Are we really here to say we shouldn't use ]'s interview on the Tibet articles because it is on Wikinews? Or ]'s interview on animal rights articles?
	#That he doesn't like Craig Unger. But that's also not what our policies speak to. Craig Unger is not some small-time conspiracy theorist, but a fellow at ], a contributing editor to ], the former deputy editor of the ], and former editor-in-chief of ]. He is a New York Times best-selling author. I question the veracity of quite a few notable people out there on the left and right, but the fact is that my dislike and questioning of their truthfulness (], say) doesn't mean I think we should discount them because ].
	Luke, you say a lot of different things, none of which serves our purposes here on Misplaced Pages. And yes, Bill Gates making a statement about something that happened in regard to the Attorney General ''certainly'' should be used if he is directly involved. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 23:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Take a look at ]. We don't care if the source is expert, we can't use them to implicate living people. Period. Clinton's extemporaneous comment involving the behavior of a political rival isn't even a close call. We wouldn't allow it from ''Larry King Live'' or anywhere else. This isn't an anti-Wikinews argument. I'm not arguing #2 at all. And I don't have anything against Unger or his views; #3 is irrelevant. This should apply equally to all interviews, which are forums for one party to speak their views. Without the fact-checking, corroboration, or request for comment that accompanies reliable news sources, they are self-published and should follow the same rules.
	:And people are not walking reliable sources; it's not as if every remark about Bush to have flown from a pundit's lips is encyclopedic. The articles (their work products) are sources&mdash;for their institutional fact-checking and expertise. ] '']'' 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	::I mentioned the last time this came up that we already do the opposite of what you're saying. At the same as the first round of this Wikinews issue, on this page, were issues involving Lyndon LaRouche. Its apparently endorsed on Misplaced Pages to use expert self-published sources, isn't it? From the Dennis King/Chip Berlet material? • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 23:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::And SPS mentions '''established experts''' may be used. Bill Clinton is a walking reliable source about his wife Hillary, unless it comes out that he lies about her. One wonders how a publication would fact check against Bill Clinton? Time Magazine is doing an article on the candidates favorite ice cream flavors, and they can't get Hillary on the phone, but they get Bill. He says chocolate. Do you really think they would not print that? How would they fact check that, exactly, absent Hillary's confirmation? The question is: can people rely on Bill Clinton knowing what his wife likes? --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 23:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::If they couldn't corroberate the fact, no they wouldn't print it as fact (especially if it were meaningful rather than trivial). They might print it as an attributed remark since in this case it is meaningless and doesn't appear to be related to a material or personal interest of Mr. Clinton. In most of the interviews you're conducting, the interviewee is talking about topics where he has a deep-rooted interest (for instance by being outspoken on one side of an issue). In those cases Time would attempt to substantiate the facts presented by the interviewee and indicate where its research suggested that the facts were not in line with the statements. ] ] 00:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	My view of interviews published in self-publsihed venues like blogs or Wikinews is that we should regard them as reliable sources for the statements of the interviewees unless we have reason to doubt the veracity of the interview. Interviews, regardless of where published, should not be used as reliable sources for facts about 3rd-parties, but they may be used to cite opinions if the interviewee is notable in regard to the 3rd-party. (Bill Clinton's opinion of Hillary Clinton is notable, John Doe's opinion is not). ]] ] 00:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	::* I concur with this view by Will Beback. - ] (]) 03:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Thanks, Will. What about ], the Representative of the Dalai Lama, on the whereabouts of the ] and the Tibetan people's feelings about the Chinese government's appointed Panchen Lama. Would ], a noted journalist who has written two books and numerous articles for major publications on the Bush Administration, be considered a notable source as it relates to the administration? Would ]? --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 00:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	::That would be a question about the ] policy, as I said (and you said was absurd). Can I take it that we're now on common ground on this point? ] '']'' 05:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	::Oh, and how I would answer your questions (although I doubt you care about my views), is that the relationship must be supported by access to the person him or herself. An official representative for Tibet (or a President's wife or spokesman) have been given special access by the third-party. A journalist&mdash;even one that has written two partisan political books&mdash;has not, and really should not be exempt from BLP. ] '']'' 05:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::See my comments below, but you raised many issues, and the only issues people appear to be agreeing with you about are biographical details of ''people''. The Wolfowitz reference to the interview would be fine because the same details have been published before, and only serves to back up his already published material that is also used as a citation, along with the other four citations to the exact same material. The ] and ] articles were perfectly fine to cite to him. You raised a very broad spectrum of issues, and in the end, the issue is biographical details. See my further comments below. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 06:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	: Will summed this up quite clearly. 00:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC) (Jossi)
	:Thank you Will. Just a tiny additional question--in general, would expert journalists fall under this, for the topic they are noted for covering? For example, ] is noted as an expert on ], and their founder ], and has written the ] (to date). He is often cited by other media an expert on Blackwater. Does an expert journalist like this in general fall under the realm of a notable view for interviews, or does it have to be someone closer (e.g. Bill and Hillary)? EDIT: just realized David asked basically the same question. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 01:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	Most of my interviews are done with people who are directly involved in issues and thus are notable for what they think. ] on animal rights, for instance; or ] on immigration. My interviews with journalists, even those who have reached the top of their field such as ], are scant. Indeed, he is the only one. So for my work, it's important to point out that a reading of this policy will have far-reaching effects on Misplaced Pages, the sources we cite to, and what information we use those sources for. A few examples I posted on Jimbo's page to illustrate:
	#]: According to Jackson Hogan, Libby's roommate at Yale University, as quoted in the already-cited U.S. News & World Report article by Walsh, "'He is intensely partisan...in that if he is your counsel, he'll embrace your case and try to figure a way out of whatever noose you are ensnared in.'"
	#]: The conservative Insight magazine reported on February 27, 2006 that "senior GOP sources" had said Cheney was expected to resign after the mid-term Congressional elections in November 2006; however, only Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld left office following the elections.
	#]: In April 2007, the New York Post wrote that tension exists between Sharpton and Barack Obama. According to Post political reporter Frederick U. Dicker, "Sharpton has launched a 'big-time' effort to tear down Illinois Sen. Barack Obama as a candidate for president."
	#Most of ] are allegations made about Moore by third parties, e.g.: However, the actual encounter was not captured on camera by Moore, and occurred before he became a filmmaker. Moore told the Associated Press that had he met face-to-face with Roger Smith during production and tried to keep the footage secret, General Motors would have made it known through the media to discredit him.
	All of these examples, only but a few that exist, fail Cool Hand Luke's reading of the SPS guideline. I quote a pretty acclaimed journalist who did a great deal of research and interviews with high-ranking government employees and people involved, as well as looking over government documents. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 05:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	::David, I don't think you have any idea what would fail my SPS standard&mdash;you didn't even understand what my problem was until several others chimed in to agree that interviews were basically self-published. Moreover, what I think really doesn't matter. The actual SPS policy matters, and that's why I brought this up here&mdash;to determine what the consensus is.
	::None of these things you cited are interviews. They are not bare dialogs giving platform to a single source who is making extemporaneous remarks. These stories been vetted into news stories from reputable publishers that presumably ask for both parties for comment and weave numerous sources together, checking them against each other. You asked above what would happen if the AG denied Bill Gate's hypothetical claim. The answer is that a press article would likely report both, and we would then be able to cite both. Reporters don't do anything magical when they take numerous primary accounts and weave them into a secondary source, but that doesn't mean that we should act as reporters. Not on this project, anyway. ] '']'' 06:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::The Michael Moore controversy example below is exactly analogous to the situation at hand. Do you ''really'' not see that? --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 13:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::The interview doesn't seem to be cited. I agree that the article should be rephrased to follow the sources, but it is not exactly analogous; it cites news stories instead of primary interviews. Maybe analogous to Wolfowitz, which is probably fine. ] '']'' 19:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	:And from what I understand by what is being said, none of the information from Unger's interview is wrong to put in, it's just wrong to put it in because it was from an interview, and not cited to his fact-checked book, that says the same things about the same people? And that only relates to BLP, and not to ] and ], but only to ]. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 06:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	::I believe they still have a WEIGHT problem, but since you now agree they're self-published comments, we can have a productive discussion on the particulars. Thanks. ] '']'' 19:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	:This is nuts and pomposity on the part of Wikipedians. Wikinews has a remit to produce original research. Might as well delete that from our official policies if people will so persistently dismiss us as not credible or suitable for use in Misplaced Pages. It is one thing to avoid sourcing from our synthesis articles, but the OR? Neither wonder Rob Balder said Misplaced Pages was "the politest bunch of book-burning assholes on the planet". --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 23:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	:] is the inclusion of Wikinews Original Reporting that was never challenged. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 09:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Are the former journalists Leonard Davis, then second-in-command of ], now Israel's no.2 diplomat to the USA (as Lenny Ben-David), and ], ''grande dame'' of the US neo-conservative movement, reliable sources for statements made by the leader of the Palestinians during the 1940s, in the absence of any further confirmation or citation?
	:And do the word of an ultra-right talk-radio host and Internet columnist, and the esteemed author of "The complete idiot's guide to Jewish history and culture" vouchsafe the claim? &lt;]/]]&gt; 01:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
	:: Since the ] is a historian who specializes in U.S.-Middle East policy, and the author/editor of 17 books whose work has been published in academic journals and major newspapers, the answer would seem to be 'Yes'. Please do not use this forum to soapbox about "''grande dames'' of the US neo-conservative movements or about "ultra-right" radio hosts. ] 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::What on earth are you talking about? Mitchell Bard has not been cited on the page. The citations 46, 47, and 48 are Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Chuck Morse, and Benjamin Blech. Please talk sense, and avoid trying to paint evaluations of source reliability as "using this forum to soapbox." &lt;]/]]&gt; 02:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Do calm down, and adopt a more civil tone. What I'm talking about is that your were asking about "Myths and Facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" - a book whose most recent editor is Mitchell Bard, a noted historian and academic author, which meets ]. Now stop using this forum to rant about your political opponents, and edit according to policy. ] 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::But the 2006 edition isn't cited. The 1982 edition is. The 2006 version is available online, and of the Mufti's supposed statement. Accusations of my "ranting" juxtapose oddly with accusations of incivility. &lt;]/]]&gt; 05:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Yes, these are RSs. You are suggesting that we reject a source since they are zionist or neoconservative. Think what you like about these movements but we DO NOT reject academic sources based on their political viewpoint. This is a disgusting and nauesating suggestion. Would you have us reject all sources who happened to be anti-zionist, or Marzist?! Obscene. ] (]) 01:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	Update: is a Haganah press officer and later IDF Lieutenant Colonel, a confidant of David Ben Gurion and his personal media strategy adviser, writing in 1947 during the run-up to civil war in Palestine, a reliable source for what Husayni may or may not have said during the 1940s, in the absence of further confirmation or citation? &lt;]/]]&gt; 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
	:I would say that if someone is "a second-in-command of ]" there is reason to suspect them of not being a reliable source on controversial Israeli-Palestinian matters. But suspicion doesn't make one an unreliable source, and the two men may very well be reliable sources. The burden of evidence is (for showing something is a reliable source) is upon those who insist on its usage. As of now I don't see any evidence provided for the reliability of Leonard Davis and ].] (]) 05:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Agree. At the very least there should be some sort of disclaimer about the biases of neoconservative commentators. --] (]) 22:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Oh dear. If there is bias then it cant go in at all. This suggestion is simply ''obscene''. Someone is a Zionist so we need a discliamer before we can quote them, and to label them a neocon. We canont put on such a disclaimer since that vioates NPOV since it is expressing an opition to the effect "this source might be a lying neocon pig, so watch out". This is an obscene suggestion that would seem antisemitic if it were ever put into effect. ] (]) 01:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Look, this isn't the question of someone who is a scholar, but may be biased in some way. All scholars have their biases. The two sources at issue here are:
	::::*A journalist, Haganah spokesman, and personal confidant of Ben-Gurion, writing in the heat of the 1947 civil war in Palestine, about the leader of the enemey
	::::*A pair of lifelong "pro-Israel" lobbyists and activists, one of whom was later picked as ''chargé d'affairs'' at the Israeli embassy in Washington
	::::Neither are scholars, neither are reliable, and neither should be used as an excuse to sling mud at Husayni. &lt;]/]]&gt; 01:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Oh, and the second source was actually published by AIPAC and distributed literally by the caseload, and was condemned by scholars for... oh, why do I bother, you haven't even been reading the discuission you're commenting on, have you. &lt;]/]]&gt; 01:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::They are scholars, he is cited by others, so we cite him. You are free to describe his roles alongside any quotes in a limited and neutral way. I have never understood the motives of editors who seek to defend a confirmed Nazi who spent the war as a guest of Hitler in Berlin from "mudslinging", I think that a little more mud isn't going to make to much difference to a man who drowned in a vat of it. When people come here to defent Eichmann, we tend to view them as sick. Much like I view the suggestion that zoinist scholars and writers be labeled zionists before they can be quoted. You are free to add sources that rebut the claims they make it you want. ] (]) 02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Leonard Davis is a scholar? Really? What was his academic posting? Seriously, you need to stop just making up the facts to suit your POV. Leonard J. Davis aka Lenny Ben-David was many things, but "scholar" was not one of them. &lt;]/]]&gt; 04:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	== ArabNews ==
	Is ] a reliable source? —]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	: For what material? The reliability of a source, depends in many instances in the context in which they are used. ] <small>]</small> 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	::On ]: ''In October, 2001 Pipes said, before the convention of the American Jewish Congress. " increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews." '' —]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	::: If properly attributed, I do not see why it cannot be used. Please discuss with other editors that are actively engaged in that article. ] on this as a valid source, is still needed. ] <small>]</small> 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	: It probably is reliable. Although I must admit I am not familiar with it. Considering how it's distributed worldwide, and its own stub article doesn't have anything denouncing it for false or misleading stories, I would make the educated guess that it is reliable.] (]) 04:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Do other reliable news sources quote it? Is a news outlet out of Saudi Arabia free from legal constraints about what they may write? Hard to see how we can use this as a ]. <font color="green">]</font> 03:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
	I think Arab news is a reliable sources since it is a mainstream newspaper (thus satisfying ]), much like the ], or ]. Infact, it is Saudi Arabia's oldest English newspaper. With regards to Daniel Pipes, you better get another source to support a contentious claim like that.] (]) 04:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
	:It is really bias. Doesn't seem reliable at all to me. '''] ]''' 06:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Is to determine if he made such a distasteful statement? He also says that he said it on , so it seems ArabNews is perfectly reliable and acceptable. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 06:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	::"''It is really bias''" Why?] (]) 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::When Pipes makes a controversial statement at the American Jewish Congress, it is likely to receive wide coverage, and you would not be limited to Arab News as the only source. The claims to be quoting from an unpublished grant proposal written by Pipes's Middle East Forum and 'obtained by journalists.' I would be more cautious with anything obtained that way. ] (]) 19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::The problem of bias in this case is here by editors, with inappropriate comments. On the Daniel Pipes talk page, Ironduke made reference to the source being unacceptable because it is from Saudi Arabia, and references to theocracy. Arbitrarily saying here, "bias", is another problem. There is no excuse for comments that dismiss Arab sources out of hand. Arab or Saudi sources are just as valid to use on Jewish topics as Israeli or other Western sources. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 19:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Lawrence, you're welcome to respond to the substance of my point above, and I'd certainly welcome it. Slurring insinuations on the motives of other editors and baseless accusations of bias are not as welcome. <font color="green">]</font> 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: What "insinuations"? At ] you openly claim that sources from Saudi Arabia are inherently unreliable due to "differences of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech". The latter may or may not be true but the concept that no Saudi has any journalistic integrity is an absurd, racist generalization. ] (]) 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::''"the concept that no Saudi has any journalistic integrity is an absurd, racist generalization."'' That is indeed correct. Good thing I never advanced such a concept. <font color="green">]</font> 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
	Still, "differences of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech" does not mean a source is not reliable. Do we maintain a list of nations that we devalue sources from? Who maintains the list, where is it, and who decides what nations we think aren't worth noting in Misplaced Pages? A Saudi source is as valid as an Israeli source, as a Pakistani source, as a Japanese source. Nation of origin means nothing. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	:''"Nation of origin means nothing."'' That is, of course, wholly incorrect. It would be difficult, in fact, to overstate precisely how wrong that is. I'll just say that countries which do not value journalistic freedom, and in which journalists are heavily censored, do not produce reliable, quality journalism. <font color="green">]</font> 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	== The Nation ==
	This from '']'' a reliable source? —]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	: Same answer as above. Reliable for what material? "Reliability" is not an absolute distinction: it requires context. ] <small>]</small> 02:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	::the following reference was deleted off the ] article b/c the user said it was a unreliable source: ''According to writer Kristine McNeil in ], Pipes has anti-Arab views. He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most," and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers." Pipes is a regular contributor to the , an organization founded that endorses the ] of ]'' —]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	: '''Reliable'''. Although this source is biased, it is well-regarded as the premiere source of liberal opinion in the United States. Before people jump over me for having a liberal bias, let me say that ''National Review'' is also reliable.] (]) 04:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	: It is not a reliable source for facts, but certainly a reliable source for the views of liberals on the subject. As it is properly attributed, I would see no problem in using it. In any case, you will need to reach ] with involved editors there.] <small>]</small> 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	:: I respectfully disagree about it being unreliable in terms of facts. Sure, it may present facts in a biased way, but I doubt it publishes outright falsehoods as truth.] (]) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	:My opinion is that if you want to show what liberals are saying, quote a liberal source. If you want to cite a conservative opinion, use a conservative source. For other things, it is better to use a centrist source. For example, I am comfortable quoting from MSNBC and CBS for liberal opinions and Fox News for conservative opinions. This is because sources will twist around the words of opposing opinions to make them look bad. However, I find those sources to be too biased to be used for controversial content that is easily skewed like the war in Iraq. I would rather use sources that I think are more centrist like ABC News and CNN for those topics. Even though I am somewhat liberal, I am disgusted by the blatant liberal bias in CBS and MSNBC, and of course I am disgusted with the blatant conservative bias in Fox News. Some people will consider my opinion on who is the centrist sources as bad, and I know that different people will have different opinions. ] (]) 07:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	:I would suggest that everyone who is offering an opinion on this cite read the actual reference. I'm not certain that the article being used could be used due to the unapologetically biased nature of the article. Wow. I've not read a hit piece like that ever before... it isn't journalism. I'm not exactly certain what it is. ] (]) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	:: Having read the first page of the cite, I must say that sure, it '''''is''''' biased, and written in an non-encyclopedic tone. But that doesn't mean that facts gleaned from the article are unreliable. It is, perhaps muckraking journalism, IMHO.] (]) 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	::: I'd suggest that it definitely falls under the ] clause. I feel dirty having read it all. There's focused, driven editorializing and then there is demonizing through ] tactics. That article clearly is the latter. ] (]) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::I don't see how there is any redflag violation. —]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not sure exactly how a fringe opinion such as that is useful as a source in an NPOV manner. I was kind of hoping the last line would be something like "oh yes, and he eats babies too." ] (]) 05:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::It's hardly a fringe opinion. By all measures, the Nation is a mainstream rag. That doesn't mean that it's unbiased or doesn't have an editorial slant, but tell me what source doesn't? "Reliable source" doesn't mean no bias; that's a mistake too often made by Misplaced Pages editors. If there's an issue of balance in the sources used in the article, that needs to be hammered out on the talk page. But to paint the Nation as an unreliable (let alone "fringe") source, including that particular editorial, is absurd. ] (]) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::That particular editorial is beyond the pale. I'd love to show you, line by line, how it uses propaganda techniques, but we're all able to read and discern for ourselves. I'd expect that sort of rant from a blog, not a reputable publication like the Nation. ] (]) 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::: The use of propaganda techniques doesn't separate the Nation from other reliable sources. Contrary to popular belief, propaganda is not the science of lying. It simply means propagating an idea or perspective through whatever means, whether rhetorical devices, logical argumentation, or whatever, all of which are used by the most respectable newspapers and magazines. Even if you don't agree with how that editorial depicts Pipes, the way it was originally used in the Misplaced Pages article was simply to say that this opinion of Pipes is out there. ] (]) 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::I agree with Bobanny. According to Kyaa the Catlord's logic, most all main-stream media would be considered an unreliable source, especially Fox News--which is widely used on WIkipedia.—]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::Fox News is at least presenting itself as news as is, for example, CNN. The Nation exists mainly as a journal of opinion. Their conclusions cannot and should not be used as facts. <font color="green">]</font> 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
	: (outdent) Of course, no opinion printed anywhere should be used as a fact. What I am saying is that facts extracted from The Nation can be used. Likewise, the same applies to Fox News and National Review.] (]) 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
	:IronDuke, in the context the text was used on the Pipes article, it is not presenting any opinion, only facts. What are you suggesting is an opinion?—]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
	*Sure, it's '''reliable'''. Does something think the ''facts'' listed are somehow in error? The opinions can be used for certain things also (say liberal response). ] (]) 02:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
	== Publisher's "blurb" quotes and ] ==
	A dispute has arisen as to the sourcing of favorable quotes reviewing ]'s work. The sources are the "blurb" quotes on the back cover of her book. One side argues that since publishers of academic books are reliable sources, evidence must be presented that this particular quote is either taken from a longer review or taken out of context, or it is ''a priori reliable''. The other side argues that blurb quotes are often taken out-of-context, even by reliable publishers, and points to a book reviewer griping about a "misleading" blurb "quoted out of context" from one of his prior reviews.
	Neither side has located the originals, assuming the reviews were first published elsewhere. &lt;]/]]&gt; 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	: I see no problems in quoting from backmatter or dust-jacket flaps, if properly ]. ] <small>]</small> 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	:: Would that mean we say "According to a review reproduced on the back cover of ''X'', person ''Y'' said..."? &lt;]/]]&gt; 06:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Not all blurbs are created equally -- I suggest considering them on a case-by-case basis and using common sense. Blurbs exist to sell something, not to convey information. Some quote very selectively from reviews. I'd especially watch out for ellipses (…) indicating something has been removed from the text or brackets indicating other editing; those don't mean a blurb is automatically unreliable, just that it needs closer examination. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 12:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::In this particular case, we already have a source accusing that. Somebody reviewing the English translation of one of Ye'or's books took time out to note that the English edition carried a quotation from him, "quoted out of context" in a "misleading" way, from a past review. &lt;]/]]&gt; 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Another problem with using blurbs is that your source then typically consist of a single, or a few, sentence(s). I believe blurbs should genereally not be used as sources since they are either: (i) taken from a larger piece of work that can be sourced, even if finding that work is difficult, (ii) only consist of a few sentences and can hence be considered as random statements. ] (]) 13:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	:: ''"According to a review reproduced on the back cover of X, person Y said..."?'' meets the requirements of ]. ] <small>]</small> 16:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	::: That seems obvious, that if it was put like that then there could never be any problem, even if the quote was manipulated. The publisher is a RS. ] (]) 01:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	== Altermedia ==
	Is a reliable source? --] <small><sup>] </sup></small> 08:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
	:No - it isn't ], it doesn't even have an article on Misplaced Pages. If you think it is, then you would need to establish that before it could be a reliable source. Secondly, it seems to present articles in a very biased way with an anti-Jew anti-black POV. It is also taking a political position in support of various parties, such as the ]. It is definitely not neutral. I checked the front page of the UK site, headline : "Islamic beheading in UK". Contrast this with the same story from a reliable source, BBC News, which has nothing about an "Islamic beheading". They are clearly distorting facts with their POV. ] (]) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
	::It is a reliable source for existence of opinions (points of view) about some issues. Reliability as a source for facts should be weighted for every local version of Altermedia separately. --] (]) 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Misplaced Pages states clarly that unreliable sources may only be used in articles about themselves. Below, I explain just what is unreliable about it (and "unreliable" is an understatement). ] (]) 22:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
	How does one determine which local version can be used, and which specific issues it can be used for? --] <small><sup>] </sup></small> 19:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
	:To clarify a bit: this section is a consequence of a long thread on Romanian wikipedia, where altermedia is used as a reliable source. In the process of the discussion, I investigated a bit and it turns out that only two reliable sources (of the academic kind, mind you) even take altermedia into consideration. They are Thomas Greven, Thomas Grumke, ''Globalisierter Rechtsextremismus?: Die extremistische Rechte in der Ära der Globalisierung'', VS Verlag, 2006, pages 171-171 and Wilhelm Hofmann, Franz Lesske, ''Politische Identität- visuell'', LIT Verlag, 2005, page 160. '''Both''' cite altermedia '''as a portal''', and both define it as '''a venue for far right extremism''' (with, in at least one case, emphasis on its promotion of antisemitism, xenophobia, the Klan etc.). Outside of these sources, altermedia as a whole has little covering: it is simply ignored, in both academia and mainstream journalism.
	:A larger debate was carried in relation to the Romanian altermedia, which, it was claimed, is an independent section - its independence is, however, easily dismissible by citing altermedia itself, as it defines itself as part of the portal in question. Three main issues have been noted. One is that ro.altermedia.info is run by a high-ranking member of the far right group ]: Dan Ghiţă, whom altermedia itself indicates as , is Noua Dreaptă's vice president (as mentioned , , and ) and Bogdan Stanciu, who is . The other issue clearly observable is its involvement with far right politics and its support for Noua Dreaptă's actions (accompanied by praises of fascist politicians such as ] leader ]); these activities are, to say the least, bordering on illegality in Romania. See for example , and . I left aside the other myriad of claims it makes on all sections, all of which are visible to the naked eye (from "curing" homosexuality to denying the Holocaust to ranting about Jewish conspiracies to the ).
	:The third and most important issue in respect to altermedia Romania is its reflection in reliable sources. For all its presence in blogs and forums, there are few reliable sources (mainstream or academic) mentioning it at all. Here they are: , where altermedia is referred to as an "Iron Guard nest" ("nest" is the terminology used by the Irion Guard to define its smallest active cells), and attributed the qualities of "the Guard's propaganda tentacle", "tool for propagating Noua Dreaptă's fascist ideology" etc.; , where altermedia's Holocaust denial is discussed in passing, where altermedia's connection with Noua Dreaptă is again mentioned, and where the author accuses it of promoting an Iron Guard-inspired view of Romanian history; , headlined "Hatred Boils Over on the Internet", where altermedia is mentioned alongside other extremist and neofascist sites; the ], in , cites altermedia several times (pages 10, 17, 33, 34, 40, and 44) - the document argues (page 17) that "under the cover of 'right to expression and access to information', the publication hosts messages with an antisemitic and denialist character" (a dismissal of both altermedia's character and its claim to reliability). There are a few more informal sources mentioning altermedia's neofascist character, antisemitism etc., but I just concentrated on the most relevant ones (reliable themselves).
	:The issue of editorial control was also brought up, and altermedia simply states that it encourages anyone to contribute as long as they feel that their material is censored elsewhere (by "]", mind you). This is a clear indication that the source is self-published and it places itself in contradiction with the mainstream (see ] and ] for the implications of that). Altermedia, under any form and with any section, is not cited as a source of information in any reliable source. As shown, it is simply a study case for neofascism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, racism and xenophobia.
	:In short: '''there is absolutely no way that this could be considered a reliable source, under any standards on Earth'''. ] (]) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
	For the record, Dahn is correct in stating that this is basically a spill out from the Romanian Misplaced Pages -- I simply tried to be as neutral as possible in how I asked the questions because I didn't want to risk being accused of tainting the topic with my POV. I hope I have been successful in not revealing my personal opinion on this source's reliability or my motives for asking these questions. However (or maybe even more so), please do try to give this inquiry a bit of your attention, this is setting a precedent on our Misplaced Pages. Thank you. --] <small><sup>] </sup></small> 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Technically, the labeling of a source as unreliable and its entire removal from wikipedia (+policing for possible new entries) is not unprecedented. I do believe this was accomplished in the case of Stormfront, Al Qaeda and others, and I have seen editors who simply remove such links from the articles. This may be without precedent for the Romanian wikipedia, but even there, I am led to believe, there has been agreement on at least some links to sites promoting Holocaust denial. As for your query, I find it entirely reasonable. ] (]) 23:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
	In short: I see that you and Gutza expand disputes from ] into ] and I don´t know where else. I think that it is kind of harassment. Local Altermedias are very different as well as language versions of Misplaced Pages and sources in Romanian language are not problem of overwhelming majority of editors of English Misplaced Pages. Solve your personal problems with Romanian Altermedia at Romanian Misplaced Pages and write encyclopedia ( is not about writing encyclopedia). Thank you, --] (]) 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Actually, me and Gutza agree that it is not a reliable source, as do several other users who formulated their opinion there. Above, I clearly indicate that the only two reliable sources even mentioning altermedia (''as a portal'', i.e.: in its entirety) do so only to highlight its extremist character. Additionally, the reason why this was posted here is so that the source itself, and in its totality, be exposed for scrutiny by the community. Please make sure you address these concerns, and not ulterior assumptions. ] (]) 23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
	:And if you drop my account in the pot, please make sure you check out my record of contributions over here (including my two featured articles). I only joined the Romanian project very recently, after a period of contributing as an IP, and after being asked to sign in by several administrators - precisely because they appreciated my input. ] (]) 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
	:One additional comment: writing a proper and reliable encyclopedia is precisely why one needs to look into what sources are used and for what purpose. ] (]) 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
	I understand that you both are against this source. But sorry, it is very difficult to believe that there is no connection between your dispute at Romanian Misplaced Pages and your actions here. It simply look likes that you want to write at Romanian Misplaced Pages: ''At English Misplaced Pages they said...'' --] (]) 00:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Dezidor, I don't see what relevancy it has that it is discussed over there, given that I am bringing up the entire source for review ''here''. I could just as well bring it for review because I please - meaning that I have a right, and, ultimately, a duty, to ask that these sources be exposed for scrutiny by any section of wikipedia. I do believe that this is the purpose of this page. Your answer, which was the second one to Gutza's first post, was that different altermedias "should be weighted for every local version of Altermedia separately" - based on what logic, and according to what rule? For the third time: the only two mentionable sources that cite ''the entire portal'' (no "Czech altermedia is okay, Portuguese altermedia is bad") discuss it as a source for nothing other than extremism; all other reliable sources that I was able to find discuss the Romanian section (which '''is not''' subject to some peculiar and particular rules) say very much the same. Am I missing something? ] (]) 02:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
	::And even if I would want to cite a verdict passed on the English wikipedia as additional information there (as if what I posted there isn't as clear as what I wrote above), what's to say I'm not allowed to, given that the portal we're discussing is international, and that wikipedia enforces the same rules wherever? ] (]) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::My argument that different AlterMedias should be discussed separately is based on facts that this websites has own redactions and external contributors, different quality and popularity (for example Altermedia România looks like popular website, Altermedia Österreich doesn´t), different ideological opinions (almost every mainstream and non-mainstream media has own political or economic interests and it would be violation of NPOV to support only media with some opinions), different sort of supporters and opponents (and sources that writes positively, negatively or neutrally about them), different updating (for example AlterMedia România produces new articles every day in comparison with AlterMedia Schweiz which looks like dead project), different kind of articles (for example AlterMedia UK usually includes only comments to articles by another media and external links in comparison with AlterMedia Czech Republic that usually provides articles by its own authors or by authors of friendly media) etc. Altermedia.info is rather than one project only domain that hosts different projects with different content. --] (]) 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::I'm sorry, but: 1) number of clicks does not make reliability; 2) several sources discuss the site in its entirety, and they are the only reliable sources that even mention the site; 3) speculations about the "political interest" of academic works fade in comparison to the burden of evidence regarding the bias of altermedia (and altermedia, for sure, is not academic); 4) the sources that do actually take the site into consideration belong to media so diverse that it would have to be "all the world against altermedia" (which is basically saying the same thing about what that site is all about). I fail to see any proof that the altermedias would be separate projects, and, in fact, I see plenty of evidence that they are not (both in third-party commentary and in what altermedia states about itself). Below, you have what I consider is a full answer as to the reliability of altermedia, with a direct quote from wikipedia's policies.
	::::To the above, I will add provided by the Internal Ministry in North Rhineland-Westphalia, which keeps neonazi sites under a close watch. On pages 4-5, the entire portal is exposed as a venue for right-wing extremism, the links between its supposedly separate wings are discussed as facts, and the person holding the strings is identified as the notorious ]. Nuff said. ] (]) 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::: This last source that Dahn brought (from the Internal Ministry of ], no land after Rhine there!) clinches the case, if there was any real doubt before that. As a side note: ], the ] of ], does not sound like a ] type to me, so the fact that his interior ministry says what it says regarding AlterMedia adds an extra layer of credibility, if I'm allowed to make the inference in this discussion. ] (]) 15:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Oh, never mind all the assumptions. (And by the way, Dahn is among the project's most committed editors, so please.) Yes, the debate originated at ro.wiki, but why not have it here as well? As long as everyone stays civil, I don't see the problem. It's a good idea to establish a solid case here as well that altermedia should be avoided as a source. ] (]) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
	::From ]:
	:::''"Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."''
	::Any publisher of material that advocates far right (or even far left) politics is not a reliable source (with the minor exception of an article about the publisher). The rules are very clear. ] (]) 01:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
	This entire discussion came from Romanian Misplaced Pages, where several users added altermedia as a source at various articles. As Dezidor pointed there are differences between different branches of Altermedia. Each branch has its own redaction team, the conclusions about American or German altermedia can not be extended on other branches. Romanian Altermedia is a popular site often quoted in various publications. For example: it received , it was quoted by , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and several others. I fully agree with Chris that sites that are '''widely''' aknowledged as extremist should not be considered reliable sources. However, in the case of Altermedia Romania, less than 5% of those who are quoting this site are considering it as extremist, it can not be considered as "'''widely''' aknowledged as extremist". I have to point also some fallacies in Dahn's message - the article in "Curentul" the he is quoting is mentioning altermedia as a "nest" (it is a derogatory term, like in the movie "Borat, a story for people in Kazahstan"), but not as an "Iron Guard nest", the "Iron Guard" was added by Dahn from his imagination. Both "Curentul" and "Observatorul Cultural" are minor publications in Romania. The refferences at other sections of altermedia are simply irrelevant for a judgement about Romanian altermedia, in my opinion.--] (]) 18:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:It is obviously difficult for non-Romanian speakers to verify those references. Your argument is basically that, yes, the English speaking divisions of Altermedia are extremist and not reliable sources, but the Romanian division is totally different, and is actually a good, reliable source. It is not an impossible proposition, but is extremely unlikely. So I will ask:
	:*Is it really necessary to use this site as a reliable source? Are there no reliable sources similar to the BBC or CNN in Romania? No professional newspapers?
	:*The English Altermedia had content that was clearly anti-{Muslim, Jew, black}. Is the Romanian site different, or does it have a similar slant? The Romanian site uses the same tagline, "World wide news for people of European descent". The implication is obvious.
	:*The regional sites all link to each other without any warning that the viewer is being redirected to a completely different organisation. If you cite it as a reliable source, then how is the reader meant to know that you only believe the Romanian site is reliable?
	:] (]) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	::I am not saying that Romanian Altermedia is the best source, but sometimes they have good articles which are appropiate for Misplaced Pages, and other sources about those subjects are missing. When an article is added as a source, the reader is directed at a specific article from Altermedia, not at the entire network. The Romanian Altermedia has a "Frequently Asked Questions" page where they claim being independent from other sections of the altermedia. I am against a ] forbidding any link to altermedia articles without an analysis of the specific article which is proposed to be linked (this was Dahn's proposal at Romanian wikipedia). Romanian Altermedia has a wide variety of articles, from far-right to far-left political orientation.--] (]) 19:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::''"I am against a fatwa forbidding any link to altermedia articles without an analysis of the specific article which is proposed to be linked"'' Well, that is the way that ] works. A source is either considered reliable, or it isn't. We don't evaluate individual articles for their reliability. ] (]) 04:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::MariusM's message is spurious on several grounds: 1) the entirety of the links he cites are themselves unreliable, and most of them are blogs; 2) the publications he dismisses as "minor" are not at all minor, and all of them are mainstream, indisputably reliable, and rating above each and all of the links he so generously provides above; 3) there is no indication that altermedia Romania is an independent project, and I have made available the sources discussing both the project in general and the mainstream rejection of its Romanian branch; 4) anybody with a little knowledge of Romanian will note that altermedia publishes fringe theories of the far right persuasion as a rule (open worship for fascist politicians and war criminals, clams to cure homosexuality, Holocaust denial, etc). I do believe it is perfectly legitimate and necessary for wikipedia not to soil itself by using such stuff as its source. ] (]) 00:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::Dahn is relying on the fact that few people here speak Romanian and can verify his afirmations. I've noticed that he didn't comment my observation about his wrong translation of the article from "Curentul" (where altermedia is described as a "nest", but Dahn pretended that it is described as an "Iron Guard nest").--] (]) 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::Nice selective answers. Hoping that this is not the first in a pattern, let me note that: 1) several respected users who speak Romanian have checked the info I provided, and agreed with the terminology (by confirming that the translation was correct, and by empirically noting that it applies); 2) in the case of that particular article, the terminology is quite clear: the text lists a number of neofascist ventures in cahoots with the Iron Guard and its present-day growth Noua Dreaptă, describing all of them with the term "cuiburi" (Romanian for "nests" - n.b.: the term has a select few meanings in Romanian, one of which is part of the Iron Guard vocabulary). This relevant passage is found at the top of the screen, in an introductory section - "Şi-au format cuiburi legionare in toate judetele." (" have formed themselves Iron Guard nests in all counties.") The article then proceeds to list various such ventures, including musical bands, xenophobic campaigns, their tentative tentacles (heh!) in a government structure etc. An entire section in this succession deals with altermedia. it is headlined "Cuibul Altermedia" ("The Altermedia Nest"). The organization is described as follows: "De fapt, Altermedia nu este decat unealta de propagare a ideologiei fasciste a Noii Drepte" ("Actually, Altermedia is nothing other than a tool for propagating Noua Dreaptă's fascist ideology"). Other such assessments follow, I just gave you the immediate context. I think we have by now moved past this straw man argument. ] (]) 00:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
	From alexa.com a comparison of different branches of altermedia:
	*Where people go on Altermedia.info:
	*cz.altermedia.info - 33%
	*de.altermedia.info - 21%
	*ro.altermedia.info - 18%
	*fr.altermedia.info - 7%
	*be.altermedia.info - 3%
	*altermedia.info - 3%
	*es.altermedia.info - 2%
	*bg.altermedia.info - 2%
	*us.altermedia.info - 2%
	*gr.altermedia.info - 2%
	*ca.altermedia.info - 1%
	*vl.altermedia.info - 1%
	*ch.altermedia.info - 1%
	*uk.altermedia.info - 1%
	*Other websites - 3%
	'''Romanian Altermedia has 4 times more visitors than American, UK and Canadian Altermedias together'''. Considering the fact that for one Romanian language speaker with acces at internet there are around 25 English language speakers with acces at internet, I will say that the weight of Romanian altermedia in Romanian culture is 100 times bigger than the weight of English language altermedias for English culture. This is why I consider irrelevant a conclusion about Romanian altermedia based on the tiny and unimportant English-language altermedias. In this case we have a completely different picture than regarding Misplaced Pages , where 54% of people are using English Misplaced Pages, while Romanian Misplaced Pages is not even listed, it is in the "other websites" category.--] (]) 23:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
	:How is this concoction supposed to be an argument, and how does anything about internet traffic spell out "reliability"? A rhetorical question, MariusM, as it looks like you have yourself very well understood that it does not. Never mind that the deduction about what it means to Romanian culture is bogus (comparatively, there are nowhere near as many internet users in Romania as there are in the Anglo-Saxon world). I also object to the notion that antisemitism, fascism, xenophobia, and other such ills are "acceptable" in Romania or in areas dealing with Romania, especially when based on the non sequitur according to which a larger percentage of internet users who bother to visit that site will visit that part of the site. Let me remind you all of ], and let's not flog this dead horse any longer. ] (]) 23:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
	::I used the traffic data from alexa.com to show the irrelevance of the tiny and unimportant English-language altermedias in a judgement about Romanian altermedia. I never told that Romanian altermedia is a fascist site, your assumption that "fascism and other ills are acceptable in Romania" is a ] argument. The reliability of Romanian altermedia is based on several reliable sources that are quoting this site, some of them I listed above (and those are not blogs, like you fakely pretended). The 2 articles that you found in minor Romanian publications which are criticising Romanian altermedia are not enough for a conclusion that Romanian altermedia is "'''widely''' aknowledged as extremist".--] (]) 00:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::Nope, ''this'' is what I said, in case you have not read it before: 1) there is no argument in which it would matter what the alleged popularity of altermedia is in Romania or anywhere else - since what wikipedia is interested in is how a topic is viewed by reliable sources, not by people clicking links (]: verifiability, not truth"); 2) neither of the sites you cite itself meet the criteria outlined in ] or ], as you have already been made aware elsewhere - despite their fancy titles, all but a handful are informal, fringe and self-published portals, blogs and fanzines, and the remainder (who do not actually ''cite'' or ''discuss'' altermedia) are sites of some monasteries and publications of absolutely no reputation. On Romanian wikipedia, these "sources" were reviewed by other editors, who noted that they have absolutely no reputation. 3) the newspapers I cited are mainstream and widely cited in third-party sources, which, unlike speculations about popularity, is what matters here; if we are discussing your speculations about popularity, then I have to point out that they are all printed and in general circulation, and they are all more widely circulated than anything you cite above - ''Observator Cultural'' is a leading cultural magazine (virtually all of its regular contributors are academics, and the journal is widely cited by other respectable sources, both Romanian and foreign - like all but one cultural magazines, it is not audited, but, according to , claims to sell approx. 4,500 copies on average per issue, when the best-selling magazines in that area sell 15,000 and 8,000 respectively, and it is probably the third-selling or so; according to the same source, most cultural magazines sell, on average, 1,000 copies per issue), ''Cotidianul'' is one of the most respected, as well as popular, newspapers (), ''Curentul'' is also quite popular (). Note that the data I am providing is verifiable and relevant, not based on number of clicks or filling this page with linkspams to all sorts of forums that we are supposed to assume are somehow relevant. Interestingly, all of the "magazines" you list above are published as posts in a thread on the internet, and not on paper. 4) In addition to the magazines in question, there is the Wiesel Institute, which was created through a decision of the Romanian government as a panel of scientists to monitor and report on, among other things, Holocaust denialist messages in Romanian society - I will not repeat the terms in which it describes altermedia as a whole, as their available for viewing above. 5) At any point in this discussion, the issue of editorial control and reliability will inevitably target altermedia more than any other source mentioned, since whatever necessary criteria are met by the sources dismissing altermedia are simply ''not met by altermedia itself'' (no audit, peer review, mainstream quality or editorial policy to speak of). And finally: 6) if the reputable sources discuss altermedia (in whole ''and'' in part) as a neofascist site, if the Romanian branch of altermedia is supposed to be "spared" the scrutiny made available for the site as a whole (because?), and if you invoke alleged popularity of one branch as some sort of panacea protecting us from these ills (n.b.: ills attributed by sources, regardless of whether I agree with what those sources say), then you're either not getting the point or are actively trying to fool us. ] (]) 01:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
	:When you compare the circulation of a daily newspaper (like "Curentul" or "Cotidianul") you should consider the number of copies printed daily, not to add all the copies they print in half a year. "Curentul" is selling zero copies, as it is a freely distributed magazine . I wonder if free-distributed magazines are reliable sources. "Cotidianul" didn't labeled Altermedia as a fascist site. As you know, at Romanian Misplaced Pages there was no consensus regarding altermedia. I didn't make "speculations" about the popularity of different branches of altermedia, I gave verifiable data from alexa.com, which I consider to be a reliable source.--] (]) 01:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
	::I'm not going to jam myself in this useless debate. If you note the original point I was making, popularity, if at all relevant, is secondary to the issue (if at all relevant in establishing '''verifiability'''). To this, I have added the same criterion for all newspapers I took into consideration - precisely because newspapers in general have moderate sales in Romania by world standards. As you will note, ''Curentul'' still sold copies for the given period - see the statistic in question, where the two criteria (sale and free distribution) are listed side by side, and it apparently still sells at least part of its copies. I'm leaving aside the obvious fact that, freely-distributed or not, ''Curentul'' is still mainstream and has editorial control... which altermedia does not. Your "Altermedia has 1.5 million visitors" argument is completely spurious, since number of clicks does not make individual copies or individual visitors (obviously, altermedia does not sell any copies on the market...), since site ranking does not work the same ratios as sales, and since I did not take into consideration stuff like . No, ''Cotidianul'' did not label altermedia fascist, for whatever reasons - it did not have to for the purpose of what is being discussed here, since it simply included it among other such sites in a study of how (literally) hatred spreads on the internet, and described as among the sites "specialized in promoting nationalism", in the same breath as the ] papers ''Tricolorul'' and ''România Mare''. And, finally, I don't care where you got your data from: the speculation I was referring to is in reference to what conclusions you drew from it, and to the absurd implication that this stuff matters in assessing '''verifiability''' and '''reliability''' (such a reasoning would make !).
	::Now, from my part, this conversation is pretty much over, as I don't feel capable of maintaining a standard of WP:AGF. This after being confronted with all these poor attempts at twisting and turning arguments just to have altermedia quotations disgracefully seep (back) into wikipedia. ] (]) 02:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::You are right about "Curentul", I didn't scrolled down to see that in half year they sold 16000 copies and distributed freely 248000 copies, and currently they seem to be only a free-distributed magazine. You are right also about the fact that "Cotidianul" didn't labeled Altermedia as fascist, why are you still using the argument "Cotidianul" in this case? As I told, is a ] argument that I used alexa.com data to prove reliability, I used it only to show irrelevance of tiny English language altermedias. For reliability, I provided other sources (even more sources in our discussion in Romanian Misplaced Pages, including one printed source which is appreciated even by "Observatorul Cultural" ).--] (]) 02:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::About ''Curentul'': I'm afraid you need to scroll down again. Not that this endless speculation of yours has anything to do with the letter and spirit of the relevant policies, but just for fun. Well, if you don't consider the reference to altermedia as a tool for propagating hate and a source with a nationalist agenda a problem as per WP:V and WP:RS, I'm afraid you need to look into those policies again (and, btw, I quote my original statement about the ''Cotidianul'' article, in case you may want to attempt another piece of proof by verbosity - "The third and most important issue in respect to altermedia Romania is its reflection in reliable sources. For all its presence in blogs and forums, there are few reliable sources (mainstream or academic) mentioning it at all. headlined "Hatred Boils Over on the Internet", where altermedia is mentioned alongside other extremist and neofascist sites"). All that concoction about the relevancy of the "tiny English language altermedias" is itself irrelevant: there is a single project discussed in all relevant links that discuss altermedia.info as a whole (as I have pointed out, they do discuss the project in its entirety and several branches at once, and they do indicate that it has a single source); the Romanian altermedia is itself noted for its "special" and "supplementary" far right connections (both attested in sources and visible to the naked eye); no branch, corner, lair, pit etc on altermedia.info and its various sprouts fits any of the syllables that line up to form words that become guidelines here on wikipedia.
	::::As for the "printed sources" you brought up, they are actually one, where one author is allowed to express his point of view and cites himself with what he wrote on altermedia. It is, basically and yet again, altermedia saying that altermedia is reliable. The rest of your sources are basically what you posted above, and, since they themselves do not make the cut under any provision of WP:RS, methinks you should reread the part where I tell you why spamlinks don't prove anything. ] (]) 03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
	:I quote what "Cotidianul" (the only serious newspaper you came with) is saying about Altermedia in : "Spatiul virtual romanesc are parte si de publicatii specializate in promovarea nationalismului, cum ar fi (...) „publicatia online de gindire si atitudine ortodoxa Altermedia“". Translation: ''"The Romanian web has also sites specialized in promoting nationalism, like the magazine of orthodox thinking and attitude Altermedia"''. What the article is saying about other sites is not relevant for Romanian Altermedia. The article didn't label Altermedia as "fascist", "extremist" or "propagating hate" - those are only your inventions or your original research. Regarding printing sources which are quoting altermedia, there are many, I focused on sources available at internet because I already know that is too difficult for you to go to a library to check what is written in a printed book. However, in the list of links which I provided above there are also some printed publications like the newspaper of the Romanian policemen ("jandarmi") training center or the newspaper of the Greek-catholic bishopric of Oradea (despite being labeled as "orthodox" in "Cotidianul", Romanian Altermedia gained sympathies also from catholics). In a previous discussion I told you about the book coordonated by Bogdan Murgescu - "Revoluţia română din decembrie 1989. Istorie şi memorie", Polirom publishing house, ISBN 978-973-46-0695-5 (commented favourable in "Observatorul Cultural" - the magazine you used against altermedia). Mr. Bogdan Murgescu, Phd. in history, profesor of history at Bucharest University, vicepresident of Romanian Historical Society, former visiting professor at Pittsburg University and Central Europe University from Budapest, member of the executive commitee of EUSTORY network, is quoting altermedia at page 212. Altermedia is also quoted by the scientific revue "Memorial 89" nr. 2/2007 - edited by the National Center of Documentation and Research about the Romanian Revolution of 1989 (established through Law 152/2000 and financed by the Romanian Government), by the newspaper "Evenimentul Zilei" - Vest edition from 15 December 2007 or "Bănăţeanul" from 17 December 2007 . Those are few examples to show that there are more sources which are quoting in favourable terms Romanian Altermedia than sources which are criticising it, while in a democratic society everybody can be criticised at a certain moment. A small adition: The "Observatorul Cultural" newspaper didn't pretend that they sell 4500 copies. They pretend, in , to print 4500 from which they received back 1000, that mean they pretend to sell 3500. I'm not saying that this is making a relevant difference for their reliability (anyhow, is only their claim without an independent audit), it is relevant only for your habit of manipulating through misquoting articles, relying on the fact that few people here speak Romanian language.--] (]) 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
	::It seems you are unwilling to quote an article fully: ''Cotidianul'', which is one of several newspapers discussing Romanian altermedia's political agenda, includes altermedia among sites propagating hate, as per the very subject of that article. The part I have quoted directly form that article, which you have left out of your quote, traces a direct link between it and all the other sites, and a direct link between it and the two other sites also listed as "specialized in promoting nationalism" (a term obviously used negatively, as per the title and introduction to the article, and as per the quotes ''Cotidianul'' itself furnishes). This is enough to clarify that it perceived as having an extremist agenda by ''Cotidianul'' as well.
	::The quote in Murgescu's work (assuming it does exist), just as well as the two other articles you mention, do not in any way validate the site, but simply discuss Marius Mioc, a 1989 Revolution participant and Timişoara resident who was deemed notable and who publishes part of his work on altermedia, ahem. They all seem to be exclusively about this material: the two sources that are available for seeing, both of them local newspapers based in Timişoara, mention in passing that Mr. Mioc has collected his material on altermedia, without quoting that material in any way. One provides some links in a section outside the article, attributing them to Mr. Mioc, the other, also at the end of the article, posts two films with the caption, verbatim: "with the approval of Marius Mioc, we present on our site as well a few fragments posted by the revolutionary on the altermedia site". These are hardly an acknowledgment of any form of reliability for altermedia itself.
	::Once again: wikipedia has very strict rules about reliability, and any form of material posted on such a questionable site cannot be used as a source for anything other than itself; as was said, these rules are strict precisely because it should not fall upon users to determine what is reliable about x portion of an unreliable site (if Stormfront of Aryan Nations start publishing cooking tips or ballroom dancing schemes, they would still not be quotable based on the assumption that they "are not"part of the political agenda). MariusM may see for himself that this was already clarified above and elsewhere, so I find little room left for discussion at this point. Will there be anything else before we let an admin close this debate? ] (]) 23:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::To summarize: "Cotidianul", in an article where it labeled other sites as extremist and propagating hate, is mentioning Romanian altermedia but without pretending that it propagate hate or that it is extremist (and without any specific example of an altermedia article - this is why I hardly can consider that article from "Cotidianul" as an "analysis" of Romanian altermedia). Similar situation is with the article you provided from "Observatorul Cultural" (3500 self-claimed sales) - which is criticising many Romanian organisations and media sources, main target being the mainstream newspaper "România Liberă" which happened to publish an article considered extremist (however the mainstream character of ] newspaper is undisputed), and Romanian altermedia is mentioned only with the guilt to quote something from "România Liberă"; the third source is the mainly free-distributed newspaper "Curentul" which is using wrong and outdated information about the political affiliation of some members of Romanian altermedia. However, there are plenty of other sources (not only blogs, as you pretended) which are quoting Romanian altermedia in different situations without any hint about the supposely "extremist" character (which need to be '''widely''' aknowledged, based on Wiki policies, in order to justify a conclusion about a site). Comparison with tiny English-language altermedias are irrelevant, same can be told about your comparison with Stormfront (it seems you are the only one who made this comparison) or other sites.--] (]) 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yes, I've read most of these sophistic arguments before, and congratulations on the new ones. Regardless, I'm simply tired of answering to you just so that you can start over every three posts or so. If anyone else has any questions, I'll be happy to answer. ] (]) 00:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	== Knol as a RS? ==
	Interestingly, the CSM reported today that Salon blogger ] believes that the Google ] project will serve as source material for Misplaced Pages. This raises the question: Does (will) Knol meet the reliable publication process standards of WP:V? ] (]) 16:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
	: Fortunately we have ] so we don't need to rely on what bloggers say. Knol is no different from any other self-published blog, or website that lacks editorial oversight: it is not presumed to be a reliable source except for non-controversial information about the writer. - ] <sup>]</sup> 16:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
	::You're probably wrong, or at least on the wrong side of consensus. There's a discussion on the mailing list about this. ] (]) 05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	::: The mailing list is informative but does not govern policy. The mailing list includes malcontents, banned users and others whose opinion would not be persuasive on Misplaced Pages, and the sometimes toxic atmosphere there has led to very low participation. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	The section that reads:
	<blockquote>* Euphemism for ethnic cleansing, ''final solution'' was according to ]<ref>, by ]</ref> used by ] for describing the ] of ] but the seventh annual message to Congress does not contain the term <ref></ref> nor does the law<ref></ref>. Fellman writes that ] was using the euphemism in 1867.<ref></ref></blockquote>
	This source: has no English translation, is from a self-proclaimed anarchist and I have searched for hours and the only time Andrew Jackson used ''final solution'' that I find is his references to the border dispute with Mexico. The ] maybe the ground work for the ] but it's the ] that Jackson '''first''' said the exact words '''Final Solution''' in reference to the Native Amricans sourced in English I can't prove. Is this ] source reliable? Shouldn't the burden of this work be on the contributing editor's back instead of mine? ] (]) 17:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
	: Mattias Gardell is a scholar of comparative religion and appointed Nathan Söderblom Professor at Uppsala University. He has been working at the Department of Comparative Religion and the Centre for Research in International Migration and Ethnic Relations at Stockholm University. He specializes in the study of religious extremism and religious racism in the USA. I'd say he sounds quite reliable. // ] (])
	::He may be a reliable source on religious extremism, but I don't see how he is a relaible source on matters of history, such as when a certain term was used for the first time. Does he provide a source for the alleged use of the term by Jackson? ] (]) 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
	::: Considering he specialises in the study of racism and extremism in the USA I'd say it's well within his field of work. He doesn't specify it as the article was more about the situation of black in Oklahoma. The full quote (and a rough translation) is available on the talk page. // ] (])
	::::He is a scholar of '''comparative religion'''. He is not a historian, and this is clearly not his field of work - and you concede this was not even the topic of the article. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and this falls far short of it. ] (]) 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::: Read the article at ]. The study of racism is within his field of work. Even if he was just some random jounalist it would still be considered a reliable source since it was published in a newspaper. There are no extraordinary claims presented so no extraordinary evidence is required. // ] (])
	::::::The study of '''religious'''-based racism is within his work. Not history, not racism in general. Again, he is a a scholar of '''comparative religion''', and the article you are sourcing your claim to is not even about the Indian removal act. The claim that "The Final Solution" - a term most people associate with Nazi Germany - was actually coined and used by Americans to refer to a racist based policy against Indians is quite extraordinary, and requires an academic source - an established historian who specializes in American Indian history - not some random journalist or a professor of comparative religion. ] (]) 13:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::: We also have a source saying the term was used by ] and that also predates Hitler. If you find a reliable source giving earlier usage it would be another matter. The claim is hardly extraordinary. When looking into it I found several sources saying Hitler was inpired by both the Armenian genocide and how the USA treated the Indians. Also note how it's formulated. We certainly have a reliable source that ] made that claim. It should be noted that the law was based on the Christian ideas that man (i.e. whites) was appointed by God to rule over the cattle (blacks) and wild animals (Indians). // ] (])
	I can find many sources attributing ] using "''"it will help to bring the Indian problem to a final solution.''" or some combination and sources claiming ] stole from Sherman but only ] attributes it to ] and ]'s comments have not been picked up by English scholars or translated. I'm just asking for corroborating sources because it does seems the uniqueness of the attribution isn't ]. Your comment on ] being out of his subject area is helpful. ] (]) 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	: Ok, the source is certainly enough for saying that Mattias Gardell says so and that's the phrase being used now. // ] (])
	== "Foreign opinion is irrelevant" ==
	] just posited the wonderful declaration on sourcing for ] that,
	::''"Foreign opinion is irrelevant because they haven't necessarily been under the same pressures."''
	This is, I think, going to be incendiary on this talk page. Can someone please remind these folks that claims of non-United Sources being "irrelevant" are not acceptable? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
	:The correct link is ]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 21:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Firstly, the argument that reliable sources that you don't agree should be eliminated because "Foreign opinion is irrelevant" is clearly ridiculous, and should be treated as such.
	:From a quick read, the main argument about the ] article appears to be whether the lead should call it torture. The legal systems of most, if not all, countries would consider repeated use of any method of violence as torture. The lead should focus on that, and actual court findings and international treaties, and not the personal opinion of a few American lawyers and politicians.
	:Randy2063 appears to be pushing an extreme POV; that waterboarding shouldn't be called torture because it has been carried out by the United States government against suspected terrorists. This argument is clearly wrong; the classification of the physical and legal concept of something does not depend on who is carrying it out. A few points:
	:*Whether or not it is torture, as defined by domestic law around the world, and by international treaty, should be in the lead, not the speculation and personal opinion of a minority.
	:*Personal views of notable people on the US controversy should be restricted to one section. As there have been no court cases, there is nothing here citable as a reliable source other than personal opinion. When personal opinion of a minority conflicts with legal rulings and treaties internationally, it should be weighted accordingly, not prominently stated.
	:*If it didn't hurt that much, and hence wasn't torture, it would be of no use against hardened terrorists, would it?
	:*If insurgents kidnap an American soldier, and waterboard him 24 hours a day for a few weeks, then it would be universally declared as torture. Reversing the roles of the actors makes no difference; Rand2063's argument is biased and wrong.
	:] (]) 13:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
	::I'd rather not debate this here, but in my defense I must say you've completely mischaracterized my position.
	::You've erred in your "insurgents kidnap an American soldier" counterexample, and you've compounded it by saying "24 hours a day for a few weeks." First, none of those who've been waterboarded are considered uniformed lawful combatants as a soldier would be. Second, it has been acknowledged that waterboarding for any extended period is probably torture, and that's ''not'' what we're talking about here. Perhaps you should have used "American CIA agent" for "35 seconds".
	::The problem with this article is that we're talking about personal views of various people who may be authorities in something but are either missing a background in law or actual knowledge of how the CIA uses waterboarding.
	::I've suggested ] but it's been discarded here.
	::-- ] (]) 16:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::*''First, none of those who've been waterboarded are considered uniformed lawful combatants as a soldier would be.''
	::::Can you cite a reliable source dictionary definition of torture that excludes secret agents etc.?
	:::*''"American CIA agent" for "35 seconds"'' A single instance of being stabbed isn't torture. Repeatedly stabbing someone to cause enough suffering that they would rather do something completely out of character in order to avoid being stabbed again is torture. If the inflicted suffering, and the threat of future suffering, is enough to turn someone against their own people, then it's very hard to see how it wouldn't be considered "torture" by the vast majority of English speakers.
	:::*There may be a conflict between the dictionary definition of "torture" (what the vast majority of the English speaking world mean by "torture"), and the legal situation in the United States. There is a distinction between the two. Legally, it may not be torture under ] law for an agent of the state to , but it will be universally considered torture by everyone else. But you would need a very reliable source to cite this argument as true for U.S law, as it is quite an extraordinary claim - not just personal opinions, but actual court rulings. ] (]) 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::This isn't about secret agents. You gave a nonsense example intending to put the shoe on the other foot, and I explained how you went overboard. I also toned your example down to show that it could indeed work the other way.
	:::::Now you're trying to add pain, which seems to suggest that 35 seconds of waterboarding alone isn't enough to make your point. Stabbing and waterboarding aren't the same thing. Waterboarding may be a miserable experience but it reportedly isn't painful if done properly.
	:::::I don't want to drag that entire discussion in here. I had suggested a solution, and pointed to an applicable WP guideline. Perhaps the administrators should evaluate that guideline to see if it should be removed from the ] page. It seems to be a waste of time if it only works one way.
	:::::-- ] (]) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::''Let the facts speak for themselves'' is a useful policy that intends to avoid editorial disagreements like this, but you have to balance it against ]. In this case, there are reliable sources to indicate that waterboarding would be considered torture under domestic and international law. Judges have stated in legal proceedings around the world that waterboarding is considered torture. These sources should be weighted very strongly, as international law and actual court proceedings are considered a very reliable source. As for the U.S. controversy; I still think this should be restricted to a single section; it may be a peculiarity of U.S. law that waterboarding, when carried out by agents of the state against foreign prisoners, is not legally considered torture. In the same vein, agents of the state boiling people alive may not be legally considered torture in Uzbekistan. These are peculiarities of particular domestic legal systems, and should be mentioned, but Misplaced Pages is global, and articles on general topics should not obsess over U.S. events or a U.S. centric viewpoint. Having said that, if you're going to cite that as being true for U.S. law, you'll need to source actual legal findings by a court - otherwise, you need to make it very clear that you're just citing personal opinion of some lawyers and politicians.
	::::::''35 seconds'' You have plenty of reliable sources indicating that one former CIA agent ''said'' that he heard from his colleagues that one particular interrogation with this method lasted 35 seconds. You do not have a reliable source that this is in fact the case - reliable sources should be 3rd party and noted for their accuracy. At best, you could say "former agent X claimed that his colleagues told him that one interrogation lasted only 35 seconds". ] (]) 10:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Be careful here. You're right that we have only shadowy sources that say how long it took, but the one single individual who just this month had said it took 35 seconds is the ''only'' named person who went on the record. The article was perfectly willing to declare the U.S. was waterboarding back when we had no named sources at all. It seems you're being very selective about which shadowy sources you give weight.
	:::::::Those legal rulings and treaties are not as clear as you think. It's misleading for an article to imply that since waterboarding is against civilian or military law that it could also be against international law in all cases.
	:::::::You're misinterpreting the rationale for why this may not be considered torture but I don't want to argue that here. The main point is that some people say it may not be torture in all cases. Others say it is. The ''only'' ones who know both the exact technique involved, and the law, are the lawyers who approved it for the CIA, and they're not talking. Everything else is what people choose to believe.
	:::::::-- ] (]) 14:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::''The article was perfectly willing to declare the U.S. was waterboarding back when we had no named sources at all. It seems you're being very selective about which shadowy sources you give weight.'' Not at all - if you had asked me for an outside opinion on reliable sourcing back when this topic was just rumour, I would've given you a similar answer: the reliable sources are reporting that "person X said Y", Y is a controversial claim not supported by most other reliable sources, so Misplaced Pages should report "person X said Y" instead of regarding Y as an absolute truth. ] (]) 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::Well, that's nice to know but the premise that waterboarding-is-always-torture is supported the same way. Unless you want to say that all coercive interrogation is torture, you're going to need a reliable source that can say where we draw the line.
	:::::::::-- ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::What exactly are we supposed to be careful about in regards to discussing waterboarding? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::My "be careful here" comment was only because I don't think the sources were as well defined as he thought.
	:::::::::-- ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	# Randy unfortunately seems to be still under the assumption that the United States government is some authority on waterboarding, and that issues related to their definitions of torture ought to hold more weight or value ("foreign sources are irrelevant"). The US opinion, which they ''won't say what it is'' is either "it's torture" or "it's not torture", but that opinion of theirs carries zero weight outside of the United States, and is again just one opinion. Unfortunately virtually all other sources and views (as sourced on the article and talk page) are that waterboarding is torture.
	# If the US government comes on record either way, we can note that, but their view doesn't carry any extra weight on the article. The article isn't ]. ] isn't going to be used to defend the practice, or the US, or the other way around. There are ] for that.
	# As has been asked nearly eight times so far on the talk page, for counter-sources to the now nearly three dozen sources that assert waterboarding is torture, none have been presented yet.
	# Specific to the foreign sources bit, I wanted to get more eyes on that as it's been an ongoing circular debate with Randy unwilling to accept sourcing, and I wanted to help resolve this.
	<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Your sourcing on recent CIA waterboarding being torture seems to be opinion only. All the cited court cases involve other factors that make this different.
	:::I don't know how many times we've been through this. We usually changed direction whenever I brought up the ''Let the facts speak for themselves'' guideline. I may not agree but at least Chris is one of the few who's willing to discuss that.
	:::As I've said repeatedly, I don't want to repeat everything all over again. I just jumped in because I felt my position was being mischaracterized.
	:::-- ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	No-one has posted any sources yet. What are they? Which is being questioned? On first glance i can't see any that look particularly unreliable. It seems like a well sourced article. --] (]) 19:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	: This is it: ]. We've encourage Randy to provide sources, but nothing yet. Front Page Magazine, which has been repeatedly demonstrated as a non-reliable source on this noticeboard, was previously removed. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 19:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Let's look at your sources:
	:::*100 United States law professors
	:::*Benjamin G. Davis, who's one of those law professors. His ideology is actually pretty far to the left. If the rest of those 100 are in the same league then you're actually making my point.
	:::*Jimmy Carter, who'd criticize U.S. foreign policy anyway.
	:::*French Journalist Henri Alleg, who calls it torture but he's not a lawyer, and they used a slightly different method. I wouldn't call him an objective source anyway, given his background. He's probably in Davis's league.
	:::*John McCain, who was indeed tortured (although some of the people complaining now were supporting the torturers at the time).
	:::*Four retired JAGs. They're your best source but none of them are privy to the CIA's methods.
	:::*An opinion from Amnesty International. It cites the Army Field Manual but conveniently leaves out the fact that the FM forbids a lot of things that aren't torture.
	:::Compare that to mine, who say it might not be torture depending upon the circumstances, and the difference isn't that wide.
	:::-- ] (]) 20:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::And let's note that they're all opinions.
	:::-- ] (]) 20:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:: I think that you might be in the wrong place with this. This particular noticeboard is an intended to provide a place for editors to post questionable sources to gain others opinions on their reliablity. If i understand it correctly, this is simply an editing conflict and not an issue with the reliabilty of a particular source. If this is the case then you need to be at ]. I'd recommend a request for comment. --] (]) 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::It is actually relevant to reliability of sources, as Randy has repeatedly questioned whether ours are applicable, and then made the despicable statement that foreign sources have no value. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::: It still seems like a content dispute to me. Unless there is a particular source that is questionable that you want comment on. If so please post it. On the final point, as long as sources are verifiable it doesnt matter what country they originate in, they don't need to be in english as long as there are no other better sources that are in english. --] (]) 20:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::As is often the case, context is everything. I had qualified my statements when I said:
	:::::*"''Foreign opinion is irrelevant because they haven't necessarily been under the same pressures. '''Their politicians can say anything they like.''' They're no different than Nancy Pelosi who allowed secret waterboarding when the pressure was on her, and pompously decried it in public after the danger had passed. Foreign governments also haven't had these types of leaks to the media, and so we don't know what they're really doing at the moment.''"
	:::::But if we look at those sources above, there's only one. He's a French communist. That's not an objective source. BTW: If you look at their activities, they were also "anti-war" during the early days of WWII prior to Hitler turning on the Soviets. It's no surprise that he'd criticize the U.S. in this one.
	:::::-- ] (]) 20:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: Sources don't have to be objective they just have to be ]. I fail to see how any of that has any relevance to the reliability of a source. --] (]) 21:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Funny that you say that. The Waterboarding article is now removing FrontPageMagazine as a source because of its tilt to the right. Meanwhile, an avowed communist reporter on an extremist site like DemocracyNow and leftist law professors like Benjamin G. Davis get top billing. I guess you're right. They don't have to be objective at all. (Some facts really do speak for themselves.)
	:::::::As I read WP:V, it says we can use opinion but I think the article then needs to say that this is based on opinion.
	:::::::I have no problem saying that most people call it torture, or that it's widely held to be torture, or whatever, but I fail to see how we can say it absolutely is torture citing only opinion. I think even aggregate opinion should be qualified in some way.
	:::::::-- ] (]) 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	(outdent) Front Page Magazine wasn't removed for being "right", it was removed when I noticed:
	* ]
	* ]
	They already were considered an unreliable source. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:And you don't think twice about a guy who was probably supporting the Hitler-Stalin pact? Since when do communists really oppose torture?
	:The RS noticeboard links don't look conclusive to me.
	:This isn't to say I mind removing that FrontPageMagazine reference. There are other sources that say the same thing. I'm washing my hands of it anyway. When an article is this one-sided, I'd prefer that its bias remain obvious rather than appear even-handed when it's not. I hope you keep all the sources I criticized above.
	:-- ] (]) 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	::'''Wow.''' ''"Since when do communists really oppose torture?"'' ??? And I was accused of bias for simply insisting that we only use sourced material? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 23:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	::I'll just note that no effort at all by others have been made to edit or change the article, just to criticize on the talk page. Which is fine, I suppose. If you feel like Googling up some sources, feel free to add them. And again, wow. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Sorry, but it's related to my observation about the Hitler-Stalin pact, which I think is a valid criticism of that source when considering the subject of this article.
	:::I've edited plenty of articles with plenty of references. I can leave this one.
	:::-- ] (]) 23:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Your personal views about the author of a source has no bearing whatsoever on verifiablity. I think it would be in your interest at this stage to have a good read of ]. Again i will ask; what is the source that is being questioned? --] (]) 06:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	== The Bible ==
	I can't imagine this hasn't been dealt with before, but what's the verdict on the bible being cited as an accurate historical record (in respect to the factual accuracy of the events described as opposed to discussions of its theological contents)? ] (]) 03:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
	: No, I don't think it can be used any more than for instance ]. // ] (])
	:I think it depends on how you use the bible as a source, lets say it's about the 10 commanments, and just says what the 10 commanments are, then yea, that's a source. But if it talks about bible anaysis of the 10 commanments, then no, as that heads to ] territory. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
	:The Bible is a primary historical source document, and should only be used on that basis. It says X, that doesn't mean we can say that X is true, but is verifiable that the Bible says X and that fact can be included in relevant articles. You can't interpret a primary source: "This bit says X and that bit says says Y, therefore Z" is not acceptable; "This says X and that says Y" is broadly acceptable.
	:However, you shouldn't need to doyour own exegesis. Every part of the Bible has been the subject of detailed study by experts. If there's a particular historical event that interests you, experts will have written about it, explaining its context and meaning in minute detail. The works of those experts should be the references for anything other than simply repeating or paraphrasing or summarising what the Bible says. In this the Bible is no different from any other primary historical source. ] ] 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	::I'm trying to apply ] correctly to a controversial subject, so bear with me. I'm sure every part of the bible has been the subject of detailed study, but claims of the accuracy of any particular historical event described requires a secondary historical source, correct? ie. The Gospel of John 7:1-9 says "Jesus moved around in Galilee but avoided Judea, because "the Jews/Judeans" were looking for a chance to kill him." Am I correct in asserting that absent a secondary document supporting the veracity of that claim (which very well might exist), the statement cannot be taken as historical fact, because it does not come from a reliable source and therefore must be framed as "The Gospel of John depicts Jesus as moving around...?" - ] (]) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Absolutely, not only is that what Misplaced Pages policy says, it's also what historians do. I skimmed the two histories of the early church I have (], ''L'enfance du christianisme''; ], ''L'Église des premiers temps'') and this is largely how they present things. But it will take a lot more than this to improve ]. Best of luck, ] ] 16:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
	== ] vs. ] ==
	I see that in , a cite from Antiwar.com was removed on the grounds of being self-published. It was removed from the bio of ], the main attraction at ], which is abundantly cited as a source all over Misplaced Pages. This seems ironic to me because I can see no structural difference between Antiwar and PRA. They are both highly opinionated commentary sites. Why is one better than the other? --] (]) 07:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
	:I also can see no difference. It appears to be a case of goose and gander. --] (]) 15:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
	Echos of the disparate treatment of ''Frontpage Magazine'' and MMFA and FAIR. But it's hardly news that Misplaced Pages editors have net group biases. But ] has a special history, as it seems it was a long-term project of SlimVirgin and a like-minded claque of admins to abuse and manipulate BLP policy to the detriment of NPOV in that article, among others. ] (]) 04:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::] ]] ] 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Well, antiwar.com doesn't count as self-published. It might count as a source of dubious reliability; however, there is certainly no difference between quoting the editor of that site and the editor of Publiceye.com. I'd like to disassociate myself from Andy's remarks above, though, as I don't know the facts (also, its ''clique''). Certainly, if PRA is overused, people should feel free to remove it. ] (]) 05:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Actually, does work in this context. --] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Heh, you're right. ] (]) 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I don't see any conclusion here that PRA is an unreliable source. ]] ] 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::We were discussing self-publishing, actually. And we usually wait a bit before deciding there's no consensus. People check this noticeboard on irregular schedules. ] (]) 06:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Some editors are pointing to this thread as a reason to deleted sourced material. I was simply pointing out that that is premature. ]] ] 08:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	Did anyone have particular cases where they felt the PRA was used improperly as a source, for comparison? ] (]) 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Yes. PRA is ''overused'' as a source, and often in ways which violate ]. There are two persons who are professional anti-LaRouche activists, ] and ], who both have websites with arguably slanderous attacks on LaRouche. PRA is Berlet's website, and King's website has been discussed before on this page (].) (PRA, for example, features defamatory leaflets with instructions to print them out and distribute them at LaRouche events, not the sort of thing you would expect from a scholarly source.) These attacks do not appear in the conventional press, so these two persons have opened Misplaced Pages accounts (] and ]) to use Misplaced Pages to get greater exposure for their views. They are joined in this effort by ] and ]. The idea appears to be to use Misplaced Pages to "expose" LaRouche, since the conventional media are not doing this to their satisfaction. Material from the the websites in question is spammed into all LaRouche-related articles in violation of ] and ]. I think that use of PRA should be scaled way back to a level that corresponds to its notability, and never for material that conflicts with BLP -- I do not believe that PRA meets the standards required by ]. --] (]) 07:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Dennis King and Chip Berlet have been professional investigative journalists, and are the acknowledged experts on Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. They've been quoted at least dozens of times in the mainstream press. King is the author of the only full-length biography, which was published by a major publishing house, Doubleday & Co. Berlet is a longtime researcher for Political Research Associates, which also meets our standards of a reliable publishing source. Some editors have tried repeatedly to have these two authors considered unreliable sources and have never succeeded.(Isn't there a statute of limitations?) Yet they haven't proven that the authors have been factually incorrect in any straighforward reporting. The reason that they are used in all the LaRouche articles is that they are the leading researchers of the LaRouche movement. Their viewpoints on LaRouche are not different from all the other reliable sources, and are consistent with the usual reporting. What erroneous material has PRA published that shows they are unreliable? ]] ] 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::1. Who "acknowledges" them as "the experts"?
	:::2. It looks to me like King's website was rejected as a self-published source at ].
	:::3. PRA is loaded with what WP:BLP calls "a conjectural interpretation of a source," i.e., rampant editorializing and conspiracy theory. PRA might be acceptable in many cases for non-controversial material, but what King, Berlet and Will Beback have consistently done is use it as a source for a fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism, which has been noted by outside observers as a particular tactic of Berlet and PRA against all of their targets. As is noted at the beginning of this discussion, ''Activist ] has written that "Berlet is professional political hit man whose specialty is smearing anyone outside the traditional left-right categories as an extremist, at best, and a nascent Nazi at worst."'' This is why PRA should be used sparingly and with particular caution in BLP articles. Will Beback is completely mistaken to say that "Their viewpoints on LaRouche are not different from all the other reliable sources." --] (]) 15:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::1. Do you want me to plaster a talk page with all of he times that Berlet and King have been cited? I'll do so if that convinces you.
	::::::Being cited in an article isn't the same as being "acknowledged as ''the'' experts." I would be interested in seeing reliably sourced commentary that says they are "the experts." --] (]) 16:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::2. I don't see a consensus there. I see one editor piping in, but without a full understanding of our policies.
	:::::3. I don't think you are accurately describing my actions. The whole concept of "fringe theories" concerning LaRouche is a bit humorous, considering how many fringe theories he's come up with and how frequently he's describned as "fringe". Raimondo is hardly an objective commentator. ]] ] 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::How would you describe your actions? What is inaccurate in Niels' description? --] (]) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::I haven't been advancing the "fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ]] ] 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::You have supported King and Berlet when they do it. --] (]) 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::Can you substantiate that accusation? ]] ] 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::For example, you have vehemently defended the use of King's book as a source. King's book is simply a very long essay defending this fringe theory. The mere fact that something has been published by a large publishing house does not make it automatically a suitable source for BLP. --] (]) 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::That book is the best, most reliable source we have for the life of Lyndon LaRouche. Being published by a major publishing house does, in fact, make it a suitable source for a BLP. I have certainly not sought to advance the theory that that "behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ]] ] 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::But the book you are promoting does advance that theory. --] (]) 21:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::I wouldn't say that using the book as a source is the same as "promoting" it. I haven't written an article about it, or any other promotional actitivity. I have defended it's use as a source. No one has presented any verifibale factual errors on the book, and Niels Gade himself has confirmed facts from it. No one is suggesting that there's a more reliable 3rd-party source for the life of LaRouche. If you call using the book as a source "promotion" then are those editors who use LaRouche-published books and articles "promoting" them? ]] ] 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::I would say yes, if they are using them in articles outside of the "LaRouche-related" articles. King's book is a reliable source on King's views, and would certainly be acceptable in the article on ]. --] (]) 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::I disagree. Using a reliable source isn't promoting it. The job of Misplaced Pages editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Dennis King and Chip Berlet's books and articles are reliable sources written by acknowledged experts on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. Using their work is no different than using a NY Times or Washington Post article. Though, of course, I know you regard those as unreliable too. ]] ] 08:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::::Interesting. May I ask how you happened to arrive at this conclusion about me? --] (]) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::::Am I wrong? Do you consider such mainstream media as the ''New York Times'', the ''Washington Post'', the ''Wall Street Journal'', or NBC to be reliable sources on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche? ]] ] 05:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::::Yes to both questions, and I have said so explicitly. --] (]) 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	<unindent-Perhaps I misunderstood this comment of yours:
	*''Major publications are not above conducting dirty tricks campaigns where politics is involved -- this has been true for a long time, and not likely to change soon. ''
	It appeared that you were denying that major publications were a reliable source. What did you mean and in reference to which publications? ]] ] 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::I meant just what I said. We have to use major publications as a source, unless there are peer-reviewed journals or some other, stronger source available. As you may recall, in my request for arbitration I proposed that "when views have appeared in mainstream publications, those may be used as sources and would not be disputed (this satisfies the requirements of ].)" I emphatically disagree with your statement that using the websites of King or Berlet "is no different than using a NY Times or Washington Post article." This doesn't mean, of course, that I consider the NY Times, Washington Post or Wall Street journal to be infallible. Mature editorial judgment should be excercised with ''any'' source. --] (]) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Please do not say that I have "confirmed facts" from King's book, as if that makes it a reliable source. The book may correctly say that February is the second month of the calendar year; that doesn't in any way excuse the fact that it is full of outrageous, propagandistic speculation and innuendo. --] (]) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
	::You have confirmed facts from the book. You have not offered any evidence that there are factual errors in it. The book meets WP's standards for a reliable source. However that book isn't the topic of this thread. It has already been discussed before and there's no need to keep bringing it up. ]] ] 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::Just to put things in perspective, has anyone offered any evidence that there are factual errors in the LaRouche publications? I don't believe that this is the sole criterion for use of a source. --] (]) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
	===Other thread===
	:::::::1. I have no problem with using King and Berlet as a source when they are cited by legitimate publications, because those publications may be expected to excercise some discretion about which of their theories are suitable for responsible publication. The Kronberg interview you mention below has not appeared anywhere, to my knowledge, outside of the PRA site.
	:::::::2. I see a consensus.
	:::::::3. Actually, I think it is quite appropriate to compare LaRouche with Berlet as "fringe" commentators. In fact, both of them frequently describe their opponents as neo-fascists or proto-fascists. The difference is that I have not seen quotes from LaRouche plastered all over Misplaced Pages. The quotes from LaRouche appear to be confined mainly to the articles about LaRouche and his organization. I think it would be appropriate if quotes from PRA and Chip Berlet were largely limited to articles ] and ]. As far as Raimondo is concerned, would you say that he is less objective than Berlet? --] (]) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::2. Who are the participatns in this consensus you see?
	::::::::3. I'm not sure what the point is of comparing the reliablility of two sources. As for Raimondo, he appears to be more of a commentator than an investigative journalist. Michael Rubin of ] says, "Citing statements replicated in recent Mujahedin-e Khalq publications brings as much credibility as quoting from Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review. Quality of sourcing always matters: Justin Raimondo is hardly a trustworthy authority." His footnote goes to an article titled "Justin Raimondo: An American Neo-Fascist", written by ]. Do you think he's a reliable source? ]] ] 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	===Kronberg interview===
	The dicussion above is rather vague and compares the position of one source versus another. On a more specific point: is there any reason why on PRA with Marielle Kronberg should not be considered a reliable source for her words? Does anyone assert that the interview is faked or altered? ]] ] 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:As long as this interview is not considered ] as is quoted only to show the opinions of Marielle Kronberg, and if the opinion of this lady is relevant for the Misplaced Pages article where it is intended to be added, I don't see any reason to avoid the usage of this interview as a source.--] (]) 20:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	::I have indicated elsewhere that I don't object to it appearing in one article, but spamming it into every LaRouche-related article is undue weight. --] (]) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::If you don't object to the sourcing why did you just remove it from an article, claiming a sourcing issue? "the sourcing issues are discussed at WP:RSN#Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates. The only actual criticism is sourced to PRA. The rest of the paragraph is context." If there's no sourcing issue then please restore it. ]] ]
	== Telephone interview as source ==
	A user reverted my removal of this difficult-to-verify and highly general statement from the ] article: "Country Club is now owned by Pabst and is still sold today, though its sales were eclipsed years ago by ''almost every malt liquor on the market''" (emphasis added). He also added a source--of sorts: ''Gary Galeke, Brand Historian, Pabst Brewing Company. Telephone. October 1, 2006.'' I'm not sure telephone interviews with alleged experts are considerable reliable sources, by Misplaced Pages's definition--and they are certainly not verifiable. What is the best way to handle this? Delete the unverifiable source? Request a better one? Engage in an edit war? (just kidding)--] (]) 13:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	* Sounds a lot like ] if he called him up and asked. // ] (])
	**Certainly fails ], so not a reliable source ] (]) 14:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	***Feel free to call the source up, I'll give you his number. Unfortuantly when it comes to nitch topics such as Malt Liquor sales, not every source can be published through traditional means. The source it's that web savvy thus the lack of email backup or web postings. However, I knew this person was a good source for the desired info not only on his job position, but several talks he gave in the local area. Why Fat Man is so honed in on these two sentences when the rest of the article is such junk, I have no idea. --] (]) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	****That is the definition of ], which is not allowed. If somebody edit wars to restore the original research, let me know and I will help them stop. - ] <sup>]</sup> 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	*****No worries, it doesn't look like an edit war is getting ready to start. FYI, I'm the other party in Fat Man's dispute. Since the majority here seems to be siding with Fatty, I guess I don't have a leg to stand on, which is fine. However, I am a tad upset that Fatty seems to have taken things so personal and bent on removing such a small comment from a rather insignificant article. His/Her efforts would be much more useful in actually contributing to the article, rather than perusing this nonsense. While Fatty has singled out these couple of sentences, if they are to be pulled from the article, then all information pertaining to Country Club should be deleted. While I won't do Fatty's dirty work for him/her, I'll gladly kill off the other bits if Fatty zaps the area in question. --] (]) 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
	******It's not nonsense. It's basic Misplaced Pages policy. Indeed, in , a private conversation with someone, even someone who is an expert, was given as an explicit example of sources that one should not be basing one's Misplaced Pages contributions on. Until the experts get their information peer reviewed and published, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages. ], and our sources when making it are things that have been written down, peer reviewed, fact checked, and published, so that readers can check articles for correctness against published sources that they know to be fact checked, reliable, accurate, and actually documenting accepted human knowledge. If you aren't building Misplaced Pages that way, you are doing it wrongly. See ]. ] (]) 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	****Indeed... clearly ]. Misplaced Pages is not the forum for introducing unpublished material. ] (]) 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	== Photographic evidence ==
	At ] a larges series of photos is being used as editorial comment to show the condition of the school. I have added a source discussing one aspect of the alleged damage. I have also removed a lot of editorial captions and original research captions. I think that there are several problems with this section. When photos are used as editorial, shouldn't they be accompanied by some kind of reliable source? How do we know the photos are current and accurate? And isn't the quantity of 8 negative photos, no positive ones an issue of ]? Comments/suggestions are welcome. Ongoing talk is ] ] (]) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:: I think the whole article has a more serious notablity issue, to be honest i don't think it would survive a afd, but to answer you point, i think the photographs would be considered original research. --] (]) 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::It's a high school with an article longer than a page. There's no way it would be deleted. That said, this looks like OR, and it's probably undue weight with verifiability problems as you mentioned. A gallery to support an interpretive sentence is certainly not encyclopedic. The gallery of primary images should be removed and replaced with a citation to secondary source. ] '']'' 04:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Considering the majority of it is unsourced, the length of the article is not going to have any bearing on whether it is judged to be a notable school. --] (]) 06:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Don't get me wrong. I wish it could be deleted, but I would bet money that any school of these characteristic would not be deleted. ] '']'' 22:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	The following two sources: and are being given reliance for a statement that Samuel Hahnemann was accused of quackery. Both of these sources are excerpted in relevant part in . Readers are left with the impression that some verifiable accusation exists supported by reliable sources. That is not the case in my opinion.
	A third source, Hahnemann himself in was a strong critic of the common medical practices of his day such as the regular use of mercury and leeches as curatives. We would call those practices quackery and Hahnemann condemned them in equivalent terms. In my opinion it is a violation of ] to allow unreliable second- and third-hand smears by these very practitioners to be used to label Samuel Hahnemann an accused quack in the Misplaced Pages without balancing it with a clear explanation of the controversy.
	This is especially egregious because the article is on Quackery and Hahnemann is used as the first prominent example of someone accused, when no reliable source accuses him of having been a quack. To the contrary, these sources upon which reliance is being made are supportive of Hahnemann. To cherry pick words, not even whole sentences, out of context and then formulate these vaguely made slurs as "accusations" which should stand unopposed seems strongly at variance with the sources. &mdash;] (''']''') 07:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
	: Some important points to keep in mind in this dispute:
	:* The truth or falsity of the accusations is not the issue and is irrelevant to this discussion.
	:* Hahnemann's opinions on other matters, and his life in general, are not relevant here. Even the worst of criminals may well have done some good things in their life. That would not legitimize attempts to document the fact that they had been accused of crimes. (I'm not saying Hahnemann was a criminal. That's just to illustrate the point.)
	:* The only thing we are after here is whether he was accused of quackery and whether the sources we are using to document that undeniable fact are RS.
	: The interesting thing here is that if we had used anti-homeopathy sources to document charges of quackery, we could be accused of cherry picking from biased sources to find documentation. Even though that might well be legitimate, we totally avoid this accusation by going to pro-homeopathic sources to find that even they are not in doubt that Hahnemann was accused of quackery, even while he was alive. That his accusers were right about him and wrong in other areas is irrelevant to the fact that he was accused. That is clearly documented by pro-homeopathy sources. If they were in doubt, then they wouldn't have mentioned it. To illustrate from the "other direction", it's always easy to find nice comments about oneself from one's friends, but when one's enemies make nice comments about oneself, it is even better to quote them....;-) That removes the possibility of being accused of cherrypicking or inaccuracy. If one's enemies will concede that you are a nice person, then there must be something to it. It's hard to find more RS in such a case. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 15:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
	::As Fyslee indicates, this is an interesting situation. From a strictly "reliable sources" perspective, the articles on the websites are signed, which is a good start, but one website is an open project and the other is to all intents and purposes a personal website.. Neither meets Misplaced Pages's standard in my opinion per ], and since I cannot find any evidence that the authors are "established expert(s) on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications," the articles cannot qualify by that route either. However, what makes this unusual is that, as Fyslee points out, these articles are published on supposedly "friendly" homeopathy websites, which you would think would downplay or omit any allegations of quackery, but don't. However, there is in fact there is no need to rely on these websites, as the comments can be reliably sourced elsewhere. In the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 44 (5), 435–437, E. Ernst's 1997 article "Homoeopathy: past, present and future" makes clear that Hanhemann and homeopathy had from the start been subject to criticisms amounting to accusations of quackery: <blockquote>From its very beginning, homoeopathy received fierce criticism. In his book: ‘Anti-Organon oder das Irrige der Hahnemannschen Lehre im Organon der Heilkunst’ (Anti-Organon or the errors of Hahnemann’s teachings in the organon) , J.C.H. Heinroth for instance stated that medicine was misguided to accept from Hahnemann ‘much that would not have stood the test of a sharp mind’. Others called homoeopathy ‘the highest triumph of ignorance and mysticism’ and ‘a public scandal’ . Oliver Wendel Holmes analysed Hahnemann’s three basic assumptions (the ‘like cures like’ principle, the theory about infinitesimal dilutions and the origin of all disease) in some detail and concluded, ‘when one man claims to have established these three independent truths, which are about as remote from each other as the discovery of the law of gravitation, the invention of printing, and that of the mariner’s compass, unless the facts in their favour are overwhelming and unanimous, the question naturally arises, is not this man deceiving himself, or trying to deceive others?’ . Many physicians agreed: ‘either Hahnemann is right, in which case our science and the basis of our thinking is nonsense, or he is wrong, in which case this teaching is nonsense. There is no third option’ . The Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1891 summarized the orthodox view of that time: ‘Hahnemann’s errors were great. His doctrine of specifics was highly retrograde … He led his followers far out of the track of sound views of disease … But … he had the great merit of disturbing and discrediting indefensible modes of practice’</blockquote> I can email the full article to anybody who wishes. Incidentally, once again, Ernst is a homeopath himself.
	::<s>::And a quick search of google books confirms that multiple contemporary sources. The Oxford Illustrated Companion to Medicine, p. 210, by Stephen Lock, John M. Last, George Dune (2001) makes the same association in a highly reliable source. </s> --] (]) 16:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
	::: Some excellent points. It is true that we are not dependent on these two sources, since there is pretty much universal agreement in the scientific world that homeopathy is nonsense and that Hahnemann, regardless of any good qualities he undoubtedly had, was deluded and very unscientific in his theories and conclusions, even while seeming to use some aspects of the scientific method, but in a misguided fashion. As to ] as a source, we would be hard pressed to find a better source, especially when we consider his credentials and professorship, although some prominent ex homeopaths are equally scathing in their criticisms. Please send the article to me by my email and post the URL here if you have it. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::The article is not available free online unless you have specific access to the journal via a university etc. Here is the , however. I have sent Fyslee a copy of the article and can do so to others who want it.] (]) 21:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::: I think if you want to suggest other sources be included that should be discussed in ]. The sources we are currently making reliance upon are the sources that I am seeking comment on. Additional sources would require further inspection. &mdash;] (''']''') 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::*The two sources fail RS. . . they are self-published.] (]) 03:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::: I thought you were out - ] - but apparently you are still active. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Please see ] as well. For what we're using these sources to claim, this may meet the criteria. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	(indent) From an outside view, I do not believe that ] ("Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves") applies here, since this article is about quackery, not about homeopathy per se. However, notwithstanding Whig's desire not to discuss other sources here, it appears that there are manifold contemporary sources that described homeopathy and Hahnemann as quackery and quacks respectively. Just try a google-books search for "Hahnemann quack homoeopathy" . Given these, I am not sure how anyone could try to claim that he hasn't been accused of being a quack. But anyway, the answer, as stated above, is to substitute reliable sources. Here is another one that makes the claim, from History of science; an annual review of literature, research and teaching 39 (125 Pt 3): 255–83. "Homeopathy and "the progress of science" . "In spite of a seemingly secure polymathic foundation, Hahnemann was vilified like his iconoclastic predecessors, and his proposed solution to the therapeutic anarchy of the day earned him even more notoriety than his critique. Typically, he was portrayed as a quack unable to earn a living from orthodox medicine, dishonest or insane, and, in a dismissal extending to all who followed his precepts, as “too weak mentally to practise medicine or even to take care of himself”." ] (]) 18:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	:That sounds fine to me. I'm sympathetic to the effort to use pro-homeopathic sources to support this detail, but the effort apparently isn't fulfilling its goal of making it unarguable even to homeopathy supporters. I guess my question now is: Should we remove those citations now that we have other, ] ones? I don't see anything in ] that says we can't use ] in addition to reliable ones to back up the claim when they serve a purpose in doing so, but I'm not an expert in sourcing. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 21:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	*A fourth source () has been added to the first two sources as reliance for the same statement. It is precisely the same relevant text as Source #1. I believe it is unacceptable for the same reasons that I have already set forth in the posting of this notice. &mdash;] (''']''') 02:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	::The only reason you've given is that these aren't reliable sources in your opinion, which isn't really a reason. Could you please explain why this isn't a ]? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 05:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Sorry, I thought that the new one was the one provided by ]. I've added that one in now, and there should be no problems with that one being considered reliable. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::What sources are you asking about? http://homeoint.org does not appear to be a reliable source; for a start, it appears to be self-publishing by Robert Séror. Is there any evidence that experts and professionals in the field consider this to be an expert source? ] (]) 02:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::I am not sure I understand Whig's comment that the 4th source , is the same as the first source as they are by entirely different authors. The fourth source is actually a very colourful retyping of a fairly widely quoted book published in 1895 called the "The Life and Letters of Dr Samuel Hahnemann" by one Thomas Lindsley Bradford, M.D. (as can be seen by this googlebooks recent re-printing by a homeopathy publisher )
	::::As such it is one of many 'older' publications that makes the claim that he was called 'quack', as pointed out above. I believe this book would also be reliable sources for the claim that he was called a 'quack', but suggest that you cite the book per se not the this rather unlikely-looking (and more unreliable) website, though a link to googlebooks would be good.] (]) 13:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	== Serebii.net ==
	It's a great fan site, but also has great information. They have a big community, however, so there's bound to be mistakes. On the other hand, Serebii.net is trusted by many individuals as a place for reliable information. They have alot of information, so they have to fact-check it, anyhow.
	What do you think? I really don't know if I should use Serebii.net as a reliable source... - ]] 20:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
	:I cannot see anywhere on the site where they describe themselves or say that they check facts. It would depend what purpose it is to be used for. Can you give more details? ] (]) 15:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	Well, I was planning on using Serebii.net to gain pokemon info, namely for Mewtwo, but I wasn't sure if I should or not. - ]] 20:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	::If you can't get information from the Pokemon publishers themselves and you can't find anything better by googling then you could consider using it for the time being and asking on the article talk page or the Pokemon wikiproject (if there is one) if anyone can help you find a better source. It isn't ideal, but may be acceptable if what you are saying isn't controversial in any way. ] (]) 22:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	== Semi ] with questionable source ==
	I hate to say I think I already know the answer to this but bear with me. Because I have a long term conflict with the editor that placed this reference in these articles, I feel I need to double check and be very cautious rather than bold about removing it. The most current manifestation of this conflict can be found on the ].
	This link has been used a number of times to source info in articles: . Besides the fact that it doesn't appear to meet ] or ] and is essentially a personal essay published online, the webpage does not show up on Google at all. Searching on exact phrases in it come up blank. Also note that the only link on the page is to .
	Here is an example from ]:
	<blockquote>
	Roy has appeared and offered workshops at RhythmFest, the ], and at the ], a special tribute to the late ] (co-sponsored by ACE and Musart) with ], ] of ], ], ] and ], among others.
	</blockquote>
	Variations of this quote have been adapted to most of the articles of the people named in this quote, shuffling the names around as needed. Most of these musicians are obviously notable from the content of their articles but this item appears to me as ], particularly since, when I check the musicians' online bios, they never mention these events (Starwood, RhythmFest, SpiritDrum) among their personally notable achievements. Even Muruga Booker doesn't mention the events on and the source document is actually in a subpage on his website. But without links to it from the main website as far as I can see.
	I suspect this is a mini-walled garden form of spam placed by ] (who is also ]) to raise the profile of his group and events. I think the inadequacy of the sourcing is blindingly obvious, but I'm leery of removing these references without at least some feedback from other editors. I may be too close to ongoing conflicts with User:Rosencomet to be completely objective. Cheers, ]] 05:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	:: Potentially this could be acceptable as a self published article considering it's only being used in an article about the publisher and being relevant to notability --] (]) 06:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::But you're right to say that anything taken from it must be notable in the context of the article it's used in. If not, it's ] and can be removed. ] (]) 15:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::That's my point. First I believe the source for the info doesn't meet WP:V or WP:RS and, second, there is no indication that the events were specifically important enough in the performers' careers to be notable and included. Because the editor who put these particular references in these articles (and similar ones in a slew of other articles as well) has a huge ] in mentioning his group and events, it strikes me as linkspam. I just wanted to see what others thought. Cheers, ]] 20:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	== LENR-CANR.org ==
	is a repository of scientific papers on ]. Its home page says "It features a library of more than 500 original scientific papers in Acrobat format, reprinted with permission from the authors and publishers.". When providing sources for statements in the cold fusion article, we cite the full references to the original article and include a link to the copy on LENR-CANR.org. We believe that it is line with the ], which only says: "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work."
	However, this approach is challenged by Guy, saying that, if we want to add the link to lenr-canr.org, we need to prove that the website does not violate copyright. Is he right ? (see the full discussion ])] (]) 16:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Relating to the same article on cold fusion but a separate issue: what is the status of the reports of two ] reviews of research in this field? Are they to be regarded as reliable secondary sources or as primary sources? Also, what is the status of the following ]: the ''Journal of Electroanalytic Chemistry'', ''Physics Letters A'', the ''European Physics Journal'', ''Thermochimica Acta'', the ''Japanese Journal of Applied Physics'' and ''die Naturwissenschaften''? Is the fact that a journal is listed by the ] relevant? Can we use the ISI's citation indices and other bibliometric indicators as a guide to reliability? Also (while I am making this query, although it has not been challenged) can we treat news reports in magazines such as the ''New Scientist'' as reliable for describing the current standing of this field of research? ] (c) 17:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	:: If there is no doubt as to the fact that the papers are published with permission then i don't see a problem with it. --] (]) 17:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Use of ISI's citation index for ranking journals would help to weed out the fringe journals that nobody reads. The list above by ] seems to include some very respectable ones. The ] is not peer-reviewed and it has some tabloid aspects to its science coverage. I'd not take everything which appears there at face value. This has been discussed in other threads, which could be looked up if necessary. ] (]) 18:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::You said "If there is no doubt as to the fact that the papers are published with permission then i don't see a problem with it". The question is "where is the burden of proof ?". Do we have to prove that there is no doubt that the papers are published with permission (how could we prove that ?), or can we assume that it is so until proven otherwise ? ] (]) 22:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
	* I have reviewed a number of links to this site. In one case I found that a purported link to a major paper started with an editorial by the site's "librarian", , spinning the content to promote the fringe view that he promotes. In other cases the papers are clearly marked as copyright, and there is no evidence of permission from the rights owners. This site is not an acceptable source. Almost all the content sourced to it can be cited directly to the original journal of publication, and should be so cited; links to material hosted with no evidence of copyright permission are problematic, and where such links are on a site whose mission is to promote a fringe view it is much more of a problem. It is not, itself, a source anyway, only a repository of other materials; there is no evidence that Jed Rothwell's commentaries are authoritative here. The only uses of links to this site that I have found anywhere in Misplaced Pages have been to serve the agenda of advancing the low-temperature fusion fringe view. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Where full bibliographic details of a paper are available then that is sufficient, no need for a link. But I don't see that we need to make a blanket ban on lenr-canr in the cases where it is just providing web space and when a reader can click on the link and go straight to the paper. A comparable case is the ] article discussed above, where the page links to an FBI officer's report hosted at the website of a POV organisation. It is just the convenience of having the web link that is sought and the link does not endorse the POV of the site. ] (]) 14:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	::It would appear there is a case of ] going on at this article. I happen to have one of the books that's been removed from the Bibliography, I put the entry back in. As I said in my edit-summary ''"Mizuno was published by Kogakusha, translated and reprinted by Infinite Energy Press with permission. He is Dr at Dept Nuclear Eng. at Hokkaido Uni, has papers and a 2nd book on same in Japan."'' I was reverted with the insulting ''"Infinite energy press is a vanity press. Removed"''.
	::It will be impossible to produce a reasonable article on subjects such as this as long as high-handed and completely unnecesary actions, apparently motivated by some form of vendetta, are carried out by the likes of ]. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	::: An unhelpful, uncivil, confrontational and ultimately irrelevant statement. The site is not reliable, the copyright status is questionable for at least some links, the content can be better cited from the original source, and Misplaced Pages should not succumb to ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	== Self Published Photographs ==
	Are photographs on sites like imageshack, photobucket permissable as sources? I would assume they were as obviously self-published as a video on youtube but i thought i better ask. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 00:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Yes. Not different than a blog or YouTube, except users upload image content instead of text or video. Might sill be used in the rare case that it can be shown that the subject him or herself uploaded the images, or for expert commentary, ect. See ]. ] '']'' 00:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	::You're answering "yes" to the "obviously self-published" part, I assume. Anyway, random "found it somewhere" photographs are totally unsuitable as ''sources'', but are often fine for illustrative purposes. &lt;]/]]&gt; 17:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	== Dallas Observer blog on BLP ==
	At ] blogs from the Dallas Observer are being used for information that probably requires a higher quality of source for a BLP. For example . I think the information relying on these sources should be removed. Comments? ] (]) 05:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	In addition, the more I look the more I think that itself may not be qualified as ]. ] (]) 07:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	:The Dallas Observer is certainly a reliable source according to our criteria... it is a published print newspaper. Thus, its website is reliable (similar to the way the New York Times website is reliable).
	:The blog is more of a grey zone. Blogs associated with reliable media outlets are often reprints of the paper's Editorials and Op-Ed pieces. As such, they can be considered reliable sources for statements about the ''opinion'' of the author, but not for statements of ''fact''. Anything cited to such a blog should be directly attributed to the editor/collumnist who authored it (as in "According to Joe Schmoe, editor of the Dalas Observer, such and such is the case").
	:That said... Not every opinion is noteworthy enough to be included in our articles. It really depends on the reputation of the editor/collumnist who authored the blog and his expertise in the subject matter he is commenting on... You have to ask the question: Is his/her opinion notable? That means we have to figure in things like ] (especially ]). And if you ''do'' cite the blog to back a statement about the opinion of its author, be sure that you are ''only'' citing the core blog piece. "Comments" and "Responses" from readers are not reliable (even if signed, we have no way to know if they are who they claim to be), and their opinions are not notable.
	:Finally, we have the fact that we are discussing a BLP... a much higher standard applies in those articles. In BLPs, I don't think statements of opinion by third parties have a place. Thus, ''in this case'', I ''would'' remove the material. ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	== Cuban Artists ==
	] has created over 140 articles with the only external link being to the http://www.cubancontemporaryart.com/ . I first noticed it when working on AWB and seeing lots of articles with that as their own source. Then I saw an entry on ], which makes me think there is no preexisting consensus for mass-additions. The website listed as the source is a pay-per-view site, so I can't confirm its reliability or copyvio status.
	On his talk page, there have been numerous attempts to contact him this issue ] and his only response has been "Sorry but i could,nt understend exactly why you want that this article ereaised. The category that i create cuabn contmporary artists is a way to promote the life and the art oof visual artits from the island susana mori is one of those artist and for that i think that she is important. If you need more information about her please made mew know"
	Could someone at least slow down this user until we are sure there are no copyvio issues with these articles? And how would we go about vetting 140 articles for notability and reliable sources? ] (]) 06:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	== Techblogs ==
	I'm curious if we deem things like Techcrunch, lifehack, mashable, etc to be reliable. They're blogs to start with so I'd say no. I'm often wondering who exactly it is thats written entries at a lot of these places when they're used as sources. I did a quick search of the archives and didn't find TC or LH being discussed before. I'm also curious how these would apply to establishing notability (separate but I think slightly linked).--] (]) 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Blogs in general are not considered reliable sources. A de-facto exception (ie not officially mentioned as an exception in the RS guidline or WP:V, but generally accepted by the community ''as'' an exception) are blogs authored by an acknowleged expert writing on the subject of his expertise. And in those cases things should be expressed as opinion not as fact. To my mind an opinion never establishes notability (one person thinking something is notable does not make it so.) ] (]) 20:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	::given that a person is an expert and that his blog is accepted as an authority in the subject, it should have a considerable amount of reliability as anything the same person were to published otherwise. Recognition by authorities in the subject as notable is notability. Of course, it would have o be shown that the person were in a position to establish notability--a notable critic in the case of SF, for example. ''']''' (]) 23:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	== Wikinews: Please post definite answer ==
	Okay, the discussion is stale, and has begun wandering far from the topic. There is clearly no consensus that Wikinews is a reliable source. That's your answer. This can, and probably will, change in the near future, and the issue can be re-examined then. --] (]) 01:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
	:If people want to discuss the matter further, they are welcome to do so. There is no reason to "close" this discussion unilaterally. ] (]) 21:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
	I would like a definite answer to the question: Is ] to be considered a ]? David Shankbone is , that if a private citizen asserts that he has conducted an interview with a famous person and placed the results of that interview on Wikinews, that interview can then be used as a source for Misplaced Pages -- even though he that if the same private citizen asserts that he has conducted an interview with a famous person, trying to use that interview as a source for Misplaced Pages would be ]. To my knowledge Wikinews meets none of the requirements for a ] such as fact-checking; can someone please tell me where a general policy decision has been made that Wikinews will be accepted as a reliable source regardless of this? -- ] (]) 17:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	:No. Other wikis are never considered reliable sources.--] (]) 20:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Agree with Crossmr... Wikis are ''not'' reliable sources by our criteria. ] (]) 20:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Interviews should not be used in the biographies of living people unless weight is established. See ]. This is a general rule for interviews: they represent the interviewee's views alone and are analogous to a self-published source. The quote, as argued on the talk page, appears self-serving to me, and is unverifiable (except as Sharpton's avowed view). In this case, I don't think any bare interview would be an acceptable source, wikinews or not, and I would be much more comfortable waiting for secondary coverage (ideally ''not'' written by the same editor who inserts it). On the other hand, it's not a BLP violation because it ''is'' only presented as Sharptons's views, so perhaps it's fine&mdash;unless we treat Wikinews like other wikis.
	:As for the verifiability of Wikinews generally, Blueboar has started a new thread: ]. ] '']'' 21:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	I agree with other that wikinews is self-published, there's no guarantee to the reliablity of anything posted there. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 21:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	:I firmly but politely disagree with all the comments posted so far. Wikinews interviews can be of high quality, and Wikinews has a vetting process to help ensure that. These interviews can and should be used whenever they are of good quality. Indeed, in many cases, they will be of higher quality than any interview done by the mainstream press, because the author of the interview is available to clarify any questions, and the actual audio can in many cases be made available. Interviews are different from other forms of journalism in the way they are used in Misplaced Pages and in the way they are conducted by journalists.
	:The correct answer is surely not a blanket prohibition, and of course not a blanket acceptance. We need to have some assurance that the interview was actually conducted (in a newspaper, that assurance is put forward by the reputation of the newspaper, the editorial process, etc. in a wiki, or other form of citizen journalism, there has to be some parallel reasonable method). In the current case, we are discussing interviews which were reported on in the mainstream media, by a trusted member of the Wikinews community. This is very different from a random alleged interview by an anonymous ip number.--] (]) 22:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Was this interview reported? I find no mainstream reference to this interview with Al Sharpton. You may be thinking of the more recent interview with Shimon Perez. ] '']'' 22:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Yes, I am thinking of the interview with Shimon Perez.--] (]) 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::''by a trusted member of the Wikinews community''. This is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. If we begin analyzing information based on the reputation of an individual user we're moving far away from ]. The reputation the user has with you may be very different from the reputation the user has in my eyes. As well, unless an entire publication can be said to be reliable, we're moving in to the realm of original research by having an editor evaluate a piece from wikinews and form their own conclusion on whether or not they feel its trustworthy. When it comes to a self-published source what is trustworthy to one person is not trustworthy to another. This is just begging to get us in to POV issues.--] (]) 23:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::I don't agree. I think it is perfectly valid, as a part of considering the validity of a source, to consider the reputation and history of the person making the report. Consider an interview conducted and presented by Michael Moore or Ann Coulter. Cause for alarm there, since both are noted as polemicists more than as reporters. So we do consider the authorship of an interview even in those cases, naturally. The same can apply to Wikinews or other citizen journalism. The full context has to be considered.--] (]) 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Michael Moore and Ann Coulter are very visible public figures with a long trail of information about them. Its very easy for someone to find multiple sources on these individuals and form an opinion on them. The less public the individual the more difficult it is to determine if there is a bias or anything else involved. With a non-notable wikinews editor I doubt you'd find anything from a reliable source on them for which you could base an opinion on. You'd be left to form an interpretation on their own words and again you're in to original research. How you view an editor and how I view an editor could be vastly different. We'd be basing this on personal opinions on how we view what they've done or said.--] (]) 01:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::David Shankbone is a public figure in a sense: if you want to judge him, you can check his 12K edits on WP, his countless images, his talk page, his work on Wikinews, ... you can even see how he looks, find out his real name and email address! You can get to know him a lot more than any other journalist. --] <small>(])</small> 20:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Is he a public figure outside wikinews? then no, he's not really. His edits to wikinews are a single pov that I, a non-reliable and point of view entity, must analyze and insert my own bias as to whether or not I believe him. Where as Michael moore and ann coulter likely have reliable sources writing about them that would help us make the determination on whether or not they have a particular bias in regards to a particular subject. If an editor is analyzing facts and drawing conclusions which reliable sources haven't drawn, its original research and has no place here.--] (]) 04:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Wikinews original reporting should not be used, '''unless''' you can check facts with a video or something. You shouldn't source facts because Shimon Perez says something to Wikinews. Articles can remain in the "See Also" section however as they supplement the encyclopedic content, same as Commons or Wiktionary does. Can you show us articles were quotes have been attributed to Wikinews and removed?--] <small>(])</small> 22:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	A couple of very interesting comments from Wikinews imply that this interview may indeed be unverifiable, and that "Wikinews cannot and should not be used as a source on wikipedia." See ] '']'' 23:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	*See also ]. Adding a quote from an interview you've conducted yourself on Wikinews could be considered conflict of interest and original research. I'm sure it's reliable information, but I can't check it, I just trust the author and the source -but basically, it's non-verifiable. Appropriate for the article? Probably not, even then it might be better to suggest it on the talk page and see what others with no conflict of interest think about inclusion into the article. --] <small>(])</small> 23:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	**I think that's the main issue here. Wikinews might be an acceptable source in some cases, but this user's behavior leaves a taste of COI and OR in the mouth. ] '']'' 23:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	***From your point of view maybe: I'm seeing someone who is providing 10x more good content than anyone else out there, in pictures and interviews, and somebody who is just trying in an honest manner to improve Misplaced Pages. This is not about ]'s behaviour: he's traveling to Israel and working 14hours/day to get pictures and interviews! He's breaking grounds for Wikinews and Commons and he should be highly respected for that. --] <small>(])</small> 23:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	****No doubt. I think there's no bad faith here, and the user has produced thousands of free images, tons of content. ] '']'' 23:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	*****And I do agree that it would be best to avoid any appearance of impropriety if Wikinews reporters refrain from citing their own work in Misplaced Pages. I would say the same thing for New York Times reporters.--] (]) 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	The entire question is formulated wrongly at the outset. Is it a reliable source? Misplaced Pages isn't reliable, so why should any wiki be? '''The question is: is Wikinews a ] source'''? No, unless you have video or audio. --] <small>(])</small> 23:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Is the Arkansas Herald-Times of Little Rock, Arkansas a reliable source for a quote by the current Governor of Arkansas? Well, this is a hypothetical paper because I deliberately made up the name of the newspaper, but the point is: a good quality local newspaper, is it a reliable source? In general I think we would say yes, although of course in any given particular case, there could be reasons to doubt. I see Wikinews in the same light. Something randomly appearing by an anonymous ip number on a Wikinews talk page is not a WP.RS. An interview with accompanying audio files, conducted by a reputable reporter with a longstanding history in the project(s), surely is. How about the same interview without accompanying audio files? Well, it's just going to depend: how pathbreaking is the quote, how likely is it that the reporter is manufacturing the quote, or distorting it. Those are the same kinds of judgments we might make about the hypothetical Arkansas Herald-Times, and for the same reasons.--] (]) 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::As an experiment, I went to the Sharpton interview in question... and ''changed'' something (I know... BAD Blueboar! But I had to see if it could be done. I reverted myself immediately). Right there... the fact that I ''could'' go in and change the interview... tells me that Wikinews is not and can not be considered reliable under ''Misplaced Pages'' standards. How are we to know if the version being quoted in the wikipedia article accurately reflects what the subject actually said... how do we know the Wikinews interview has not been vandalized? We don't. We can not verify the interview. We can not rely on it any more than we can rely on another Misplaced Pages article. The problem isn't Wikinews... the problem is the wiki format. This isn't about dismissing Wikinews as a project... I am sure most of Wikinews is great reporting... just as most of Misplaced Pages is great enclyclopedia writing. But as long as "anyone" can post an interview, and more importantly as long as "anyone" can ''change'' the interview... we can not consider it reliable.
	::Listing it under See Also or as an EL is a different matter. ] (]) 00:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::That's a glitch: normally, interviews fall under the ] and are fully protected -but we have an admin backlog. Anyway, we would still have reverted you. To address the greater issue: anyone can post an interview, as long as they provide proof (e.g. hand-written notes, audio, video,...) that satisfies the Wikinews community. We've been lazy as of late, and accepted simply to trust our own accredited reporters, although some still do this. It's just an awful lot of extra work. There's no reason to assume things are being made up if there are pictures etc; a lot of interview subjects check the interview anyway. --] <small>(])</small> 20:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::: which would make certain articles verifiable. For example, an interview would be verifiable with the primary source if reporters posted an audio recording of the interview, like ] suggests. I think that would solve the problem, although I agree with Jimbo's observation that it would be best if reporters (on Wikinews and elsewhere) don't cite their own work on Misplaced Pages. Per ], talk page suggestions would seem more appropriate. ] '']'' 00:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	Original reporting is just as good as CNN or any other agency. The fact that you say we are not reliable because its "wikinews" is ridiculous. Me including a handful of other Wikinewsies go through a lot of trouble and research and such to get the interviews or exclusive story. If you want to say all we do is recycle news, well CNN does, FOX News does etc etc. So again another excuse. We don't have accredited reporters to not get good news, we have them so others will see us as a good news site. If you want to go and say Wikinews is unreliable because its a WIki, then WP is just as bad...pot, kettle, black. ] (]) 00:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:No one here will deny we're "just as bad." ] This is about the verifiability of sources, not the credibility or worth of Wikinews. ] '']'' 00:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::When you question a reporters credibility, you question Wikinews's. We don't add bylines to articles and regardless of who does an interview about who, all articles are Wikinews's. So telling us just because we are a Wiki makes us unreliable is just an excuse IMO. We don't have a bunch of accredited '''fake''' reporters making up fake stories to go on WN or WP. They work just as hard if not harder than mainstream media. They don't get paid to get someone to say what they want them to. In our case, they have nothing (financially) to gain whereas CNN and or FOX News have everything to gain. We don't just give any tom dick or harry a pass and woohoo let them go nuts. Yes you can edit a story, its a wiki. But edits by anon users, who make obnoxious edits will get reverted. We watch our site closely. And to target us to ''make a point'' about editing, is just another lousy stab in the back. ] (]) 01:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Guilty as charged m'Lud. But it goes to the core of what reliability and verifiability mean here on ''Misplaced Pages''... as long as the text can be changed, we here at Misplaced Pages have no way of knowing if it is accurate. This isn't about whether Wikinews is ''credible''... it is about whether Wikinews is ''reliable'' by WIKIPEDIA'S rules. It isn't... no Wiki is (not even Misplaced Pages itself). Now, Jimbo's suggestion that an audio version of the interview be posted would go a long way towards fixing the problem. But as long as the potential for someone to come along and change the text exists, Misplaced Pages can not consider it reliable. The difference between Wikinews and any other news outlet is that once the interview is published it remains intact. If Wikinews is willing to protect interviews so idiots like me can't change them... then we can reconsider. ] (]) 01:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::No, its the truth, its not an excuse. Unless there is editorial oversight on articles there is no way for an editor to independently verify the source. This is a requirement on wikipedia. If I go to an article and say "Hmm that looks dubious. It comes from wikinews. Who is this that wrote it? I have no idea, I can't verify where he got his information from, but ''randomeditor'' says this guy is a solid guy, so it must be true". When we go down that road, we're done as far as I'm concerned. Unless articles are verified as true and locked as such, I can't see their use as a source.--] (]) 01:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::That's what policies are for. References and sources. We don't publish a story if the person does not cite sources, or provides good OR notes. That's called ''verifiable''. WP might be large and have enormous traffic, but if you are having trouble with verifiable information, then that boils down to watching who posts what and where on WP.
	::::Prime recent example, the WMF COO. The register published a flaming BS story, so we thought, with nothing to ''verify'' it or back it up. Yet at WN we came up with a heck of a lot more than the Register. But does that make us unverifiable because we are not the Register (bad example to compare with I know but replace the Register with your favorite news source)? No. But yet Wp will jump all over a Register article or CNN or whatever, before they think ONCE about coming over to WN.
	::::Again...contradicting. We don't protect '''right away''' because it is a Wiki. WP doesn't protect at all. At least in terms of infinity. But thats an ultimatum thats rather disturbing. Your point is if its not protected we don't allow it?? Correct me if I am wrong...but it's '''Wiki'''news? These are rather lame and just unfounded excuses.
	::::Jimbo is right. We do have several areas with "practices" but in messages, policies, mission statements and our own accreditation policy. Maybe we need it centralized, but I somehow sense that verifiability is not the only reason WN is not allowed to be sourced........] (]) 01:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Well, ] and editorial oversight.--] (]) 03:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	Seemed to me that there was quite some common ground being found above, so maybe go it easy Dragonfire :). One thing I wanted to point out (which Dragonfire just stated): Articles are "locked" after a certain amount of time (its not a bot doing it, so the time varies). And I agree with the above statements made, that Wikinews articles can't be cited if they're still editable. Two solutions to this(a blend being possible):
	*Wait longer till using a Wikinews article as a source (and the article is non editable), or
	*accelerate the locking of interviews (as there's not much to be contributed later on in contrast to other articles).
	On editorial oversight... I'm not too deeply into what goes as sources for WP, but I would have thought that using an interview is OK, even without oversight. For articles I would agree, I personally would not find it appropriate for, say the articles I wrote on the Climate conference in Bali, to be used as sources for a WP article, if there were not some sort of review (which I guess would necitate far more thourough Original reporting notes, but that would be our problem, not yours ] (]) 09:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	What about '''''': a Wikinews interview used as a reference. The interview took place in IRC, and the original text can probably be retrieved from ]. --] <small>(])</small> 20:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:I see two points being raised in the foregoing discussion:
	:1. Is Wikinews a reliable source?
	:: Wikinews is no more or less reliable than any other source of "citizen journalism." That is, without the editorial oversight to ensure mistakes are kept to a minimum, and with no incentive to ensure that the 'facts' are correct. As we speak, there is one article on the Wikinews main page (Dec. 22) that ''suggests'' that an aircraft crash had something to do with the fact that the plane was refueled. This is bad journalism (or poor language), and I can't imagine that a editorial oversight would not have caught it.
	:2. Are Wikinews and Misplaced Pages far enough removed from one another?
	:: For the public, news that first appears on any 'wiki' source is going to be associated with the encyclopedia. That this is not true is immaterial; the 'wiki' name blurs the distinction between Wikinews and Misplaced Pages.
	:: Further, the 'pedia doesn't have a mandate to up-to-date, so if the "news" is not something exceptional, it can be probably be avoided. But then again, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
	:The request for a "definitive answer" can be fulfilled thus: Like any other source of "citizen journalism," Wikinews ''can'' be cited, but shouldn't.
	:-- ] (]) 00:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
	===Misplaced Pages/Wikinews research arm===
	It's sad that we sell ourselves so short. We have built one of the most influential news sources in the world, yet we do not trust ourselves. On my User page is a photo of me with ], President of Israel, who spoke with me not so much for my affiliation with Wikinews, but for my affiliation with Misplaced Pages. For him, it was a chance to speak to all of us, and to also clear up some incorrect information on his page. I was one of the first people who made a big push to obtain free use images of hard-to-obtain people, places and things. When I started this in July 2006 there were not many images on the project, and I was constantly hit with "You shouldn't put your own photos on pages." I was told my photography was OR, that I had a COI in putting my own photos up, etc. Now the same arguments are raised.
	Misplaced Pages purports to circumvent corporate interest, but we have become so beholden to the MSM that we have lost site of the DIY spirit that made Misplaced Pages what it is. Do it yourself. Wikinews should not be seen as a threat to Misplaced Pages's reliability, but a way to enhance it. Misplaced Pages is an inappropriate place to conduct an interview; but Wikinews is not. I recently spoke with an aging soap star named ], who spent a long time discussing what was wrong with her Misplaced Pages page (she's not Mexican, but Spanish, her son was featured in a play, not her, etc.), what she thought was important in her own career.... There is great potential here, under the watchful eyes of our fellow editors, to use Wikinews to improve Misplaced Pages further and "Do it Yourselves" instead of waiting for the MSM to tell you information they may never get around to telling you. If the idea here is to build an encyclopedia, to not have--and develop more fully--a research arm that can undertake the sort of work I have undertaken seems ridiculous and amateur. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 01:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:I'm very opposed to any form of original research on Misplaced Pages, and to the use of "citizens' journalism" websites, because they often publish nonsense. But I have to say I agree with David here. His work is outstanding, and it seems crazy to question its use, especially because, as he says, he was granted the interviews because the subjects respect Misplaced Pages.
	:David, would it make sense for you to take the initiative here (assuming you have the time or inclination), and try to set up a research arm of Wikinews or Misplaced Pages, where original research/journalism of the kind you undertake can be encouraged and strictly monitored? We already allow original images. Original text is the next step, though the dangers of it mean we'd need a very, very strict accreditation system, so that the people allowed to produce material that Misplaced Pages could use as a "reliable source" are really the very best editors Misplaced Pages has. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 01:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Isn't this theoretically what the Wikinews accreditation is? ] '']'' 01:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::I know nothing about how they work or how strict they are. Any system producing original material for Misplaced Pages would need to almost set up the apparatus of a newspaper, in effect. We'd need some guidance on ethics, we'd need to know the reporters/researchers were professional and mature (not necessarily in age, but in attitude), they would need some guidance on how to interview and write up a story. I don't know how much of this wikinews already does. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 01:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::before you insult the accreditation policy, (]), read it. We vote on people for accreditation, and again not just some joe schmo tom, dick or harry. People vote based on trust. Have they done work? Maybe OR? etc etc...to suggest we hand out a press pass like it was a cereal box prize is just insulting, and a low hit. ] (]) 01:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Excuse me, where on earth have I insulted anyone, or suggested passes are handed out "like a cereal box prize"? I said above that I have no idea how strict they are. Please read what people have actually written (this is one of the things good researchers need to be able to do, actually). <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 02:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Yes, this is what the accreditation system is for, but we can use more people to develop exactly what SlimVirgin suggests. To be honest, my interviews took Wikinews a little off guard and we could stand to have more help over there not only in conducting them with notable people--I had trouble finding people to interview Senators and such who were willing to do interviews--but also in developing guidelines and standards. Can anyone envision instead of a YouTube Presidential debate, but a Misplaced Pages/Wikinews Presidential debate moderated by our own editors? Why not? In terms of content I have inserted into Misplaced Pages that I have created on Wikinews, it has only been from the interviews I have conducted. I think Cool Hand Luke's criticism about COI falls flat with interviews. '''In an interview, the interviewer is not the source of the information, the interviewee is. ] is quoted on ], not David Shankbone.''' I think the interview is a great place to start for us to develop an OR/Research arm, because in the end, when you quote someone, it is their words and we know the questions to ask ("]: Do you consider yourself Scottish of English?" (he's coming up, by the way)). The fact is, we could use ''more'' people on Wikinews helping with this sort of work, not completely eject it from Misplaced Pages. We could use ''more'' people helping us to develop standards around these interviews and how to use them between the projects, not being completely shunned. There is great potential for us here. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 01:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::David, it's true that it's Al Sharpton talking, not David Shankbone, but interviewers can certainly influence what's said, and what's left out. This is why we'd need an excellent accreditation system and some kind of training for people wanting to do these interviews. But in theory, I think your ideas are inspired. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 02:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::COI is adding your own work into articles; although interviewers might slightly influence their subjects, the more important thing is that the quote might not be ] for the article, and as the author of the interview, you are a poor judge to whether or not it is.
	::::I agree with SlimVirgin's idea for a '''Misplaced Pages research arm: it already exists''', it's called Wikinews and you are welcome to join. A few weeks ago, I edited ''']''' on the ]. Before, it said that Misplaced Pages could not give out press cards for things like getting images of news events. Now it explains about Wikinews and how people can ask me to go out there in the name of Wikinews and help out.--] <small>(])</small> 20:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:David... who's this "we" you are talking about? I see Wikinews as a very different and seperate thing than Misplaced Pages. Yes, they are owned and run by the same company... but they have very different goals and very different rules. For example, The amount of OR that is allowable at Wikinews is completely unacceptable here. Different projects, different rules. It isn't that Wikinews is seen as a "threat" to Misplaced Pages's reliability... it is simply that it isn't considered a reliable source by our rules. No wiki is. ] (]) 02:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Yes, the "we" is all of us. Commons is there for a reason: to provide media. Wikisource is there for a reason. Wikinews is there for a reason. These projects can all join together to create one source that everyone uses. Yes ''we'' - There is a "big picture" to Wikimedia's projects, and Wikinews is a part of that. It's just up to us to now start fulfilling a big picture vision here. There are roles that all the projects play. Research/interviews is one for Wikinews. We can use ''help'' from our fellow Wikipedians who want to see Misplaced Pages improved. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 02:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Except Wikileaks right? ] (]) 02:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::David, I agree that there is a big picture to Wikimedia... and that there is some connection between Wikinews and Misplaced Pages. This is why I would allow Wikinews articles to be placed in the "See Also" section of a Misplaced Pages article. But the connection does not negate the fact that Misplaced Pages has very different goals and rules than Wikinews. They are seperate projects under a common banner. Wikinews has rules and guidelines that fit Wikinew's purpose... Misplaced Pages has different rules and guidelines that fit Misplaced Pages's purpose. Face it, sometimes those rules and guidelines will conflict. This is one of those times. ] (]) 14:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Blueboar, I think there are levels here and I think this discussion suffers from not differentiating between types of OR that can be done on Wikinews and cited on Wikipeida. For instance, if Wikinews was to create it's own poll of Iowans about who plans to vote for whom for President in the caucuses, conduct the poll and then attempt to have it included on the 2008 campaign page, I would have a problem with that. But if Wikinews conducts an interview with a Presidential candidate about the issues, as we have done, I see no reason why Misplaced Pages should not acknowledge and use the information (). There is a difference between interviews and a "story". Getting people to talk to us on the record seems to me to fall outside the realm of what we should be concerned about, and the issues are conflated as if these interviews are coming out of thin air. So if we talk to Al Sharpton about Tawana Brawley, I see no good reason why, if our goal is to educate and provide information, we should not actually use information that is provided to us via Wikinews. Not only do we have audio available, but we also have e-mails available if anyone questioned the veracity of the information. This is a very useful way to use Wikinews on Misplaced Pages, by giving our editors a chance to talk to the people who we write articles about, provide a source to correct inaccuracies about their work, and discuss with newsmakers the issues we cover that would help our project flesh them out better. I think as far as interviews go, this is a chance for us to get around regurgitating the corporate rags that have come newspapers and websites and pursue knowledge for knowledge sake. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 14:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	Well that goes to show Slim...how many Wikipedians, particularly the ones involved in the debate actually read Wikinews...? How many of you have looked through our OR since this debate? How many have actually took the time to look at us? And I don't mean a simple edit to prove a point. ] (]) 02:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Ultimately all wikis are self publiushed by definition. Wikinews isn't well known for fact checking or it's editorial policy and that makes it unverifiable. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 03:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Fact checking? I am sorry but that's just totally untrue. Prime example: ]. If you want to talk more about fact checking: ] and probably the best one because it was made with the help of three projects and maybe 100 people: ]. I can show you many more, but these are our best IMO. ] (]) 04:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::: I'm not suggesting that good article don't exist on wikinews but reputation are gained over many years and as far as i know wikinews does not have such a reputation yet. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 03:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Unfortunately we are judged by our worst not our best, providing an unedited audio tape of the interview is the ONLY way to provide Verifiabilty. ] 10:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	===The OR firewall===
	I have no problem with OR on Wikinews&mdash;that's the purpose of the site, what makes it better than a mishmash of already-published news. I don't even have a problem with Wikinews OR being certified with best practices and cited on Misplaced Pages, as Jimbo has proposed. In fact, this is a great idea, that will finally remove doubt over the use of Wikinews. However, SlimVirgin's argument that written original research is the logical progression from original photographs terrifies me. The fact that it's being proposed as a limited sort of "license to OR" is only slightly better. Frankly, we've not had a stellar record of selecting most-trusted Wikipedians. More importantly, it would topple the good rule we have against OR, replacing it with instruction creep and evasion.
	I'm all for new and exciting OR projects&mdash;on Wikinews. this is not the time for us to ignore one of our fundamental rules. ] '']'' 08:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:True... the OR on Wikinews is actually a good thing... at Wikinews. But not at Misplaced Pages. Different projects, different rules. ] (]) 13:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:I think a number of the project's main attributes run counter to any effort to make Wikinews a better source for use on Misplaced Pages, including the fact that Wikinews reporters may report under pseudonyms or anonymously and the fact that there is no central editorial structure. As far as I can tell if a Wikinews article contains an appallingly false statement nobody within the project actually suffers for this -- and therefore nobody has any particular incentive to prevent it from happening. It's difficult to see how this problem can be rectified without undermining central values of the wiki. ] ] 07:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	::We don't allow OR on Misplaced Pages because we allow anyone to edit, so editors can be anonymous, and even when they use a real name, we have no way to verify their identity. We also only report on material that has already been published. But once something is published on Wikinews as OR there, it is no longer OR here on Misplaced Pages. In this case we are only left to decide if Wikinews is a reliable source for the material to be used on Misplaced Pages. In most cases, I would say not, because Wikinews also allows anonymous or un-verified editors, and the editorial supervision is by other editors. Perhaps once the editorial process meets the Google News standard that will change. For now, it would be too easy to do an end-around on the ] policy by publishing to Wikinews first, then using the material here.
	::However, in the specific case of interviews with notable people conducted by ''accredited reporters'' on Wikinews who provide a complete transcript or recording of the interview, I think we can use the interview as a reliable source. I have read the Wikinews , and find it provides the key ingredient of assuring that the source is a real identifiable person with a known track record, and a reputation to protect. Because reporters must reveal their real legal name to be accredited, it is not possible to create throw-away accounts for doing mischief. As to the editorial supervision, there is a process for revoking credentials in that process. I think we can also safely assume that material will be removed if it is substantially questioned to protect the reputation of Wikinews, so this meets the needs of Misplaced Pages for editorial supervision. The material should not be considered self-published, because although reporters initiates the process, they do not have ultimate control of the publication process, as they would on a blog.
	::So the blanket dismissal of Wikinews, while convenient, is not in the best interest of either Misplaced Pages or Wikinews. Like most "problems" on Misplaced Pages, we need to use common sense, and avoid creating and following self-sustaining rules. ] (]) 23:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	::: Dhaluza is correct. Furthermore, there isn't original research here going on since we have the interview on Wikinews. Wikinews interviews are by people like David who have their names public and have confirmed their real life contact info with the Foundation. Thus, they have the basic elements of a reliable source. ] (]) 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	===Wikinews editorial control===
	Allusion was made about to Wikinews having some kind of editorial controls, but looking the place over, I can't find any evidence of that. Is there anything that seperates it from a collectively written ]? ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 13:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:In fact, they appear to be claiming they have ''good rules'' but lack the manpower to enforce them; meaning that in practice they lack actual functioning reliable editorial control. ] (]) 20:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::That issue is being addressed by having approved versions live. But the key is not to sink a project for a temporary project, but to improve it and find ways to address the issues. If Welfare is not working, the key is to fix it, not to get rid of it; social security, public education, Misplaced Pages, Wikinews...etc. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 20:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Until it becomes clear that Wikinews has editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking, it's not a ]. No one is trying to "sink the project" &mdash; we're simply saying that without some serious editorial controls, it's not reliable. This can change, naturally &mdash; however, ] is an issue. --] (]) 20:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Those who follow foundation-l and the development of flagged revisions should be well aware that I have invested a great deal of time and effort towards soliciting input on how, with the help of this extension, we gain sufficient editorial control over the default display of Wikinews to get Google to list us on their news site. The aim there is to significantly increase the site's profile and attract new contributors and readers. Anyway, it annoys me no end to see some Wikinews contributors reacting to people's comments here by not fully digesting them and reading the worst into what is said. Nearly as much as the Wikipedians who've never even read a single Wikinews policy and dismiss us out of hand as "just a wiki - anyone can edit".
	:Wikinews has an ], and I have over 3,000 articles as part of the implementation of this policy, roughly 30%+ of Wikinews' article count. Before I do so I read every single one, although as I'd expect people to understand, I do significantly less of that work now. Perhaps our policy needs tightened up and interviews protected 36 hours after publication. Perhaps accompanying audio requires uploading to permit citing, IRC logs may be required with signatures of authenticity from various of the participants, or emails require vetted through OTRS to authenticate via details that should remain private. There is an effort to build consensus on Wikinews' ] as to what should be guides for making an article citeable, ignore the bit at the top where the loudest contributors dig their trenches and shout "you're wrong!" at each other. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 22:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::The concept of a WA wikinews article is heading in the right direction. ] 11:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::WA? --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 12:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	:*I would like to invite user Blueboar to attempt his disruption on any one of listed articles, vandalism to prove a point is stooping pretty damn low and in this case proves procedures are not followed, not that you have an argument-winning point. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 12:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Please do not falsely accuse Blueboar. He edited a Wikinews entry to see if he could and immediately self-reverted. That is neither disruption nor vandalism. ] (]) 12:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::: It is the very definition of ] --] (]) 20:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::: He immediately reverted and caused no disruption. That's hardly a POINT edit. ] (]) 01:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
	'''Comment'''. The problem is that Wikinews, regardless of its worth and credibility, is essentially a '']'' source. We would ] a user to post information from their interview with someone or the results of their personal investigations. To say we should allow it if they instead post to Wikinews first is simply absurd. While I appreciate the good work people do at Wikinews, it simply is not a reliable source. Without significant editorial control and review, it's just another self-published source. That doesn't mean honor code rules and superficial community review. That means real fact-checking, reviewing interview audio, calling agencies to verify official statements and so on. Such editorial review would require fundamental changes to the project, which seems unlikely. The contributors to Wikinews are passionate, earnest and dedicated to their project, and I admire that. However, whether or not Wikinews is a worthwhile project has nothing to do with its reliability as a source under Misplaced Pages conventions. ] (]) 12:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	Ask yourself this: Will ] make Misplaced Pages a reliable source? Once you realise it'd be absurd to suggest it will, ask then what would make Wikinews fundamantally different from a Misplaced Pages with stable versions? ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 13:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	:We're not talking about Misplaced Pages stable versions, which are a half-assed attempt at discouraging vandals until they get bored. I want Stable Versions for Wikinews with but with an editorial board that is - potentially - prepared to put their names behind contributions. Now, can we close the "no, nay, never" discussion here and move on to how Wikinews needs to improve? The discussion for that - surprisingly enough - is on Wikinews. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 14:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	::I agree that we should not be saying "No, nay, never"... This ''has'' to be a "No, not ''yet''" discussion... Wikinews wants to be a reliable source for us and, assuming this desire is achievable, we should assist them in doing so. They are going to have to make some fundamental changes for that to happen, but if they are willing to make those changes, we should not discourage them from doing so. This is a conversation that needs to take place in ''both'' locations... as they have ideas they need to come to the appropriate talk page here and ask: "If we do such and such, will that make Wikinews more likely to be accepted as a source on Misplaced Pages?" I would hate to have the good folks at Wikinews make changes to their proceedures, only to discover that we ''still'' don't consider Wikinews acceptable. They will need to have imput from us so they know what they will need to change. As a start, I encourage them to "read, mark and inwardly digest" our policies and guidelines... especially WP:NOR and WP:V. ] (]) 18:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::there are other good reasons for Wikinews to have stable versions that have been discussed elsewhere--prime among them in my opinion is the acceptability for GoogleNews, which not unreasonably wants to have something fixed that can be cited. But this is up to the people who work there. ''']''' (]) 20:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Stable versions will introduce editorial control on Wikinews because only a selected group of Editors will be able to flag revisions. That's pretty much installing an Editorial Board. It's a totally different approach from Misplaced Pages, where it is aimed at reducing vandalism. --] <small>(])</small> 22:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	::How is it functionally different? Stable versions have multiple purposes, including some form of editorial control - indeed, only a selected group of editors will be able to flag revisions (assuming it ever happens (HA!)) and so forth. ]s often have specific, named people approving and publishing the content, and yet are usually not considered ]. The defenses of Wikinews as a source are missing the problem entirely (and why Wikinews would want to get endorsed as a reliable source here to attract a mass migration of POV warriors is beyond me. ;) Cheers, ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 01:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
	:I disagree that Wikinews is a self-published source for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. The editor does not have ultimate control of the publication process, which is the defining characteristic of a ]. Although anyone can start an article, they do not own it, and will likely be challenged if they are making false claims or pushing a POV. Just because a Wikinews article is not self-published, that does not mean it is a reliable source, and your garden variety Wikinews article probably is not. And for the garden variety Wikinews subject, we probably have other mainstream sources to use. But in specific cases, Wikinews could be a reliable source, and should not be dismissed summarily, but objectively evaluated like any other source. ] (]) 23:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	=== Irony ===
	] shows what some Wikipedians think of sister projects; I'm delighted to see most people who participate in deletion requests reacted with a WTF? But it is symptomatic of a noticable portion of the Misplaced Pages base who think this project is the be all and end all. I recall a certain contributor standing for board on a basis of shutting all sister projects. Individuals who have clearly expressed such opinions have obviously (AFAIK) rescinded any right to comment on the validity of Wikinews and other sister projects and - in utter ignorance - think people will migrate to Misplaced Pages from sister projects. I would - again - encourage people to join the Wikinews discussion to create best practice procedures and guidelines. We have Sue Gardner on the board - former head of CBC.ca; yes, she's busy, but she is the best person to help finalise such guidelines if there is an effort to produce them. --''] /<sup>]</sup>'' 12:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	:The WikiMedia Foundation involves itself in content dispute as little as possible to maintain its legal status as a service provider and not a publisher. The English language Misplaced Pages community decides its criteria for reliable sources; and we decide that criteria to maximize ''our'' credibility, not for other purposes, and certainly not to push David's anti-media POV (which I agree with, but NPOV rules). ] (]) 16:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	=== NO ===
	I don't see how it can be used as a source any more that wikipedia can. The content of the page can change at any time and the "anyone can edit", so no, wikinews is no more reliable than wikipedia, and I belive that we don't consider WP a RS. Thatve is the only non-trivial point here. Have I missed something? ] (]) 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Wikinews will be a reliable source when other news organisations and other experts begin to treat it as a reliable source. The issue of the content changing is something that is not fatal; content already changes on reliable source news sites as new information comes in. The issues are oversight/responsibility and reputation. Oversight/responsiblity can be added by policy. Establishing a reputation takes time. But there is no fundamental reason why a community based news organisation can't be considered as a reliable source. ] (]) 03:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Hmm, interesting. I see your point. I am doubtful that "wikinews" will ever become viewed as a reliable source though, sad to say. I wonder if wikipedia should just ditch its NOT NEWS policy (which anyway only applies to trivial news stories) and incorporate Wikinews. ] (]) 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Misplaced Pages ditch the not news policy?! ]! WMF's goal is to create and spread knowledge and this is the encyclopedic branch of that, just as ] collects quotes and ] is a dictionary. ] and ] have two ''very'' distinct purposes.
	:::Now for Wikinews never being able to be viewed as a reliable source, however, why not? Try using Wikinews for a bit. Anyone can create an article, but those articles are not published. When the template <nowiki>{{publish}}</nowiki> is put on an article, lists all around the site are automatically updated. If an article was really not ready for publishing (by not citing sources, etc.), the tag can be quickly removed. For ] (ie. interviews, etc.), the reporter should post notes, an audio clip, or whatever on the article talk page. A few days after publishing, the article is permanently protected and is "archived". Now not "everyone can edit".
	:::So without just saying "Wikinews is a wiki", how come it is unreliable? <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"><b>]</b></font> <sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 19:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::Turn the question around: which other reliable sources have cited it? Show some evidence that it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" amongst other reliable sources. By default, sources are considered unreliable. To become reliable, evidence must be shown that notable people and other reliable sources consider the source to be reliable and cite it. Establishing a reputation takes time, and it may not be possible to show that Wikinews is considered a reliable source at the moment, even though it may have the necessary editorial and oversight policies. ] (]) 17:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
	== "Over-Unity" and "Anti-Gravity" ==
	I'd like to get some comments on inclusion of weblinks and use as sources for these two sites:
	*http://jnaudin.free.fr/
	*http://www.americanantigravity.com/
	:My own assessment, on which I'd like to receive comments:
	:I've pruned back links to these sites and content only sourced to these sites for years, but as the pruner:inserter ratio seems to swing towards the inserter-faction in the the recent past, links and content are on the rise again.
	:Jean-Louis Naudin is a hobbyist experimenter who discusses and tries to reproduce nearly every claim of "over-unity" (a.k.a. ]) and "anti-gravity" and often claims success. He has no (known) formal education in engineering, physics or related fields and doesn't published in reputable sources.
	:American Antigravity is something like the "professional" version of JN Labs -- professional not in the sense of any linkage to the professional societies in engineering, but regarding better web layout and more direct attempts to sell something.
	--] (]) 12:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	:They don't look like ] to me. --] (]) 21:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
	::While some of the links, are being used in reasonable places to document pseudo-science topics, for which they might possible be acceptable, some may not be. This should go the the SPAM notice board also. ''']''' (]) 18:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	::: Part of the question, I'd like get feedback on, is whether sources like the above really should be used for pseudo-science topics. Is it a good idea, to let crank #1 testify in support of crank #2 -- or should denying the first and second law of thermodynamics be considered to be an extremist view, per ]? I sometimes get the impression of some crackpot-link-exchange-program taking place, where Naudin or Matti Pitkänen (not the skier ], but the physicist of same name, compare ]) give positive feedback for every strange idea, just to get themself linked back and linked in Misplaced Pages as reference, e.g. at ]. --] (]) 23:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::''Is it a good idea, to let crank #1 testify in support of crank #2?'' Is crank #1's testimony published in a reliable source, like a peer reviewed journal? Does their opinion carry the same weight as the laws of thermodynamics? Of the sites you list, jnaudin.free.fr/ appears to be a self-publisher of Jean-Louis Naudin. Since it's self-published, it isn't a reliable source for any article other than one on the site or author. As for americanantigravity.com/ - this doesn't look like a reliable source. The onus is on the person claiming it is a reliable source to show that it is considered reliable by other physicists working in the same field. As far as I can see, it isn't a peer reviewed journal with any notability or respect in the physics world. So no, they wouldn't be considered reliable sources. ] (]) 01:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	Sources are not simple reliable or unreliable in and of themselves. They are reliable or unreliable depending on what you're using them to cite. If you say "Jean-Louis Naudin says that he has reversed gravity with device x that does y.", it's a reliable source. If you say "Newton was wrong and gravity is an elaborate conspiracy." then it's an unreliable source. Cranks can be used as references for statements about themselves or their theories. ] is close. — ] 03:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Omegatron is correct in this... except that ] is is discussing articles about ''themselves''. In other words it is appropriate to include something like "Jean-Louis Naudin says that he has reversed gravity with device x that does y.", in the article on ]... but it may not be appropriate to include the same statement in the article on ]. ] is an effective counter-balance to ]. In a case like this, I would also recommend that people read ]. It gives good advice on when the theories of cranks should and should not be included in Misplaced Pages.] (]) 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	:: No. ] needs to be changed to remove the "in articles about themselves" clause. I've fixed this several times and it eventually winds up the way it is now again.
	:: For instance, this is a perfectly legitimate reliably-sourced statement that could be put in the ] article: <blockquote>Jean-Louis Naudin claims that he has operated lifters in a pure vacuum.<sup></sup></blockquote>
	:: There is no rule that sources like this can only be used in articles about the source itself. — ] 00:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
	Just another example and a specific case:
	* http://www.rexresearch.com/
	And the specific case: http://www.rexresearch.com/grebenn/grebenn.htm was once used to source ]. As far as I judge the consenus here, it was removed for good reason -- leaving the problem, that all other sources for the Grebennikov article I've found, are of similiar quality (I cannot judge the source in Russian and can only hope the best). Is this enough reason for deletion? --] (]) 14:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	:It's too bad! The ] article is rather entertaining. Under our rules, since the content is unsourced, it needs to go. If the article could say the same thing from sources I think it would be OK. (Everything that I could find about Grebennikov's work seems to be self-published by one person or another). ] (]) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	== Hi ==
	erm... well on ]... the one about the fones... well the reference there... is that valid? i mean... its from a blog! ] (]) 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	:well to carry on as you left off...um...not so much... as you say it is a blog, which is not a ].... on top of which the blog does not even make the specific claim in the article, as far as I can see --] (]) 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Thank you... so I can delete it, rite? ] (]) 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	::well... ill go change it now... lol... Wikikoolkid(])(]) 22:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	== Forums Used for References ==
	{{resolved}}
	In the ] article, a user posted criticism of the show, citing it as critics giving the show bad reviews, but the reference cited is a forum on Discovery's Website. I wanted to double check that this is not a reliable source before removing the content, and sources. ] (]) 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	:No. From ]:
	::Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are rarely regarded as reliable. While they are often controlled by a single party (as opposed to the distributed nature of Usenet), many still permit anonymous commentary and we have no way of verifying the identity of a poster.
	:] (]) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Sweet, thanks for the quick response! ] (]) 01:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	== List of sites running the LiveJournal engine ==
	Properly sourced material about one particular journal site is being repeatedly abusively deleted, with secondary issues of ], ], ], and others. Your comments? -- ] (]) 01:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	: To add to what Davidkevin states: the dispute concerns the addition of CommieJournal to the list; the other sites on the list are several years old and have been mentioned in published news stories while CommieJournal is several months old and has not. On the other hand, it is already as large as one of the other sites already listed (JournalFen). Davidkevin seems to feel that the existence of the site is self-sourcing and that primary sources are acceptable in this context. He has additionally stated that the list should be as inclusive as possible, but has made no effort to include other unlisted journals. Davidkevin is also very quick to assume bad faith (as has been apparent not only here but on ]) but that has little to do with this noticeboard other than as an explanation for his various claims of policy violations above. I agree with him that wider contribution to this discussion would be a good thing, and have also requested it at ]. —] (]) 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	:: If by "he...has made no effort to include other unlisted journals," you mean the list of dead links and journal sites with a literal handful of users at as mentioned on the article talk page, that's because, believe it or not, I would agree with you about their non-notability. I don't think CommieJournal is the same as they are, due to its size, rate of growth, and the reasons behind its creation and those reasons being an ongoing reaction to the problems at LiveJournal. If CommieJournal were to fade to unused non-notability as they have, or if LiveJournal management took the winds out of CommieJournal's sails by improving itself and removing the relevancy of it, I would agree with you about removing it at that time. -- ] (]) 03:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	== ] again ==
	Would quite a few people be willing to read this, in particular starting at ], and weigh in? The level nastiness and POVishness based on politics is astonishingly bad in the commentary. This page has been protected ''repeatedly'' from absolutely horrific edit wars, and given the ingrained political bitterness on the topic, the level of political dismissal of sources is amazing. The tone has gotten so horrible I'm tempted to wash my hands of the whole thing to let myself work on other articles again. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 03:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	: I think it's already been pointed out many times that this is not about the reliablity of sources and doesn't belong here. I suggest a request for comment. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	::People saying sources aren't valid because they're (examples)
	:::* From New York, a "liberal" city
	:::* From an expert in France who also is a member of a civic group that at one point in WW2 offered support to Stalin (note the expert wasn't even *alive* in WW2)
	:::* "American" views have more value because other countries haven't been through what "we" have
	:::* Further abuse of RS is the fact that some are saying that if 100+ sources and people saying "x is x", but 1-5 say "x is y" that you can't say that "x is x" because it would violate NPOV and be biased to America (I did post to the NPOV talk page, no one seemed to care).
	::Is the point of this noticeboard only to judge if a source is worthy to include, but not the other way around as well, if arguments to ''exclude'' a source are worthy? Or for general abuse of how RS works? I'm posting it here again because I'm frankly frustrated at such flagrant political nonsense. It doesn't seem like something for AN or ANI. If not here, what is the best venue to ensure that out-of-policy damage to the encyclopedia is stamped out before it can take hold, when multiple people swarm in a gang to enforce it? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::I just skimmed that talk page and it seems you forgot a good reason to exclude a source is because it represents:
	::::*"fringe opinions from 100 law professors whose previously published writings indicate membership in the lunatic left-wing fringe"
	:::It appears that you're arguing against people who, like football supporters, will back their side to the end without any willingness to compromise. I would suggest a compromise like ], "While individual X have voiced disagreement with Y, the overwhelming majority of X are in agreement". But would this satisfy your vocal opponents in this case?
	::''Is the point of this noticeboard only to judge if a source is worthy to include, but not the other way around as well, if arguments to ''exclude'' a source are worthy?''
	:::People on this noticeboard comment both ways.
	:::If the article had been written five years ago, nobody would've batted an eyelid at calling it torture: nobody argues against calling ] torture, and yet "A History of Torture" (Scott 1940) states that waterboarding was "generally adopted when racking, in itself, proved ineffectual." There may be a difference between the legal definition of torture in the United States, and the meaning of the word in the English language. Maybe the article can make that difference clear, and make it clear that the US lawyers are only commenting on US law. ] (]) 16:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::The problem is that neither side is willing to compromise, and the side that is supporting calling it torture is the one completely backed up by policy as far as I can see. When a page is overrun by people pushing advocacy for a fringe viewpoint like this, what is the policy-based mechanism that exists for stopping the nonsense of wasting everyone's time? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Well, how did the ] editors do it? It must be possible, otherwise that article would still say that global warming was a left-wing UN plot to take over the world. I suspect it involves significantly raising the bar of what is considered a reliable source, and only allowing citing peer reviewed journal articles, whilst at the same time acknowledging that there's some minority view point. And even with all that, they're still reverting vandal edits to the article every day... ] (]) 16:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Another thing that might've helped in the ] case was separating it from ]. Given that the ] article focuses too much on the US controversy (as the Good Article reviewer noted) it's currently poorly weighted and suffering from ]. Maybe it could be split, with ] or something similar for the US stuff, and the main article for everything else. Having said that, it might just lead to a POV-fork. ] (]) 16:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::: I agree that the historical perspective is more relevant to this article than fringe views. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 15:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	===Is a poll of the general public a reliable source per our standards?===
	* http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/06/waterboard.poll/
	People on ] are citing this poll as evidence that the status of Waterboarding as a form of torture is heavily disputed. I have not seen polls used before, for a core RS on a contentious issue. Is this acceptable usage? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	''The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. telephone poll of 1,024 American adults was carried out over the weekend and had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points'' From the above poll. ] 17:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:The poll is citable as a reliable source for the opinions of American adults on waterboarding. It shows that, in 2007, there is some disagreement between the American public.
	:The question of whether the opinion of the general public of the United States is, or should be, a factor in determining the content of Misplaced Pages articles is a completely different one. There are certainly precedents for not following U.S. public opinion (e.g. ], ] etc). ] (]) 20:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:: The only thing it can really cite is the result of a poll, drawing your own conclusions from results of a poll would be original research. However if, say a newspaper or journal, publishes a conclusion or interpreation based on the result that would be a different case. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 15:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::That is true - a poll itself is a primary source of statistical data, and ]. However, when the poll is carried out by a reputable polling agency, and results published in a reliable source, then it is fine to cite it. In this case, the research appears to fit those criteria. Having said that, if there's any dispute regarding the poll methodology or results, and that has been covered in reliable sources, then it is fine to cite that as well.
	:::As to whether saying there is "a dispute" when poll results show disagreement over some topic is a case of ]; I think not, the word itself suggests an elevation of a mere "disagreement" . In fact, the WordNet definition of "dispute" is "a disagreement or argument about something important". And if it wasn't important, then the poll shouldn't even be mentioned in Misplaced Pages in the first place. ] (]) 15:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	== THIS IS AN ABUSE! Please STOP to eliminate the Quotations about Leonard Oprea's work! ==
	YES, dear Victoriagirl, I READ and I understood very well the Misplaced Pages's policies concerning self-published sources and Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Therefore, I have to tell you ]: this book of Leonard Oprea is published in the USA by a POD Publishing House. ], NOT by a self-publishing venture etc. More - these quotations BELONG to their authors, cultural American VIP beyond any doubt, NOT to some other people. And this you or anybody else can easily check up. Thus, if it will be necessary I will RE-introduce again and again these quotations and I am telling you again:
	*NO ISSUE regarding THE VERIFIABILITY of Quotations about Leonard Oprea’s work!
	*Dear Victoriagirl user, please, respectfully I ask you do not be a ]. It is against the rules of Misplaced Pages 💕.
	*Dear Victoriagirl since when is a section of Misplaced Pages article out side of the Misplaced Pages rules just because it is composed of quotations drawn from a self-published source (]: which actually is a ], NOT a self-publishing book and it is a ] // ''check up'' its ] number// publication on sale in the USA and world-wide on ], ] and other more than ] and you can also find it in the ] of Boston or of the Cultural Romanian Institute of New York etc.etc.etc.)?!!
	*Please, dear Victoriagirl just try to check up ] the Quotations about Leonard Oprea’s work according to ], ], ], ''Leonard Oprea'' article of Romanian Misplaced Pages and according to who are ], ], ] and last but not least ], the well-known cultural American VIP who signed these quotations. ], when these quotations were introduced in this article, ''their sources were carefully verified'' and everything ]. ''Every Quotation content of this article'' ]. Thank you for your understanding. ] (]) 6:24PM, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	::What is your question? It seems you are angry at Victoriagirl. Please try discussing your issues politely with her on ]. Thanks. ] (]) 01:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::I have responded to the post by {{User|Judetadeus|Judetadeus}} at ]. ] (]) 04:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::The article is ]. Judetadeus wants to put complimentary quotes in the article which appear on the backs of books he has self-published. I have stated this is not acceptable. Situation seems to be resolved now. ] (]) 20:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
	== IE8/Vasudev ==
	On the ] article, there is a ] going on over its performance in ACID2 test. Specifically whether it needs a change in the test (via opting in to a third rendering mode apart from ] and standards mode). There is no official clarification on whether the mode exists or whether the Acid2 test does/does not trigger it. In this situation, was added which says the existence of the mode. However, I have questions on whether he can be considered reliable and his words put to canon? I want others opinion on this. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	Specifically these quotes from the talk page discussion are relevant:
	:{{user|221.128.181.109}}: ''According to the MVP FAQ , IE8 DOES introduce another (a third) "IE8 standards mode". However, I don't see how it means IE8 "cannot be considered to pass the Acid2" as stated in the article.''
	::{{user|Soumyasch}}: ''Any evidence has access to the inner working of the IE team and that he is not under an NDA ro reveal such information and that he is singing the official tune and this is not just a friend-of-a-friend-told-me rumor?'' --]
	:::{{User|Remember the dot}}''"This Q&A guidance is taken from the MVPannounce mail I received from my MVP lead". As a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional, yes, he does have access to such information.'' —]
	::::{{user|Soumyasch}}: ''You know what an MVP is? S/he is an independent and recognized expert on one or more products. They need not be on MS payroll. And are no way automatically a part of any MS product team. Just by being an MVP you do NOT gain access to such information. And my question is still unanswered: How the hell does he publicize information that is still under NDA (if it were not under NDA it would have come directly from the official sources or the developers). And I asked about Anand, not Vasudev. Vasudev mentions his source, Anand does not. Since he is not officially known to be a part of IE8 project, he does not consitute a source ] enough for citation.'' --] <sup>]</sup> 00:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	Incidentally, these statements are also backed up by the by Chris Wilson, Internet Explorer Platform Architect. The Vasudev source is simply more convenient, since it is in text form. The Vasudev source reproduces, verbatim, statements from Microsoft.
	Microsoft is under no obligation to share with the public the information it shares with its MVPs, and I doubt that the MVPs are required to not pass on the information they receive from Microsoft. —] <sup>(])</sup> 01:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:No these are not ''backed up''. The MIX 07 talks was plans, this states as facts. True they speak of the same essence, but the MIX talks never says it has already happened. So, they are not a verbatim repro. Yes, MS is under no obligation, but there in not just one MVP. If they are not required to restrain their, don't you think there will be more confirmation? Even beta testers are under an NDA (unless the beta is public) and you expect MVPs to be given a discount? I highly doubt that. Btw, I posted it here not against you but to get a fresher perspective, sans mine or your bias. We can talk on the article talk page or on our talk pages. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	Blogs are not usually considered a reliable source. From ]: ''In most cases, no. Most weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability.'' ACID compliance of browsers is widely discussed, so if this information is true it will eventually be published in a reliable source, but until then it shouldn't be cited as fact on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	== world policy council ==
	The '''World Policy Council''' of ] is a ] and ] ] established in 1996 at ] to expand the fraternity's involvement in politics, and social and current policy to encompass important global and world issues. They describe their missions as to ‘’address issues of concern to our brotherhood, our communities, our nation, and the world.‘’
	The council has issued 5 ]s in its 11 year history covering topics such as the AIDS crisis, Middle East Conflict, Extraordinary rendition and other issues it deems of national or international import.
	This link is the current position paper in PDF format.
	The nine board of director who research and write the papers are listed on pages 2-4 and consist of Senator ], Ambassadors ] and ], Educator ], and congresmen ] and ]. The mission of the WPC is listed on page 5 and their positons on five issues follow.
	<ol>
	<li>The council is cited
	for obtaining global headlines for their position on Nigerian Politics.
	<li>This video {{YouTube|id=ql1ArinDCAc |title=shows Senator Brooke describing the council during the last 1:30 minute.}}
	<li>This video {{YouTube|id=a0irRWlbYUw |title=continues the discussion by other council members regarding purpose, compostion and the audience for the white papers for the firt 3 minutes.}}
	</ol>
	Would you consider the research and opinion of this council a reliable source to cite within wikipedia articles?--] 04:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:It's clearly a reliable source for the views of the World Policy Council and of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity. The reliability of think tanks in general has to be viewed with extreme caution. ] (]) 20:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Thank you. I'll make it clear that any cited text is the position of the WPC. I'll wait to see if additional editors respond.]21:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Agree... position papers by the council are reliable for statements about the opinion of the council. Such statements should be directly attributed (in text) as being the opinion of the council (ie: "According to the World Policy Council...."). That being said... the question then becomes one of NPOV and other policies. Is the opinion of the WPC notable on a specific topic? Would discussing this opinion violate the ] clause? etc. etc. In other words... Under WP:V and WP:RS we can say that the position papers of the WPC ''may'' be used, but we can not say if they ''should'' be used in any given article. ] (]) 15:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	Exactly. It's reliable as far as the World Policy Council and APA are concerned. It's not reliable as an expert on ER. And it does violate Undue weight. ]] ] 19:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
	For those of you who don't know what APA is.....it's a college fraternity. It's not a scientific think tank. It's not a political organization. It's.....a college fraternity. It's not the American Enterprise Institute. It's not Brookings. It's not the AIPAC. It's not Center for Freedom and Democracy. It's......a college fraternity. Guess what, my fraternity's members include presidents of the united states. Does that make them a reliable source to discuss world politics? No, it does not. It's just another lame attempt to give undue weight to an article that is entirely critical already. There are plenty enough RELIABLE organizations criticizing Extraordinary Rendition, that we don't need a fraternity to do so. ]] ] 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::As noted above by others above, I would agree that the position papers would be reliable for the opinion of the WPC. Reliable, yes, but then the question is whether it is notable or not. This is not the forum, perhaps, but if it is any help based on a google search I do not find any secondary sources indicating that others think it is --] (]) 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::See and . Thanks for your comments--] (]) 14:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::These are above the WPC, and not about extraordinary rendition at all. We need to find something about ''extraordinary rendition'' that mentions the WPC and their views on the subject, to show that the WPC's opinion is notable. But really I do think that this is a subject for another forum, since the discussion is not really about reliable sourcing. --] (]) 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	== ] and ] for BLP? ==
	]. -- ], 2007-12-29]22:01z
	*While the "News of the World" may be a tabloid it is part of ] along with the ] and ]. I don't think there is any dispute as to their fact-checking being basically good. And Yediot Aharonot is the principal newspaper of the state of Israel. While I may not like the journalistic style of the NOTW, it remains true that it is subject to libel laws like everyone else. ] (]) 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:(ec) Given its focus on sensationalism I wouldn't use NotW as a source for something that could be damaging to a person. If the fact in question is worth mentioning it should have been picked up by a serious newspaper or news magazine. If it hasn't, then the point likely isn't sufficiently important or noteworthy to include (see also ]). I don't know anything about ].] (]) 22:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	::It was picked by Yediot, undoubtably a serious newspaper no? It was also picked up, and followed up by the '']'', which I forgot to mention. ] (]) 22:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::If those are in fact reliable sources (I'm not familiar with them), then cite them instead of NotW. ] (]) 22:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::The Yediot one is in there. I cant find the Jewish Chronicle one right now, it must have got deleted. I think though in principle while I sympathise with your view of the NOTW as sensationalist, I am reluctant to agree that it is not an RS just because of that. While you may have to translate the information into an encyclopedic format and remove the curse words and so on, they cannot print anything that ] cannot print. The libel laws are equally strict, and it is the same company. While some people have litigated the NOTW and won, many people have tried and failed, and the same applies to all major news outlets. I dont think that the style (however much I look down my nose at it) prejudices the RSness of a source. ] (]) 22:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::The argument that NotW somehow must share the reliability of some of its better-regarded sister publications in News Corp is erroneous. To make a parallel, the ] also owns properties that we wouldn't use as reliable sources. Again, if better sources are available, use them; if better sources ''aren't'' available, then one has to question the noteworthiness of the material proposed for inclusion. ] (]) 22:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I'm not really making that point. The point I'm making is that they are subject to the same libel laws, and since they are owned by the same company they are subject to similar factchecking requirements to ensure they are not litigated. ] (]) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	2007 (UTC)
	:::::::A tabloid reporting a "rumor" is not a Reliable source for what is written there. Not to mention the BLP issues. Everything is subject to libel laws, but not everything is a reliable source. There is also the issue of this topic not being relevant to this article. ] (]) 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::The onus is on the editor citing the News of the World to show that it is considered a reliable source. Framing the language of articles to reduce the probability of being sued is a completely different thing from being considered a reliable source. Given what I have seen of the News of the World, it is extremely unlikely that you could show that its standards of journalistic integrity are held in the same regard as BBC News, The Times, etc. ] (]) 04:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	There is nothing about a rumor. The paper says he did something on a certain date and time, he repsonded by threatening to sue, 18 months later his case is yet to materialize. ] (]) 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
	::The real question is: what are you trying to state in the article? If you are trying to state that the subject of the BLP actually ''did'' "such and such on X date" and citing News of The World as the source for that "fact" then no, it is not a reliable source. If on the other hand, you are trying to state the fact that News of the World ''claimed'' that the subject did such and such on X date, then it ''might'' be considered a bit more reliable (with lots of caveats). That said, it would be best to find a third party source that discusses the fact that the News of the World maded these claims, and cite that source instead. ] (]) 15:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::] is pretty clear: "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links". ] (]) 17:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::The point I was trying to make above relates to the notability of the News of the World's claim and of the subject's subject's lawsuit against it. I agree that using the News of The World as a source to back a statement of fact (say a statement such as: "Yedioth Ahronoth kissed Bigfoot on July 12, 2007") would violate WP:BLP. ''However''... if the fact that "On August 9th, News of The World published an article claiming that Yedioth Ahronoth had kissed Bigfoot, and now Mr. Ahronoth is suing that publication for libel" is considered a noteworthy event that should be included in a biography of Yedioth Ahronoth, then we are dealing with a slightly different situation. In such a situation, we need to establish the fact that the claim and reaction ''is'' noteworthy... and to do that you need to have a solidly reliable third party source (ie a source other than News of The World) that mentions the fact that News of the World has made a claim and that Mr. Ahronoth has reacted to it by filing a lawsuit. Once you have established that the claim and lawsuit are noteworthy, then the claims made in the original News of The World article can be discussed and cited in context (ie as verification that the claim was made, and not as verification of what the claim happens to say). If we are discussing the fact ''of'' the claim, as opposed to the facts behind and within the claim, then we are essentially dealing with a ] issue rather than an RS issue. ] (]) 19:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::LOL!! I see what you are saying and I completely agree, I also believe that the paragraph in question conforms. Here is why. Mr ] (!!) is not the name of an involved party! It is the name of Israel's premier newspaper that published an article recounting the NOTW story and adding further comment an analysis! Funny funny!! So I think the sources are good when taken together - though an investigative report printed in the NOTW that didn't get any further coverage probably would not do, though I am reluctant to class the paper as a unreliable source, it does publish real journalism (and has had many history changing scoops over the years) along side the titties and "readers wives". But seing as the story was picked up by other (more classy) newspapers, I don't doubt the RS status of the sources when taken together. ] (]) 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::You can't add two sources together to create a composite reliable source. I have no idea if the Israeli newspaper is a reliable source. However, if they're sourcing articles from the News of the World, then that would certainly count against them.
	::::::''"I am reluctant to class the paper as a unreliable source, it does publish real journalism"'' - Are we talking about the same News of the World? The one published in the UK with topless photos of women with large breasts in every issue? The one that showed us "proof" that "Maddie McCann was abducted ALIVE"? The one that reported as truth that "90 per cent of people on benefits are scroungers" and that "Criminals are now officially entitled to better housing than war heroes"? It would be very, very, very hard to show that this tabloid is considered a reliable source by anyone, but you're welcome to try. ] (]) 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Yes precicely. The main thing is that they are subject to editorial review and libel actions like any other major corporation, that is to say, any error about a living person puts them at a risk of ''unlimited liability''. All the examples you quote have nothing to do with living people and are just polemic which we shuold not quote. But when they make an accusation against a living pesron they have to be meticulous with their facts, and on the few occasions when they have not been they have faces lawsuits. While I share you disdian for the paper and similar ones, we need to avoid bringing our own value judgements into this. We need to ask are the NOTW and the The Sun etc. reliable sources for information about people. Here is a list of some of the major journalistic scoops they have exposed in recent years along with some of the notable journalists who work for them: . I doubt there is a newspaper in the world that has not quoted or taken stories from the NOTW or ] (its weekday sister paper.) (sunday veriosn] (]) 01:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::''"The main thing is that they are subject to editorial review and libel actions like any other major corporation"''. By your argument, every single British news publication is automatically a reliable source, just because it is subject to British libel law.
	:::::::::I wouldn't go that far, but major ones, that have significant assets and readership, rather than just minor private local rags would do, that is the primary issue with BLP, to cover wikipedia's ass. As long as we are merely citing an established source, then we cannot face legal action. Note that the NOTW submits to the ]'s restrictive code of conduct and abides by its rulings (see ).
	::::::::''"All the examples you quote have nothing to do with living people and are just polemic which we shuold not quote."'' You can't pick and choose which articles are considered reliable - it is the ''source'' that is considered reliable, not individual articles.
	:::::::::The articles are not unrealiable, they are just polemical, attention grabbing, and sensationalist. They need to be much more careful when libel is involved. I think this is clear. A source does not need to be reliable for everything. The '']'' is not a reliable source on political discourse, but is on medical matters. ] (]) 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::''"Here is a list of some of the major journalistic scoops they have exposed in recent years"'' Five famous scandals since 1843 does not make them a reliable source. Please read ]. If you want to use the News of the World as a reliable source, then you must show that it is considered a reliable source by other experts and other reliable sources. You may personally believe that it is a reliable source, but your personal beliefs don't hold any weight here. ] (]) 01:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::It has external regualots and ombudsmen and so on. It is regularly cited in other newspapers, who clearly think that it is something of a reliable source. ] (]) 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	)
	::::::::::The point of ] is not "to cover wikipedia's ass" or that "we cannot face legal action". It is to ensure that articles are "based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Otherwise you'd just have people adding any old rubbish to Misplaced Pages.
	::::::::::''"A source does not need to be reliable for everything. The '']'' is not a reliable source on political discourse"'' Your example makes no sense - the BMJ is a medical journal, they do not publish articles on politics.
	::::::::::''"It is regularly cited in other newspapers, who clearly think that it is something of a reliable source."'' Prove it. If the News of the World really is a reliable source, then you should be able to easily demonstrate that it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" with academics, professionals and other news organisations.
	::::::::::''"The articles are not unrealiable"'' In a couple of minutes of Google searching I found "Maddie McCann was abducted ALIVE", "90 per cent of people on benefits are scroungers" and "Criminals are now officially entitled to better housing than war heroes". In what possible way are these articles reliable? And again, we don't judge individual articles for reliability - the source is either a reliable source for third party articles on Misplaced Pages, or it isn't. ] (]) 03:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::NOTW is a tabloid. We can't quote it in anything related to BLP. Simple as that. ] (]) 13:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Where does it say that being a tabloid automatically invalidates a source, all the newspapers in the UK are now in tabloid form apart from the '']'', what does the size of the paper have to do with reliablity? Also this is not exactly the question. The question is also asking if Yediot is a reliable source. ] (]) 13:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::YA is fine. On NOTW, see Jimmy Wales' quote on the BLP page. ] (]) 13:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Use some ]. If NOTW is a reliable source, then it would be okay to add the following to an article: "In Britain, criminals are officially entitled to better housing than war heroes"(citeNOTW). That would clearly not be a good thing for Misplaced Pages.
	::::::::::::You might want to check that your understanding of the word "tabloid" in this context of British English is correct - see ], as you seem to be confusing it with the print form factor. I guess it's an easy mistake for a non-native English speaker. ] (]) 16:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::People in Britain still do refer to the popular papers as "tabloids" but I would bet that the usage will gradually die out now that the serious papers are also printed in that format. "Red-top tabloids" or "red tops" is another attempt to distinguish between the two kinds of paper. Whatever way we look at it though the NoTW is a good example of the kind of paper ''not'' considered a reliable source in WP. ] (]) 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	(outdent)Non-native english speaker?! Thats nice, would you be so good as yo show me the linguustic errors I am making that would give you that idea? I suspect you are just joking or trying to be unpleasant, but I'll asume good faith. The stories you quote and mock, actually have quotes from various notable people and sources. So the question is can we refer to NOTW to cite those quotes. Do we think they are fabricating their sources? Nobody is suggesting that we use the opinion of the NOTW as sceintific sources. ] (]) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	Well, if Yediot is a reliable source I am satisfied. ] (]) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	:This is going nowhere. Lobojo, you're welcome to reply here and have ] but the consensus is clear that NotW is not a reliable source. ] (]) 18:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	:''Thats nice, would you be so good as yo show me the linguustic errors I am making that would give you that idea?'' I didn't mean to offend you, but you mistook "tabloid" as a reference to the form factor of the paper when it was clear from the context that the writer meant a different usage of the word. This is not a mistake a native English speaker would usually make. I also noticed that your posts contain many spelling mistakes (linguustic precicely shuold disdian pesron unrealiable reliablity asume) and non-capitalisation of "wikipedia" "english" etc., and the fact that you were asking about an Israeli newspaper led me to think you were probably not a native English speaker. I fully accept that this may have been an erroneous assumption on my part, and I apologise if you interpreted my writings as a deliberate attempt at offence. ] (]) 17:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Yediot is ''Israel's premier newspaper''? Not. It is the most widespread newspaper and but it is a tabloid. When I read anything in it (I try as little as possible) it is with a grain of salt. I would limit references to it in controversial issues. --] (]) 19:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
	== ''Uncovering the Right on Campus'' ==
	I'd like wider input on this book ''Uncovering the Right on Campus: A Guide to Resisting Conservative Attacks on Equality and Social Justice'' ISBN: 9780945210078, specifically its chapter on its piece by Jennifer Pozner (formerly of ]) called 'Female Anti-Feminism for Fame and Profit.'
	I agreed with this source's removal for ] because it is not directly linked to the subject and it would constitute ] to include it there. However the user who removed it did so becuase they consider its author to be "far left". This characterization is utterly incorrect and borders on being a BLP issue. I think this is a reliable source in regard to its primary subject, ], and that it should be useful in articles directly relating to her and her work. Any thoughts?--] <sup>]</sup> 16:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	One editor persists in repeatedly re-inserting unreliable sources (blog posts, articles in student newspapers) into the article. This same editor is also trying to discredit an article published in ''Salon'' (which generally ''is'' a reliable source) because he claims it was "heavily panned" &mdash; but all he has cited in favor of this premise is the same unreliable sources. This editor, ], has made ]. His understanding of Misplaced Pages policy seems to be relatively sketchy, though he has been advised of sourcing requirements several times. ] 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	:This does not seem to be an issue for this noticeboard. You already know that blog posts etc. are unreliable sources in general. What, specifically, are you questioning the reliability of here? ] (]) 03:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	::''I'' know that blog posts are unreliable sources, but apparently ''he'' refuses to accept this - he's put them back in a couple of times. Also, there is some question as to whether student newspapers should be included at all (this isn't just limited to him), and also whether repeated citations of '']'' constitutes ]. It would be nice to get a broader perspective on these latter two issues. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<font http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&action=edit&oldid=183878303
	Editing Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - Misplaced Pages, the 💕
	color="#11A"><b><tt>***&nbsp;Crotalus&nbsp;***</tt></b></font>]] 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::A student newspaper ''might'' be a reliable source - it depends on the paper; some are, not all are. "Asian Week" does not look like a reliable source to me, but it is up to the editor claiming that it is to show that to be the case. ] (]) 03:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::The blog post has been , in what appears to be a violation of ]. He's claiming now that since the blogger is labeled a "managing editor," it's OK to cite a blog. Nonsense, of course; many of the more prominent bloggers (especially in the political arena) are professional or semi-pro, but their blogs are still blogs and not reliable sources. ] 04:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
	== Dissertations? ==
	Are dissertations considered a reliable source? I've never had to deal with using them as a reference before so I've never run into this. I would assume that because they are reviewed by a panel of academics that they would be but I can't find a specific reference within ] and I'm not sure what the verifiability of a dissertation would be. Thanks. --] 05:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
	:I've seen dissertations used as references effectively in a few articles. One criteria that could be helpful would be to look at the sources quoted in the paper. If it's well-referenced, that would lend credibility. Another criteria could be - was it self-published by the student on their own website, or by the university? If published by a university, that seems to add some reliability. --] (]) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Since the dissertation was added by a person other than myself I haven't had time to check what it's sourcing. However it does look like it's been published by the university, Columbia. The only links I can find for this online seem to be either columbia login only or one of those 'pay for full copy of the dissertation' sites. Not sure if this has any influence over the reliability or not. --] 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::In general dissertations will be a reliable source. However, if they are a primary source for new research, and your interpretation is disputed, then it would be best to find a secondary source discussing the dissertation. Also weight it appropriately - an undergraduate dissertation will usually not have been subject to as much review as, say, a PhD thesis. In fact, some undergraduate theses don't undergo formal review, but are merely marked, so falsehoods aren't corrected; in these cases, it would not be a reliable source. The fact that you have to pay for a copy has no relevance; books also cost money. Googling I found the author of the text you cite is now "assistant professor in the Holocaust and Judaic Studies Program and the Department of History at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida." and the article you cite is not just a dissertation but has now been published as a book by Wayne State University Press. It's a reliable source, but you should probably cite the book. ] (]) 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::Ah interesting, I'll have to get my hands on a copy then. The content that it is sourcing is not disputed, it just needs a source, however when I read that it was a dissertation sourcing it I began to wonder about the reliability of using one as a source since I'd never used a dissertation before and I'm not all that knowledgeable about th ins and outs of that process. Thanks for all the answers! --] 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::Warning, warning, warning. Even what seems to be an unimpeachable source can not always to be trusted. ex. As part of my profession I once dealt w a man who used "University of Chicago" as a reference. When I tried to call, the telephone operator was very clear "There is no such place as University of Chicago. There IS a University of Illinois AT Chicago". Surprise, no one at the university had ever heard of this man. Checking sources is ALWAYS much more difficult than it seems.] (])
	::::Some details of the example may have escaped you. See our article on the ], founded in 1890. ] (]) 02:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	In Britain some PhD thesises are published and a great many are deposited, unpublished, in National Libraries or in university archives. If published it is more than likely that, unless they are ground-breaking revelations, the print run will be minute. But again, copies will be in the National Libraries as it is a legal requirement. Therefore, upon request at those places, you should be able to access those source materials. So I cannot see why such scholarly works cannot be offered as sources. Regards, ] (]) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
	== Domestic violence information ==
	An anon editor removed this information from ]. I double checked it and reinstated the info that was borne out by the sources. These sources are available online.
	The first source is 'Claims about husband battering' reprinted from ''Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre Newsletter'', Summer 1999, authored by the academic ].
	The second is a reprint of Michael Flood's fact sheet on ''How the fathers’ rights movement undermines the protections available to victims of violence and protects the perpetrators of violence''.
	The fact sheet might be debatable as a RS - however both was removed by ] on the grounds of ] - ie not "''reliable, third-party, published with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy''". I believe he is quoting selectively. Policy states clearly that (as long as the self published source is not a blog/personal website etc): "''Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.''"
	Michael Flood lectures in Sociology at the University of Wollongong. He was a Postdoctoral fellow at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society. He has published on this field, but from the opposite point of view of many Father rights advocates, as can be seen on his article here on WP. Also this source is only being described (as per ]) it is not being used to interpret anything else. It was included to make the section comply with NPOV.
	The passage that these were added to is ]. The removed content criticizes the use of certain studies by Father's rights groups.
	--] <sup>]</sup> 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	Update: After a little digging I was able to find (just using Google Scholar) 7 documents citing Flood's - the majority of them Australian government documents. wider input on this issue would be much appreciated--] <sup>]</sup> 14:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
	: Sources have to be evaluated in the context they are used, as we are not only concerned with the reliability of sources (which is not an absolute measurement), but with ] as well, in particular undue weight aspects. You will need to discuss this at article's talk. ] <small>]</small> 14:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the reply Jossi. I think it is an NPOV issue really. These sources were being used to reference a 2 line academic criticism of some Father's rights movement statistics. The POV of the father's rights movement takes up the majority of the paragraph - its critics take up 2 lines. Considering the number of criticisms of these stats 2 lines is short but I think anymore would indeed be undue. The talk page was deadlocked - I have found other sources published in The ''Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health'' and by the ''Australian Institute of Judicial Administration'' - we'll see if this resolves the issue. Thanks for the reply--] <sup>]</sup> 17:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
	== Football Teams ==
	This is related to ]. A large number of articles about "national" football teams have been created using this source http://roonba.50webs.com/ . There are no other seeming sources. Can http://roonba.50webs.com/ on its own constitute a reliable source? ] (]) 18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	:I would have to say no, it does not constitute a reliable source. I don't see any "about us" information on the page that tells me it is anything more than a personal fan website. How do we know that the information listed is accurate? Where does the website obtain ''its'' information? What sort of fact checking is in place? Since we don't know, we can not rely on it. ] (]) 19:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	== Roads2HyCom ==
	Hi, there is discussion on ] about Roads2HyCom, which is a project from the university of Aachen, it runs as a wiki however editors are granted acces on request, point is they are collecting extensive information, like on watermanagement in fuel cells, hydrogen valves, hydrogen infrastructure, etc, articles in general are referenced, so as it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception, (read the last two words), i would like to have your opinions on it. thanks. ] (]) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
	:: Wikis are not generally considered a reliable source because of the fact that anyone can publish there. However, this may be ok if it is the only source on a particular subject. If a better source is available i would leave this one out. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 18:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
	== - Television and radio industry news, data and analysis ==
	I've never really understood where there line is drawn, particularly when the legal disclaimers, naturally, try and disclaim liability for everything. I haven't looked, but it is it the case that even the likes of the BBC, The Times etc have such disclaimers ?
	Anyway, on to this one -
	''"Whilst we take every care to ensure that the information on this website is accurate and complete, some of it may be supplied to us by third parties and we are unable to check its accuracy or completeness."''
	http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/terms_and_conditions.html
	Published by medium sized publisher ] -
	''"A mostly paid-for publication, Broadcast has a circulation of 12,269 (ABC audited) and readership of over 72,000 industry professionals"''
	http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/about-us.html
	If it wasn't for the 3rd party supplied material or if it was syndicated from PA/Reuters etc, I'd have said reliable, but since we don't know, what do you make of it ? Thanks -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(]<span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span> ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span> ])</span> 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
	:: I think legal disclaimers shoiuld be largely viewed as a 'get out' in case someone doesnt fact check properly, i doubt it effects the reliability a great deal. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 18:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::If a news source isn't willing to go to court to validate the truth of what it claims, then it probably isn't a reliable source. Such "get out" clauses are generally used by tabloids and other popularist news organisations to try and avoid legal action, or any requirement to correct errors in what they report. Reliable sources like BBC News don't have disclaimers saying "we don't check what we print, and don't claim that it represents an accurate version of events". ] (]) 11:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	== The reliability of a source ==
	See the discussion at ]. ] (]) 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
	== Saul David: The Indian Mutiny ==
	How neutral, reliable and '''third party''' ''source'' can Saul David and his book be considered in context of ]. This author is a BBC commentator, with this book as the only proof of his acquaintance of Indian history. However, his views appear so much oriented in favour of a certain POV that he is extensively cited on the said page to edit facts that were written there for ages now. He has become such a God of that page that sometimes it is stiffling. --] (]) 18:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Not really a scholarly book; "the most recent 'popular history' of events", according to one mention in peer-reviewed work; "bracing if conventional"; "a narrative histories reiterating the British version of the ‘Mutiny’"; and so on. I would urge against relying too much on works of popular history written by a popular broadcaster without peer-review. has doubts about it. ] (]) 09:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Saul David does not just work for the BBC, he has made programs for all of the UK’s TV stations. Moreover he is visiting professor of military history at the university of Hull, as such he is a recognised academic authority in the field of milliray history.] (]) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)]]
	Dr Saul David did a PHD in the Indina Mutiny. ] (]) 18:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]]
	== Misplaced Pages articles cannot be quoted? ==
	I understand that Misplaced Pages articles cannot be quoted, but can a writing in another article with a reference to an existing Misplaced Pages article be outright rejected on basis of this policy?
	That would simply amount to acknowledging that the original article used is a farce and the editors there are idiots? Reference: ] ] & ] (history sections of later two used). --] (]) 18:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
	:: Yes, it is not verifiable. What it acknowleges is that wikipedia articles are not always accurate and also subject to change. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
	== Pajamas Media ==
	Is a collaborative blog like ] a reliable source? // ] (])
	:link to their page - http://pajamasmedia.com/
	:link to their contact - http://pajamasmedia.com/pages/2006/08/contact_us.php
	:the source is being used to state that "pajamas media reported that...."
	:is it reliable enough for that style of phrasing? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
	:: Now you're also getting into the issue of notability. // ] (])
	:::Why would you claim Pajamas Media is a blog? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Well, the obvious reason is that it ''is'' a blog (or a collaborative blog). // ] (])
	:::::In its "About Us" section it states "Besides adding to its blog network, through its portal, PJM now provides exclusive news and opinion 24/7 in text, video and podcast from correspondents in over forty countries. Pajamas Media also has its own weekly show on XM satellite radio – PJM Political – and syndicates its original material like a news agency." That seems to be more than a "collaborative blog". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I fail to see how. ] (]) 06:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Pajamas Media is a right-wing politically extremist organization, and not all that notable. If they have anything worthwhile to say, it will be repeated in mainstream outlets, and we can use those as sources. If something is said only by Pajamas Media and not picked up by anyone else, it's probably either non-notable or inaccurate and should not be included in Misplaced Pages articles. Although it isn't a blog ''per se'', it is a blog ''aggregator'' (see , cited in the Misplaced Pages article) and thus is not a reliable source for anything except information about itself and its own operations. ] 08:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Right-wing yes, but "extremist" - that's just hyperbole. Pajamas Media appears to be the right-wing counterpart of ]. Currently Misplaced Pages links to Common Dreams 1435 times. Admittedly, the majority of these are not actual references in articles, but certainly a significant number are. Until we have a new policy that covers these kinds of sources on both sides of the political spectrum, we're going to have to be a wee bit more even-handed. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'm not sure how valid that comparison is, given that much of CommonDreams' content is reprints from mainstream sources like the AP. I just randomly opened links from the first 500, and got the Philadelphia Inquirer, the New York Times, two stories from The Independent, and a transcript of Q&A at the White House with Ari Fleischer. &lt;]/]]&gt; 03:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::We shouldn't be re-publishing original content from Common Dreams either; it is not a ], and for many of the same reasons. We should only cite Common Dreams when they are the only available source for notable content that was published elsewhere. According to their Misplaced Pages article, Common Dreams "re-publishes syndicated content from Associated Press, columnists such as the late Molly Ivins, and news stories from a number of mainstream mass-market newspapers." If the same reliable material is available freely from a more neutral site, we should use that other site instead. If Common Dreams is the only way to get the content online without charge, then that link is better than nothing and aids in ] the content of the citation. ] 04:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Perhaps a better comparison is to ], which is currently linked to over 1000 times on Misplaced Pages. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::PajamasMedia is more than just a collaborative blog. It includes notable media personalities, including names on the left, and it in venture capital to start with.
	::If it says "pajamas media reported that...." then it's worth using as a reference. In the example at the top of this section, a link goes to a PajamasMedia article by Nidra Poller, who also writes for National Review, City-Journal, among others. It's definitely not just some blogger without an organization standing behind them.
	::-- ] (]) 04:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::That's just the problem. Any right-wing extremist can go to ], ], or ] for a handout, and suddenly they've got an office, a respectable-sounding think tank name, and an "organization standing behind them." We need to take into account whether we're talking about a genuine movement, or just ]. The Scientologists have tons of money, too, but we don't go around generally citing them as ] just because they have a big and rich organization. ] 04:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::I seriously doubt it. There's clearly money in this. It's a real media business.
	::::Furthermore, it's possible to believe they could fool a lot of people but not David Corn.
	::::-- ] (]) 04:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::Actually we ''do'' treat the Scientologists as reliable sources on issues concerning the Church of Scientology. Though obviously we would not treat them as a reliable source on, say, ], where their views are so fringey and extreme that citing them would be a clear violation of ]. -- ] (]) 01:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Is there any evidence that this source is considered reliable by recognised reliable sources? Where is its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? If this really is a reliable source, show that they're cited by other reliable sources, and that they have such a reputation with those sources. The issue of money is irrelevant; tabloids often have a large income and are highly profitable, but that doesn't make them a reliable source. ] (]) 11:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	::That's a fair question but I don't think it can be the only criterion. PajamasMedia is still quite small in comparison to the networks. I think a lot of sources considered reliable on WP wouldn't pass that test.
	::The track records of its contributors is a gauge similar to what you're asking for. If their writers are commonly accepted by other reliable sources, then that says quite a bit.
	::-- ] (]) 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::It's not really a determining factor. To quote ], reliable sources are defined as "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The determining factor is the reputation of the ''publishers'', not the writers. The majority of blogs are unreliable sources, as ] acknowledges, because their publishers do not exercise editorial control. Pajamas Media seems to be no exception to that rule. -- ] (]) 01:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::Like anything, it depends on the context. Pajamas Media is probably not going to be the most reliable or objective source on most topics. But blogs can be reliable sources about themselves. It is possible that if Pajamas Media had some notable involvement in a subject, then we may want to go and cite Pajamas Media as the original source to ensure accuracy (along with 3rd party sources to show relevance), and in that limited case at least, they would be a reliable source. ] (]) 02:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::In addition, it's hardly a blog any more. It has , correspondents in 48 countries, and syndicates its original content. That doesn't make it the New York Times, but it's considerably more than just a blog. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::So does the Huffington Post. They're both still blogs. If a notable individual writes something on PJM, we can quote that person; but a person does not become a notable opinion purely through writing for HP or PJM. ] (]) 06:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I note in the page that Jay helpfully links above, PJM describes itself as a news blog. ] (]) 06:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::* "About Pajamas Media: Pajamas Media is a new blogging venture..."
	:::::* {{cite book
	| last = Luntz
	| first = Frank
	| title = Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear
	| year = 2007
	| publisher = Hyperion
	}} "right-wing bloggers, and a new group of centrist and conservative bloggers led by Roger L. Simon and Charles Johnson named their new blog Pajamas Media"
	:::::* {{cite journal|
	| last = Bruns
	| first = Axel
	| title = Methodologies for Mapping the Political Blogosphere: An Exploration Using the IssueCrawler Research Tool
	| year = 2007
	| month = May
	| journal = First Monday
	| volume = 12
	| issue = 5
	| location = Chicago
	}}"the usual suspects, U.S. pundit-bloggers ''Instapundit'' and ''Talking Points Memo'', as well as the commercial conservative group blog ''Pajamas Media''"
	:::::&lt;]/]]&gt; 06:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::"That's a fair question but I don't think it can be the only criterion." - It is <b>the</b> criteria. ] says:
	::::''This page in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.''
	:::"I think a lot of sources considered reliable on WP wouldn't pass that test." - Then they aren't really reliable sources, their use in any article should be strongly discouraged, and they should definitely not be cited in any controversial, notable, or BLP articles. ] (]) 10:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::You've made a big jump from "based on" to "use". While an article based only on Pajamas Media as a source, without 3rd party verification, would probably be deleted; that does not mean we cannot use them as a source in any possible context. ] (]) 12:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I think your semantic interpretation, in which it would be allowable to use any source in an article, so long as some other reliable sources are also cited, is a much, much larger leap, and one that I doubt you will find much support for. ] (]) 12:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::You have misinterpreted what I said. I did not say it was allowable to use any source in an article, what I said was that there are some exceptional cases when it would be allowable to use a source like Pajamas Media. People tend to take policy and guideline to their absolute extremes, and we need to remember not to throw common sense out the window. ] (]) 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	:the source is being used to state that "pajamas media reported that...."
	:is it reliable enough for that style of phrasing? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::I strongly doubt it; they don't have any reputation yet for the rigorous fact-checking that goes with investigative journalism. If their claim is picked up by RSes - say the Jerusalem Post, which might well be interested in this instance - then it can be reported as a notable claim. Otherwise I think we are stretching things a little too far. ] (]) 19:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	Let's get back to basics here. As ] says, '''"in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."''' The political orientation of the source isn't a criterion, nor is the medium used to publish it, nor is the number of editors nor even the fact that it has editors in the first place. (What do they actually do?) The nutshell statement instead gives five distinct criteria. Let's consider these and how they apply to Pajamas Media, and by extension to any other group blog:
	* '''Reliability.''' Some people seem to interpret this as meaning "is it compatible with my ideological outlook?", but it's more useful to think of it as a function of the remainder of the criteria. If a source meets the remaining criteria, I'd consider it reliable.
	* '''Third-party.''' Is the source published by the writer or a third party? Blogging platforms such as PM blur this division. The platform may be owned by the third party (PM in this case) but as far as I'm aware, the act of publication is carried out by the writer. I'm not aware of there being any intermediate stage, such as a piece going to an editor for review, before something is published. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.) It seems to be essentially a self-publishing platform for a number of approved contributors.
	* '''Published.''' Obviously unpublished sources can't be used, since they're not verifiable. This at least isn't a problem with online sources, though it may be an issue if pieces disappear from the web without being archived in places like archive.org.
	* '''Fact-checking and accuracy.''' This is the key issue. Does the source go through a process of review and checking? Quality publications have a highly structured approach to doing this (see for instance the ''Detroit Free Press'' ). Blogs generally don't have a process like this. Even newspaper blogs don't operate the same way as the rest of the operation - for instance, the ''Guardian's'' "Comment is free" blog editor, Georgina Henry, says: "I won't be doing what I've spent my life as an editor on the paper doing - close copy editing and going back and forth to writers working with them to change their pieces, improve their pieces or think about arguments they haven't thought about. The nature of the blog is that we will have to try and let go a bit and let peple say what they want within the bounds of libel and the constraints of our blogging guidelines." I'd be very surprised indeed if PM was run any differently.
	* '''Reputation.''' It's not enough to have a review process - the process also has to work and to be seen to work. If other reliable sources agree that a particular source is reliable and quote from it, we can say that it has a reputation for reliability. Is PM ever quoted by mainstream sources? A look at Google News suggests not.
	I'd also like to highlight two other important points mentioned in ]: "If the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." If a blog is the only source for an assertion of fact, that should raise warning signs. We should ''never'' rely on a blog as a sole source. Second, "Questionable sources ... include websites and publications that ... rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Most blogs are heavily reliant on personal opinions; they're effectively web-based op-ed columns, and we've always been wary about using op-eds as reliable sources (see e.g. ]).
	Given all of these issues, I think it would be advisable to avoid using PM and similar blogs as sources. -- ] (]) 00:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Avoid, yes. Eliminate all possibility, no. ] (]) 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Just so. We shouldn't shut the door on blogs - after all, it's possible that some might meet the criteria - but if we're faced with a choice between a blog and a non-blog RS, we should prefer the non-blog; and if the blog is the only source for a fact, we shouldn't use it. -- ] (]) 01:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree completely, but this is not a mere blog. To quote:
	:::: ''"PJM now provides exclusive news and opinion 24/7 in text, video and podcast from correspondents in over forty countries. Pajamas Media also has its own weekly show on XM satellite radio – PJM Political – and syndicates its original material like a news agency."'' .
	:::They have a "Supervising Executive Editor", "Supervising Editor" and regional editors with Nidra Poller, the writer of the article in question as the Paris Editor. They even have a 'Director of Business Development' a 'Technical Advisor – Advertising' and an 'Attorney'.
	:::It is my belief that there should be no problem with mentioning a report made by one of their regional editors and reporters as: "pajamas media reported that...." . <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 12:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for that input, Jaakobou. However, it actually highlights several of the issues that I raised above. There often seems to be a misconception that the ''status'' of a publication (newspaper, blog, broadcast or whatever), its ''output'' (commentary, original reporting, etc) or its ''organisation'' are what counts. Your comments address all three aspects - the fact that PM does original reporting and distributes its material via a number of outlets, and has a number of individuals described as "editors". But these '''aren't''' determinative factors. Go back to the nutshell criteria in ]: "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The criteria are about ''editorial process'' and the publication's reputation for applying that process. In the case of PM, it's completely unclear that they have any kind of process for fact-checking and accuracy (what do those "editors" actually do?), and from the lack of reliable third-party use of their reporting it seems unlikely that they have a mainstream reputation as a reliable source. -- ] (]) 12:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I'd appreciate a policy based explanation on what makes for "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" for the requested phrasing. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 15:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::If "reputation for accuracy" depends on the organization and not the writers and editors, then what you're saying is that no new news organization can be considered a reliable source, no matter who stands behind it.
	::::::I would then suggest that we not say "PajamasMedia reported" but say instead the author's name, and see if that name can stand on its own. As I said above, the article we're talking about is by Nidra Poller, who's written for several publications most of us would call reliable.
	::::::It seems to me that right-wing sources tend to be challenged here more often than left-wing ones.
	::::::-- ] (]) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: It seems to me that a blog is a blog is a blog, with inherently uncertain fact-checking and accuracy standards, so therefore it should be treated as just a collection of opinions regardless of who's writing what. It's one thing for a reporter to write something for his/her newspaper, where that paper's editorial policies are in force, and a completely different thing if that same reporter is opining on a blog site, where that blog's policies, or lack thereof, are in place. The exception would be if the blog is only being referenced because it has a reprint of a newspaper piece, or news broadcast video that can't be otherwise easily referenced. Another possible exception could be newspaper blogs that have the same editorial policies as the news section in their main newspaper. An example would be the Washington Post, which has as its editorial policy. The Post also maintains a number of blogs, like this one called . According to this Washington Post , the Post's blogs are suppose to be "''All blogs should draw on our principles for Washington Post journalism on the web, including meeting our standards of accuracy and fairness and rules for expressing personal opinions.''"
	:::::::: Yes, and this appetite for a blanket ban on blogs would also eliminate blogs by journalists, where they report the story behind the story, or include additional details on stories that were cut due to time and space limitations. These are an excellent source to bring additional detail and context into articles. ] (]) 01:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::'''Dhaluza''': The problem is that WP editors will never really know the reason why certain "facts" are deleted from a published newspaper or magazine article. Either the legal department or the editor-in-chief could have conceivably objected to these "facts" for a variety of possible reasons. As WP editors, we'll never know what happened and taking the journalist's word for why these certain "facts" were left out of the article sets a dangerous precedent. My opinion? Any information presented on blogs, unless they represent the opinions of a notable blogger and used in the subject's own WP article, should be taken with a grain of salt and not used to source facts in other WP articles. ] (]) 01:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: It perhaps might be worthwhile for Misplaced Pages to start a "Reliable & Unreliable Sources" project to mark at least the most popular alternative news media outlets like the Washington Post blogs, Common Dreams, Pajamas Media, and so on as being acceptible, unacceptible, acceptible under this circumstances, unacceptible under these circumstances, and such as a guide to Wiki editors unsure about which news outlets can be considered reliable. -BC aka ] (]) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
	== IMDB ==
	I'm sure this has come up before but i can't find it. Are bio's on Imdb considered unreliable or self-published? Do they have enough editorial oversight to be included in an article about a living person. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 15:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
	:There has been much debate on the reliability of IMDB. There has been no consensus that it is considered a reliable source, although some assert that it should be. IMDB republish information from anonymous users that is often wrong, and they don't name their sources. According to some editors in previous discussions on Misplaced Pages, it is difficult, if not impossible, to get such errors corrected. There is a discussion here on ] but it branches off into the topic of generally reliability of IMDB for everything else. Also note that the use of IMDB references in biographies has been criticised before eg. ]. I have not seen any evidence that IMDB is considered a reliable source by other reliable source and by film industry experts, so in my judgement it isn't one, but if anyone wants to present such evidence and argue that it is, then they're welcome to try. ] (]) 11:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	:: Basically some items of trivia appeared recently on a imdb profile in the exact wording that unsourced info appears on the wikipedia article which suggests to me that the imdb bios might be using wikipedia articles as a source making it unreliable itself. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 18:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::Amusing isn't it? The issue of the Misplaced Pages/IMDB feedback loop has come up before, and was one of the reasons IMDB was discounted as a reliable source. ] (]) 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	== ], Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari, Aisha and Mohammad, Robert Spencer ==
	Please comment/rule upon the reliability of these sources:
	* - see ]
	* - see ]
	* see ]</br></br>
	For the material removed through .</br></br>
	My personal view is that the first two compel the conclusions underlying the inclusion of the content. An additional and secondary source was requested so I provided the ] commentary of ], who's a published writer on the subject of ] and also occasionally engaged as a commentator on that subject by the ], ], the ] and numerous other publications and news sources.] (]) 11:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	: Given that ] is not a scolar in the subject his views are basicly no more reliable than any other random person. If notable enough (and avoiding ]) you could use it as a source to his own views. // ] (])
	:The first two are strong reliable sources. And using Spencer as an additional secondary source here seems to be exactly how he should be used, regardless of the POV issues some editors have with him. (And saying he's not a scholar when he's got multiple degrees in the study of religion is awfully silly.) ] (]) 12:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	::He has ''one'' masters degree in religious studies with a thesis about the conversion of an ] (]) to ]. So in other words he has no academic credentials as a scholar of ], and he certainly has no academic credentials as an expert on ]. If any reliable authority considers him a "scholar" in this area it would have nothing to do with his degrees. In the realm of silliness Kyaa's suggestion reigns supreme.] (]) 13:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::I think you're under the mistaken belief that a masters of religious studies only focuses on one religion, it does not. ] (]) 13:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I am not mistaken at all. I have years of first hand experience in the field of religious studies and ample knowledge of the nature of degrees in the field, at least here in the United States. Even if Spencer's thesis related directly to ] he would not have academic credentials as an "expert" since he holds only a masters degree. However, the truth is even more bleak since he may have taken a course or two on Islam at most given that his thesis belongs in the History of Christianity or some related field. From his academic credentials it would be correct to claim that he is a ] of ], and possibly whatever framework within which he undertook his thesis work (although the latter would be a weak claim since masters work is very superficial, and only the thesis work even remotely suggests intensive study of a subject matter). Your suggestion still remains silly and I suggest you stop making it unless you want to keep on pointing to Spencer's lack of academic credentials as an expert on Islam. Also, could you please explain what other degrees he holds in the study of religion as you claimed there were multiple such degrees above? Thanks.] (]) 13:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Being needlessly picky much? Thanks. ] (]) 13:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::So its picky to point out that you're suggestion about his academic qualifications simply doesn't hold water? Or is it picky to ask that you produce evidence of the multiple degrees you claimed he has? I don't find it picky to insist on the truth, particularly when something untrue is being flung around to support a particular perspective over another. Cheers.] (]) 13:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::The first two sources are primary sources not secondary sources. Spencer was discussed before. Spencer is not an scholar on Islam. He does not publish his works in presses that practice blind peer-reviewing. Having said that spencer is notable as a critic, so his views may be used in criticism of islam article but not in the main space--] (]) 13:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, and the first two sources were removed. It was only after the Spencer secondary source was added that it was removed. Removing the spencer source would have made sense and discussing that would make sense, removing it all is somewhat less sensible. ] (]) 13:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::That content dispute position should be addressed at the talk page. --] (]) 13:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::Remember, there are three ways to think about the word "source": It can refer to the Author (in this case Spencer), it can refer to the specific work by the author (in this case his opinion piece entitled: "Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 4, “Women,” verses 17-34") and it can refer to the medium (a book, a TV show, a website, a blog, etc.). Reliability can be affected by any of the three... Spencer the author ''is'' a reliable source for his views... "Blogging the Qur'an" is a reliable source for Spencer's views... but blogs are generally not considered reliable except in specific situations... and the Hot Air blog site is not a reliable source. If he had written the same thing in say the New York Times, or published it in a book, there would be no problem... but a blog posting changes things. ] (]) 14:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::We have discussed Spencer in the past for numerous times. He writes for public not for academic circles. He does not publish his works through academic presses that practice blind peer-reviewing. His essence of scholarship and his agenda has been questioned by several academics. Of course he is a reliable for his own article but not for other articles. If he says something that no respected academic says he should not be used, otherwise that scholar should be used instead of him. --] (]) 14:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::] does not require that an expert be published for academic eyes only to be an expert. If it does, please quote exactly where it does so so I may become enlightened. And simply because his viewpoint is challenged by others does not negate the fact that it is reliable and verifiable. IDONTLIKEIT doesn't hold much water, Aminz. ] (]) 14:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::In contentious issues, we should stick to peer-reviewed ''product'', not just the product of a person who has also published peer-reviewed work. ] (]) 08:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::As Aminz has said, we've discussed this issue of Spencer numerous times already. It's not simply his viewpoint which is challenged by others. It is his very competence in the subject which is challenged. The precise nature of his qualification, as well as the publisher, have all been examined in previous discussions. ] 18:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::His competence has been challenged by one scholar whose objectivity is open to doubt. Daniel Pipes has a PhD in medieval Islamic history from Harvard, and has strongly endorsed Spencer's approach. ] (]) 09:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::And Daniel Pipes' objectivity is not open to doubt? Don't make me laugh. ] (]) 06:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Daniel Pipes now grants credentials too and takes the responsibility of Spencer's works?!! Do you think Pipes has much time reading Spencer's books? According to the Nation, he seems to be pretty busy: "Based in Philadelphia and headed by anti-Arab propagandist Daniel Pipes, Campus Watch unleashed an Internet firestorm in late September, when it posted "dossiers" on eight scholars who have had the audacity to criticize US foreign policy and the Israeli occupation" --] (]) 11:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::Agreed in spirit. I think that Spencer's views could be considered an expert in the case, but this topic should be easily found elsewhere so we should avoid using his self-published blogging of the material and make an effort to find similar content published by a third party. I can't imagine that Islam is different enough that there aren't "Muslim Book Stores" out there with tomes of experts picking over every stroke of the pen of the Koran. I've suggested that the editors of that page find one of these on the talk page of the article. ] (]) 14:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::: is a third party publishing Robert Spencer where he raises on of the first two reports (re domestic violence and Aisha) in his analysis.] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::FPM has already been discussed on this page and is considered unacceptable. ] (]) 06:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	All three sources are unreliable. The first two, because they are primary sources. The third one, because up to date, no rationale has been given for his reliability.] (]) 11:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Please comment/rule upon the reliability of these sources:
	*http://www.awn.com/mag/issue5.07/5.07pages/demottppg.php3
	*http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,667918,00.html
	For the material removed through .
	It seems to me, as well as ], that these sources are unreliable. They display factual errors and seem to be highly promotional. Animation World Magazine does not have a final say as to whether a show was the network's highest-rated premiere. In fact, if it was, the network would have said so on television, etc. From my knowledge, this show was moderately popular with children only, especially the younger ones, and was never the number one highest-rated show on the network. Take Scooby-Doo shows, for instance. And Cartoon Network never made it that big on prime-time cable television, as Time Warner suggests. Nickelodeon seems to be the predominant network with contemporary Nielsen ratings. Cartoon Network doesn't even appear in the top 20. I remember it vaguely, but I am 100% certain that Cartoon Network shows weren't in there. And as Marcus said, there's no need to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Let all of us be satisfied and move on. ] (]) 13:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
	* Being the highest rated première in the history of one network is not that important anyway. This gets an official "who cares?" from me. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	**I agree 100% with you. That's one reason why it shouldn't stay. ] (]) 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	***It is shown just to show that it is the highest rated premiere. To me, it is also "Who cares?" but someone just had to delete them immediately. Why not just leave it alone if you don't like it? What I mean is like do you think other people care if they saw that source? They would just see it and leave it alone. It's like whether it's there or not, eventually people will look into it and not look into it again because they already know. And it just had to be deleted. Remember that we don't control those people especially American kids. If they like the Powerpuff Girls, let them. If they don't like or don't give a damn at all, let them. Why do you even bother? I have a feeling that now I know why Marcus2 is getting on Rattis1 and Night Leon's nerves. He doesn't care what others think. He would just delete them whether the American kids chose to love the Powerpuff Girls or hate them and I have a strong point that Marcus2 has this problem. He doesn't care about any other people's feelings. And no offense but, he seems to be only thinking about himself. And I hope you are not that kind of person because that kind of person never think out of the box. ] (]) 05:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
	*Nothing wrong with these sources or there presentation. There is a problem with a kid and/or his mom edit warring, ranting, and forum shopping to find new rant locations. ] (])
	== Youtube ==
	IMO there should be a definite guideline for links to ]. There are multiple problems with them. Many of them are self-published of unknown or dubious authorship. Some of them are copyright violations. Any of them may be removed at any time, and many of them linked in wikipedia are already dead. Currently there are several thousand links to youtube in the main namespace.
	Any opinions? `']] 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	:We can not have a general opinion about everything which is on youtube. Each case should be judged separately. Sometimes youtube is usefull. Regarding copyright problems it was a long discussion which ended in no consensus.--] (]) 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	:: To make this clear, that was not a discussion as to youtube's reliability as a source but a proposal for automatic removal of youtube in external links, obviously not everything on youtube is a copyright violation so there was bound to be objections to automatically removing them all. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Can you give a link to the discussion? `']] 22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::With pleasure. Check ].--] (]) 22:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Generally youtube would follow the same rules as any source that has no editorial oversight. In most cases it's unreliable, unless it's a channel by a reliable source and there is no doubt to the authorship. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Exactly. http://www.youtube.com/BBC would be reliable (BBC is the publisher, YouTube is just the delivery mechanism). This is the exception though; when YouTube is in effect used as a self-publishing mechanism/video blog, then the usual reliable source rules apply. But also consider that YouTube is often a primary source of new data; in this case, Misplaced Pages articles should preferably cite secondary sources discussing these primary sources. ] (]) 10:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	== Question About Extremist Sources ==
	Does "themselves" in the guideline below mean that an extremist source can be used only in an article about itself, or does the plural infer that extremist sources can used in articles about each other? For example, could a Christian apologist scholar be used as a source regarding the notoriety of an organization promoting atheism?
	''Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.'' ] (]) 07:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Good question, actually. There is a tendency on WP to use extremist X to talk about extremist Y, when X and Y are on opposite sides of the spectrum. This is possibly because both X and Y are so marginal only the people who really, really hate them or really, really agree notice that they exist.
	:However, extremist X is not really a reliable source for extremist Y unless they happen to be part of the same broad movement. ] (]) 07:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	:The purpose of the anti-extremist clause is to stop the propagation of unreliable information through Misplaced Pages. For that purpose, allowing extremists to be used as reliable sources for other extremists makes no sense. Why would one set of extremists be considered experts on another set of extremists? And note: "and even then with caution"; extremists are not always reliable, even when commenting on themselves, and if other sources are available then they should be preferably used. ] (]) 10:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::I am unsure what the 'purpose' of that clause is, frankly; I see no reason why it needs exist when WP:NPOV insulates us from extremist viewpoints by definition. If it exists as a reminder, then it is patently obvious that Stormfront is a reliable source for information on Neo-nazis, whether or not there is any direct affiliation. Which is why I said "broad movement" above.
	::I agree, however, that if other sources are available, they should be used. ] (]) 10:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	Thanks for your help, Relata and Chris. I'd appreciate any guidance you could provide regarding about a pro-atheist organization. It's a difficult situation, because the non-profit corporation operates mostly as an online publisher in a niche little covered by printed sources. The organization's officers have ponderously removed important self-published information from (and about) their online publishing assets that would provide balance to the Wiki page (WP?), but continue to rely on primarily self-published material for the article. A former corporate officer (Lippard) of the organization is adding material (self-published by the organization) without prior discussion, and appears to be claiming NPOV. ] (]) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::In general, even two sources part of the same movement are not necessarily reliable about each other--factions always exists, and may not be obvious to those unfamiliar--and the names are often chosen so as to disguise any disagreements. It would probably be a mistake to assume that all neoNazis like each other, or will give a reliable account of what another member of the movement believes. I would not trust a Christian apologist to represent all Christians--many of the greatest have slanted their expositions to a particular denomination. ''']''' (]) 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	== Weekly Kinyobi (magazine) ==
	Could someone please make a judgement about whether this is a viable source for use on Misplaced Pages or not?
	It's a Japanese magazine called "''Shukan Kinyobi''" literally "Weekly Friday".
	I tried to use it on the ] page, but was told it is part of a North Korean propaganda machine that created the "] problem" or something like that.
	Thanks for any input, and any peer reviews on the ] or ] pages are quite welcome.
	Here is the magazine's website http://www.kinyobi.co.jp
	] (]) 08:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	== Can newspaper Op-Ed's ever be considered reliable sources? ==
	From what I can see, newpaper op-ed's are generally unvetted opinion pieces, very much like letters to the editor . Obviously, the content can run from malicious to , but in either case, it is still just opinion. Obviously, as with opinions in general, you have a far, if not extreme range of credibility in op-ed writers.
	So my basic, hopefully simple question is: can a Misplaced Pages article ever use an op-ed as a ] for content, especially if it involves a politically-tinged story or anecdote where the op-ed is the sole source? -BC aka ] (]) 15:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Nothing published in a newspaper is unvetted. It all has to have editorial approval and, if necessary, pass the newspaper's lawyers. The newspaper is publishing it and therefore legally liable for its content. An op-ed piece is no different to someone writing a book with their opinions in and having it published. It still counts as a published source, and at the very least legitimately represents a particular viewpoint. However, like all sources it has to be used judiciously. If it states a remarkable point, which no other source has repeated, then that needs to be made clear and not treated as a widely accepted fact. ] (]) 16:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Much published in newspapers goes unvetted, as you would know if you havd ever worked in the industry, and is so demonstrated by the continuous levels of complaints to the ] and to the High Court in the form of ] actions. To me, newspapers are one of the least trustworthy sources I could possibly think of. Literally one-day wonders. Until quite recently journalism was universally regarded as the lowest 'profession'. Newspapers publish endless lies and utterly twisted stories. Surely Misplaced Pages can do better than that. Next you'll be citing the notorious ]. Regards, ] (]) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::Newspapers are accepted as sources on wikipedia, as is the BBC. ] (]) 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::It all depends on what you are citing it for... An Op-ed piece is a reliable source for statements about what the author said in the piece... for statements about the opinion of the author... but it would not be reliable for statement of facts. So, if Al Gore writes an Op-ed piece in which he says: "The sky is falling"... you can say things like "Al Gore has stated that the sky is falling<nowiki><cite to op-ed piece></nowiki>", or "According to Al Gore, the sky is falling<nowiki><cite to op-ed></nowiki>"... but you can ''not'' say: "The sky is falling<nowiki><cite to op-ed piece></nowiki>. In other words, information taken from an Op-ed pieces should be phrased as being the opinion of the author and directly attributed. Do you see the difference? ] (]) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::I'm thinking in terms of an Op-Ed piece written by a non-notable or partisan author stating something like, say, "Al Gore believes the sky is really falling" and then having a Misplaced Pages editor sourcing that to add "Al Gore believes the sky is falling" in the ] wiki as a statement of fact because the Op-Ed was published in, say, the ]. Would this be kosher? -BC aka ] (]) 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::: See ] for an argument for "no" ] (]) 17:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Short -- too short -- but very applicable, especially in the way ] get created and endlessly circulated among political media sites these days. You have an unproven assertion (perhaps even one easily disprovable with little research) appearing in an Op-Ed column in a less than journalistically stellar newspaper, which then gets picked up on by some bloggers who take it as a fact and spread it around some more, and which eventually makes it into a Misplaced Pages article with a ref back to the newspaper as a reliable source.
	:::::: But ] is only an essay -- can this really be used in an argument to remove a highly dubious factoid, especially one that has some hard nosed defenders, from a Misplaced Pages article? -BC aka ] (]) 18:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	(ec) I agree with Blueboar - published op-eds acquire a certain visibility, and an opinion expressed on the op-ed page of the ''New York Times'' may be more notable than one expressed on a blog. However, op-eds are a dime a dozen, and efforts to include a specific op-ed are sometimes efforts to prominently display a particular POV. In any case, op-eds are not news, and need to be cited and attributed as opinion rather than fact. What's the specific source you have a question about in reference to this? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	:See also ] and ]. ] (]) 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	:: (ec)I agree with MastCell that some details about what fact, what newspaper, etc etc would be helpful at this point. ] (]) 18:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::: I have to be really cautious here -- my, um, "spirited debates" on the matter has gotten me into some trouble in the past, as well as caused some sort of OTRS (I don't know any of the details, though.) But in any case... is a cache of the Op-Ed (it's no longer on the newspaper site). It's the "Mother's Day" anecdote that's the issue. If you Google "Mother's Day" with the author's name, you'll see that the anecdote got some circulation among conservative/right wing blog/media sites, but that Op-Ed is the sole source of the anecdote. Even though the Op-Ed was from a few years ago, the Mother's Day bit was to a Misplaced Pages article just this past September. I first tried to remove it on the basis of certain content issues, and then tried to at least get it modified, but it has been a battle, to say the least. I belatedly discovered that it was only an Op-Ed opinion piece, which struck me as being perhaps in violation of Misplaced Pages's policies regarding reliable sources; however, ] doesn't discuss at all Op-Eds or even editorials in general, and ] doesn't seem to clarify things either. I've cited ] and such in the past to no avail. ] seems to be the closest applicable guideline I could find. It just seems logical that opinion pieces should not be considered reliable sources, with the only exception being as described above -- if it's written by a notable person, like Al Gore, and used only in the context of showing what his opinion is. A penny for your thoughts.... -BC aka ] (]) 19:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::A difficult point. If it is the case that this particular op-ed is frequently quoted, it counts as a notable opinion from that point of view. However, as a source of facts - "A former member of the Home Guard has pointed out that Bush's physical was on Mothers Day, when he seems to recall everything was shut" - I think it sounds faintly ridiculous. The man's credentials alone don't really qualify him as a notable opinion, but if the piece is widely quoted it might be notable. I'd lean towards is not being notable enough for inclusion in a piece on the controversy if uncorroborated in other reliable sources, especially in those reporting facts. ] (]) 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Apparently the Campenni "Mother's Day" report was published as a guest column, not a blind letter to the editor. The newspaper did check what Campenni was stating, they did not publish it as a random letter. Campenni also mentions records which support his explanation, and that he is speaking as someone who was there so has some authority about the situation. (details of the previous discussion are in the article Talk page and archives) From a glance at the Washington Times archives, the paper apparently knows him well enough to have published several items from him. -- ] (]) 04:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: As I've already cited, , Op-Eds appear to be opinion pieces generally treated much more like Letters to the Editor than news pieces that are fact checked. That Media Center lists the ], where the Op-Ed appeared (and which has, shall we say, an ) down at 100th place in national circulation, and the ] at 4th. The Post, like most newspapers, copyedits opinion pieces, but does not vet them for accuracy. From that , there is this exchange between the Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, and a reader:
	:::::::'''Washington, D.C.:''' "''Hi, My question is regarding the opinion/editorial sections of the newspaper. I think that these columns should be fact-checked before being published. I don't think that they should get a free pass on facts just because they are opinion pieces. Recently, The Post has been carrying articles that have been outright lies''."
	:::::::'''Deborah Howell:''' "''Fact checking is done by the columnists. Copy editors do a lot of checking, but it is not like fact checkers in the magazine world. If columnists make a mistake, those are usually corrected in their columns or on Page 2 if the columnists are in the news pages''."
	:::::: If the Post doesn't fact check opinion pieces for accuracy, as apparently is the case generally with newspapers, why should we expect a much less reputable publication like the Washington Times to do so? And in regards to Campenni, some if not most of his contributions to the Washington Times have indeed just been letters to the editor: , . And considering that his letters and op-eds only circulate among conservative/right wing media sites, especially blogs, that doesn't appear to make him a notable enough authority to give his opinions a "Reliable Source" source to justify adding content based on them. But that's just my opinion, which is why I'm bringing up the matter on this noticeboard. -BC aka ] (]) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: We don't expect them to check facts on the Op-Ed page. But in this case they didn't just print the words, they did check what he was saying. You'll have to challenge this specific article on a different basis than the general policy about opinion pieces because the newspaper did treat it differently than a "too many potholes in the city" random op-ed. He's being used for the Mother's Day information, he has records supporting what he says, he has the experience to interpret the records, he has actually done scheduling for that squadron (and removed holidays from that schedule). -- ] (]) 15:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: The problem with these points you raise is that you're commenting as though you were told these things or heard them from someone else -- they are not in evidence anywhere. And according to this : "''Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.''" We've gone in endless circles over this, which is why I'm posting the situation here to get more neutral and authoritative opinions about whether an Op-Ed piece, which it certainly was, that was printed in a conservative/right wing newspaper, which the ] certainly is, that only circulated in the greater conservative/right wing mediasphere, which was certainly the case, meets Misplaced Pages criteria as being enough of a reliable source to allow inclusion of content based on it. -BC aka ] (]) 17:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	::: The "highest" level where the anecdote was quoted was in the ] (down towards the bottom). And even the Misplaced Pages article on the ] calls it "''an example of advocacy journalism, a genre of journalism based around the expression of ideological opinion''," which makes that publication rather dubious as a reliable source as well. With the election season getting into gear, we can expect a great many ] being created and spread, and with little help, as was the case in 2004, from traditionally reliable mainstream news sources in sorting out what's real, what's not, and even what's utter nonsense. Aside from this particular issue, it might be good for Misplaced Pages to better clarify its guidelines for acceptible sources and refs, and under what circumstances exceptions, if any, can be made. You have the situation now with the mainsteam media running their own blog sites of uncertain reliability, and with politically progessive web sites like ] seemingly now being more reliable than many mainstream sources.
	::: As a secondary issue to the use of Op-Ed pieces, suppose the only source for a particular story that becomes widely circulated is an Op-Ed or blog piece. Let's also suppose that the story gets ignored or mentioned/passed along uncritically by one or more mainstream news sources. And finally suppose that the veracity of the story can be easily challenged by looking up primary sources, i.e., calendar dates, FOIA documents, government records, or such -- at what point does sourcing cross over into ] if there is no other way to judge something, widely circulated or not, likely true or false, especially in terms of providing the best available info for a hopefully accurate Misplaced Pages article? -BC aka ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::I suppose you could say that "A former Texas Air National Guard pilot has claimed that the base would have been closed on Mothers' Day, when Bush's physical was allegedly scheduled." I don't think you can say anything more definite than that with the sources you've pointed to. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::: But does something like "''A former Texas Air National Guard pilot has claimed that the base would have been closed on Mothers' Day, when Bush's physical was allegedly scheduled.''" belong in an encyclopedia/Wikipedia article? <personal attack removed following previous complaints ] (]) 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC) >
	::::::?? How was that a "personal attack" exactly? I was referring to the ], which is undoubtedly a highly conservative news source, and the story in question indeed only got circulated among other conservative/right media outlets and blogs. The political aspects are central to the whole topic matter, and I do believe it's not exactly appropriate to redact references to this, especially under the label of "personal attack". Your reasoning here would be most appreciated. -BC aka ] (]) 15:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: An individual complained earlier about your personal attacks. Your phrasing was interpreted as a non-factual observation about that person. -- ] (]) 15:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: That still doesn't explain what you did in this context - I was referring to the Washington Times and conservative/right wing media. Again, how does "personal attack" fit in here? -BC aka ] (]) 17:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::: And while we're on that particular Wiki article, another source (so to speak) of contention involves : if you take a look, you will note a certain lack of refs regarding a "Air Force style manual" that gets mentioned. Until it was reverted a month ago, there had been a reference to the I had put in a little while back. One of the arguments against my including that ref was that it constituted ], and that was the reason given for .
	:::::: The reason given for removing the "Air Force style manual you kept including in the article was that it was a version from 20 years later and couldn't be shown as relevant. It seems you are using this noticeboard as a way to fish for justifications to go back and make your changes to various articles which you feel strongly about. It might be better to avoid these highly contentious subjects for a while. ] (]) 02:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: As has been discussed prior, the Wiki article refers very vaguely, with no refs whatsoever, to an unnamed "Air Force style manual" that supposedly shows the Killian documents having the incorrect format. However, as had been pointed out, the authoritative Air Force writing guide , as well as based on it, shows this not to be the case. So on one hand you have an utterly unsupported assertion; on the other, you have readily available refs -- in the Misplaced Pages world, what is suppose to have more weight? As far as your argument that the referenced "The Tongue and Quill" version was from 20 years later and hence not relevant -- again it had been pointed out with that the "The Tongue and Quill" originated in the mid-70's, only a couple of years after the time of the Killian documents, and that the revisions since only "''include improved organization of the information, a rearranged layout, updated quotes, art and word lists, and new information on writing and speaking such as persuasive communications, meetings, briefings and electronic communications.''"
	::::::: And further, the validity of the "The Tongue and Quill" as "the" pertinent ref was buttressed by contemporaneous to and even dated earlier than the Killian documents. These sample documents also match up with the format recommendations and samples from AF writing guides like the "The Tongue and Quill". It could be that the real question here is why you and some others have been so adamant about keeping assertions that are not only unreferenced, but are also contradicted by whatever references that can be located. It might perhaps be helpful for others on this noticeboard not familiar with the overall situation if you could explain that reasoning here for them. -BC aka ] (]) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Another "source" of contention was my inclusion of a from before and contemporaneous to the documents in question. For all the intense debates regarding formats, nobody had thought to locate other military memos from that era for comparison. In this case, there had been a lack of refs because the news media, for whatever reason, chose not to look this stuff up. What do you then do when you have a Misplaced Pages article discussing "Topic F" without any cites because there are no applicable reliable (or unreliable) sources to cite for "Topic F" aside using primary sources? Do you include those primary sources and risk charges of ], do you simply remove the Wiki section despite it being something that had been publicly discussed, or you just leave it in with a whole bunch of "''citation needed''" tags? Tricky business, no? -BC aka ] (]) 01:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	As you guys can see from above, this is not only tricky territory, but it's highly contentious, to put it mildly, as well. And there is more to it than the Op-Ed thing, so I'm really hoping for is some good, well-reasoned, authoritative guidance here that I can take to the appropriate Talk pages and get some long disputed issues finally put to rest. Thanks in advance for any assistance. -BC aka ] (]) 18:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
	*Op-eds are hardly unvetted--newspapers select (and pay for!) the ones they want to publish. Even individual items are sometimes--though rarely--not published in a particular newspaper. The relationship of the newspaper to the op-ed author resembles that of the publisher: they do not certify the accuracy as they do of news, but they do lend a degree of responsibility. and, as with a publisher, the authority beyond that is the authority of the particular writer and his reputation. Thinking of them as a "publisher" I think is the appropriate guideline for ther intermediate position.''']''' (]) 21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	: The central point, though, is that Op-Eds '''are''' still only opinion pieces when all is said and done. And if the newspapers publishing them do not certify their accuracy as they do news pieces, doesn't that by definition make them all fail Misplaced Pages's stated standard for Reliable sources? From :
	:*''Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.''
	: So, for example, in the case of the Washington Post, their news pieces go through a full fact-check vetting process to ensure accuracy, but by their own admission, their Op-Eds do not, meaning that Op-Eds from even one of the best US newspapers apparently do not meet Misplaced Pages's stated criteria for reliable sources. Me thinks. You thinks? -BC aka ] (]) 01:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Daniel Pipes is a prominent political commentator, so presumably his opinions may be cited (with proper attribution) when they appear in newspapers, books, and other similar sources. However, should opinions published on his blog be permitted in Misplaced Pages articles? In particular, on the '']'' article, was used as a source for the statement that "Muslim agitators have circulated a petition to have the book banned and censored" (stated without qualification) as well as Pipes' own opinion on the subject. The group allegedly circulating this petition, ], doesn't even have an article on Misplaced Pages and there is no evidence that the group or petition was notable. Anyone can start an online petition. Under ], blogs are generally considered to be unreliable sources, but someone insists on putting this back in again and again, arguing that Pipes' "opinion on the subject is inherently notable." ] 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
			== RFC Science-Based Medicine ==
	:I'd say his blog shouldn't be cited for such things. The lack of third-party fact-checking on blogs gives us a standing presumption against citing them, and that's particularly the case if the blog is the only source for the cited information. To quote ], articles relating to questionable sources "should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." And as WP:V goes on to say, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." If the information has been reported by a mainstream source, it's potentially usable, but not if it comes solely from a personal blog. -- ] (]) 15:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 02:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736474472}}
			Is the blog ] in whole or in part, a ]? ] (]) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Criterion ==
			*Comment for context: Note that a ] that Science-Based Medicine is considered ] and not considered ]. See ] for more details at ]. ] (]) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	There has been a pronouncement and extended in reverts to mean that certain peer reviewed journals are not to be considered as RS. Now some are obvious but much seems to be POV like item 6. In particular though I would like to establish the RS bonafides of
			:{{strikethrough|], is there a reason that you chose not to list this RfC on the Maths, science, and technology list? If not, would you mind adding that topic area to the RfC template? Thanks,}} ] (]) 19:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	1 |journal=Neuro Endocrinol. Lett.
			::Never mind, Raladic added it. ] (]) 20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Responses (Science-Based Medicine)===
	2. journal=Med. Hypotheses
			*'''Not SPS''' - Per the previous RfC, there seems to be no reason to rehash this. The editorial practices of SBM show that they do not act like an SPS and that has not changed since the prior RfC. So there appears to be no reason to deviate it from it now. What is the rationale for this repeat RfC other than to try to discredit it? SBM is one of the watchdog media that help keep ] science out of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' {{summoned by bot}}, @] has there been in discussion of this on this noticeboard since the last RFC? '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	3. Medical science conference papers such as ( {{cite journal |last= McGregor|first= N.R.|coauthors=Dunstan H.R. et al. |year= 1998| title= Alterations in Plasma Lipid Composition in Patients with CFS|journal= Conference Proceedings, The Clinical and Scientific Basis of CFS, Sydney 1998|id= P38| }} ) The abstract of which is note that the conference paper is cited not the website.
			*:OP created different RFC here: ] which was closed as a bad RFC as it was not neutral and editors pointed out the lack of RFCBEFORE on a reasoning of why this needs to be rehashed. Given that that one was just closed and now this new one was immediately opened again without any RFCBEFORE discussion, it similarly appears to be looking for a problem without information as to why this RfC is here without any new evidence that should change the established consensus of the community. ] (]) 03:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	Given that Wlki has a Cite Conference Template with examples similar to the one above I would assume that it is thus acceptable. The qualification given as to limit this seems to be POV also.
	AS this supposed criterion is still being used to revert edits an opinion as requested is sought. ] (]) 07:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)		*:There was a discussion from a few years ago listed on RSP that seemed very mixed as to whether SBM is a SPS ] (]) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''SPS'''. Per what they wrote on their site: "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" If people are able to publish directly, by themselves, without being reviewed, then that meets the definition of SPS and we need to treat it that way for BLPs. Noting that this only means that it can't be used for direct statements about living people, but can still be used for statements about the truth (or, more often, otherwise) of views held by living people, the views of the authors about living people, and statements about fringe theories themselves. - ] (]) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight - {{tq|After careful review, the editors of SBM decided to retract this book review. Because we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness, occasionally corrections need to be made post-publication. In this case we felt there were too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science, and leaving the article up would not be appropriate given the standards of SBM.}}, so this looks like exactly what you'd expect from a non-SPS. You basically just made the case why they are not an SPS. ] (]) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - ] (]) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::"''As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs''". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. ] (]) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as ]. ] (]) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! ] (]) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::This just seems like sealioning but here you go... ] (]) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::You have linked to several articles by ]. Where does it claim on those articles they are self-published? David H. Gorski obviously reviewed those articles, he is listed in the link you cited below as the other editor. There are two editors so this isn't self-publishing. ] (]) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). ] (]) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::The website says "''SBM is entirely owned and operated by the ]''" . So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella . This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. ] (]) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. ] (]) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology . My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! ] (]) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --] (]) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::Thanks for the correction. The dude looks young for his age, fooled me. ] (]) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::So between Jay, Steve, and Robert Novella it seems that we have a lot of relatives here. ] (]) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::What is your source for the organization having 25 employees? ] (]) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::{{Ping|Psychologist Guy}} you've claimed three times that the organization currently has exactly 25 employees... It is the core of your argument, but I don't think its true and I can't find it anywhere online... So how are you getting that number? ] (]) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			#::::::::::::It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. ] (]) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			#::::::::::::::Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. ] (]) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			#:::::::::::::::{{Reply|Psychologist Guy}} Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. ] (]) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			#::::::::::::::::I have contacted someone who should know about this; hopefully they get back to me and I can let you know what the current figure of their employees is with documentation if possible. ] (]) 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			#:::::::::::::::::{{Reply|Psychologist Guy}} it has been a week, did you find out anything useful? ] (]) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Not SPS''' This isn't a self-published source, the articles are reviewed before being published by an editorial board. The four current editors are: Steven P. Novella, David H. Gorski, Kimball C. Atwood, Mark Crislip. Guest editors can submit articles to the website, all of which are reviewed before publication. Critics of SBM are jumping a single retracted article that this is an SPS. Seems like a bad case of cherry-picking. There is no good evidence this is an SPS. '''Update''' There are two editors not four my mistake. The publisher is the ]. ] (]) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::That doesn't match what is currently on their website, they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. ] (]) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. ] (]) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? ] (]) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. ] (]) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. ] (]) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by ], it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. ] (]) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::The New England Skeptical Society, of which Novella is founder and president. ] (]) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Their own statement was "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" Given that, it is clear that in at least some cases, people can publish directly on SBM without being reviewed before publication. - ] (]) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''SPS''', seems to be pretty cut and dried at least when it comes to Novella's pieces (remember SBM claims to be a blog, its generally presenting personal opinions... When its two expert editors want to publish their actual work they do not publish it there but in real journals). I would also note that this discussion should include the sister blog NeuroLogicaBlog. If anyone wants to disagree with me they can lay out what editorial checks and balances would apply to Novella. ] (]) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. ] (]) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. ] (]) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own . There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. ] (]) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Is it two or several? ] (]) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:(How) does the following factor into your assessment that it's an SPS? In their of "Why Dr. Harriet Hall’s review of Abigail Shrier’s ''Irreversible Damage'' was retracted," they note that "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing," and that they "have mechanisms of quality control" for articles that are posted without prior review, including "clarification in the comments" and "corrections to the original text of the article." Their about outside submissions says in part "The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using an informal peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a 'rough and ready' peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission." ] (]) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. ] (]) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I was asking ], in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for ] as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." ] (]) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::With Quackwatch we came to a similar position - articles published by the editor are self published, but articles on the site by other authors are not. I'm ok with something similar here. The only problem is that all they say is "trusted authors" can post directly. I would read that as safe to assume people who do not regularly have articles posted on the site would not be trusted, but it doesn't say only the editors are trusted to publish without prior review. Thus there may be some gray area between the two. - ] (]) 21:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::The others are more a grey area for me, most of what we are currently using on wiki is pieces by Gorski and Novella... And we have discussions elsewhere about some guest authors like Harriet Hall not producing work of the same quality/rigor as Gorski and Novella. Its a bit of an odd situation, normally the editors are not also the authors and even when they are they're normally not the primary and most reliable authors. Its made extra odd because most of the editors/authors are subject matter experts so usable under EXPERTSPS no matter where we come down on general reliability. ] (]) 03:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''SPS'''. It's a group blog with some guest authors. Having multiple contributors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Having guest authors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Retracting a post does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. This language in ] is particularly relevant: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". As a pro-SBM editor argued in the aborted RfC, the need for SBM in Misplaced Pages is to enable wikivoice accusations of "grift, fraud and quackery" ''that cannot be sourced otherwise''. In other words, the reason this group blog has been elevated to a reliable source is to work around NPOV. - ] (]) 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) ] (]) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::That is a direct quote from ]. - ] (]) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. ] (]) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::If you have a problem with WP:SPS the appropriate venue is ] - ] (]) 21:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Comment'''. Do some people !voting here have a connection to the source? I see one editor referring to Steven Novella as "Steve" and another who may be affiliated with the New England Skeptical Society. I have seen some surprising interpretations of WP:COI in the past so I'm not sure if this is important, but thought it was worth noting. - ] (]) 18:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:That is also a great point and worth investigating as part of any close here. Looks sus at the very least... ] (]) 01:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''SPS'''. I personally think this source is fine to use on BLPs, but there is no way to honestly read our (convoluted, strange) SPS guidelines and not come to the conclusion that it is one. It is a small group of people most of whom publish without prior review on a blog. That they make arguments we like does not make it not a blog. ] (]) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''SPS'''. It's a group blog, but still a blog. Group blogs are specifically called out on ]. As noted above, SBM "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness". The fact that they later retracted one article doesn't negate that the norm for "trusted authors" (probably including regulars, and definitely including the owners of the site such as Gorski and Novella) is to publish without any editorial review of the author's work. Hence, it is clearly by and large an SPS.
			:The claim that we need this to not be an SPS to effectively fight fringe and quackery is often made but I've never seen it backed up with an example of a fringe topic whose Misplaced Pages article would become credulous to pseudoscience without it. There are plenty of published and even academic sources that stuff like homeopathy is pseudoscientific, quackery, etc.; we are perfectly capable of sourcing something like "John Smith is an advocate of homeopathy, a pseudoscientific practice" in just about any case it is needed. SBM being an SPS also doesn't preclude its use in cases of ], as pro-fringe sources themselves are often SPS or otherwise poor. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The ] article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. ] (]) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::There's no shortage of reliable sources establishing that the germ theory was a huge advance in medicine and that we have basically incontrovertible proof of it for maybe thousands of diseases.
			::: - ] (]) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::But using any of those sources to draw conclusions about the specific claims of a particular germ theory denialist would be ]. ] (]) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*<s>'''Reliable SPS'''</s> - can be used to describe fringe theories proposed by people as discredited or as quackery, including on a bio... should not be used to describe people themselves as quacks. ] (]) 00:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:'''Partial SPS''' - saw some of the info of arguments below from CoffeeCrumbs, and FactOrOpinon. I think the partial peer-review for some articles is... frustrating for a direct answer, but if there is peer-review on an article, it should stand as non-SPS material. ] (]) 01:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''SPS''' - We see at ] that an SPS has clear rules and restrictions, such as not being used '''ever''' for a ], absolutely '''never'''. Some seem to be arguing that this obvious SPS should for some reason be granted an exception to the clear language of "'''never'''" and should be allowed on biographies of living persons in some cases (or in many). There are many reasons why that is not allowed generally, but we have now learned that this source is essentially the soapbox of primarily only ''two individuals'', and most importantly, is not part of a media outlet or organization or inclusive of any external (or even further internal vetting). No, rather, it is a '''blog'''. An SPS '''blog'''. One perhaps run by scientists, two scientists, but a blog, nonetheless. Again, quoting directly from WP:SPS, "{{tq|'''Never''' use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.}}" So here we have this source, which is obviously beyond ] a blog and a self-published source, we must then at the very least clarify that it absolutely must not be used in any circumstances for BLPs going forward, by the fact that it is so clearly a SPS.] (]) 00:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Partly SPS and partly non-SPS''' - The site makes it clear that some authors can publish without prior review. I consider their articles to be self-published; for example, I put Steven Novella's articles in this category. The site also says that other articles undergo prior review (e.g., "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing"). I consider the latter to be non-self-published. Examples of authors who clearly aren't regular article authors there and whose articles presumably underwent prior review: and . For some articles/authors, it's not clear to me whether they fall in the SPS category or instead in the non-SPS category. ] (]) 03:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			* It seems that posts by some established contributors are self-published (as shown by links above), while guest contributors are not. So the answer to whether SBM is an SPS or not is 'yes'. '''SPS and not SPS'''. Certainly the idea that it's fully SPS has no basis. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''SPS''': As noted by other contributors, SBM openly acknowledges that it often publishes content without prior peer review. Consequently, this makes it a self-published source (SPS), with the opinions expressed representing those of individual authors. Like any other SPS, its use requires caution, especially in articles about living people or controversial topics, where ensuring accuracy and neutrality is critical. ] (]) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	This diff, may be useful to establish the context in which the sources were added (discussing the efficacy of a treatment) and wikipedia has a stub on ] which states, "The papers do not have to go through the peer review process". This is supported by this page by the founder of the journal. ] (]) 06:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
	::''Med hypotheses'' is easy: it did not publish research, but biomedical hyoptheses, generally extremely speculative. I regret its demise, for I always found at least one or two of the articles i each issue fascinating. But it never pretendedto be a peer reviewed journal in the usual sense. It can support nothing except that "X proposed as an hypothesis that...."
	::''Neuroendocrinology letters'' claims to be peer reviewed, and a number of libraries have it. I personally have a rather low opinion--I cancelled my university library's subscription back in 1990. Its editorial board is not reassuring. But it's in Web of Science, so one can look to see if any articles have cited the one of interest. Since recent years are online, one could try Google Scholar. If nobody --or only a few people--have cited an article, it is not authoritative.
	::Conferences vary. Some of them are as authoritative as the best journals. some accept anything that is submitted. There is no general rule. What is a good general rule is to look for articles by the same author that are in peer reviewed journals--in this case using PubMed. if none can be found, s/he is obviously not an established authority in the subject. ''']''' (]) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
			*'''Not SPS for reviewed articles''' They directly state they have editorial peer review for a number, if not most, of their articles. And only a select few don't go through that process (though appear to have after the fact review, considering the retraction, so even that seems to be in question). I will note that this appears to be yet another attempt by ] pushing editors to try and remove skeptical debunking media from negatively covering their fringe topics. Par for the course attempt, honestly. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::It seems if you look at the instructions that Med Hypotheses is subject to peer review and in accordance with the Elsevier review System. The difference being it seems that the review determines whether or not it is published rather than the changes to be made by an editor, and I think this is what the founder was infering. ] (]) 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
			*:It's a day that ends in -Y.... ] (]) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:If we can't tell what is and isn't peer-reviewed and what is SPS material, is that not a problem? ] (]) 11:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:And how we will determine which articles have been reviewed? Also note that editorial review and ] are different things and they do not appear to make a claim of peer review. ] (]) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a '''blog''', they are a '''''trusted''''' blog." ] (]) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Poor editorial control is a matter of reliability, but all matters of reliability don't have to be decided by classifying a source as self-published. It's accepted that other sources follow their stated editorial practices, and noone has shown why that shouldn't be the case here. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Not SPS for reviewed articles''' They've got editors, which sets it apart from a standard SPS. Those articles that could be self published are still reliable for most purposes anyway, since they are from subject matter experts. It is also worth noting that while it should not be used for biographical details in general, even if this were to be considered a SPS that would not rule it out for comments on science, medicine, or the reception of fringe ideas, even when those ideas happen to appear on an article with a person's name at the top. - ] (]) 18:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Not SPS''' by virtue of having either pre-publication review or the possibility of editorially imposed retraction. A source that is truly ''self-published'' wouldn't have either of those. ] (]) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
	== A question about bibliographical data ==
			*'''Partial SPS''' It's a bit awkward since they do so much good work, but "our own editors, however, have earned the privilege of publishing articles without prior review, since they have a proven track record," is extremely concerning. What they describe as an editorial process for these articles, saying that "if any concerns about accuracy, fairness, or completeness come to our attention, we deal with them in a number of ways," is just not enough. The job of an editor is checking before, not just maybe cleaning up after "if," so I would have to say that the articles by their own editors have to be considered '''SPS''' until they revise this. Things they actually do vet ''before'' putting up, I consider as being subjected to an editorial process, however. ] (]) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
	I am sorry to disturb you with my question, but, after a mini edit-war, as a last solution I decided to ask your experienced opinion. In the ] article it is stated:
			*'''Generally not SPS''', though additional scrutiny for articles by Gorski and Novella may be appropriate. Essentially per ]. I'm also frankly not impressed with this RFC, and the manner the proposer starts these discussions in general. Said discussions are not {{em|quite}} up to the point of disruption, but I would nonetheless heavily suggest that they seek advice as to the drafting of their statements and formatting of their proposals and whether adequate prior discussion has taken place, from one of the other editors supporting their point of view. ] (] • ]) 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''SPS''' A group blog posting guest postings is still a group blog, and still self-published. Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella, whose blog it is), previous claims to having a robust editorial process seem unconvincing. There is no consistently documented publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and this source is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. ] (]) 16:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as , and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. ] (]) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I am responding to suggestions that some sort of allegedly robust editorial and accountability process makes it not an SPS, which I think is a nonsense.
			*::My favoured definition of SPS is: if it isn't traditionally published (book, newspaper, journal) or something directly comparable structurally, it is an SPS. That is in line with USESPS since it considers virtually all websites to be self-published. It is narrow, yes, but it is also consistent across media. It is also not a reflection on reliability in other ways, as SPS vs GREL are two different concerns.
			*::I think the "self" in "self-published" causes much confusion, as does the consideration that "publishing" is the mere act of putting information online. A publishing company is more than a person who vets content and presses a button to place material on a website. If we consider something not self published simply because the person who writes it has to go through another person before it is published, that means celebrity social media accounts where an intern reports to a manager aren't self published, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing (ie, virtually nothing is self-published by that standard).
			*::I consider "science based medicine" to be a publication as a whole rather than something that can be approached article-by-article. There is no distinct, separate, traditional publishing entity, as with a newspaper, a book, or an academic journal. The owners and editors are all the same, and that they solicit other people's content to add to their own publication which they entirely control still makes it their own self-published publication, in exactly the same way as any blog with guest posts.
			*::I know there are difficult edge cases to the whole "what is a traditional publisher" model, but I don't think a group blog like SBM is even close to that, and considering it to be one (because editors want to use it to make BLP claims about quacks) has turned into a slippery slope IMO. ] (]) 10:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. ] (]) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::] is '''policy''', <u>not an essay</u>. It is clear '''policy''' that '''<u>blogs</u>''' like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs <u>at a bare minimum</u>. ] (]) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::I said "'''USESPS''' is an essay, not a policy" (emphasis added). It seems that you're confusing ] (which as I noted is an essay) with ] (which is a policy). People clearly have different opinions about whether SBM is wholly SPS or only partially SPS, and if the consensus of this RfC is that it is only partially SPS, then the part that isn't SPS can be used for statements about living persons despite identifying itself as a blog. Also, the BLP policy is for statements about living persons, wherever they occur, but AFAIK, RS expert blogs can be used for DUE statements about non-persons, even if that statement appears in a biographical article. BLPSELFPUB is also an exception. ] (]) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::I'm aware. We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them. When I raised this weeks ago I asked what I was missing, and it turned out I wasn't missing anything except a massive intractable tarpit. I think none of it is obvious. Your objection here is understandable depends very much how you interpret "author", "publisher" and the work being published, and a narrow definition restricted to natural persons means any source with two people can be argued to be not self published. But to me it remains obvious that for a self published book in which my friend writes the foreword, their content is still self published even though I acted as "editor", and I don't see a difference between a self published book with multiple contributors and a group blog with multiple contributors. And the trouble is a lot of the discussions about how we classify X or Y revolve not around what they are, but about how we want to use them, which makes it ever more messy. Personally I would like to see clarity on *why* BLPSPS exists, and define the standard clearly there, because that would inform what sort of sources are acceptable in BLPs, which is really the nub of the matter. BLPSPS feels like it might once have been shorthand for "a source who's probably had the lawyers look it over before publishing it", but that's just my impression/speculation. Absent BLPSPS, the question of whether sources like grey literature or SBM are SPS or not is largely moot. ] (]) 11:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::@] makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. ] (]) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Yes, most local and hyper local news outlets are in fact self-published. ] (]) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Not SPS for reviewed content. Where content is clearly reviewed, definitely not SPS. Where we’re not certain, treat it with extra caution. By the way “blog” and “SPS” are not synonyms. Blog is a format that can be edited and published by reputable organisations, as with eg The Conversation or perhaps the SPLC’s Hatewatch. ] (]) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I would agree with you that your two examples are not SPS, however I have seen people argue the contrary in both cases. ] (]) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Everything in ] is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per ]. I also don't believe that '''any''' of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." ] (]) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@] makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this '''<u>blog</u>''' are considered '''reviewed''', and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. ] (]) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::That argument is ]. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone ''needs'' to make, but ] overrides ]. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. ] (]) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling ] a guideline). ] (]) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of ] that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using {{tq|self-published sources as third-party sources about living people}}, but that fails to apply in two different ways. ] (]) 23:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::How does "fail to apply in two different ways"? ] (]) 01:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::There seems to be a lot more than that which is pertinent, that whole section for example is pertinent not just that one sentence. Many of the "not SPS" arguments also seem to be based on ]. As for it somehow not applying you've lost me, gonna have to explain. ] (]) 07:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''', several editors seem to claim something along the lines of "since Science-Based Medicine is 'reviewed' it cannot be a SPS". This claim would benefit from some proof, ideally other secondary sources validating this claim, and not just the very same source saying that it does so. Alex Jones might claim that he is reviewed and reliable etc. That claim by itself does not make it so. Also, I am not saying that Science-Based Medicine is anything like AJ in terms of reliability etc., and to be clear, this RfC is not about reliability, it is just on whether or not the SBM source is an SPS, which I think it pretty obviously is. ] (]) 01:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models:
			*:# Book publisher: External authors submit book outlines and sample chapters; if selected, the publisher contributes substantially towards editing (including ] if necessary), designing, and marketing the book. The author pays for none of this and expects to get paid (at least if sales exceed a minimum threshold). If the publisher rejects the book, then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher.
			*:# Newspaper: The publisher/publication hires editors and journalists. The editor assigns stories (to internal staff) or commissions them (among freelancers; alternatively, editors may accept external pitches, in the book-publisher model). The journalists write the stories; the editor and publisher/publication representatives decide whether to publish what the journalists wrote. If an employee instead of a freelancer, the journalist expects to get paid the same even if the article is ] (not published). If a freelancer, and the piece doesn't run, the freelancer is free to sell it to a different publication.
			*:# Peer-reviewed journal: The (usually for-profit) publisher or (usually academic) sponsoring body creates the publication and hire editors. External authors submit whole papers; editors send the papers for external review and use that information to decide which ones to publish. The authors usually pay for publication, but this is understood to be akin to volunteer work on all sides, with the money usually coming from a third-party grant rather than the author's own funds. If the journal rejects the article, the author is free to submit it to another journal.
			*:I wonder if any of these models feel similar to how you imagine SBM to work. ] (]) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I have in a sandbox. I wonder whether people would find that comparison useful in, say, ]. ] (]) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I do not think any of the above apply to SBM, but I'd like to see you perhaps write up a few methods for what clearly SPS look like, and then we could compare to the above, and determine which SBM most closely resembles. Again, if you write stuff, then you are the publisher, that is by definition "self-published", which is very often the case even if not always for Science-Based Medicine...even by their own admission! ] (]) 14:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I don't think defining none self-published sources are the ones we give a free pass because of our social-culture background is a good way to define them. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''SPS'''. The website describes itself as a blog. According to ] blogs are considered SPS. In addition, SBM publishes unknown proportions of articles without prior editorial review. Therefore, SBM could only be used with attribution, because it is impossible to tell which articles passed editorial review and which did not. ] (]) 17:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:@], WP:SPS says {{xt|"...self-published material such as...personal or ] blogs (as distinguished from ], above)...are largely not acceptable as sources"}}. Are you sure that this isn't a ]? They have an ] and a ], which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with ], too. ] (]) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "{{tq|These '''may''' be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, '''but use them with caution''' because '''blogs''' may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.}}" ] (]) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want ] to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. ] (]) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per ] we are advised to {{xt|use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process}}. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. ] (]) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Exactly. ] (]) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Use with caution and statements of opinion are covered by other parts of the guidelines, separate from SPS. Whether a source is self-published or not doesn't mean it's reliable or unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Mostly SPS'''. It seems to be the Novella and Gorski show. That doesn’t make it unreliable for topics in which they are recognised experts - neurology for Novella and oncology for Gorski, apparently. That would make them reliable reviewers of any guest content on those topics too. But outside their domains of expertise, they are just blogging. Expertise in one domain does not imply expertise in another - and sometimes it’s quite the opposite, in that smart people who are accomplished in their niche start to think their opinions on everything else are equally robust (looking at you, Elon). ] (]) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''SPS'''. Editorial oversight is insufficiently verifiable nor independent enough to call this something other than self-published. ] (]) 19:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''SPS''' It seems their peer-review is only for new contributers, the staff is volunteer and they explicitly say that they like to avoid as much editing as possible. There also doesn't seem to be much of editorial indepencence from the owner (New England Skeptical Society) which is an advocacy group. Especially troubling is that the Executive Editor is also the President of NESS. NESS also has two other members of the Novella family on the board. That makes three of the five board members from the same family. This is no what oversight should look like. The group of writers is also small and probably know each other well and are of course, ideologically similar. ] (]) 11:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*<s>Partial SPS</s> '''Partly unclear, partly not SPS''' As discussed above, it isn't clear which articles by Gorski and Novella have been reviewed and we should probably lean towards treating those ones like ] just to be safe. They do, however, have a very clear review policy on guest articles (see ) which states {{tq|volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which '''at least three of our editors evaluate the submission'''}} (emphasis added). That's pretty obviously not self-publishing. I do want to note though that this type of discussion would really benefit from more consensus on what an SPS is. Maybe some more experienced editors should consider drafting a big RfC to revise SPS with more detail on what it means in practice (probably after ARBPIA5 is over so admins have more time to focus on it)? ] (]) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{Reply|CambrianCrab}}The main problem is that they currently only have two editors (one being the managing editor), so we can be relatively sure that they do not follow that policy becuase it requires a minimum of four editors to follow (the managing editor and at least three others). ] (]) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Exactly. ] (]) 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Good catch on the number of editors, I missed that the other ones had retired/passed, but I don't really think that makes it SPS since articles are still getting reviewed. Imo, it's a red flag in terms of ''reliability'' that either the list of editors and/or review policy is out of date, but no impact towards whether or not it's ''SPS''. ] (]) 02:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::See and that is interesting because I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I think that it could be reasonably argued that SBM is reliable, but that there is no case at all that it is somehow not SPS. When there is <u>one</u> person in most cases writing something and then just directly launching it to the internet on a blog, that is self-published. Which we have no way of knowing if these <u>two</u> editors even check one another, so it is very possible that frequently this is exactly what is happening. However, how different is it really when there are only <u>two</u> editors from one checking on anything. That is practically and definitionally a self-published source by every possible measure for evaluating whether or not a source as SPS or not. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? And again, even if that is true, if there are only two editors doing the "reviewing", that is not due diligence, that is back scratching and ]. ] (]) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::To be clear, I don't think SBM is unreliable, just that outdated pages would be a red mark towards reliability. Whether or not pages or up-to-date has nothing to do with if something is self-published.
			:::::I don't really follow the rest of your argument. {{tq|We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed?}} Yeah we generally take sources at their word on their own policies unless we have reason to question it. SBM is a relatively long-running and well-known outlet run by experts in the topic area. I don't see any reason we should think they're lying about their policy. ] (]) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Those are fair point, review is review and it seems that at least some are seemingly getting reviewed. ] (]) 19:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Not SPS'''. What someone means by "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" is "these writers aren't dumbasses and we trust them" with an implied "if an issue is found after the piece is out, we'll put out a correction", not "these people are infallible and we will never correct them because reasons". &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 21:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:So they are essentially "Not SPS" because they claim to sometimes not be SPS. Got it. ] (]) 01:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:The purpose of oversight is due diligence, not dumbass detection. ] (]) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Partly SPS and generally unsuitable for contentious topics on Misplaced Pages.''' While SBM is valuable for some scientic topics, it self-described as blog with inconsistent editorial oversight, allowing authors like Novella and Gorski to pubish without review. Gorski, who often takes strong positions, is a polarizing figure, and his articles often reflect a bias and lack of nuance. For controversial topics or biographies, more neutral and independently vetted sources would better meet Misplaced Pages standards. ] (]) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''SPS''' As I've said before on previous RfCs, this is explicitly a self-published source. ] (]) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Not SPS unless Gorski and Novella wrote the piece''': SBM is one of the best sources for coveraging ] and ] activism we have <small> and I'll note ''some'', certainly not all, wanting to make it a SPS tend to have, at best, a ] attitude </small>. Simply put, there is editorial oversight of contributors. We don't know if there is for Gorski and Novella, and should act accordingly and treat them as subject matter experts outside BLPs, but we do know that there is for other contributors. I'm somewhat concerned with the shape of this RFC - we have longstanding consensus that SBM is a reliable source and not an SPS. Instead of challenging that, this RFC was opened to challenge specifically the SPS designation in a seemingly roundabout way to question it's reliability.
			: I also want to note that per ] {{tq|In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed.}} - so while I still maintain it's not an SPS, the standards for ] allow non-peer reviewed sources on fringe topics as long as they're reliable, so an SPS designation should not, unless we ''also'' agree it's not reliable, be used to go a purge of its use. ] (]) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''No''' due to editorial oversight. ] <small>(])</small> 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Given that the editors have stated that they do not provide oversight on all contributers prior to publication, this does not seem to be universally true. - ] (]) 09:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''SPS''' I think it's important that the arguments about whether Science Based Medicine is SPS or not are removed from our own assessment of the topics they’ve covered, otherwise we infuse topic bias on a process matter and risk floating away from the core question of this RfC. SBM is SPS simply because of the lack of editorial oversight and independence needed for subject matter of medicine.--] (]) 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	<blockquote>
	Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages.University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz. Franz failed to earn either a postgraduate or graduate degree. He took 15 hours of Latin, 21 hours of classical Greek, and a single 2-hour credit class in a course titled “The New Testament—A course in grammar and translation.” The Greek studied by Franz is a different system of grammar than biblical Greek.
	</blockquote>
			*'''Not SPS''' when it's "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" it means that you have to become a trusted author first before you can publish without prior review, i.e., the editorial oversight comes from becoming a trusted author. ] (]) 01:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	I repeatedly asked bibliographical data for this file, and I was answered that the reference itself (as you see it above) is adequate bibliographical data. Is it really? Can this reference stand alone as bibliographical data?
			*:Editorial oversight means reviewing content prior to publishing to ensure the content being published is factual, etc. It's not about who the author is, it's about the substance of the content. ] (]) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Are you suggesting that if I write a letter to the editor of some local newspaper, and it is published, then the newspaper is a SPS? ] (]) 03:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::@] If it was published without review? Yes. A website that published unreviewed content is not a publisher, it's a self-publishing platform. ] (]) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Are you suggesting that the editors of the local newspaper basically do nothing? ] (]) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I think you are using the wrong analogy. If you can publish directly, based on your own decision to publish, without anyone else reading or vetting your writing before it appears, you are self publishing. If an editor checks the material and approves it before publication, it is not self publishing. SBM allow some editors to publish without checking or vetting the material before it is published, as you akcnowledged, so in those cases it is an SPS. - ] (]) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::At the very least anything written by Gorski and Novella there seems to be strong consensus that at minimum those articles are very clearly SPS. In other cases, I think it is dubious at best, since Gorski and Novella run the show and whether or not any real "editorial review" is happening on this blog appears to be very, very much in doubt. The analogy of a "local newspaper" and a ] is not actually analogous, and it is weird that an exception was ever carved out for this blog for it to somehow not be considered SPS. Thankfully it appears as if a new consensus has emerged as a result of this RfC in favor of SBM now being considered SPS, or at minimum, anything published by Gorski or Novella absolutely is without a shadow of a doubt SPS. ] (]) 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::{{reply|Bilby}} That's where we disagree. By letting you publish directly, the editor is saying they trust you to write content that doesn't need to be edited - and that means it's not SPS. In fact, one could argue it's a higher bar than having to read and vet the writing. ] (]) 09:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::By publishing directly, it is by definition self publishing. By being trusted to publish directly, it means you are seen as reliable. The two are not mutally exclusive. - ] (]) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:We are all making assumptions about "what it means" because SBM is not transparent enough about its editorial policies. It pales in comparison to journals that tackle many of the same topics. This is precisely why it's SPS. ] (]) 16:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Thats right. This "Not SPS" argument is without merit. SBM is not a journal, it is a blog and is 100% SPS. ] (]) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind. ] (]) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Are you suggesting that they post "bogus content"? If not, how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote? ] (]) 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::"Bogus content" is related to an argument about reliability. Which some contributors to this RfC have mistakenly believed is part of this discussion, it is not. This RfC is on the question of whether or not SBM is SPS, which it so obviously is. Therefore, my response was simply reframing that we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all, instead, we are simply discussing whether or not the "editorial review" which some allege occurs at SBM (with scant evidence), is done by the very same people who publish content (Gorski and Novella).
			*::::::Given the self-publication by Gorski/Novella, which evidently is what happens, then the source is a self-published source, and "bogus" doesn't even enter into the conversation. Or at the very minimum, any article published by SBM by Gorski/Novella ought to 100% be considered SPS. ] (]) 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Banedon wrote: "If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind," and you responded "If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks."
			*:::::::As best I can tell, you did not respond to my second question, so I'll ask it again: If , how is your comment at all '''''responsive''' to what Banedon wrote''?
			*:::::::Just so you're clear, the current ] "self-published" explicitly refers to reliability. When you say "we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all," that's not entirely true. It's relevant to whether some of the content on the site is '''not''' self-published. ] (]) 01:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::You've moved the goal posts, Banedon is arguing that none of the content on the site is self-published. ] (]) 01:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::I know that Banedon's !vote was "Not SPS," but I interpreted Banedon's comment to Iljhgtn (who claimed that SBM is "100% SPS") as a point about outside contributors to SBM (outdated description ). Maybe I misinterpreted. ] (]) 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::I think in the case of Gorski and Novella there is absolutely no question that it is SPS, but I am more and more wondering how much "editorial review" actually happens even in other cases. From the link you provided if we review, "{{tq|How to submit a guest article: '''Anyone is welcome to submit content to ScienceBasedMedicine.org, regardless of credentials'''. We’ll publish anything '''we think is interesting''', relevant, well-written, and, above all, scientifically sound. ('''The less editing we need to do, the better.''') The '''volunteer editorial staff''' looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission. Please embed citations as weblinks rather than footnotes or endnotes, it saves us a lot of time. How to submit a guest article for publication on SBM Submit your article by email directly to Dr. Gorski (SBMeditor@icloud.com), the managing editor . If he thinks it has potential, he will distribute it to the editorial staff for further consideration. '''Please note that none of the editors are paid for our work on SBM''', '''and most of us have demanding day jobs.''' That means that, '''more frequently than we would like, the process is less than optimal''' and not as fast as writers (or we) would like. (For instance, if Dr. Gorski is working against a grant application deadline, you might not hear for a while, '''because trying to keep his lab afloat trumps his extracurricular activities on SBM.''')}}" There are claims that "at least three of our editors evaluate the submission", but again, I don't trust this, but beyond that, this only applies (if they even do it) to guest submissions, which can be Gorski may post even if he just thinks its "interesting" and "The less editing we need to do, the better" (all well and good, but again, doesn't sound like much "editorial review" is happening even in the case of guest submissions... But again, that is only part of the discussion. The other part that has overwhelming consensus at this point is that anything from SBM authored by Gorski or Novella is SPS. ] (]) 03:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::No offense, but you just posted a bunch of text that once again didn't answer my question. Here it is again: If , how is your comment at all ''responsive to what Banedon wrote''?
			*:::::::::::I'm not looking for your personal opinion about SBM, as you've already made that clear in your many comments. I'm not looking for your opinion about the RfC consensus. I'm trying to understand ''your response to Banedon''. ] (]) 04:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::His comment was, "{{tq|'''If you can write in your own article''' with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind.}}". I was not in any way focused at all on the "bogus content" aspect that you are laser focused on, I was refuting the fact that obviously I, Iljhgtn, cannot get stuff published on their page, but that if I could sure, it would not be a self-published source perhaps. Though it is a ridiculous point he made and that is why I am citing the direct text, instead of offering opinion. If that does not answer your query then I am exasperated and we can both just move on from this odd reading comprehension and/or semantics confused discourse we've been having. ] (]) 04:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::::Yes, I think we're talking past each other, and it's fine with me for both of us to step away from it. ] (]) 14:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::But you're not Gorski or Novella, are you? That kind of renders the entire point moot. Obviously ''you'' can't publish bogus content, because you're not trusted, ergo, there is editorial control and it is not SPS. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Contributions by the editors are SPS'''. Definitely contributions by Gorkski, Novella, and the other listed editors are clearly ] by both the letter and spirit of ]. By the letter of ] I don't think contributions by other people are SPS but I do have serious doubts about the editorial policy, and thus the overall reliability, of SBM if they're allowing the editors to regularly publish articles without fact-checking. ] (]) 02:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Not SPS'''. This is a web publication of the ], not the personal vlog of ]. ]. The premise that organizations publishing stuff written by members of their organizations amounts to self-publishing seems like it can't help but lead to something like, "the LA Times publishes stuff written and reviewed by members of the LA Times so the LA Times self publishes itself". ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 08:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society whose leadership overlaps with that of the blog and is largely restricted to a single family, the Novellas. The same man, Steven Novella, is in charge of both so there is no independence here that would make it not self published. I would also note that if the Washington Post ever fired all its professional staff and started hosting stuff by Jeff Bezos and his buddies we would treat it as a SPS. ] (]) 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Did you consider the editorial that Bezos wrote in the Post (re: his decision to block the Post's endorsement of Harris) to be SPS? ] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Yes, but note that we already treat editorials and opinion pieces as SPS so its a bit of a moot point. ] (]) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::That's news to me. Are you saying that an editorial or opinion piece cannot be used unless it either falls under EXPERTSPS or BLPSELFPUB? ] (]) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Its a bit (some would say a lot) wider than that because ] also applies. ] (]) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::I don't understand how ABOUTSELF comes into play, since an editorial / opinion piece is typically representing the view of a single person, though I guess it's occasionally written by more than one, as with something from an editorial board. But even assuming that ABOUTSELF is in play, that says "'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we cannot use an opinion piece or editorial in the NYT to make a statement —attributed to the author(s) — about a living person whose relationship to the author(s) is third-party. If that's the case, I think there's a lot of WP content that's in breach of this. ] (]) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::There might be some (wikipedia is full of violations of any rule you care to name), but most of those uses are as primary (under aboutself) not as third-party sources. ] (]) 22:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::Whether it's primary is distinct from whether it's self-published. Many opinion pieces are used as third-party sources for attributed opinions about living people. Here's an example: in the ] article, the text "Following the January 6 Capitol attack, ], who had initially resisted calling Trump a fascist, announced that the label now seemed necessary," sourced to opinion piece by Paxton, which is a third-party source for a statement about Trump. Are you saying that you think that text must be removed because the source is SPS? ] certainly doesn't say that all opinion pieces should be treated as SPS. ] (]) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::You argue they're amateurs and unqualified to write the coverage that they do; that doesn't on its own bear on whether they're self-published or not. I've limited the scope of my !vote here to concluding they aren't self-published. Whether they are a reliable publication that isn't self-published or an unreliable publication that isn't self-published is a different question. As for Novella heading NESS and ''Science-based Medicine''—um, well, yeah, duh. The latter is an organ of the former. I'm not aghast that the editor in chief of the LA times runs the LA Times, or that ] ran ]. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society. The LA Times is owned by ], the editor in chief of the LA times is Terry Tang. A book by Alfred A. Knopf Sr. or ] published by Alfred A. Knopf would be considered SPS for wikipedia purposes, that isn't groundbreaking thats totally normal. ] (]) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::To add to this, being an editor and running an interest organization are (and should be) two very different roles. I can't imagine the director of the National Association for People that Can't Edit and Hate Editorial Integrity (NAPCEHEI) would make a good editor in chief for the org's publication. ] (]) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I said, {{Tq|You argue they're '''amateurs'''}}; you said, {{Tq|'''No''', I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an '''amateur''' society}} (emphasis added). I'm not seeing how I've mischaracterized what you believe about their qualifications when you immediately repeated it. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:There is a distinct difference between the ''LA Times'' and SBM in that it would appear as if at SBM just Gorski can write something or just Novella and then publish it. That is different that the LA Times or other non-SPS in that those have editorial review by other staff. These staff are known and are publicly verifiable as they have
			*:At minimum, it must be acknowledged that material written by Gorski and Novella is SPS. For the record, that is also not saying it is not reliable (as several commenters above continue to be confusing), <u>just that Gorski and Novella work from SBM is SPS.</u> ] (]) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Forbes.com is owned by Forbes Media LLC. Because it is owned by a company, does that mean we should not regard it as self published? In the case of Forbes.com it is not the ownership that matters, but the ability of people to publish directly as contributors without editorial review. With SBM, I would argue that it is also not the ownership that matters, but whether or not people can publish directly without editorial review. - ] (]) 22:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Forbes.com includes content both from Forbes staff and from Forbes contributors. So some of the Forbes.com content is SPS and some isn't. ] (]) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Presumably, that is because the Forbes staff material is published under editorial control. It is not the ownership that decides if something is an SPS, but the process by which material becomes available after it has been written. - ] (]) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::That was my point, as it seemed you were claiming that we should regard all of Forbes.com as self-published. Why did you conclude that the subset of SBM material that does undergo prepublication editorial review is nonetheless SPS? ] (]) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I've never assumed that material on SBM that undergoes editorial review is SPS. My only concern is that the argument that the publication belongs to the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not SPS, is not sound. I think you can reasonably argue that some material published by SBM does not under go editorial review prior to publication, and that some material is therefore self published, or you can argue that all material undergoes pre-publication editorial review, and therefore SBM is not an SPS at all. But I don't think you can argue that SBM is owned by the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not an SPS. - ] (]) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::I should have been clearer. I was asking because in your Dec.6 !vote, you said that you consider SBM to be wholly SPS (or at least, you didn't qualify your SPS response). ] (]) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''SPS''' A group blog where the participants can publish without review is a SPS, even if it calls certain people editors and sometimes deletes things (if that were the standard, even much of ''social media'' wouldn't be a SPS, because sometimes those sites have deleted stuff like COVID misinformation). I also do not think accepting occasional outside submissions consistutes "review" to the degree those posts become not-SPS. Nor do I think being "published" by an organization the blog authors *also* control consititutes sufficient independence, as some have claimed. I think sometimes the authors can be cited under the WP:SPS subject-mattere expert exception, but only in the ''specific'' area of their academic speciality (e.g. neurology, surgery and oncology, family practice medicine) but not in other areas. - ] (]) 15:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			== RfC: Bild ==
	Thank you in advance for your time.
			<!-- ] 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736895671}}
	Best regards,
			What is the reliability of the German tabloid ], including its website Bild.de?
			# Generally reliable
			# Additional considerations apply
			# Generally unreliable
			# Deprecated
			] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Responses (Bild) ===
			*'''Option 3/4''' Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, , routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation) {{tq|Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers.}} ... {{tq|The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary}}... EDIT: another quote {{tq|BILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.}}} ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 , as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic ] (]) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that ] is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3/4'''. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--] (]) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''3''' at least, and I wouldn't say no to '''4'''. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for ] material; if they claimed something as simple as {{var|X}} number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''3''' I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. ] (] • ]) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''3/4''' Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people''' it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and ''allegedly'' breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. <small> Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable </small> ] (]) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2, provisionally''', since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3''', I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 4''' Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Misplaced Pages project. ] (]) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3''', there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – . But see my comment in the discussion section below. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' per ActivelyDisinterested. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per ] would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. ] (]) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3/4''' per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. ] (]) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:it's ''snowing 3'' ] (]) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3/4'''. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --] (]) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3/4''': Tabloids usually fail reliability. It seems this one is no different. ] (]) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Option 3/4 (depending on whether anyone can make a case that there's some e.g. ABOUTSELF use we would still want them for — but I doubt we should be using them 1,800 times, as Hemiauchenia says we are at present) per Aquillion and Hemiauchenia; as RSP says, a reliable source "has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction"; ''BILD'' has the opposite reputation. ] (]) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Discussion (Bild) ===
			Bild is currently used over 1,800 times on the English Misplaced Pages per {{duses|bild.de}}. It is already currently listed on RSP as "generally unreliable". This RfC was prompted by a discussion at ], where a user questioned the lack of participation in previous discussions. ] (]) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
			I asked the initial question at WT:RSP since I don't like when we classify sources based on vibes. So I'll play the role of the devil's advocate. I have very little knowledge of the German media landscape and I'm open to arguments in both directions. The sources provided by u:Hemiauchenia make two claims:
	--] (]) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
			* {{tquote|articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary"}} - this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities
			* In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes . ]<sub>]</sub> 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated): {{tq|From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.}}
	:the entire paragraph can not stand. It is an excellent example of the harm done by using undigested primary sources and interpreting them with OR. From the facts of his courses, one cannot conclude whether his formal training is adequate. One can say he has as aBS degree, but no higher degree, if that can be documented. But even in terms of proper use of primary sources, I dont see how a transcript from one college would prove it, because he might have taken graduate work at another. ''']''' (]) 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
			::If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. ] (]) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::@], I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks!
			:::::These are the key points from the foreword
			:::::# articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers
			:::::# BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples
			:::::# is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze
			:::::# A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer
			:::::# A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable.
			:::::I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed?
			:::::In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very ] source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. ]<sub>]</sub> 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I'm not really sure what is meant by {{tq|classif sources based on vibes}}, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. ] says {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}, as does ] multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. ] (] • ]) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the {{duses|bild.de}}, most of them belong to the first category. --] (]) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Nigerian newspapers ==
	::'''DGG:''' What is the <u>paragraph</u> are you talking about? Vassilis78 cites a single <u>sentence</u> followed by a reference. The <u>sentence</u> in question reads, “''Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages''.” Though Vassilis78 provides the reference given of Mr. Franz’s transcript from the University of Cincinnati, the same editor, Vassilis78, failed to provide the additional two references cited for the same sentence. Those two sources are provided as “''The Watchtower, May 1, 1987 pp. 23-24''” and “''Rhodes R ThD, The Challenge of Cults and New Religions, The Essential Guide to Their History, 2001, p. 84''”.
			] has nothing about Nigerian newspapers, but references a project-list of them which seems rather too optimistic. It seems to me that these newspapers are filled with completely unreliable promopieces. You can see ], where a completely unknown Nigerian/French person supposedly got a US-only award from President Biden. Not a single source outside Nigeria confirms this, there seems to be no reason at all why she would have received this, but it got reported by , , , , ...
	::'''1)''' Franz’s university transcript shows he did not complete his university education at U of C, and his course load demonstrates little if any formal training in biblical languages.
			We had similar issues with e.g. ], ], and probably many others which I can't find as easily.
	::'''2)''' The Watchtower of May 1, 1987 pp. 23-24 publishes Franz’s account of his life story. In that account Franz states, “''With my father’s permission, I had left the University of Cincinnati in May 1914, just a couple of weeks before the end of my third term there as a junior classman''.” In his life story, though Franz spends considerable time speaking about his university education, he never asserts that he completed his university education, either at U of C or any other institution.
			Isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers which routinely publish such completely unreliable promo pieces as articles? ] (]) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	::'''3)''' In his book The Challenge of Cults and New Religions, The Essential Guide to Their History, author Ron Rhodes Thd writes, “ was not professionally trained in biblical studies, but he is regarded now as having been more knowledgeable than previous Watchtower presidents''.”
			: The problem is that if you deprecated these newspapers, there'd be basically no usable Nigerian sources left, which hardly seems good in terms of attempting to fix Misplaced Pages's coverage biases. I do agree that it is standard practice at a lot of Nigerian newspapers to run effectively undisclosed promotional material, and it seems good to note this somewhere on RSP, but I think deprecating them outright would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ] (]) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says {{tq| realised that their top quality journalism or influential columnists alone weren’t going to win the battle for eyeballs. Enter “viral content” and clickbait headlines. Press releases were repackaged as news stories, fact-checking and verification became redundant. Aanu Adeoye says, “the traditional gatekeepers of journalism (newspapers) in this country don’t give a hoot about the quality of what they’re churning out daily.” In a few years, stories from Nigeria’s top newspapers looked as hurriedly written as stories from blogs. It had become a game of who could break the news the fastest and who could churn out the most news. Nigerian traditional media beat the upstarts at their own game and occupied spots at the top of Nigeria’s most visited websites. But the true cost of this pyrrhic victory was quality control.}} If even mainstream Nigerian newspapers can't be trusted as factual sources then it's not clear what Nigerian sources can be trusted. ] (]) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I really don’t get arguments like this one. How does it help Misplaced Pages to use unreliable sources from countries with more limited media landscapes? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::One of Misplaced Pages and the WMF's goals is to be "diverse" and to lessen systemic bias to western nations. Limiting coverage to Western liberal democracies will obviously prevent that. ] (]) 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::How does it help the English Misplaced Pages to eliminate practically all English-language sources for about 1 billion English-speakers? There's not an easy answer, here.--] (] &#124; ]) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Much of the editor population vastly underestimates how much of our reader base comes from these regions of the globe.
			:::Formally deprecating sources is a last resort for widely misused stuff like the ''Daily Mail'' (arguably part of the issue there was the perceived credibility of a mainstream Western paper subject to strict British libel laws). Simply following and enforcing existing P&G should address the issues adequately.
			:::Furthermore, if one of these Nigerian papers were to come under new and improved management or ownership, I doubt WP would take notice with any real celerity.
			:::] (]) 00:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This is a problem with virtually every newspaper published in Nigeria and India. We cannot simply deprecate all news from two of the largest English speaking countries in the world. Or, we could, but we would get called very racist for doing so. ] (]) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which ''don't'' have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. ] (]) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. ] (]) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. ] (]) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? ] (]) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. ] (]) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::It still has a disparate impact in a racially biased manner. ] (]) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::No its not, it is based upon lack of truth, no one here has raised race once apart from you. ] (]) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Whatever the ''intention'' banning the entire media ecosystem of a developing country of 230 million people (plus India's 1.43 billion because we would ban them for the same reason) and making our encyclopedia irrelevant to large swathes of the non western world would have a biased ''outcome'' - doesn't matter the intention if it gets you the same result. Is that a sacrifice we are willing to accept? Because if so we need to stop pretending we have any interest in "combatting systemic bias". ] (]) 11:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Well, in my opinion it hasn’t been shown that reliability issues already aren’t being handled at in a nationally disparate manner. ] (]) 00:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::if these sources want to be accepted as reliable on Misplaced Pages, they should give up their practice of publishing paid news and writing puff pieces for anyone willing to pay. - ] (]) 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::If we are going to be banning every single news source of a country of 230 million, then we should be very aware we are doing it. And possibly throw out all the project's virtue signaling over countering systemic bias along with it, if we decide to go that route. ] (]) 10:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::We should allow perpetuation of misinformation on Misplaced Pages because it would be racist not to? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (] or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. ] (]) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Should we do the same and ban all news from India? ] (]) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::We should ban all shitty sources. If that wipes out all of India’s news (I’d sure be surprised) then yes. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I can't see how it would be preferable to have our coverage of non-Western developing countries be dominated by propaganda, paid-promotion, tabloids, and un-fact-checked reports... ] (]) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::No one is suggesting an either-or dichotomy. We should start by enforcing existing policies with regard to usage of these sources on a case by case basis. Mass deprecation was merely an impulsive suggestion someone made somewhere above, and would self-evidently be overkill unless all other options had been exhausted, which they haven’t. Cheers, ] (]) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I think this claim should be presumed true but not notable. The PVSA award is given out annually by any number of authorized NGOs to their own volunteers without any US government involvement, and it does come with a form letter in the president's name. Ononiwu apparently received hers from Innovate Africa Corp. There's no reason any US press to write up such a thing, and there doesn't seem to be a public database of honorees. Note however that Ononiwu should not have been eligible for the award because she's not a US citizen or permanent resident. I guess these newspapers went along with exaggerating the award's prestige, but I don't see it as a major problem for reliability on facts. ] (]) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I think it could be worth writing some guidance along the same lines as ], though I'm not sure it rises to the point of a general deprecation yet. ] report might also be helpful in developing such guidance. ] (] • ]) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:As with WP:NEWSORGINDIA Nigerian news sources are full of undisclosed advertorials. It's a common practice, so editors need to be cautious with anything that uses promotional language. Their use for establishing notability needs to be seen in a similar light.
			:Formally deprecating all Nigerian news media just isn't an option, in the same way deprecating all India news media with the same issue isn't an option. I would support changing the language of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it highlights the same issue in other countries not just India. I doubt this is an issue limited to those markets, and one that will likely become more of an issue everywhere with the difficulties newsedia currently face. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I recall at least one instance of them churning out AI generated puff pieces e.i and . Oddly enough Daily Times NG is listed as a "generally reliable" source for Nigerian topics at ].- ] (]) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Combined, are you of the opinion that these sources do not verify the assertion that “''Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages''”? The only formal training of record is the transcript from U of C, and that transcript shows little if any training in biblical languages.
			:There's evidence that their promotional articles aren't reliable. But I've yet to see anyone present evidence here that other kinds of news from these sources are unreliable. Does anyone here have evidence of that? If not, I don't see why we'd deprecate these Nigerian news sources in their entirety, and instead I support Hemiauchenia's having added "Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability" to RS/P, perhaps adding something like "especially for promotional news articles." ] (]) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Since the PROMO issues seem to be localized particularly to biographies, perhaps we could have guidance similar to what we use at NCORP that calls for heightened Nigerian source scrutiny re: independence when it comes to BLPs. Deprecating them just for BLPs might also be an option. ] (]) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I refuse to comment on the instances that led to this proposal because they can happen on a platform with the format adopted by Misplaced Pages. However,&nbsp; I oppose the proposal to deprecate all Nigerian newspapers on English Misplaced Pages. Applying a blanket judgment based on issues with a few outlets among many is unjust and undermines Misplaced Pages's inclusivity. Nigeria's media landscape, shaped by its diverse population of over 500 languages and 300 ethnic groups, plays a critical role in democracy and accountability.
			:"While no media is flawless, treating all Nigerian newspapers as unreliable disregards their contributions and efforts to uphold global standards. Media reliability concerns exist worldwide, yet discussion of this nature is sensitive and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through blanket exclusions. Adopting this precedent ensures fairness and avoids marginalizing voices from the Global South.
			:"I recommend individual evaluations of Nigerian newspapers, involving local expertise and ongoing monitoring, to maintain Misplaced Pages's mission of inclusivity and accuracy. A nuanced approach will preserve diversity and strengthen the platform's credibility."] (]) 02:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			Yes banning falsehoods is a sacrifice I am willing to make, be they from White people black people, or yellow people. As I said about Fiox and the Daily Myth, if you do not want to be accused of telling lies, there is a simpler solution, do not tell them. This is my last response here with a firm '''not reliable'''. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind, but it has to be proof and not emotive appeals to (so-called) fairness. ] (]) 11:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Since you have seen fit to comment as you have, your further response would be appreciated.--] (]) 13:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			:{{tq|1=or yellow people}}<br>Uhhh.... ] (]) 18:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Obviously meant as in "persons of any color, including colors in which persons don’t exist" and not a reference to the antique Western epithet for East Asians <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It's not "obvious", even to those of us who have interacted with Slatersteven enough to presume he wasn't intending to use a racial epithet. ] (]) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			I'm against this. Nigerian sources, like all sources, are entitled to be evaluated one by one. ] (]) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)===
			I've gone ahead and created a new section covering Nigerian news organisations at RSP ]. It's a bit stubby at the moment but it's at least a start. ] (]) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:See ]. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::We actually have two problems conserning the transcript from the University of Cincinnati. The first, about which I asked help, has to do with the citation data of the "transcript." '''There is no such data at all and we are expected to trust the personal testimony of Marvin Shilmer'''.</br> The second case is that the personal testimony of Marvin Shilmer has no value because it is '''original research''' added with personal conclusions as regards F. Franz's credentials to translate. So the reference is questionable in every aspect and I propose its deletion. The only opinions acceptable about F. Franz's credentials are those that have bibliographical support.
			::Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. ] (]) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I'm not saying that their judgment is poor or that Nigerian editors are inferior in any way, but that there are issues with Nigerian press across the board, such as low press freedom that is very different from say, news sources in Western Europe and North America, which should be kept in mind with evaluating their content. ] (]) 21:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I encourage you to engage with folks at ] as you develop guidance on Nigerian media. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 21:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I second this. I conversion about Nigeria WP should not be done without Nigerians editors involvement. Just because you found something wrong in some sources that doesn’t give you the right to assume all is bad. I can literally give you examples of where , in 2024! So let’s listen to these editors as they are more familiar with these sources. ] (]) 07:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Reliable sources can churn out a lot of rubbish once in a while. No matter what anyone says, the likes of Vanguard, Guardian, Daily Times, Punch, Daily Independent, The Sun, etc, would always be notable relating to general issues about Nigeria. Some weeks back, a state in Nigeria held their governorship election. These media houses in question were the source of verified information about the election. When a political appointment is made by the president, it is the same media houses that Misplaced Pages editors would use to establish the claim. If we make them unreliable, it means we are putting an end to Nigerian contents on English Misplaced Pages. These media houses will dish out promotional materials whenever they want and we can do nothing about it (it is business for them). All we can do as Wikipedians is to speedy norminate articles for deletion if they are not notable to be on the Wiki. The major issue we are having now is a result of a loophole in the notability criteria. GNG should not be used '''ALONE''' to establish notability. ] (]) 10:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::P.S. Not to forget, F. Franz's participation in the specific tranlation project is a speculation by itself. The whole critisism about Franz's credentials has to do with the speculation of his participation in the project. (Hence, the whole story is POV).
			::If these media houses(e.g The Daily Times) are churning out AI generated puff pieces then we should indeed add a cautionary clause in the guideline that care must be taken when using these sources to establish notability, especially at venues such as AfD. - ] (]) 12:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:GNG still works. The sources have to be independent. What this means is that in the case of Nigerian media, it's tricky but necessary to try and determine if a particular report is independent of the subject.--] (] &#124; ]) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Judging articles on a case-by-case basis is something we (Nigerian editors) are already doing and believe it or not, we’re doing a damn good job at it. Deprecating these sources means that articles on Nigerian topics would be deleted in batches——thousands, if I might add——and this doesn’t necessarily reflect the systemic bias we are supposed to be fighting.
			:There are tells that give off a sponsored/paid article and every Nigerian editor in good standing already knows this and by this, I vehemently disagree with Hemiauchenia that Nigerian editors are not able to distinguish a reliable source from an unreliable source.
			:Also, I think sometimes, what we consider as “poor journalism” (in the Western standard) are just Nigerian journalist (correctly) using ] to write articles that it seems like it is promo. This does not mean that undisclosed paid journalism does not happen but sometimes, we confuse the two. So, this is me opposing any form deprecations as this will have unintended consequences. Best, ] 12:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have ] that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - ] (]) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@], uhm, if Indian editors did so, someone took the liberty of doing it for us (]): ]; no one is opposing it. Best, ] 16:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			It is true that Nigerian news outlet like their Western counterparts (RSBIAS?) do publish opinions, promotional and advertorials like reliable news without explicitly marking them as much. In fact, this has long history in and it is mostly associated with UPE editors who want to create contents for their gain.
	:::--] (]) 15:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			Yet, deprecating Nigerian sources is not the solution. It will definitely do more harm than good to the visibility of the most populous black nation on earth. This means that we would have no reliable source to either curate or create contents. This is just an indirect way of saying that Nigerian content is no longer acceptable on English Misplaced Pages. This is because reliable sources are the backbone of contents creation.
	::::'''Vassilis78:''' Your further assertions here are shocking!
			Prior to this discussion, we have been sending a lot of articles with promotional sources to ]. This is what we can do from our end. We can neither stop people creating them nor stop the media from doing their business.
			Also, there is currently a section at ] tagged ] notifying reviewers and editors of caution in dealing with Nigeria sources. This alongside thorough analysis of Nigerian sources should drastically reduce the promotional articles and create a better future for Nigerian contents on the English Misplaced Pages.] (]) 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::The data provided is '''1)''' the name of the university of record (University of Cincinnati) and '''2)''' the full name of the student (Frederick W. Franz). This is all the information necessary to request the transcript of record. Indeed, this is all the information at my disposal when I requested and received the transcript. So why is this information insufficient for any other editor to request and receive the same document?
			:We cannot disregard Nigerian sources entirely. Yes, there are issues with some outlets, such as publishing promotional content or reworded press releases, but this isn’t unique to Nigeria. Even in countries with established media systems, there are sources that can’t always be trusted. The solution isn’t to write off all Nigerian sources but to evaluate them individually. Some articles might be biased or promotional, and we can avoid those. However, there are also credible reports and investigative pieces from Nigerian media that meet our standards. By treating each source on a case-by-case basis, we strike a balance, avoiding systemic bias while ensuring the content we use is reliable. A blanket approach would only create more gaps in coverage, which isn’t what we want for Misplaced Pages. And as {{u|Reading Beans}} mentioned, we Nigerian editors are already doing a good work judging sources on a case-by-case basis. ''''']''''' ] 17:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			], the only keep argument is based on just the above "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?". This is why they should not be acceptable because content is being created (and defended) using dubious sources (on the very grounds those sources are being defended here, false allegations of racism or false balance). ] (]) 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Such a statement from a suspected UPE with limited knowledge around ] and ] shouldn't hold water let alone be used as a basis or argument for the deprecation of an sources of information. The volunteer are doing enormous tasks to ensure content that doesn't meet the English Misplaced Pages standard is nominated for deletion. ] (]) 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Because the edit is based on information found in the public record (a university transcript, a published life story, and a statement in a published book) then on what basis are you asserting the information is “''the personal testimony of Marvin Shilmer''”? I have not asked anyone to take my word for anything. I have provided sources for purposes of verification!
			:{{u|Slatersteven}}, like already stated above, every sources presented in an AfD discussion is analysed carefully. FYI, majority of !delete votes there are Nigerian editors and the only keep !vote there being the paid creator (whom I suspect of UPE). If you can get a deletion discussion where a non-notable article was kept and defend with unreliable sources, I would appreciate it. Like the examples shown, the unreliable of the published articles were always pointed out and the articles were (correctly) deleted. Best, ] 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::No. No. No. my friend, @], I have told you ever and anon that this editor is not into UPE. So STOP THE SUSPICION and even voicing it out. It is affecting the reviewing of my articles. It is a blessing in disguise that my article brought this intense discussion. My take away from here is the guide being created for Nigerian sources and the caution I will employ in future creations. ] (]) 18:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:What I'm seeing in that AfD, and in the others mentioned that all ended in deletion, is editors using their own good judgement to deal with this issue. Hopefully the new advice at NEWSORGNIGERIA will help encourage other editors to use the same caution. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:], if someone argues "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?", the response should be "no, we don't. We're rejecting notability based on these specific Nigerian articles, because (a) the articles being used to assert notability all focus on a single "event," (b) the articles are extremely similar and might have been content farmed, especially since they seem overly promotional (e.g., it's not a "prestigous" award, it's solely based on number of hours volunteered and being nominated by a relevant organization), and (c) US government info about the award makes it clear that she's not eligible for that award (as she's not a US citizen or permanent resident), which means that ''these'' articles aren't reliable for ''this'' content. But the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do ''you'' have evidence of the latter? ] (]) 23:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Which is what Im did say, more than once. To me met with stonewalling "but that's racism" comments (and still am), at which point if the best argument you have is emotive, I have to assume you have no others, thus Im assume its an accepted problem with them. And as this is about "reputation for fact-checking" and the best argument is "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism"...well I have to assume they dio not have said reputation.] (]) 10:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Sorry, but I'm not sure what the referent of "them" is in "Im assume its an accepted problem with them."
			:::As for the rest, my argument ''isn't'' "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism." My argument is "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable ''doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable''. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do '''you''' have evidence of the latter?" You still haven't presented any evidence that articles from Nigerian news media are ''generally'' unreliable. Either you have evidence for that or you don't. ] (]) 14:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::] ]. ] (]) 11:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Did you actually read those articles? Neither one makes any mention of any of the Nigerian news outlets identified in the OP. The BBC piece is about ''new'' websites "established around the time of Nigeria's general elections in February 2023." The SSRC piece is about "the spread of disinformation and ''how social media has only furthered this spread'' by providing new, fast-moving arenas for confirming and amplifying such false information" in Nigeria, including uptake by traditional news media, while noting that "The increasing threat to democratic institutions posed by disinformation is a ''global phenomenon''." ] (]) 14:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Vangaurd and The nation ]. ] (]) 14:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::"This story is part of a series by the BBC on disinformation and fake news - ''a global problem'' challenging the way we share information and perceive the world around us," where this particular article focused on the "spread of fake news in Africa" by looking at how five false stories — one each from five African countries, including Nigeria — was picked up by some news media in those countries. Yes, "The Nation and the Vanguard, both published stories with a very similar theme" to one of those false stories, but absolutely nothing in the BBC article suggests that Nigerian news media are ''generally unreliable''. Is there any country globally where the BBC couldn't write an analogous report? For example, another BBC in this series is "How President Trump took 'fake news' into the mainstream." ] (]) 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::You have it in reverse, we judge a source on its reputation for fact-checking, I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not, it down to you to show they do, We do not judge sources based upon how local editors will police pagers, but on the sources alone. ] (]) 13:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::{{tq|I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not ]}} No, you haven't. Nothing you cited says anything about their reputation or suggests that they're ''generally unreliable''. If you believe that something you cited provided evidence of ''general unreliability'', please quote what you have in mind. {{tq|it down to you to show they do}} I haven't claimed that they have a reputation for fact-checking, so I have no burden to prove that they do (and more generally, if you want me to show something that I've said is true, just quote it, so we're both clear about the claim in question). What I said is (again): "the fact that ''these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable'' doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are ''generally unreliable''. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter." Fram proposed "to formally deprecate these newspapers," and you responded with "a firm '''not reliable'''." Since you're claiming that they're ''generally unreliable'', you have a burden to show that they're ''generally unreliable''. ] (]) 14:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I finally dug up an old AfD comment I'd made after reading a bunch of literature on Nigerian sources:{{pb}}Nigerian newspapers in particular are well known to&nbsp;&nbsp;on paid advertising.&nbsp;{{tq|Professor Omenugha describes a similar trend in the print media: “In the newspapers, the so called specialised pages of the property, IT and computer businesses and finance pages are prime examples of commercialised spaces. The point is that no attempt is made to let the audience or readers know that these spaces are paid for and they end up holding them as sacred as they would news”.}}&nbsp;{{tq|Some journalists also work as paid consultants to politicians and businesses thus threatening professionalism. AIT’s Amarere says it is demeaning to journalism as “some of the concerned journalists now work for companies through which they obtain jobs. They cover their track by saying they are staff of this or that company and run offices outside the newsroom. In this situation it is difficult to balance profession with commercial interest”.}}&nbsp;"Awards" issued by media are also considered corrupt.&nbsp;{{tq|“The awards are not free, they are for money and anything that comes with a prize has implications”, says Olumide Adeyinka-Fusika, a lawyer. “If a newspaper names a bank as the best bank of the year and the bank is later indicted for corruption, that newspaper will not be willing to publish the story because that will be like passing a vote of no confidence on their own judgement”.}} ] (]) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Here are some other references: {{pb}}{{tq|For example, such practices as pack journalism by beat associations of journalists which operate like cartels, the payment of protection fees by reputation managers of institutions, the granting of awards of dubious credibility to non deserving individuals and organisations are some of the ways in which corruption manifests in the media.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|Even though over 64 % of those sampled believed that acceptance of any form of gratifications was unethical, over 75 % of the<br>journalists engage in corrupt practices with impunity. More than half of the 18 media outfits covered by the study are indifferent to certain identified corrupt practices in their organizations.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|Adewale (2008), in his "The Rot in Nigerian Journalism Is Much Deeper Than We Thought" cited a controversial statement by Graham Greene to back up his position thus: "A petty reason perhaps why novelists more and more try to keep a distance from journalists is that novelists are trying to write the truth and journalists are trying to write fiction". This embarrassing irony aptly describes the state of Nigerian journalism and journalists in particular.}}{{pb}}{{pb}}{{tq|In its mildest form, press releases are published almost verbatim. Reporters either have an agreement with the government media men and are ‘settled’ with money, or threatened they will not be paid what is known as ‘qua”, or ‘mobilisation”. Some papers don’t pay salaries, and journalists have to make what they can on commission. In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men. Newspapers have a straight conflict of interest, they are financially reliant on political adverts, full-page colour hagiographies to governors and other political players. Last year, one paper alone took an estimated £270,000 in advertisements on one edition from supporters of former military ruler Ibrahim Babangida, celebrating his birthday.}} ] (]) 01:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I think we need something similar to ] for Nigerian media as well. - ] (]) 03:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::@] the "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome" is an auto-expiring link that doesn't let anyone else use it. Could you provide a better link/where you found the original link? ] (]) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Clicking the link from should work. ] (]) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::All seriousness aside, {{tq|In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men}} - those powerful men should just buy the newspaper or hell even a whole media empire to rebroadcast their personal opinions. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I was pointed to this discussion by @] after a similar discussion when I ran across ]. It does seem like much of Nigerian media simply writes whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay for. It seems like these sources should simply be banned except in cases where it is clear that the article was not purchased. ]] 00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{ctop|unhelpful ChatGPT wall of text}}
			::::::::My humble take and summary from these deep debates:
			::::::::'''Analysis of Nigerian Newspapers as Sources for Misplaced Pages Articles'''
			::::::::The reliability of Nigerian newspapers as sources for Misplaced Pages articles—particularly in Biographies of Living People (BLPs)—has ignited considerable debate within the Misplaced Pages editing community. A complex interplay of skepticism regarding the veracity of these sources and the recognition of systemic biases in coverage dynamics has led to high-stakes discussions. This report delves into the characteristics of Nigerian newspapers that contribute to their portrayal as unreliable, as well as those that underscore their potential value as information sources, and the broader implications for Misplaced Pages's commitment to inclusivity and diverse representation.
			::::::::'''Characteristics Leading to Distrust'''
			::::::::Nigerian newspapers often face criticism for their propensity to publish promotional content, undisclosed advertorials, and sensibly sensationalized reporting. This trend raises significant concerns regarding the integrity of journalism in the country. A primary issue is the commercial influence on editorial decisions, wherein advertising dollars can lead to the suppression of unfavorable stories or the propagation of misleading information to satisfy financial backers.
			::::::::High-profile examples, such as the case of a female personality—where numerous Nigerian news outlets reported unverified claims regarding an award from America—underscored the media’s failure to provide corroborative sources from outside Nigeria. Such instances not only reveal a troubling trend toward questionable journalism but also invite closer scrutiny of the claims made by various outlets.
			::::::::
			::::::::The environment fostered by these publications has seen a shift toward prioritizing clickable, viral content over factual reporting. This prioritization can obscure quality journalism and make it increasingly difficult for both editors and readers to discern credible information from misleading narratives. Such practices contribute significantly to the stigma that Nigerian newspapers face in the eyes of the Misplaced Pages community.
			::::::::'''Reliability in Context'''
			::::::::While there exists a notable trend of unreliable reporting among many Nigerian newspapers, it is critical to contextualize this within the broader media landscape of Nigeria. Not all publications succumb to dubious practices; several outlets continue to uphold high journalistic standards, successfully publishing well-researched investigative reports and reliable coverage of current events. For instance, reputable newspapers often play an essential role in reporting on significant political developments, including elections, thereby contributing positively to public discourse.
			::::::::From the perspective of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for sourcing (specifically WP:RSNP), engaging in a case-by-case assessment of sources is pivotal. This approach emphasizes the necessity for editors well-versed in the Nigerian media landscape to identify which sources maintain their integrity and contribute substantively to Misplaced Pages’s mission. A blanket rejection or deprecation of all Nigerian sources would, therefore, overlook the valuable contributions that some publications make, ultimately hampering the representation of Nigerian voices in global discourse.
			::::::::'''Recommendations for Misplaced Pages Editors'''
			::::::::1. '''Develop Specific Guidelines''': Create detailed guidelines akin to those for other regions, such as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. This document should articulate the acceptable use of Nigerian sources while pinpointing common issues like promotional materials and the nature of reporting practices. Such clarity will assist editors in evaluating sources effectively.
			::::::::2. '''Engage Local Expertise:''' Encourage the involvement of Nigerian editors in determining the reliability of local sources. Their unique insights can significantly enhance the community's understanding of the nuances of language and reporting styles prevalent in Nigeria.
			::::::::3. '''Enforce Critical Scrutiny''': Emphasize the importance of thorough evaluations of articles from Nigerian newspapers, particularly regarding BLPs. Editors and reviewers should be trained to recognize promotional language and ensure the use of independent, verifiable sources.
			::::::::4. '''Adapt to Changes in Media Landscape''': Continuously monitor and research the evolving landscape of Nigerian media, documenting improvements in journalistic integrity and the emergence of new, credible news organizations. This ongoing reassessment will allow Misplaced Pages policies regarding sourcing to adapt in line with current practices.
			:::::::: 5. '''Maintain a Balance in Coverage''': While it is essential to prioritize accurate information and avoid systemic bias, it is equally crucial to reflect the diverse perspectives from non-Western countries. Dismissing all Nigerian sources could marginalize important voices, undermining Misplaced Pages's mission of being a comprehensive encyclopedia.
			::::::::Finally, the integration of Nigerian newspapers into Misplaced Pages remains a multifaceted challenge that requires a balanced approach acknowledging both their shortcomings and their capacity for delivering credible information. By applying informed scrutiny and developing nuanced guidelines, Misplaced Pages can adeptly navigate the complexities involved in sourcing from Nigerian media while committing to enhancing its inclusivity and representation in global knowledge sharing. ] (]) 18:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::That's not "your humble take", that's a bloated ChatGPT-generated regurgitation of this discussion. ] (]) 21:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{cbot}}
			*'''Comment''' pretty much everything has already been said; the news media in Nigeria seem to be in the habit of puffing everyone and everything. As with the Indian news sources, we almost have to evaluate each news story on a case-by-case basis. We can keep Nigerian sources, but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability. The sources in the country are in the habit of puffy reporting, we just have to learn to use them. ] (]) 01:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I'd be ok if we create a policy similar to the NewsOrgIndia ... We allow the sources, but to be taken with a grain of salt. ] (]) 01:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::See ]. What did you mean by “…{{tq|but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability.}}”? Best, ] 05:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@]'s addition of ] is helpful but the link to the unvetted WikiProject list is not, in my opinion. It lists, for example, ] as "reliable" which is the publication I ] which seemed to have drawn the conclusion to disregard promo and use with caution. It also lists pretty much every newspaper which reported inaccurately sparking this thread as "reliable"
			*:Beyond the issue of promo, "Nigeria is one of West Africa’s most dangerous and difficult countries for journalists, who are regularly monitored, attacked and arbitrarily arrested, as was the case during the 2023 elections." ]] 10:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@] What sort of opinionated and unstructured comment did you just make? What do you mean by "unvetted WikiProject list"? Do you, by any chance, know the efforts I and few other editors who are Nigerians have put to bring up that list? Please be careful when making comments, especially when the topic has to do with one you're not entirely familiar with. As far as I am concerned, you cannot call a list which I have put efforts in contributing to "unvetted", the comment is not only unreasonable but also incorrect.
			*::I couldn't locate the thread you linked but whatever you brough up there are your opinion. I know the efforts I have been putting at AfD when it comes to Nigerian sources. Be careful, please, with all due respect.
			*::In a more general note, this thread is not going anywhere, '']'' is a reliable source of information whether anyone "who is not a Nigerian" likes it or not, in fact, any source listed in the WikiProject as reliable is indeed reliable. The Herald, Guardian, New York Times, and other UK or US papers all publish nonsense piece as well, no one is permitted to call Nigerian sources unreliable because there are only a few Nigerian editors? I can't tell. I guess when this thread was initiated it was thought that there'd be no editor to oppose. SMH. ] (]) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::The link they are referring to has been archived, see ].<br>In regard to {{tq|who is not a Nigerian}} There are many non-Nigerians who don't agree with the comment that started this thread. I both support and encourage projects to maintain there own sources lists, as they most likely to have knowledge of that particular area, but they are subject to ] and so from to time discussions like this will happen. The net result of this discussion has been ], which only writes down the advice that has been given in many other discussions.
			*:::If any editor wants to discuss a particular source they believe has issue outside of what's already covered by ] I suggest they start a new section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::@] last time we discussed This Day, you pointed out that they . Currently, top of the advertorials is . As you noted, there is no indication on the article that this is an advertorial and it looks like a normal news item. .
			*::::How can this be a reliable source when advertorials are completely indistinguishable from reporting? ]] 15:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Because otherwise it would result in the making all news organisations in multiple countries completely unusable, and it wouldn't be limited to India and Nigeria. Such undisclosed advertorials are common in a lot of countries, and will likely become more common not less due to the changes effecting news media across the globe. It wouldn't help to improve the encyclopedia by saying that such vast swathes of the news media are generally unreliable, and in many ways that isn't a fit description for the sources. They are reliable for many things, but not for the promotional nature of these advertorials.
			*:::::As has been said before the AfDs show that noone is being fooled. Editors are correctly spotting when this is happening and acting accordingly. Promo content being added to Misplaced Pages is certainly not an issue limited to these countries, just look to all the reputation management companies found elsewhere.
			*:::::Ultimately it's what effect should be had. We don't want those advertorials being used to add promo content to Misplaced Pages, that is achieved by ]. So do we need to class all those news media organisations as generally unreliable, will that help to improve the encyclopedia? I very much doubt it would. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::Are they? How are they being spotted? For example, see ] - there are many sources here but every single one of them appears more dubious than the two advertorial examples linked above. For an active AfD, see ]. It was moved out of drafts by an editor who is now blocked and the editors voting keep simply insist that the sources are reliable without any evaluation. ]] 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::(Pinging you is difficult) Let me be blunter, you deletion rationale in that AfD {{tq|Sources all appear to be ]}} is not only unappealing but also vague. Why? you simply said that "ALL" of them are NEWSORGNIGERIA without telling us what analysis you did that made you come to that conclusion. I figured since we're not doing anything in-dept here, it would make sense to also tell you, since this area is my expertise, that the subject clear-cut passed GNG. If you did any analysis and showed it, then we'd be discussing what you analysed and not something else. ] (]) 18:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::I do not get the impression that advertorials are regularly passed off as real news in countries with strong protections for journalism. What the academic papers I linked earlier were emphasizing is that Nigeria has a striking systematic problem with unethical journalism that goes beyond what is seen in respectable broadsheets (the "brown envelope syndrome" being one example) and appears to affect ''all'' major outlets. The last link talks about an egregious political advert for Babangida's birthday that ran in the ]—listed as generally reliable—and characterizes the newspapers as being ''reliant'' upon such revenue sources. Some of the other journals note that several newspapers don't even pay their journalists; surely at least those should be considered generally unreliable? ] (]) 02:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Not sure why you're responding with so much emotion. It would be better to discuss this dispassionately. Your reply doesn't actually explain why a publication like This Day, which publishes disguised promotions, should be viewed as reliable. @] also provides very compelling evidence above which has not been rebutted. ]] 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Maybe the rather emotionally charged use of "unvetted" to describe another editors work had something to do with it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::So, my reply is emotional to you, and you think I am dispassionate, lol. I'll entirely ignore this your comment. ] (]) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			People may defend ], but when I see that e.g. The Nation is considered "generally reliable" but publishes (with a byline!) e.g. pure promo drivel (used in a new article here, not something I went looking for especially), then it is hard to take that list or the defense of it seriously. It turns out to be (at least in part) a copy of a four year old article from the Vanguard, not some actual journalistic effort by the Nation, but how could one tell? ] (]) 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::As for Franz’s participation with the New World Translation, I have also cited court testimony by Fred Franz himself where under oath he testifies that he was the Editor and that, specifically, he was charged to review the New World Translation for accuracy and correctness. I see that, again, you provide less than full information. Why do you keep doing this?--] (]) 15:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			*<strike>'''Oppose blanket ban'''.</strike> The proponents of the ban have failed to actually demonstrate that ''all'' Nigerian newspapers have ''always'' been unreliable. As far as I can see, the evidence presented does not, for example, give any indication that the Lagos Daily News or the Daily Times were unreliable in 1925. In fact, they do not even appear to have been mentioned. , actually cited above, claims that the quality of Nigerian newspapers was better before the internet. , also cited above, only applies to the South-West geo-political zone, and not the other five geo-political zones (something not mentioned above). We need to take one newspaper at a time, and we need to look beyond the last five minutes. ] (]) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			**There has been no proposal to blanket ban all Nigerian Newspapers, so you are bold opposing a strawman. ] (]) 10:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			***Expressions such as "isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers" do look like proposals for a blanket ban. Everyone else in this thread seems to think that this is a proposal for a blanket ban. If you are not proposing a blanket ban, perhaps you should rephrase your comments in grammatically and semantically correct plain language that other people can actually understand. Anyway, in view of the statement that there is no proposal for a blanket ban, I have struck my !vote. ] (]) 12:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*** FWIW, I too, interpreted it as a blanket ban, and it's clear from people's comments that many other people did as well. Glad to know that that's not what you meant. ] (]) 16:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I would support RSNG in that I would support projects creating source lists. How specific sources are listed on RSNG is first a matter of discussion at the project level (as the list is only at the project level), and RSN if there is no agreement there. This is the same for all project level lists. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Part of the definition of a 'reliable source' in Misplaced Pages is "published". Being part of a public record is not enough. A university transcript does not meet the definition of a 'reliable source'. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 17:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			===Brainstorming RfCs===
	::::::'''Donald Albury:''' With due respect, university transcripts are publish-on-demand documents. Because a document is not published for general distribution does not mean it is not published. To my knowledge, Misplaced Pages does not discriminate against publish-on-demand documents so long as the source of the document is reliable. I have no reason to question the reliability of the University of Cincinnati. Do you?--] (]) 18:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			It is clear that referring to the overly optimistic ] is not a good approach to determine the current reliability of some Nigerian newspapers. If we were to reconsider the status of e.g. ], to list it as e.g. "generally unreliable", what question should be posted in an RfC? Should we first try to find a cut-off date (i.e. "no longer generally reliable from year X on")? Are the above examples and reports sufficient, or is more needed? Or would it be easier to change ], correcting "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability. Wikiproject Nigeria has assembled a list of sources that they consider reliable/unreliable: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources." to "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability and verifiability", adding "verifiability" and removing the link to the project-based list? ] (]) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think correcting WP:RSNP is a good start, simply by undoing which there clearly wasn't agreement to add. ]] 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::'''Donald Albury:''' Researching the issue of whether university transcripts can be used for verification I found the following:
			::What to include or not include on the RSP (outside of the results of discussions at RSN) are probably best discussed at the RSP talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It was ]ly added without discussion, though, so I've removed it for now as a first step. --] (]) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I would suggest that editing the section be done this way. RSP is no different from any other page, edit, discuss on talk page, then third opinion or noticeboard. Exact wording in the section doesn't immediately necessitate an RFC unless there is unresolvable differences of opinion. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I would suggest against one RFC to cover all the sources, unless there is a very specific question about the sources (more specific than 'are they reliable?'), as it will likely result in a train wreck.
			:If the issue is just to add 'and verifiability', or removing the project link, I would suggest ]. Consensus is first built through editing, and the RSP is no different in that matter. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Whatever way the discussion goes it, I suggest an RFC should be in a completely new section. RSN gets overloaded, and this section is already very large. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Absolutely. ] (]) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have been reading old RfCs about unreliable medias to reference. Many of these discussions start with a blanket question. For example: "Is ]
			:# Generally reliable
			:# Additional considerations apply
			:# Generally unreliable
			:# Deprecated"
			:From there, editors can make their own arguments so if there should be a cut-off date for reliability. I think we can start with the more egregious media with examples and those who do not view them as unreliable should make the argument for why and when they should be considered reliable. ]] 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::If the TechCabal article is correct, then Nigerian newspapers were better before the internet. This might not apply to ], which began publication in 2001. One of the earliest accounts of "brown envelopes" dates to the ] (1979 to 1983): . On a search of Google Books, I found no references to "brown envelopes" in Nigeria in any book published before 1983. I found no more than 8 such references in books published before 1990, and 5 of those were from 1989: . In the absence of further evidence, I think we could take 1979 as a complete cut off point. Even after that, the evidence is not unequivocal. The study from 1984 says that ] journalists may not be as corrupt as journalists are depicted: . And the claims of bribery during the Republic seem to relate more to government journalists, than to independent newspapers. The sources also suggest that ] was more reliable. ] (]) 19:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] / ] ==
	::::::On I find the statement: “However, in the specific case of interviews with notable people conducted by accredited reporters on Wikinews who provide a complete transcript or recording of the interview, I think we can use the interview as a reliable source. I have read the Wikinews Accreditation Policy, and find it provides the key ingredient of assuring that the source is a real identifiable person with a known track record, and a reputation to protect. Because reporters must reveal their real legal name to be accredited, it is not possible to create throw-away accounts for doing mischief. As to the editorial supervision, there is a process for revoking credentials in that process. I think we can also safely assume that material will be removed if it is substantially questioned to protect the reputation of Wikinews, so this meets the needs of Misplaced Pages for editorial supervision. The material should not be considered self-published, because although reporters initiates the process, they do not have ultimate control of the publication process, as they would on a blog.”
			Used for many claims throughout pages for CBM movies, such as ], ], ], and ], including those which are otherwise unverifiable like Victor von Doom appearing in the first or that Spider-Man was supposed to appear in ] but was cut.
	::::::If a complete transcript provided by an accredited reporter is considered a reliable source then why would we not also accept a complete transcript from an accredited university as a reliable source?
			I really do not see why his claims is so widely allowed and accepted as fact, even though he is undoubtedly more reliable than random blogs or posts on Twitter he's still a journalist making claims without evidence. I would like to establish here definitively if we continue to site theinsneider.com as a source, as we currently do in many articles. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::In , we see that "administrative documents" are considered as primary source material. If administrative documents are considered primary source material then why should we consider the administrative document of an educational transcript as anything less than secondary source material when it is issued by a third-party accredited institution? --] (]) 19:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			:I did a Google News search and when other outlets report his stuff it is described as a rumour or "reportedly". He is also described as a "scooper". I don't think most of that should be used on Misplaced Pages because of NOTNEWS. Rumours about media that haven't been released yet aren't even news yet. Does he say that he got his info from a source? Then it should be attributed to that source. It also looks like a SPS. So everything sourced to him should be attributed, but even then it probably shouldn't be used. ] (]) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::The ] states (in the section ]), "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I have never heard of this "publish-on-demand" concept. Can you point to a policy in Misplaced Pages that allows such to be used as sources? I would also note that the Wikinews case is a special exception, and is irrelevant to whether we allow citations to unpublished material (after all, the interviews discussed have been published by Wikinews). -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 20:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			::Right now, much of what is sourced to him is just taken as face value, for example Doom is listed in the cast for the Fantastic Four movie without clarification that it's based off a claim by him. My changes to remove such information from the pages were undone, so there seems to be some ambiguity if he is currently accepted as a RS. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 18:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:For any stories about named people (e.g. casting), ] would probably bar use of this source, since he's self-published. His record on this is at best mixed from a quick search. For example, he reported that ] would be starring in a new Johnny Depp film, which was swiftly denied, kept posting that it was true, and then a few months later, ] was announced as the co-star.
			:I did some digging and apparently he made a recent post, copied here, , in which he says {{tq|This may speak to my own reckless vanity, but I’d rather be wrong sometimes than sit on 100 accurate stories and stand idly by and watch as Nellie Andreeva breaks every single one of them. Yes, it’s nauseating to get a story wrong — seriously, it makes me sick to my stomach — but it’s an even worse feeling when you don’t report something and then get beat by the competition.}} If that's his attitude to reporting, then it would probably be best if we don't use him for non-BLP subjects as well. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I've removed everything that clearly failed ] and tried to beef up non-BLP uses of this (e.g. filming dates, projects in development) with better sources that cite his work. Honestly most reputable don't really cite him and hedge by using "rumoured" or "reportedly" and cannot corroborate. Definitely not an ideal source and probably runs afoul of ], especially if not picked up by better sources citing him at all. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			In the future it would be appreciated if you notified other editors of such a discussion rather than going on what I would describe as a deletion rampage, making dozens of edits to remove a source that is widely deemed to be reliable. Sneider clearly meets the SME requirement at ], he is a long time film and entertainment journalist whose work has previously been published by various reliable sources. The fact that he is now self-publishing his reporting does not now make him unreliable, which is what the wording at SELFPUB caters for. If you take issue with specific claims he has made or the wording of specific claims then the place to discuss those is at the talk pages of the articles in question, not here where the majority of editors will never see it. - ] (]) 09:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::'''Donald Albury:''' First of all, your response is appreciated.
			:I have notified editors at ], ], ], ], and ]. I think that should cover all the articles impacted so far by this discussion. - ] (]) 09:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Misplaced Pages does not make any distinction between documents issued/published for general distribution compared to documents issued/published on demand when both documents are provided by a source “with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. If Misplaced Pages does not make this distinction then how can you? Educational transcripts are issued/provided upon request just like court transcripts are issued/provided on request.
			:For a lot of these pages, the relevant policy isn't ], but ], since the InSneider is self publishing reporting about living people (e.g. A didn't role B, C got fired because of D, E might be in F). BLPSPS is a bright-line rule and while ] exists, superhero movie rumours isn't going to justify that. This is especially true when non-selfpublished exist to cover the same claims or when ] applies.
			:For example, your revert at ] restored The InSneider when the material in the sentence is already fully supported by the already cited ] piece and your revert at ] restored material alleging very specific allegations of sexual misconduct with young men that is corroborated by independent sources . I've reverted the latter given the serious BLP issues there.
			:It's less of an issue when the BLP-connection is less direct such as when it's talking about a film production in general (e.g. G starts filming in H, I was delayed to J, K is in development at L), but even SELFPUB recommends replacing with better sources when possible and I highlighted some reliability issues with Sneider above.
			:I have also notified ] since this touches on BLPSPS. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I think you are forgetting that there is a very big distinction between Sneider's pieces written for Collider and other RS and those he written on his own blog. He speculates much more and gives unverified, evidence-free information on his blog than he does when working with publications, and he isn't impeded by an editor or journalistic oversight in his own website.
			:If you want to see ''proof'' that Sneider has made false and provably false claims on his own website before, then there's of all the time he has made false claims thanks to the people at the subreddit for Marvel spoilers. Among the falsehoods he has promoted on his site include that the Fantastic Four movie would start filming in March, that Adam Driver was cast as Doom, that Jack Quaid was cast as Johnny Storm, and that Tom Holland was going to appear as a full role in Across the Spider-Verse. Sneider should be used in articles ''only'' when he is writing for reliable sources, otherwise we are inviting unsourced and oftentimes completely imagined speculation on our pages. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 18:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Oh wow, so he's basically correct about 2/3 of the time. Not terrible, I guess for online postings, but this would seem to fall well-short for ] purposes, much less making an exception for ]. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I don't think we should be letting some people from a Reddit community dictate what they think is true or false to determine notability on this encyclopedia. I understand Sneider gets a bad rap from some people and in the press, but he does qualify as a ] in the field of entertainment news. I am subscribed to his newsletter and Sneider does a pretty good job clarifying what he is actually reporting from what are his own opinions and beliefs. A lot of what he says in his newsletter tends to be blown out of proportion or taken out of context, and not everything pans out in the film industry. For the Sydney Sweeney thing, I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart and thus, Cruz came onboard, not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading. A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions (because they get ad revenue from major companies involved) but Sneider has a good track record of reporting on industry details, deals, and events as they are in progress, which goes for the Fantastic Four castings and Black Widow. I have been working on adding third-party sources for some of his recent newsletter issues being cited to help make verifying his reports easier, though this takes time. I do not agree with removing his published articles from Collider, Variety, or his newsletter outright as we cannot disregard a source simply because ] or you don't believe in it. We go by ], and report all the facts as presented, which is how an encyclopedia ought to be. I have not found any instances to my immediate recollection where editors cited a Sneider report only for it to be proven intentionally wrong or misleading. The Madame Web report was not disputed or debunked, and the recent reports of Superman and Beyond the Spider-Verse have since been clarified as a matter of semantics, not actually being intentional false news reporting on Sneider's part. A lot of what he says is regurgitated through aggregators and social media which tends to be less reliable or transparent than what he actually says in his newsletter or on his podcast The Hot Mic. I would not go as far as to say Sneider's newsletter reporting is "speculation", as he is an independent working journalist with 20+ years of experience in this profession. He knows his stuff but gets a lot of bad publicity from his social media activity and because some of his reporting hits a nerve with select communities. I would consider him a reliable source, but with clarification needed to specify when he is making an educated guess or providing an opinion alongside what he is reporting from his industry sources. ] (]) 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Also, because @] questioned what Sneider's sources are, I suppose it ought to be explained that every journalist gets their information from sources. These individuals are usually people who work within the industry they are reporting about, so they are often talent agents, managers, PR workers, producers, involved creatives in a production, etc. who have first-hand information and provide information as a tip to a journalist. Most of these sources prefer to remain anonymous, so we cannot just find who his sources are to verify their tips. That's just not how this industry works. Filming schedules and castings change all the time, so to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a ] and ] concern because no sources said these were absolutely false, and if you have any reliable sources saying Sneider specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report, that should be presented rather than just going off of some editors' opinions of a controversial figure. ] (]) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Anonymously-sourced reporting obviously can be used in RSs, but you're not really making a strong case for reliability and encyclopedic quality by defending Sneider with {{tq|to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false,}}. In respect to the Holland thing, it's not a good look to be confidently stating things about major casting at the tail end of February 2023 that then don't pan out upon release in at the end of May that year. Maybe he was right at the time, though no one else has corroborated this from what I can tell, but even then he would've published too early given he was ultimately wrong.
			::::{{tq|specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report}} would meet the standard for defamation of a public figure, but it isn't the standard for assessing if a particular source is reliable or a good indicator of if something is encyclopedic. If someone gets a lot of stuff wrong in good faith, they're still not reliable, especially in ] situations. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Yes, using anonymous sources is common in journalism, but is not standard. The standard is to cite their sources. Sure, NYT and WaPo don't always follow their own guidelines on anonymous sources. Usually such guidelines involve mentioning that the information is from an anonymous source and giving clues as to the credibility of the source. When including information from anonymous sources, wikipedia should follow suite. If the NYT cites a "source close to the president" for a claim, the wikipedia article should also mention a "source close to the president" So how much info does Sneider give?
			::::Also, information should be verified. This might involve asking another source if they object to the publication of the information. Also, really, the studio should be asked to comment. If there is not a comment from the studio or a line saying that comment was sought, then best practices have not been followed.
			::::The idea that Sneider is a SME is questionable. The reporting in question seems to be a matter of insider knowledge not expertise. Basically, people are leaking the information to Sneider or gossiping to him about who will get the part. ] (]) 15:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::FYI, we are also not here to be ]. It is completely acceptable to note what an SME reports about an industry topic they have been covering for two decades now. The reports should be judged on a case-by-case basis to determine if Sneider has ever actually intentionally made any false or misleading statements and passed them off as a report directly by himself, and not by sheer opinion or a lack of or misunderstanding of the filmmaking process and journalistic procedures. ] (]) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Even if he is 100% correct (which he isn't), none of his tweets and InSneider reports can be used per ] to verify anything about living people since they are self-published. There's presumably no issue with his work in non-self-published sources with editorial control like Collider, but for the self-published stuff in respect to living people (e.g. castings, cut scenes, staffing), Misplaced Pages has a bright line rule against it. The only stuff that is even allowed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for self-published stories would be for instances where it's being used for stuff that is general enough to not really implicate BLP (e.g. filming schedules, runtime, episode length). -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::The whole sum of BLPSPS is that no self-published blogs may be used. Sneider's publishing is via a newsletter and is part of his job as a journalist. In what ways are his newsletter reports violating any core and basic BLP policies or how are they of a major concern to it beyond the X-Men '97 allegations. A lot of journalists nowadays are posting on their own outside of major trades or news organizations because those options have become more prevalent to do so. Anonymous sourcing is also how all journalists operate, so if we say journalists who post on their own cannot be cited as reliable sources for doing their job without disclosing their sources and having a company watch over them, that sets a very bad precedent for the freedom of the press and what we actually allow to be included, let alone mentioned, in this encyclopedia. If it applies to Sneider, it ought to apply to all self-published journalists and newsletters, and I don't see how that could go well. ] (]) 06:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::That's a misreading of BLPSPS, which says: {{tq|Never use self-published sources—'''including but not limited to''' books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—}} (emphasis added). Unless there's a clear organizational structure (e.g. ]), most newsletters are little more than self-published blogs. There's tons of great journalists with their own newsletters that I think are most likely reliable that I would love to cite (though Sneider may not be one of them), but BLPSPS is crystal clear on this front and for good reason. If you want to start a new discussion somewhere (here, ] ], etc.) on whether we should move to a case-by-case basis for journalistic SPSs, you can do that, but until then BLPSPS is policy and can't be overridden by ]. Don't really care about the anonymous sources issue, since that is an accepted norm for journalists. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Not all of the instances of Sneider's reports are about people themselves. They are primarily about the Hollywood projects which naturally involve people's jobs and castings. I fail to see how a technicality should prevent us from using a decent source at all. If the issue is of verification, find a third-party source verifying the report. This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. ] (]) 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::{{tq|This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that.}} The InSneider can be separately assessed for reliability for any claims not about living people, but as ] makes clear in the first sentence, it applies regardless of if the article is a biography or not, so the fact that Sneider is cited on movie articles is immaterial in respect to ].
			::::::::There's been multiple discussions on this noticeboard about Substack and other newsletters involving much more prominent journalists than Sneider and the consensus has always been that BLPSPS bars their use in respect to living people unless the publication has editorial oversight and a reputation for reliability (e.g. ] , ] , ] , in general )
			::::::::I don't object to the underlying facts per say if they are indeed verifiable through third-party sources. I did try to find non-self-published sources that independently corroborated what Sneider reported, and replaced InSneider with them when I did. I only removed when I was unable to do so. ] makes it clear that the onus to restore material removed for BLP issues is on those who want to restore it to do so in a policy-compliant way, which seems unlikely since nothing in this section has challenged the individually self-published nature of InSneider. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thank you for your lengthy examination of Sneider as a reliable source. I think a potential compromise that I hope the editors here could agree on- is to restructure all current citations to his self-published website so that it clearly states that it is journalist Jeff Sneider reporting. The example on ] that spurred me to open up this discussion in the first place, for example:
			:::{{tq|Additionally, the character Mole Man is expected to appear, and Robert Downey Jr. is expected to appear as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.}}
			:::could be reworded to:
			:::{{tq|Journalist Jeff Sneider reported in 2024 that the character Mole Man is expected to appear, as well as Robert Downey Jr. as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.}}
			:::This would be done for every single citation that uses his personal site. I see your arguments defending his inclusion as a verifiable source, but I also feel as the central issue here- that a lot of pages take him at face value as equivalent to official news from Deadline or Marvel Studios themselves, should still be rectified. We could also add him to the RS list as a source that can be used in the articles ''with attribution only.''
			:::Thoughts? @] @] @] ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 05:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::For anything that involves stories about living people, this would be BLP violation, attribution or not, since The InSneider is a self-published source and that's barred by ]. If no other sources are writing about it besides a self-published report from Sneider, that's a good indicator that we shouldn't include it on Misplaced Pages. Attribution for stuff like "Mole Man" might be okay depending on Sneider's reliability and how tied that is to a specific actor in the text. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I support attribution being applied to Sneider's reports, and most of the instances where his reports are used already do this in prose while third-party refs are being added to them. The BLP violation reads to me like a bit of a stretch with semantics itself and could probably be re-evaluated when it comes to journalists reporting as part of their job. Reporting on allegations should not be a reason to be barred as a source when major news outlets do the same. ] (]) 06:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{tq|Reporting on allegations a reason to be barred as a source}} is a straw man. Major news outlets have a reputation for fact checking and reliability, while Sneider has had multiple confirmed reports not pan out. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Which ones have not panned out? ] (]) 07:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Sweeny, Lindelof, and Holland make at least three incorrect reports in approximately a year. If I did more spot checks from the spreadsheet, there would probably be more. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Again, not everything in Hollywood pans out. That does not mean the reports were false. Unless other independent sources confirmed they were false, you are assuming they were not true, which draws into some dangerous POV issues here on your apparent bias. I have asked you to provide sources which confirm Sneider's reports were false, and you have provided none of the sort. ] (]) 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Lots of stuff in all kinds of different fields don't pan out. However, if a source often reports things as confirmed and they don't pan out, there's a reliability/jumping the gun issue and its starts falling into unencyclopedic ] territory. The end result is that Sneider either misjudged how correct the story originally was or how likely that status quo was going to remain. If you look at the Deadline and Variety archives, they only reported on certainties in respect to the Sweeey/Holland/Lindelof stories (i.e. Cruz hiring/nothing/hiring and departure).
			:::::::::Genuine question, does Sneider ever issue corrections/retractions or do retrospectives on why he got stories wrong? Obviously sometimes reliable sources get it wrong, and the proper thing to do in that case is to issue corrections/retractions.
			:::::::::I think I've seen only even heard of Sneider once before (when the X-Men '97/Beau DeMayo story was happening) so to accuse me of bias is wild when you've created a position where it is functionally unfalsifiable that Sneider could ever be wrong. If it pans out, he was correct. If it doesn't, he was correct but things changed afterwards, despite in many cases no reliable sources backing up his original story. Sneider isn't important enough for something like the ] or an an actual reliable source to investigate his methods and he uses anonymous sources (which isn't an issue in and of itself) so it's essentially impossible to prove if any of his reports are false in a way that would satisfy you. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I think that is an argument for waiting until things are officially announced, before putting them in the article. The problem isn't Sneider, but the kind of reporting that he is doing. He is reporting other people's predictions. He also isn't a SME. He is a reporter that chases leads and reports what may be hearsay or leaks or outright lies by his sources. He is reporting on Hollywood, after all. ] (]) 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{reply to|HadesTTW}} I just saw that you pinged me in this message. I agree that a good resolution here would be to add Sneider to the RS list as an SME for entertainment reporting as long as he is attributed, and potentially with the caveat that his self-published sources should be replaced with non-self-published sources if available. - ] (]) 15:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You can spot check the examples used and some definitely seem to hold up as poor reporting. Besides the Holland/Across the Spider-Verse example I discussed above another one I spot checked was this comment made March 9, 2023, in which Sneider says it's 100% confirmed that ]'s Star Wars film would be coming out in December 2025 film. On March 21, 2023, Lindelof's departure is announced.
			:::{{tq|I am subscribed to his newsletter}} Can you confirm if the quotation from the post I cited is correct then? It matched the title of this post from InSneider and it went unchallenged in the thread and seemed to match the style from what I've found.
			:::{{tq|not everything pans out in the film industry.}}, {{tq| I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart...not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading.}} and {{tq|A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions}}. I don't think Sneider is maliciously creating false reports or anything, but if he's reporting too early on things that aren't confirmed yet while the major trade publications are reporting when it's certain, that does not bode well for his reliability nor for the encyclopedic value of his coverage (]).
			:::{{tq|removing his published articles from Collider, Variety}} Pretty sure no one here is suggesting that. The main issue is ] and then reliability as a ]. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Sneider's report and those quotes are correct from his newsletter. I have no idea what "thread" you are referring to, but a lot can change and happen in the 12 days between Sneider saying Lindelof's film was confirmed for that release and when Lindelof ultimately exited the film. That's just how Hollywood, and all of business, pans out. You can't seriously hold that against Sneider to say his statement is false when Disney's Star Wars films have pretty much languished with ] issues for years. Even major trades report on projects in early development and when directors or writers are in talks. That's just what the trades do. They report on the production process, which is always in flux. ] (]) 07:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you for the confirmation. I copied the quotation from a Reddit thread from a film podcast subreddit which I linked in my comment above. I dealt with how the other trades operate and the issues with using Sneider for the truth of what he's reporting above, so I won't repeat them here. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{OD}}
			<br>
			Alrighty, I wrote the below on ] and I'm copying this below.
			'''Jeff Sneider being used as a source in Hollywood reporting'''.<br>
	::::::::Court/trial transcripts are only rarely published for general distribution, but court transcripts are routinely used as secondary source material because they are available for copying/issuing on demand and they come from a source “with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” (or course not all judicial sources are reliable just as not all universities are reliable, which is why I asked you if you took issue with the U of C’s reliability). If we apply your expressed criteria we would have to deny court transcripts as a verifiable source. Is this your position?
			Jeff Sneider's reports, found in his ''TheInSneider'' blog and also ''Above the Line'', have been covered in several other reliable sources.
			His career besides his self-published blog: He has had two notable tenures at '']'', and in between those two tenures, he had a stint at '']'' covering the film industry. This is confirmed , with information on his tenure at ''Variety''. '']'' also as Senior Film Reporter, and says he did work at '']'' before his venture into trade publications, and at one point he contributed reports for '']''.
			These following perennial sources have cited his self-published blog, exemplifying ''']''':
	::::::::Additionally, do you consider a primary source (e.g., an “administrative document”) of information as unreliable when that information addresses a third-party, such as a university transcript addresses educational credentials of an individual?
			:*'']'', including and
			:''Forbes'' describes him as, "Jeff Sneider, an industry insider and reporter", and covers his reporting, even providing a link to another site he contributes to, ''Above the Line''.
	::::::::Finally, if we accept as reliable articles published by university presses for general distribution based on the reputation of the institution, it is then absurd to deny educational transcripts from the same institution as reliable. Conversely, if an institution's educational transcripts are unreliable there is no way in the world that articles publish by the same source can be deemed reliable simply because they is published for general distribution. Your further review is requested.--] (]) 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			:* '']'' covers his reporting
	:University presses are not universities. Universities publish press releases, and all sorts of things with no intrinsically greater reliability than other press releases. A university's publication about how high its reputation is, for example, is not to be taken as authoritative! University presses publish on the basis of extensive peer-review of the submitted manuscripts. second, the proper use of primary sources is a matter for research unless they are self explanatory or used--appropriately--as a quotation. In this case, proving someone's receipt of a degree by a link to a published version of the transcript is acceptable. Proving there never was one from a particular university is a little trickier--there might have been one subsequently. This is a job for the investigative journalist or biographer, not Misplaced Pages. (And I note that even the best journalists and biographers have sometimes failed or disagreed in interpreting primary documents.) Even more clearly, concluding the quality of someone's education from his transcript, is an matter of interpretation. How much biblical Greek one learns in a certain course is not something to be assumed by bare statement here--this is exactly the sort or OR interpretation which is not permitted--an excellent illustration of why we need such a policy. But there is a more general rule: unpublished archives may not be cited on wikipedia, since they are not generally accessible. If the transcript were to be published in a RS, perhaps you could cite it but still not interpret it. Of the material mentioned above, you could probably best use Ron Rhode's opinion--quoting such a secondary source in adequate fullness & context is the way to do it. You asked on my talk page for my further opinion--now you have it. ''']''' (]) 22:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			:* '']'' covers his reporting
	::'''DGG:''' Your further comments are appreciated.
			: and here's him reporting that ] was chosen to play ] in ] of '']'', which ended up being '''spot-on correct''', via '']'':
	::I have not said that university presses are universities. Neither have I suggested that a university’s statement of its own reputation is authoritative, and I have no idea why you suggest this. But taking the time to express this is appreciated.
			:* per a ] publication, '']''{{'}}s own '']'', covers one of his reports
	::Regarding Franz’s university transcript of record, my remarks state no more an no less than what the transcript presents in terms of courses and credits earned. The rest is verified by sources that Vassilis78 conveniently left out.
			:* '']'', (] as {{tq|considered reliable for entertainment-related topics}} but not for {{tq|controversial statements related to living persons}}, which in this case, we're sort of concerned about that stuff in relation to Sneider's reporting) '''covers Sneider in many, many instances'''. <br>
	::What do you mean by “generally accessible” in relation to a university transcript? These are published on demand, particularly for deceased individuals who attended nearly 100 years ago. These records are as accessible as the nearest web browser, postal box or telephone. All an editor has to do is ask for the information and pay the administrative cost of having it processed and delivered. This is no more expensive or complicated than having your library deliver reference material at your request. So, again, what do you mean by “generally accessible”?
			: and reported by ''Screen Rant'' an ''InSneider'' report that '']'', (a film with Austin Butler and Norman Reedus) was dropped by Disney's ]. Sneider's report '''ended up being true''', as Disney let the rights go to ].
			:* And '']'' - reporting on the ''InSneider'' report mentioned above concerning ''Bikeriders'', right . Can hardly get better than trade publications.
	::As for “published,” if the document in question had never been published I would not have a copy. So what do you mean by “publish,” and where is this expressed in Misplaced Pages policy?
			:* '']'' - that Sneider was the first to get the news that ] were coming back for '']'' and ''].
			:* via '']'' - Sneider that ] was playing ]'s son in '']''.
			<span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I also find the ''Mary Sue'' story about Johnny Depp and Sydney Sweeney to be drama mongering. Their punchline about Sneider's story amounted to "and <u>internet users</u> were pissed about the actress potentially working with the subject of the ]" - like who cares about internet people being ticked? Was there doxxing? was ] or a world government involved? '''No!'''
	::It is difficult to contemplate how a university transcript of record could in any way be considered less than a reliable source. Universities stake their reputations on maintaining the viability of this information, and accurately providing it. As for peer review, the students themselves even get a voice in the matter if they disagree with what is on their transcript.
			:If Sneider gets something wrong, nobody gets mangled or tangibly harmed. The ] policy is for claims concerning living people themselves, not films and casting processes or anything of the like. and for randoms who are not, something that is not what Sneider is doing.
			:Let's ] the concept of this policy and apply it to ]. Even though the chunk of rock is the subject of the article, there are parts of the article for the Moon which concern living people, like ] and how he walked on it. '''Holy hell!''' the very association of living people to a subject of an article clearly not about people means we '''must NEVER''' use any ] about the Moon in the article because it is ].
			:I don't think that Sneider should be used to state facts about casting. I certainly don't believe we need to add a person to a cast list because he says something on his podcast: while I question his nature of jumping the gun on reports, I don't believe the rationale should be that the info he reports is concerning a living person. I figured that saying ] was gonna be in ''Fantastic Four'' was bold, but it's concerning that a character is going to be in a film, not some claim about a person's life and times. Besides his casting scoops, I think he gives worthy insight into the film industry and its processes. I think that his branding is corny and I'm concerned that but hey, ] was cruel yet he was still held in high regard for his work. Same thing for Sneider. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 21:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Agreed, I started this discussion because I was bothered by the Fantastic Four page where he's used for the cast list. I hope we are able to at least agree that he shouldn't be cited without attribution, lest he gets something wrong (not maliciously, but because his sources may have been wrong, or events changed in the production process that he was not aware of). Advocating him to be deprecated for BLP violations is a massive stretch that I do not agree with- he's generally reliable, and I trust that his self-published site can be used for article content. He just shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 01:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Precisely. I agree with all of that. The Fantastic Four page's cast section is something that is being discussed at ] and would be best handled there rather than here, though I agree with the core points with the attribution and use with non-BLP content. ] (]) 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I think it's best if we formalize it here, anyways. It's my hope that we can get a consensus enough to write an entry on ], which would be helpful for everyone editing CBM articles that refer to his claims. ]&nbsp;(he/him&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I would prefer listing Sneider at perennial sources. The ] taskforce already has an entry for his reports at ], for reference. ] (]) 04:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Just to note that this wouldn't meat the criteria for inclusion on the RSP. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't know, saying someone was going to get a job, and then it turns out they didn't might have a negative effect on their career. A casting director might wonder why they weren't chosen. This is just speculation, and it probably helps the actors, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. The stakes are low either way, and it makes sense to wait for an official announcement. As it has been said, things don't always pan out. Speculation on casting seems like news to me. ] (]) 15:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:All three of the listed ''Forbes'' articles are written by ] ] {{rspe|Forbes.com contributors}}, which are ] due to lack of editorial oversight. Please note that Forbes.com contributor articles do not count toward ]. As a policy, ] takes precedence over the ] guideline. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::alright, we can consider the other 97 out of 100 <small>joking exaggeration</small> sources I've laid down here. We've still got use by Hollywood trades, reliable entertainment websites, and other popular sources. My point stands still. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I believe that Sneider's reporting of casting is 90% of the time on point, but the margin of error warrants attribution and additional consideration. I do not believe that info about a person being cast in a film constitutes ''personal'' information, and thus I believe that BLP does not apply to that extent. I believe additional considerations and attributions should apply for the first reason, rather than depreciation for a grossly WikiLawyered reading of BLP policy. I believe he is considered reliable for general behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood, having been at it for a long-o time and that he would know about these things. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::] is a bright-line rule that prevents self-published sources from being used for third-party claims {{xt|"about a living person"}}. The policy is phrased with the word {{xt|"Never"}} to emphasize that routine exceptions for claims such as film castings are not appropriate. This language is repeated in the ] policy in more explicit terms: {{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."}} Like the remainder of ], this rule applies to all claims about living persons, and not just {{!xt|"''personal'' information"}}. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Okay. We seem to agree to not use it as a third-party source. We seem to agree to give Sneider attribution and consideration of ] in these reports he does.
			::::If there are any concerns, I suggest you turn to the great policy that is ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 02:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::What do you mean by {{tq|behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood}}? Like what a gaffer is? Or the type of camera used? Or does he know more about things like how casting directors and location scouts work? I thought he was a reporter that covered the Hollywood beat. Does he do anything besides report what industry people tell him? ] (]) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I wonder if reporting what industry people tell you is, uh, what trade journalism is the definition of? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I don't think he is a trade journalist, either. A trade journal covers an industry with people in that industry as the target audience. ] describes him as an Entertainment Journalist and describes him writing for publications aimed at the general public. His own website describes itself as {{tq|Scoops and insider analysis}}. This isn't about being an expert, it is about being in the know and chasing down leads. A lot of the articles are even labelled "Hot Rumor". He is a reporter, he reports things. The nature of what he reports means that it involves making predictions as well as discussing rumours and other gossip. A lot of it involves upcoming movies, that is, events that haven't happened yet. It also means a lot of his stuff isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. ] (]) 11:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::know what? I think his insights have merit. Glad to see you found the article about the journalist that I wrote. Did you see the part where he threatened to drive his car into a tree when he lost a Christopher Nolan scoop, then got fired from ''Variety''? Or when he said something racially insensitive and got fired from ''Mashable''? I personally enjoyed the part where he went on about getting his butt kicked by ] in a boxing match.
			::::::Anybody think that he does a self-published newsletter because he can't hold down a job? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::It did strike me as surprisingly negative considering the defence he is getting here. It is basically a hit piece. The boxing thing was confusing, it is probably undue. ] (]) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Reliable sources describe Sneider the way that they do, so that should be reflected in the article. This is a rationale that is based on a concept which is probably best explained by ].
			::::::::As for the boxing match, that is a notable event he was involved in. Fighting the director of ] is plenty notable for inclusion. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I like Paul Tassi's work, but per ], he can't be used in USEBYOTHERS analysis. However, he, like the other links in this post generally refer to Sneider's reports as in terms of rumors instead of certainties. The one exception is , where it is corroborated by THR, and they suddenly switch to writing in certainties. The last three links here from the major trades are clearly doing their own independent corroboration of Sneider's story and doing the polite thing in journalism and crediting him with being the first to break the news.
			:As for accuracy, many of the links were about the Beatles casting, which Sneider was actually wrong about Charlie Rowe as George Harrison, which was immediately denied, and ultimately ended up being wrong. The many commentary pieces about the rumored casting that it sparked might justify inclusion, but the miss doesn't speak well to his reliability. So even from your own links, it seems that for content that doesn't run afoul of ] and is encyclopedic enough to include, it would have to be attributed and written as though it's a certainty. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			I have not kept up with this discussion over the holidays but I see a bunch of dubious arguments have taken place. Trailblazer was correct above when he said that Sneider makes it clear when he is noting rumours versus reporting on something that his sources have confirmed to him, and the high-profile instances where he "got something wrong" are not examples of him lying but clearly examples of things being true or potentially true at the time which did not pan out. Several instances have been mentioned where a potential casting was reported but did not pan out. That is not a lie or a "miss" or anything of the sort, he is reporting on people being eyed by a studio or even entering negotiations but he can't guarantee that everything will work out in the end, and his wording reflects that. The exact same can be said for any of the Hollywood trades who have reported on potential casting that ended up falling through. The level of scrutiny being put on the accuracy of his reporting here is a bit ridiculous considering the same would not be done if he was still writing for ''TheWrap'' or ''Variety'', which is what WP:SELFPUB protects. If any of these reports had come from a journalist who was still working at the trades we would not be having this conversation at all. As for WP:BLPSPS, its wording is oddly vague. "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person" -- what does that even mean? Any sentence that mentions a living person cannot be sourced to any self-published source, regardless of what that source is or what the sentence says? If an expert on the life of Donald Trump had a meeting with him and then tweeted out something Trump had said, we could not include that in any articles even if it was not a detail about Trump's personal life? I think it is crazy to say that we can't use a tweet or a blog post from a person we otherwise consider to be reliable to note when an actor is being considered for a role in a film or that they may have a scheduling conflict that could prevent them from doing a certain job. I am sure the wording at BLPSPS could not have been meant to prevent that. - ] (]) 14:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Any further assistance you can present is appreciated.--] (]) 00:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
			:In your example, if that expert's tweet contained anything of substance, a reliable source would mention it, and you would be free to cite that reliable source. Alternatively, you could wait until the ] policy no longer applies to Trump, although I highly doubt that the tweet would constitute ] in any Misplaced Pages article if no reliable source mentions the tweet by that time. In all other cases, yes, ] would prohibit that tweet from being cited on Misplaced Pages to support a claim about Trump, despite the tweet being written by an expert, because the tweet is self-published. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 22:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	Marvin Shilmer: Since you have ignored my request on my talk page and continue to pester me to respond to you here, I will make myself clear here. I am not at your beck and call, and you do not tell me when or where to post. I find your arguments to be invalid under Misplaced Pages policy, and I find your argumentation annoying and tedious. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 01:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
			::There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - ] (]) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The ] policy, {{xt|"'''Never''' use self-published sources as ] about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer"}}, is as explicit as can be. That longstanding requirement has been part of the ] since ], and part of the ] when it ]. (It was added to the latter page as a guideline requirement ].) If you would like to contest these policies, you are free to do so on their respective talk pages. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I was going to mention the wording in ], as it's more explicit, but Newslinger beat me to it. I've found this annoying in the past, where the project of a living person is detailed in a otherwise reliable third party self-published source. However that exact situation is meant to be covered (and excluded) by it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::As I and others have said, the policies against self-published sources used for anything about living people is a bright line rule. And as for ] and ignoring the self-published/BLP issue, if the only source that mentions an aspect of an article subject is a self-published newsletter, then it would more likely to be undue to include based on the proportion of RS coverage. Misplaced Pages is not the great place to ] about what reliable sources should be covering. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 06:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - ] (]) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::When I went through and removed most of the mainspace uses of InSneider, the overwhelming majority were reports of people being cast, people being considered for a acting/directing role, when an already cast role was going to make a secret appearance in a film, or creative decisions that can only be made by a very small number of people at a studio (i.e. director, producer, executives) that the guidance at ] leans towards applying the policy.
			:::::If something aligns with what other reliable sources have said, then it would be best to use what those sources have said instead of a SPS. But in any case, UNDUE is not an avenue to bring in content that doesn't meet our verifiability/sourcing policies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Again, we are not writing a biography about James Gunn or Peter Safran and using Sneider to source claims about their person. Sneider is used to write about the particulars of film production.
			::::::One side of this discussion is looking at the forest, while the other side is focused on the trees. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::BLPGROUP doesn't seem to be relevant to this discussion, it is talking about "corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons" and specifically refers to harmful claims, neither of which apply here. - ] (]) 11:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::The subsection is about when BLP applies to "legal persons" AND "groups". It does not displace ] and in no way limits the applicability of BLP to groups to instances of potentially harmful material.
			:::::::The first part of the paragraph is a clarification about how ] existing as a term of art in law doesn't mean that they are always covered by BLP, which is meant to protect natural persons. The second half of the paragraph applies to all groups and tells us to look at each group on a case by case basis to see where it fits on the spectrum between groups that are small enough that BLP should apply and ones where they are too large. The part about harm is simply noting it is part of the analysis. For creative decisions on films, the people actually making that decision would be very small, so it should attract BLP protections, which means BLPSPS applies. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - ] (]) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Besides the stories involving named people where BLP would obviously apply, the level of creative decisions that InSneider reports on and that Misplaced Pages uses him for are those that would clearly be attributable to a very small number of people (5-10 max). They're typically stuff such as what projects a studio is considering, what characters will be cast, and what the plot of film will be about.
			:::::::::We're not using InSneider for lower-level stuff like what belt buckle was used on a particular costume, what brand of communication devices the PAs use, or what shade of a color was used in a particular CGI shot. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of ], we are fine. #2: ]. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see ] on this very page. '']'' censored CEO killer ]'s face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If ''general association'', not even ''direct'', with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The one policy that ] does not bypass is ]. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the ] and the ] policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like ] {{ndash}} which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per ], {{xt|"Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful"}}, particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::A few editors here are trying to stretch the BLPSPS and SPS policies to prevent Sneider from being used at all, which shouldn't override the existing community consensus and clear evidence that he is a reliable source for film-related reporting. HadesTTW suggested wording that is a good start towards a common-sense solution where Sneider is used, with attribution, for reports on film-related coverage where better sources do not exist. This should lead to a compromise, with Sneider being used in situations where his reports are improving articles while editors become more aware of whether he should be used (and not using him in situations where his reports genuinely fall into BLPSPS territory, could be replaced by a better source, or some other issue such as DUEWEIGHT). All that is preventing us from moving on to that conclusion and ending this discussion is the idea that BLPSPS and SPS apply to every little mention of a living person in a source, which I maintain is ridiculous and inappropriate. - ] (]) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::If you do not agree with excluding self-published sources from being used for claims about living persons, you may propose a change to the relevant policies at ] and ]. What you believe is {{!xt|"ridiculous and inappropriate"}} is actually how these policies have been applied on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, per community consensus. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::I never said I was against the central ideas of BLPSPS, I completely understand why we want to have a higher standard of verifiability when it comes to exceptional/controversial claims about real people who may take issue with said claims. That makes sense from multiple angles. What I take issue with is using the same standard for non-exceptional claims that happen to involve people. In my opinion, there is a very big difference between (which I accept) and . - ] (]) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::exactly! If I actually paid any attention to X-Men 97, I would have rm'd that in a hot second. Sneider making claims that ] was doing heinous stuff to his staffers is some outrageous content that I would insist we wait on reports by '']'' or '']'' or '']'', any particular source of merit to include those claims in the article. Outrageous claims require usage of especially reliable sources like ]. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::In the 18 years since that BLPSPS policy was enacted, the industry of journalism has changed drastically with a variety of seasoned journalists and subject-matter experts publishing their reports on their own accord, and I believe it is about time that the policies are updated to compliment such changes to update with the times. I do not think Sneider's status as a self-published source should discount his reliability with his actual reporting in his newsletter, and am more than happy to raise concerns for the policy to be updated elsewhere, but that is not the central issue to determine reliability in {{em|this}} discussion. ] (]) 02:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::Most people on this board are aware of the poor state of traditional journalism and the rise of indie outlets. I myself noted in a ] that ], who has a track record of good journalist work and whose stories I think are accurate, should nonetheless not be used without corroboration and/or discussion by non-SPS RSs because he's a BLPSPS. If any of you think there's appetite in moving from the current bright-line rule to another system for BLPSPSs (e.g. limited carve out where RSN endorses use with attribution), that might be a worthwhile discussion to have. As its stands though, BLPSPS is quite clear and the overwhelming majority of the uses of InSneider are in such cases.
			:::::::::::::::If we do want to go back to discussing the reliability of InSneider for non-BLP claims, I would start with something I asked earlier, are you as a subscriber to InSneider, able to provide examples of if he retracted, corrected, and/or explained why he missed on the Sweeney/Day Drinker, Holland/Spider-verse, Lindeloff/Star Wars stories? Getting a story wrong isn't fatal to use as a reliable source since even the best sources aren't 100%. However, for assessing new sources, correcting mistakes is an indicator of reliability (as long as the miss rate is not too high), but not addressing them is a sign of unreliability. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::The language in ] and ] does not provide an exemption for self-published content about other living persons that is deemed to be uncontroversial. The "central idea" of this requirement is to ensure that any claim (not just controversial claims) about a living person passes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing special about Sneider or his self-published newsletter that would warrant an exception to this requirement, which applies to every other individual who meets the ] criterion. If anyone wants to amend this requirement, which has been applied on Misplaced Pages for more than 18 years, a discussion at ], ], or ] would be the first step to enact the change you are looking for. Such a change, if it gains community consensus, would apply to all sources of this kind and not just Sneider's content. Until then, the use of Sneider's self-published claims about other living persons remains a violation of core content policies. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::Once again, that is your ''interpretation'' of the policies which is clearly not shared by all editors. I fear a discussion at one of those other places will have similar luck due to a few editors that like things the way they are, but I am happy to give it a go. As for wrapping up this discussion, I still think we should return to the wording that I suggested above in response to HadesTTW. I am not concerned about these apparent "misses" that Patar knight keeps harping on about. Some of these may have been genuinely wrong, but not many of them (which is the case with almost all reliable trade sources as well). Most would have been accurate at the time but then things changed due to the developing nature of films (i.e. Lindelof leaving his SW film, Driver being considered for FF but not getting the part). The Sweeney instance seems to be a blatant case of him getting it wrong and being called out immediately, but that one time isn't enough to make him an unreliable source especially when nearly everything else he has reported aligns with other sources. - ] (]) 10:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::I've started a policy talk page discussion at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Self-published claims about other living persons}}. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			I don't have a particular problem with using Sneider as a source, as long as we attribute his speculations properly. He has a generally good track record and is used by reliable sources. But I have come across situations where we report his speculations as fact. When he has an expectation that is not attributed to an official or at least genuinely connected source, if we choose to report that expectation at all, it needs to be attributed as "Sneider's expectation that such and such will occur", not as a Wikivoice statement that "such and such will occur." ] (]) 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	:'''Donald Albury:''' I said I would abide by your request, and I will. I do not consider you at my beck and call, and I do not tell you when or where to post. As you have done, I too have shared an opinion. Unfortunately your opinions have degenerated now to the personal and have left unanswered questions to the subject needing considered discussion. It is one thing to state an argument is invalid. It is another to demonstrate this is the case.
			{{Hatnote|Once Telegram gets mentioned on ], its shortcuts would be ] and ].}}
	:If you choose to actually address the questions posed above, your contribution will be appreciated and responded to based on whatever merit you offer. So far all you’ve done is assert an opinion without substantiating it. You have suggested a distinction as Misplaced Pages policy that Misplaced Pages policy does not make. When questions are asked of this distinction, you end up feeling pestered. I am <u>not</u> the one who brought this issue here, but I intend to see the end of it because it involves my work! I see you have post-graduate degrees. Perhaps you would find it amusing were I to deny an official university transcript as a reliable source evidencing those degrees? This is precisely what you have argued!--] (]) 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
			Telegram is unreliable because:
			*Telegram is an ] platform, which means that it is highly unreliable as a source because it is used by the alt-right to evade censorship and publish far-right opinions and pseudoscientific conspiracy theories.
			*Telegram is a ] because it is a social networking service.
			*Most far-right things (such as ], ], and ]) have escaped to Telegram after getting suspended on several mainstream social networking services.
			*Telegram has been described as a "safe haven for spammers and crypto scams" because of how most Telegram groups are flooded with cryptocurrency scammers and other types of spammers. However, t.me links are barely seen on Misplaced Pages (or i just don't see them often).
			*].
			Telegram would either be ] (like all other self-published sources) or ] (because it is alt-tech). However, if t.me links are commonly used to violate ], it would be ].
			] (]) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''User:Marvin Shilmer'''. This question is currently appertaining to a MedCabal case and although outside views are welcome i would like to suggest that discussion is kept limited to the talk page or the case page/talk page. As the mediator it is difficult at best to deal with the various discussions that are occurring and chasing discussions across wiki is not something i particularly wish to be doing. I feel the idea of MedCabal is to provide a medium for this discussion to take place rather than for it too be spilling all over wikipedia. ] (])
			:I wasn't aware there was anyone suggesting that it might be reliable. ] (] • ]) 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Seddon69:''' For reasons you express, earlier I initiated questions of the academic aspect of this issue (the important part) below to . Besides that, the question as presented here is poorly designed with a result that input is <u>all over the place</u>. The academic aspect of the issue raised is more precise and deserves a thorough fleshing out. But, again, this should be done aside and away from the wrangling you are involved with. I have no problem participating on several fronts. --] (]) 03:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
			:Telegram doesn't need to be on the RSP, it's obviously unreliable and I don't see anyone arguing that it is reliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Agreed, it's just a user-generated source (]). Reliable for ] claims and posts by respectable experts/journalists/reliable sources, unreliable generally. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 16:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Aside from the fact that the ] i.e. '''''literal''' neo-Nazis'' use it (which is ]), Telegram, as a platform where ] with no clear editorial oversight, is a ] and unreliable, except in cases such as ]. I thought this was pretty obvious. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson ==
	::To end this funny story, Marvin Shilmer, it is enough to cite Don Rhodes opinion or other published opinions about Franz's credentials as a translator. If you want to do a reporter's or biographer's job and to draw your own conclusions, nothing prevents you from making your personal web-page. I think the case is closed.--] (]) 08:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::'''Vassilis78:''' I am unaware that I drew conclusions of the Franz transcript. What I assert of Franz's education is based on his U of C transcript, his published life-story, and the book by Ron (not Don) Rhodes. Administrators above have still not answered, or even addressed, your specific question of bibliograpic data, which says something. The academic issue I have taken up below with a new question. Feel free to share.--] (]) 00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
			] is cited in the''' Media outlets''' section of ]. He's an independent journalist who self-publishes and doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist. Reliable or not? I say no. Some other editors from that article might come here with more context. ] (]) 02:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	===Narrowing the Issue===
	This discussion is narrowed for comment in the subject heading
	, and narrowed again in the subject heading . --] (]) 17:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
			:. Mr. Klippenstein is being used to cite:
	== Would you trust this source? ==
			:# {{tqq|Klippenstein also alleged that '']'' directed their staff to "dial back" on showing photographs containing Mangione's face.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Klippenstein |first1=Ken |date=December 11, 2024 |title=NY Times Doesn't Want You to See Shooter's Face |url=https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/ny-times-doesnt-want-you-to-see-mangiones |access-date=December 15, 2024 |website=kenklippenstein.com |language=en}}</ref>}}
			:# {{tqq|A report on the killing by the ] was obtained by independent journalist Dan Boguslaw, and published by Klippenstein on December 26. The report focused on Mangione's motive and people who express sympathy for him, whom they labeled as "extremists". Klippenstein alleged that multiple media outlets had access to the report, but selectively quoted it in a way that focused on Mangione. He said that "By withholding documents and unilaterally deciding which portions merit public disclosure, the media is playing god."<ref>{{cite web |title=Read the NYPD’s Mangione report the media won't publish |url=https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/post-luigi-the-extremist-threat-is |publisher=Ken Klippenstein |access-date=28 December 2024}}</ref>}} {{reflist}}
			:] (]) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:It's crap. "Media reactions" or "in the media" sections in Misplaced Pages articles too often, like this article, become dumpsters where Wikipedians simply like to show off how good they are at finding random sources and shoehorning them into an article, for reasons. ] (]) 04:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Agreed. ] (]) 04:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Right, but the focus here is on the reliability of Ken Klippenstein and whether or not his statements (sourced to his own website and attributed) are usable in the article. ] (]) 12:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{tq|doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist}} That's not accurate, as you could have confirmed by checking out the references in the Klippenstein WP article that note that he's been a journalist for outlets like The Nation and The Intercept. Both of those are generally reliable on the RSP. He's also seen as serious by other journalists (e.g., in Columbia Journalism Review interview, which describes him "as one of the most fearless reporters of the Trump era").
			:His self-published work cannot be used as a source for WP content about living or recently dead people (e.g., about Mangione's letter), per ]. He could be used as a source on a BLP if the WP text sourced to him is not itself about a person (e.g., if it's about mainstream media). But in this case, I don't see how to disentangle his statements about the press from content about Mangione. Some other news outlets have reported a bit about the content currently sourced to Klippenstein, such as this , noting Klippenstein's apparent publication of Mangione's letter. ] (]) 15:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I was just going to say something similar - it's definitely inaccurate to say he hasn't written for other reliable sources in the past. It's true that his own stuff would fall foul of ], but his stuff picked up by other reliable sources is usable, conceptually, with proper context and attribution. ] ] ] ] 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Hell no, get rid of this Kenny guy now. ]: this content directly involves a living person (Luigi), and to make self-published claims about info regarding these living persons is against policy. And, Kenny boy over here is using his blog to write ] things about an American newspaper of record. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{U|BarntToust}} - Dial it back a bit. ] applies to all BLP is all Misplaced Pages spaces. You calling him weird names like "Kenny Boy" probably doesn't constitute "written with the greatest care and attention". ] ] 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::If this was like '']'' or '']'' writing this about ''NYT'' then yes I would support inclusion. This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here. "Ken" should be more concerned that he is writing damning blog posts accusing a reputable newspaper of compromised journalistic integrity. Who else will pick this up? Who else will corroborate this bold as all hell claim with trusted journalistic process? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::"This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here" is false, as is "he is writing damning blog posts." More than one person here has noted that he's a reliable journalist. Unbandito explained why he chose to start his own journalism Substack (not a blog). There are a number of established writers using Substack to host their reporting; here's ]. It's bizarre that you put his name in quotation marks, especially after calling him "this Kenny guy" and "Kenny boy." Nothing is stopping you from answering your own questions. I already noted a couple of sources that had picked it up; here's . ] (]) 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I personally believe that bold claims against these news organisations need other comparable news organisations to corroborate them, to establish ]. the spreading of claims by sources who are especially biased and opinionated means nothing. "Ken" can make a bombshell accusation against NYT for spineless reporting but can we get ''The Guardian'' or some other prestigious institutions to back these claims? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::A reminder that WP:RS states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject," so I don't agree that his reporting "means nothing." This thread started off with the false claim that he "doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist" and the question "Reliable or not?" The false claim has been addressed. The question shows that people have different opinions. Whether some mention of Klippenstein is DUE is not a matter of reliability and belongs on the Talk page. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Having been employed by two ultra-partisan outlets for some short period, and then by "The Young Turks" which is marginally better than InfoWars, does not indicate this individual's self-published works meet the encyclopedia's reliability standards. And it has not been shown that I made a false claim, only if you think these ultra-partisan sources are "mainstream". Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent, which is laughable. ] (]) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::He was employed by The Young Turks ''before'' he worked for The Nation and The Intercept, not ''after'', and those aren't the only other media for which he's written. Partisanship doesn't determine whether a given media outlet is/isn't mainstream media. They're both listed on Harvard's . {{tq|Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent}} Please quote whomever you're referring to, because I don't see any comment suggesting that. I'd be happy to be corrected, but otherwise, it's counterproductive to characterize people's comments as more extreme than they actually are. Again: people clearly have different opinions about whether he's "Reliable or not?" You have your opinion, and I have mine. Personally, I consider the ] interview as evidence of his reliability; if they happen to focus on someone who's unreliable, I think they say so, as . ] (]) 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Funny, Misplaced Pages lists The Federalist as "generally unreliable due to its partisan nature" yet they're listed as mainstream on Harvard's index. Seems like some kinds of partisanship are more acceptable than others. ] (]) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::I didn't claim or imply that all MSM on Harvard's list are ''reliable''. Reliability, partisanship, and mainstream media status are all distinct dimensions. A source can fall into any one of their 8 combinations. The full RSP sentence is "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature''' and its promotion of conspiracy theories'''." Maybe you think a source that promotes conspiracy theories is reliable, but I don't. ] (]) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I don't think a source promoting conspiracies is reliable, and I'm not disputing the decision against The Federalist. I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview, and I disagree. Even the content in question isn't just a professional critique of editorial decisions, but it's couched in nefarious undertones, even going so far as to accuse MSM of "playing god." ] (]) 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::{{tq|I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here.}} That's a very general claim for which you've provided no evidence and that also seems way beyond the scope of this particular thread. {{tq|Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview...}} Another very general claim, though this one at least touches on the thread's topic. Focusing just on Klippenstein, if you have evidence that he "''frequently'' write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a ] worldview" and not reliable, you should present it. If you do have that evidence, then you really should have presented it when you first asked "Reliable or not?" ] (]) 00:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::I would just refer you over to the article's talk page where discussion of this issue has continued, and a resolution has been reached. As to Klipp's conspiratorial worldview, see his latest media rant which I also submitted in talk.. ] (]) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::I don't see how anything on the talk page provides evidence for your claim that he "'''frequently''' write of large corporations as dark plotters," and either you have evidence of that or you don't. So far, it looks like you don't. The only thing I see in your link relative to a "conspiratorial worldview" is his claim that "every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is," which hardly rises to the level of "frequently." ] (]) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a ]? <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::It's a BLP violation to keep calling him a conspiracy theorist is what it is. One that Jonathan f1 seems quite committed to. ] (]) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::Like I explained to you on the talk page, I'm using his own words. He's alleging that politicians and major media outlets "conspired" against the public. ] (]) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::Him using a turn of phrase one time doesn't give us cause to start throwing insults at him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Please provide a couple of reliable sources calling Klippenstein a conspiracy theorist or desist immediately. ] (]) 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::::], do we need reliable sources? I don't think we should explicitly be throwing around the ]-word, but rather ]. Keeps BLP vio away. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::::::I'm not putting him in the same bucket with Alex Jones, but his repeated attacks on major media followed by a remark about them "conspiring" with each other is what it is. But okay, to move past all this pointless tone policing, I'll find a new phrase. ] (]) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::I'm not going to rehash his entire career as a journalist here, and particularly his time with The Young Turks which will certainly provide you with ample evidence of this. It isn't even relevant here -the articles in question are attack pieces where he is either implicating major media outlets in a plot or calling their journalistic ethics into question. That we are even debating inclusion with no corroboration from high-grade sources is remarkable. ] (]) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::Again, I said {{tq|if you have evidence that he "'''frequently''' write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it.}} You're the one who made the claim, and you're the one with the burden of proof for it. Don't try to shift the burden onto me. I'm not "debating inclusion" of any specific edit right now. I'm telling you that if you can't or won't substantiate your claim, then you should retract it, as it's an unsubstantiated contentious claim and a BLP violation. The BLP policy applies to any statements about living persons on all WP pages, including this one. ] (]) 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::I'll retract it just to move on from this. My objection to Klippenstein in this particular case does not hinge on this little side issue. ] (]) 23:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Why did you put his real name in quotes like that? ] ] 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::As an indicator that I generally distrust Substack reporters and their methods. I can't believe that anything will pass as qualified journalism nowadays 😐 <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 18:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:In this case, I'd say keep it. Klippenstein obtained and published the manifesto, which mainstream sources begrudgingly admitted was the same one they refused to publish. It appears that the citations in this article are of secondary coverage of his work, which makes them even more admissible. Klip is not just some guy, he has journalistic credentials and a past of reliable reporting for multiple reliable orgs. He's one of a number of journalists who was laid off from major outlets in the last year or so as part of a broader trend of restructuring in media that is ongoing. He and others like Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill have moved on to independent work, but despite the loss of their association with an established organization, their reporting remains influential and they've made a number of valuable contributions to our knowledge of and discourse on current events. I worry that Misplaced Pages policy, which assumes that mainstream media has a static financial and ethical position in perpetuity, is not adequately nuanced to accommodate major shake-ups in the press such as what we're seeing today. I think it's also worth noting that while Ken publishes on substack, at least in some other articles he's written (such as his publication of a US intelligence report on Israeli preparations to strike Iran) he employs an editor to review his work. This is the same sort of self-publishing that mainstream RS do, and another argument in favor of his reliability. ] (]) 16:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::"multiple reliable orgs."
			::Really, like what? The Young Turks? I'm aware that Nation and Intercept are considered generally reliable, but there's also consensus that they're opinionated, biased and partisan, and should be used with caution. Klipp doesn't work for any of these publications anymore; he self-publishes on substack and has made a career for himself publishing MSM polemic. That's what this section includes currently -Klipp's self-published polemic directed at NY Times, CNN etc. Even if this appeared in The Nation, there'd be weight issues. ] (]) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, The Nation and The Intercept. All media has bias, and any media-literate person should understand this. I think weight arguments are a lot stronger regarding content that is more than a few sentences or a short paragraph long. I don't think the due weight for this content is zero, and therefore I think the material is appropriate. If there is a significant view in opposition to Klippenstein, I think the page would be better improved by expanding it. ] (]) 17:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Of course all media, and all humans, are biased, but when a consensus on here comes with that caveat, you know you're not dealing with a gold standard RS. And this is only relevant here if you think his past employment with these outlets, however brief, in some way lends credibility to his self-published substacks. ] (]) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I think what his past employment in media shows is that he has the training and follows the same standards of verifiability as prestige media organizations. I think it's worth noting that when a fake version of the manifesto was making the rounds, Klippenstein declined to publish it and called it out as misleading because he couldn't verify its authenticity. Regardless of where he's publishing them, I think his publication of several leaked documents ahead of the mainstream press as well as his history as a FOIA journalist shows that he is well connected to valuable sources of information and is engaged in "real" investigative journalism of the sort that prestige outlets are increasingly unwilling to pay for when opinion pieces get them just as many clicks.
			:::::His perspective on the unwillingness of the media to publish a document which they had verified is true is granted some additional relevance by the fact that he is the one who published the document and inquired to these organizations as to why they hadn't, as well as by the fact that journalists from those legacy organizations leaked internal communications to him which showed the decision those organizations had made.
			:::::I think that this is frankly a strong example of the way that Misplaced Pages's current RS policies are inadequate to handle the reality that with the traditional media in financial and organizational crisis, sometimes breaking news is going to be published by small independent outlets or individuals. Any conception of reliability that uniformly dismisses sources like Klippenstein as if they're some random blog post by John Q. Public while reifying legacy media despite the history of its errors and shortcomings and the media studies scholarship that problematizes a simplistic conception of source reliability, is sure to exclude some valuable material and include a lot of junk. Without getting too far off topic, I think the solution to this is to emphasize verifiability and source consensus over things like editorial process and organizational prestige, and to attribute wherever there is controversy or disagreement. ] (]) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: Anyone using phrases like "MSM polemic" ought to be stepping well away from deciding the reliability of ''any'' sources, to be honest. ] 19:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::NY Times and CNN are mainstream media, a polemic is "a piece of writing expressing a strongly critical view of someone or something." Thus, Klippenstein's hit pieces on MSM are polemics. I don't see why me knowing what these words mean implies I need to "step well away" from assessing reliability. ] (]) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::if someone else reports on it, its not sps, its secondary coverage of SPS, which should be admissible in BLP, right? I think we can't directly use any details in his blog that aren't vetted and cited by another non-SPS news source ] (]) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, secondary sources can be used for a BLP, if they are RSs. For example, this article confirms that Klippenstein published Mangione full "manifesto." And this article could be used re: his criticism of other media for not releasing the whole thing, though RSP says "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." Perhaps there are other reliable non-SPSs that are better sources for the content about Klippenstein's criticism of other media; I'm not going to take time right now to search further. There may still be questions about due weight, whether a claim needs to be attributed, etc., but those are distinct from the question of reliability and what can be used for BLP material. ] (]) 17:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::See, this is the thing, we've got LA Times, a high quality RS for news, so there's no reason to cite Klippenstein. But that covers the manifesto issue, which I wouldn't object to including. But the hit piece on those MSMs? Yeah, that's not found in LA Times or any other source on that level, only a "marginally reliable" source. I do not think Klipp is any position to critique editorial decisions at these publications, and do not see how that's due weight anyway. ] (]) 18:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this:
			:::::* I don't object to the bit about media not publishing the manifesto, and this could be sourced to the LA Times (the secondary source referencing Klippenstein).
			:::::* The next line about the NY Times not showing the suspect's face -no RS is talking about this and I personally find it irrelevant.
			:::::*The last part about media outlets selectively quoting from the NYPD report -this exceeds weight limits and makes the section read like a hit piece against MSM, all sourced to one man. Klippenstein objects to the NYPD using the term "extremists" to describe the suspect's supporters, and cites a report by security firm Dragonfly to argue that the risk of violent attacks on corporate leaders will likely remain low. If you read his source, they, too, use the word "extremists" to describe people who support the killing.
			:::::] (]) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I read his work and personally trust Klippenstein. However, his substack is clearly a self-published source. Unbandito's comments on broader issues with Misplaced Pages, while interesting, don't address the ] issue. Ultimately, Klippenstein is the person with final approval on what he wrote.
			:I would consider Klippenstein's views ] if they are reported on by reliable sources. Based on what I know and see here, I can't consider him to meet the ] criteria in this topic area. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 07:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I agree with Chess here - ] is appropriate here. Klippenstein is a respected journalist. He's also self-publishing. But, in this case, he's an expert who is self-publishing. ] (]) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::See talk page (article linked up top). ] (]) 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'll endorse this as position as well. Klippenstein has a good track record with reputable outlets and hasn't had issues so far on his own, but is ultimately a ] that should only be included when corroborated and/or discussed by non-SPS RSs. That appears to be the case with the manifesto itself, but not the other reports. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Pretty much yes. There's no issue with the manifesto content, but the other reports are not mentioned in any secondary RS of any quality (ignoring Washington Times and the art website). There's also the fact that he's mentioned 3 separate times in a section of only 8 lines, which is hard to defend. ] (]) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I merged the 'Media outlets' section with the 'Other' section. An editor made a ] on the talk page that according to Klippenstein's article, he's a FOIA document expert, and that {{tq|much of his journalism draws on information he has uncovered from records requested at state and national levels of the US government}}, which {{tq|also frequently include information from leaked documents}}. ] (]) 02:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Regardless of expert status, BLPSPS applies and would bar the use when it's not corroborated. It seems the new combined section has some sources that discussion Klippenstein's work in and of itself, which partially solves that issue. The issue then is if the amount of coverage is DUE. Klippenstein is an established journalist and some inclusion is probably due given the coverage, but a lot of the paragraph is repetitive, so I would probably cut it down by half. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Could you comment in the ], because despite what is being said here in this thread, certain editors still think he's a ], ], and unreliable ], ], ]. ] (]) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:From what I can tell, a consensus has not yet been achieved here. I don't wish to step on anybody's toes, but I have reverted ]'s blanking of a large portion of the disputed section . ] (]) 10:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Please see ]: {{tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} You should self-revert your reversion until consensus has been reached in one way or another. ] (]) 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::But ] is also relevant: {{tq|When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.}} ] (]) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. ] (]) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The material that User:Toa Nidhiki05 removed had been in the article since December 13 without any dispute (until now). ] (]) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Ken Klippenstein is a bit of a weird special case because he's an experienced reporter whose Substack is nevertheless still clearly an ] but because he has very different views on the direct publication of source documents (like manifestos) than much of the rest of the media, he is reasonably often the main source of the full text of a document that the rest of the media acknowledges exists, is real, and that Klippenstein's version of the text is correct, but refuses to actually publish the text themselves. A sort of one-man Wikileaks situation.
			:I honestly think that since he is clearly reliable in these situations he is actually a fine source for these sorts of documents, presuming we bear in mind that:
			:a) Documents published by him should be clearly acknowledged in the text to be sourced to him alone.
			:b) Just because Klippenstein is reliable for the text of the documents he publishes doesn't mean that the documents themselves are reliable for facts or that Klippenstein is endorsing or even has checked their factual claims.
			:c) Klippenstein doesn't have to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and so it's very possible that documents he publishes don't follow BLP guidelines for some reason. AFAICT usually what he publishes is about public figures but that doesn't ''have'' to be the case, and in cases where a document has private information about a private figure we shouldn't repeat it. ] (]) 21:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			==RfC: NewsNation==
	For this section of the article ]: <blockquote>A steamroller is used by filling the bowl with cannabis, putting one's hand over the end of the pipe nearest the bowl, putting the other end in one's mouth, lighting and inhaling until the chamber is filled with smoke, and then removing one's hand from the end and quickly inhaling the collected smoke.</blockquote>I provided . The source was deleted as unreliable. I understand that a site such as that isn't going to be a reliable source on things like the ] or ], but you're not going to find Harvard-published sources on the correct technique of how to use a cannabis pipe. (Besides, who would you trust, a 75-year-old Sociology professor, or some guy who was probably baked while he was writing the instructions?) ] (]) 19:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}}
			What is the reliability of ]?
			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	: If no reliable source can be found for the statement then it should not be included in the article. As ] states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." To more directly answer your question, that source is not reliable and its reliability does not change because it is hard to find more reliable sources on the subject ] (]) 05:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Survey (NewsNation)===
	::Why is this source not reliable? Clearly the author has experience with the subject, and the claim being sourced is an issue of basic usage. ] (]) 12:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2:''' Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
			**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)
			===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. ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Is this article declaring the ] a 12th c. baptistry a reliable source for the tower?? ==
	Was added to the ] article. I reviewed the site and there's no requirement to join, no advertisements other than header of the creator of the how-to video. Is that enough to disqualify the link under ]? Dances are inherently live-action and descriptions of each style or step is very hard without a video so this is a good idea just have they satisfied the WP requirements. ] (]) 13:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
			The autho rhas emailed me demanding it be added to the Newport Tower article as it has been peer reviewed.] press.... Other non-peer reviewed papers of his can be found here. ] ] 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			:For reference the tower is ] The answer is no. The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming. Even academic presses slip up sometimes and Istanbul University Press is frankly quite a bit distant from Rhode Island such that I would be cautious about the level of rigour of its fact checking (if any) on the topic. ] (]) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	There are a large number of sources used throughout the article relating to faschism. These sources are proberbly unreliable due to their age. The party has had a change in leadership and moved more mainstream since the artiles were written. The sources listed below related directly to the info box.
			::In addition to this, the author is retired from the U.S. Navy and a student of aeronautics, while this paper involves a great deal of cartography, religious history, etc. In other worlds, far outside of the author's field, even if there was some question about its reliability. Looking at the non-peer reviewed papers, I see that the author also believes the ] is legit. ] (]) 15:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::], that WP article has an entire section on ], so it's not clear to me that "The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming" is a reason to exclude this hypothesis. Given that context, what does it means to be a RS for a fringe theory? A source may be reliable for the existence of the fringe theory but unreliable otherwise.
			::It's unclear to me whether this chapter is truly peer-reviewed. It appears in an , and the editors are on the faculty of Istanbul University, but it's not clear to me that they have expertise in this area, whether they reviewed all of the chapters for accuracy or only for things like pertinence and organization, or if they sought any outside review for any of the chapters. Their Google Scholar info: , . The book was just published, and I couldn't find any reviews for it. What the author of the chapter "demands" is irrelevant. ] (]) 20:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The question is, does this source add anything to the "Norse hypothesis" such that it is worth adding the article to include it? I think the answer is no. There's no evidence that this paper has had any impact on the wider discourse surrounding the tower. ] (]) 20:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I haven't read the paper, but the abstract says "Two Turkish cartographers, the earliest being Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-1310), and later, Piri Reis (c. 1465-1553), illustrated the North American Baptistery on their respective cartographic works." I know nothing about the "Norse hypothesis" and so cannot judge whether this is something new; the current WP text makes no mention of Turks, but perhaps that's just a matter of what was judged to be DUE. The book link above says that the book was only published last week, so at this point the chapter cannot possibly have had any impact on wider discourse. ] (]) 22:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It seems the text is mostly taken up by attempting to divine meaning from certain blotches on an old map. This is not a particularly convincing hypothesis for what it's worth. ] (]) 14:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Peer review is only as good as the peers in question... Istanbul University and history have a rather fraught history when it comes to Turkish nationalist historiography (which I would fit this under given the elements of Turkish exceptionalism). We have a long history of disregarding those views because academics outside of Turkey do (especially as it concerns claims of Ottoman voyages of discovery, the Kurds, and the Armenian Genocide). ] (]) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:No, obvious crank. I would take it as evidence that Istanbul University Press is not reliable. I imagine he was stationed at the base in Newport and got interested, but he should seek professional training in history and learn to read some relevant languages before leaning in on a claim this unlikely. There's really nothing in his article except some maps so extremely magnified that they don't resemble anything in particular. ] (]) 01:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Pinkvilla ==
	*''Fascism theory & practice'' (London, 1999}
	*"Contemporary Fascism in the Local Arena: the British National Party and Rights for Whites" in Cronin, M (ed)
	*''The Failure of British Fascism'' (Basingstoke, 1996)
			] has been flagged as an unreliable source, and there is growing consensus around its exclusion from the list of acceptable sources on ]. Previously dicusssed (see ], ]). Due to concerns about the site's editorial standards, accuracy, and potential biases, I propose to dicussss the credibility of Pinkvilla. The aim is to ensure that Misplaced Pages articles are supported by sources that meet higher standards of reliability and credibility. Pinkvilla itself states that the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data. However, it asserts that the numbers are generally reflective of the box-office performance of the films in question ().] (]) 09:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	--] (]) 14:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
			:Do you think there's a difference between the box-office numbers in Pinkvilla and their general articles? Could one be considered reliable and the other not, or is this looking at the site as a whole? ''']''' (]) 20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Is there any newer research that contradicts their findings? // ] (])
			:{{tq|the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data}} it probably shouldn't be cited then. ] (]) 23:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Reliability discussion took place previously ] putting it as one of the best sources for movie related news and box office collections. ] (]) 07:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			== RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu ==
	::I am not sure, but I think that due to the significant shift since the change in leadership. No research has been caried out in to the current party and these sources are mainly historic based on old leadership and party policy.--] (]) 15:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
			The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C):
	::: This has come up before in rfcs, there is little contradictory findings and a number of reliable sources dismiss the 'move to mainstream' as purely a facade and no significant shift in policy has been proven. Most significanlty, Dr Nigel Copsey, a noted expert in right wing extremism in his paper ''Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006'' --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 01:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
			* '''A: Geni.com'''
	== TV Guides ==
			* '''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) ===
	Are interviews and reports in TV guides reliable?--] (]) 14:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
			* A: See "Geni.com" at ].
	:Interviews with Directors, Writers and Actors about their lives or works are reliable. ] (]) 16:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
			* B: See ], in particular ], where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @]. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
	::I am thinking how reliable are some of the interviews say regarding speculation over future shows etc.--] (]) 18:09, 12 January 2008 (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)
			=== Preliminaries ===
	:::You just won't give up will you, Lucy? Even when you have your question answered, you won't believe it. I'm getting ready to launch a request for third-party intervention where you and your ridiculous antics are concerned. ] (]) 21:24, 12 January 2008 (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)
	::::I am here to try and fathom out what constitutes a reliable source on wikipedia. This is to enable the enhancement of the quality of the encyclopedia. Without working out the boundries of what a relaible source is, arguments can be bought and drag on for days. Working out what constitutes a reliable source prior to the arguments occuring, prevents the arguments occuring at all.--] (]) 11:41, 13 January 2008 (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)
			:::That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. ] (]) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. ] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. ] (]) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::If that's the case, shouldn't you have done this BEFORE you asked me to provide the reference? What you are asking for now is, not only references to prove notability, but references for the references. And just so you know, TV Guide issued its first publication on April 3, 1953. I think that a publication that has been in existence for nearly 53 years, a publication specifically about TV entertainment no less, is a reliable resource. ] (]) 13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
			::These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::<strike>I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.</strike> --] (]) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Survey A: Geni.com ===
	How can you ask if a source is reliable without the source?, The age of a publication does not make it a reliable source. The Hittler diaries have been around for 25 years and are completly unreliable hoaxes. I am not say TV guide is a hoax or fake, just that the age of something does not increase its reliability.--] (]) 13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
			:'''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)
			=== Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley ===
	:You could have provided examples of what you thought were reliable resources before asking me to provide the reference. And there is a difference between someone's diary and an ONGOING publication. ] (]) 13:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Comment'''. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--] (]) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate''' Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "'''the source is generally prohibited'''". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) ] (]) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.
			:::Deprecation of this source will ''reduce'' the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.
			:::::::Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Generally unreliable'''. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) ''Generally unreliable'' is the one which says this: {{tq|"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"}} I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would ''only'' allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be ''prohibited''. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at ] shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he ''knows'' {{xt!|may be of little factual significance}} at face value just because he finds them "]" ({{xt!|but is reproduced by way of interest}}), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't ]. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. ] (]) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the '''Generally unreliable''' category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then ''only as far as we have to''. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Generally reliable''', in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav ===
	:Lucy, there is a big difference in a hoax work and a publication that has been continually produced for over half a century. TV Guide is a respected publication and I doubt you can find one person here who does not consider it to be reliable. You asked for a source on a specific subject and when it was provided, you came in and tried to get it discredited. --] (]) 15:37, 13 January 2008 (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)
			::Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--] (]) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as {{xt|genealogy.eu}} and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). ] (]) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Deprecate'''. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			:'''Comment'''. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the ], Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Deprecate'''. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; . --] 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			** This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site . And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			**:Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)===
	::TV Guide is certainly RS under our rules and guidelines. However, given that you are talking about speculation... I would attribute the statement directly to TV Guide: (something like "TV Guide has speculated that blah blah blah<nowiki><cite to TV Guide article></nowiki>"). ] (]) 17:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
			{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--] (]) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			: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)
	:::The speculation that was being discussed is whether or not a specific character would return for the new season of “24.” When Lucy asked for proof, Angel provided a TV Guide interview which clearly stated the character would return. It wasn’t TV Guide that was speculating. Instead, they confirmed what had been speculated about here on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
			:I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Franklin Open ==
	::::Then per Blueboar, something like "X (name of interviewee) has stated that blah blah blah<cite to TV Guide article>". ] (]) 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::If TV Guide has an interview with a producer, writer, or director (maybe not another actor) on 24 stating that a character would return then I would consider it RS. If TV Guide had an article predicting which brand of computer would win out next year then I would consider it not RS. ] (]) 07:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			I would like to know what is known about "Franklin Open" (). It claims to be peer-reviewed but charges $1900 to publish an article. Should we count this as an RS, or should its articles be treated as self-published? (Apologies if it's already dealt with somewhere &mdash; I searched and couldn't find it.) --] (]) 22:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Wot's all this then? ==
			:It's published by Elsevier on behalf of the Franklin Institute. So not self-published. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 04:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	It appears that after was made, a whole bunch of active discussions on this board disappeared. I'm assuming that I'm not the only who noticed, but FYI. -BC aka ] (]) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
	:It was accidentally deleted. I've restored it below. --] (])		::But the question is, is the stuff peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? --] (]) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Like any other Elsevier/Franklin Institute journals. Reliable in its area of expertise, which is mostly engineering and applied mathematics. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 05:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::now back above, I believe. --] (]) 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
			:::: Well, here's the thing. They published a paper with no meaningfully new content on the so-called ], . This thing should never have gotten past peer review, not because anything in it is ''wrong'' per se, but because it's not a novel contribution (and is also not a survey). It's a bunch of trivial calculations, put together well with nice illustrations, but with an overall conclusion that is not remotely new.
	::Thanks (again). I also reported it on ]. And just after I did that, was posted just below it, which made me wonder for a little bit if something bigger was happening.... -BC aka ] (]) 20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
			:::: So this makes me wonder about their standards, and whether they should be treated as a predatory journal or something similar. --] (]) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::]s are completely standard, expected, uncontroversial aspects of nearly all ]s, including ''Franklin Open''. If a journal can't charge for subscriptions or article access, it needs to make at least some money through APCs. Does this discussion concern the journal itself and every article it publishes, or rather a single article regarding monkeys and typewriters? If the latter, then the qualifications of the authors and which salient points of the paper merit mention should be discussed on article talk pages per ], ] & ]. Not all articles ever published warrant stuffing into every Misplaced Pages article about a topic, no matter how much individual Wikipedians may slobber over the authors, and thousands of perfectly reliable and decent-quality articles should not be cited per ] and ]. But I'd almost always place more importance on published academic journal articles, even if I dislike the methods or conclusion, over the quibbles and beard-strokings of Wikipedians. ] (]) 23:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Per the scope of the journal "Original manuscripts and special topic issue are welcome as well as multidisciplinary topics or application-oriented articles, reviews, surveys, and '''educational articles'''." (emphasis mine) There's zero issue with a journal publishing an educational article with routine calculations and no new conclusions. You said yourself the illustrations were nice. What's the reliability concern here? &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 08:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::What? reliable journals publish educational articles all the time and they're preferable to novel hypotheses and research. ] (]) 08:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::It doesn't seem to be an educational article. The authors seem to ''think'' they're making a novel contribution. --] (]) 04:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Even if that is the case why would this have any bearing on the reliability of the journal? ] (]) 04:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::: Well, it might not, or at least not very much. In my opinion they should not have published this particular article, and I think that reflects badly on them, but of course that is going to happen from time to time. I was trying to find out what was known about the journal, specifically whether it was predatory or predatory-adjacent, and I did that because I didn't think a reputable research journal would publish this. But it seems that that was not the issue. --] (]) 04:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Urban Dictionary ==		== Twitter ==
			I want to raise a concern about ] or known now as '''X'''. I'm planning to nominate a list to ] and some awards are cited as a tweet from a Philippine Record Label, ], and some cited on YouTube but originally from a significant subscribers (1 Million plus subscribers) and have a Official Artist Channel and can be treated as a reliable source per ]. So, is it okay to cite a tweet directly from record label because some awards aren't covered on a news article, which is only acknowledged on their social media.
	I've long seen citations to characterized as a non-reliable source because the site can be freely edited by anyone. I thought there used to be specific wording to the effect that sites that allowed open editing of their contents were not reliable sources, but I can't find it now. I am now dealing with an established editor who states that Urban Dictionary is a reliable source because many entries have been in it for years. It is still an open-editing site, so I still regard it as unreliable, but I don't see anything specific to support that position? So, is or is not Urban Dictionary a reliable source? -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 21:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Absolutely not. As you mentioned, it is a freely edited site that anyone can use to push a personal agenda or add incorrect information. Like blogs, this site cannot be used to source facts. ]''']''' 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Thank you. I thought I should get a sanity check before proceeding with this. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 14:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::Are all blogs even those of respected journalists or scientists about topics in their profession unreliable? ] (]) 07:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:no, some are reliable--it depends though on their individual reputation which must be demonstrated. In science, there is a collection, , which is considered of at least some degree of quality. But in any such publication, one most pay regard to the particular individual reputation of the blogger. I tend to be tolerant here, but that's because i work professionally in a field where some lists and blogs are the major reliable sources of information. It's only fair to say that some people here disagree with my position on this very distinctly--I doubt there is really a firm consensus. ''']''' (]) 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	::My interpretation is a bit tighter; you can cite a blog of a recognized expert for what the blogger has to say about his area of expertise, given that it is firmly established that the cited material was posted by the recognized expert (and not a response for a reader), and that the citation makes it clear it is the blogger's commentary/interpretation/opinion that is being cited, rather than a statement of fact. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:You wouldn't use it as the sole source for anything likely to be disputed, but it might be OK for background information, i.e. for examples on how a slang term is used, after notability has already been established by published sources. I'd consider that usage more as a footnoted "external link" than as a source per se. ] (]) 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
			P.S: I added a discussion just in case some reviewers have a disagreement on citing a tweet. ] ] 01:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Google Cache ==
			:From your description alone, it sounds like you're asking if Star Music's tweets about (themselves or their bands) winning awards can be cited as sources? If that's the case, the tweet would be a self-published, primary source, and inherently self-serving. So no, I wouldn't consider that appropriate. Reliable, independent, secondary sources reporting on the awards are what makes them important.
	My assumption is that the original webpage is more reliable than a of the page from a search engine such as Google; however, an editor in ] has been using of otherwise reliable sources (Assuming U.S. Government sites are consider reliable for U.S. Monetary Policy). So, are of websites from a search engine considered reliable sources? --] (]) 06:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
			:If I've misunderstood your question, can you give us some examples of the tweets and how they would be used? ] (]) 01:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I've been using the to recover dead links. Why do you think that cached/archived web pages are less reliable than the original? Personally, I don't think that cached/archived pages are any more of a problem than any other web pages. All citations to web pages suffer the problem that web pages, in general, are much less likely to be authoritative than printed paper sources, and all web pages are ephemeral and may disappear at any time, whereas it is highly unlikely that all copies of a printed source would suddenly disappear. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 14:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
			::@] one of their post is here , they recognized the awards for the Best Inspirational Secular Song at the 46th Catholic Mass Media Awards, and this is only the piece of sources i searched. ] ] 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I agree on that, Google cache or archive.org are about as reliable as the webpage that was archived. --] (]) 02:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			:::the ] a Featured list was cited from a Facebook too cause they considered it. and ] cited this on ref 28. So, I think needed to be considered to since it was awarded. ] ] 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	::One concern is that when a given URL stops working, it could have been taken down for a reason. This is less of a concern with a newspaper website, but the one case I remember was a commercial claim, made by the maker of a product. If the link to the claim becomes dead, it's possible that the maker is no longer asserting the claim. For example reference 4 in of the ] article. This provided hours of debate on ] as to whether the claim had been withdrawn by the manufacturer. I don't think there is a general answer as to whether cache links are reliable sources. If the cached link is to a document that is still available published on paper (for instance, in libraries) there should be no problem. ] (]) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			::::The problem isn't really Twitter/X or Facebook, it's that you want to use a post by the record label about an award they received. That's inherently self-serving, which means we should avoid using it.
			::::The Facebook sources at ] were posted by Awit Awards (still a primary source, but not the recipient) and the Philippine Movie Press Club (a secondary source, though I wonder how reliable they are), so I'm assuming that's why they were included. Personally, I think both of those should be removed until they can be supported by better sources, but that's just me. ] (]) 02:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{u|Woodroar}} I think it can be considered? because {{tq|The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.}} The claim made in the post is specifically about ] under the record label Star Music, which is not considered a third party in this context.
			:::::{{tq|The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim}}
			:::::The award mentioned is neither excessively self-serving nor extraordinary (such as a prestigious recognition like the Grammys). Instead, it is a straightforward of Bini achievements. ] ] 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Of course it's self-serving, it's about an award that one of their bands received. As far as the claim about third parties, I hadn't considered that. But Star Music's tweet ''does'' involve claims about third parties, both the group Bini ''and'' the organization Catholic Mass Media Awards.
			::::::As others have pointed out, there are also NPOV concerns. Alongside reports from reliable, secondary, independent sources, it's ] to include an award sourced only to a self-published, primary tweet from the record label. ] (]) 15:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::*I would say that coverage of winning an award is obviously {{tq|unduly self-serving}}. As I said below, we're not just relying on the source for the statement that the award was given but for the implication that it is worth noting; we can't rely on the recipient for that! --] (]) 21:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:If an award isn't covered by secondary independent sources, how is it BALASP on the page? ] (]) 02:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::exactly. Had it recieved media coverage, it would've been notable and due for inclusion. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">]]</span> 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I agree with the sentiment overall for due weight in articles, but this is a list after all. Per ], a high-quality list would; {{tq|"comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items"}}, suggesting that all items would ideally be included in the list, even if not a requirement. I'm inclined to agree with opinions above that documenting an award you have received is not ''unduly'' self-serving, even if publishing such information is entirely self-serving. I otherwise don't agree with the argument that publishing an award won is effectively unwarranted. The question should be more about the awards themselves, for example if the awards were meaningless or irrelevant then sure it would be unwarranted. Give the awards referenced above, the ''Catholic Mass Media Award'' by the ], I'd say it's questionable, but otherwise there are enough secondary sources reporting on them even if not widespread, even if not those in question it seems. ] (]) 13:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Twitter, when cited that way, is ], which carries several restrictions; it's also obviously ]. One key thing is to avoid such about-self cites for anything self-serving - things companies post on Twitter are often promotional in nature and therefore potentially self-serving. "We intend to release this at date XYZ" would be something we could cite to Twitter. Winning an award, unfortunately, is almost certainly self-serving and therefore is probably something we can't. Note that even if you're absolutely certain they're not making it up, you're still relying on them for the implicit statement that this award is ''worth noting'', which they are obviously not a good source for. And similarly, even beyond that, it raises ] issues - if there is no coverage of the award anywhere except by the recipient (who is obviously not a neutral party and could therefore be expected to highlight even exceptionally marginal things, providing little weight to them), this makes it hard to justify as worth including. --] (]) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Sealand News ==		== Far Out Magazine ==
			Would ] be considered a reliable source for music and the arts? ] (]) 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	There is a question regarding an difference of terms between the "Sealand News", which according to their site is the "Official newspaper of Sealand" as per , and the official website of Sealand as per . The disagreement is about the term "micronation". The ''Sealand News'' describes Sealand as a "micronation", the Sealand site itself does not use that word. It has been argued that the ''Sealand News'', while officially recognized as Sealand's official newsservice, is independent of the government, although that statement has yet to be verified. It can and should be pointed out that Sealand has sent representatives to several recent micronations conventions however. Would the ''Sealand News'', in this instance, be a sufficiently reliable source to indicate that Sealand considers itself a micronation or not? ] (]) 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
			:Only RSN-comment I could find on it here: ]. I can't find an "about"-page. Currently it's used on WP quite a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be. ] (]) 08:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: I would say neither is verifiable. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			:Comments at ] indicate caution is called for. ] (]) 08:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			I make it a point to remove this source whenever I see it because of the fact that, beyond the ] concerns noted on the talk page linked above, many of their articles seem to republish content from years ago, while titling them to make it sound as if new insight has come out recently. For a few examples as of late, see , , and are all examples of this website recycling content from other, more reliable sources that can (and should) be cited instead. For all I know, there may be minor instances where this site can be used, but I'm familiar enough with Far Out Magazine to say that, for the most part, their content is clickbait churnalism, and in particular, should not be used for information about ]. ] (]) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Credit to ] for explaining the unreliability of this source ]. ] (]) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	::It seems to me that both of those sources are reliable only in a very limited way, in that they state what the residents of the platform have said about themselves. I'm not sure I see the distinction with the definition of "micronation", but the two sources both state that Sealand considers itself a sovereign principality. So it would appear OK to mention that's what they consider themselves, as shown by those sources, but those sources would not stand as a way to indicate how the place is defined by anyone else. That's my view after reading the links... though I was not able to find the word "micronation" in either of them. --] (]) 02:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			:TL;DR, no, ''Far Out'' is unreliable; it's a website that engages in churnalism. See ] at ]. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 14:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			:Minimally reliable, there may be some use but in general I don't think they're reliable for the reasons that have been mentioned (especially the churnalism/CIRCULAR concerns). I don't think that this is suprising, they are what it says on the label... "Far Out" ] (]) 23:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary? ==
	<s>I just wanted to post here a notice that I am concerned about ]' talk page and edits. Via another article I came upon the article ], created by this user. I tried to clean up the ] (), but '''the problem is the article in question relies exlusively on non-neutral, ] external links, making claims such as "miraculously" which are inherently unencyclopaedic, in my opinion.''' I made both of the last two clean-up edits, '''but the most recent time, having somehow logged myself out w/o realizing it, only reflects an anonymous IP.'''
			Are the sources in these two articles primary or secondary? ] and ]. The book provided is just a collection of parliamentary records, elections, terms served etc. an example is here: ] (]) 08:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	The language on this user's talk page () is almost wholly confessional and disturbingly fundamentalist in nature (i.e. "It is better to let the nations rage than to be dragged down into their errors. For God has abandoned the world to its darkness.") I have not contacted him directly because his/her talk page contains a section called "Garbage In, Garbage Out", which is what I suspect he would regard anything I had to say.
			: Those articles are sourced to contemporary newspapers, which would be secondary sources; one of which, the ''New Zealand Herald'', is included in the "perennial sources" page and categorised as "Generally reliable". ] (]) 10:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			**Newspapers are interesting to discuss because their classification evolves with time. Historians usually classify recent newspaper reports as being secondary, but ''old'' reports are classified as primary (this is because the sources used by the newspaper have been lost, and so the newspaper becomes the earliest available record of the events… with more modern sources based on that old newspaper). ] (]) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Reliability isn't the issue here. It is if the sources are primary or secondary. Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, and Berkeley considers contemporary newspaper articles as primary sources: ] (]) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			== AdWeek ==
	I am not a religious bigot and I know that any user is entitled to hold any/all religious beliefs. But, given that this user has created scores of articles and edited scores of articles (at least some reviewed by ]), and given the presence of other religious apologists and propagandists on Misplaced Pages in the past I felt compelled to bring this to the attention of ] for fear that this user may be attempting to use Misplaced Pages to engage in religious propaganda. I hope an objective administrator can review and decide. Thanks.] (]) 01:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	(I did the same thing again). ] (]) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC) </s>
			Would ] be considered a reliable source in terms of advertising campaigns? ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Withdrawn - already answered at ] (]) 14:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			* AdWeek is a perfectly reliable advertising trade magazine. ] (]) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The thing is public relations notices aren’t usually considered reliable for companies. ] (]) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::As an established trade magazine, I consider ''AdWeek'' ] for topics related to the ]. ''AdWeek''{{'s}} , which consist of a small number of articles published under {{code|adweek.com/press}} between 2017 and 2022, are ] ] that are ], and should not be considered the same as ''AdWeek''{{'s}} standard content. Are these press releases the public relations notices that you are referring to? —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 05:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Langweiledich.net ==
	== 'respected publishing houses', how to tell? ==
			I came across being used in the ] article to support this claim:
	{{resolved}}
			{{tq|In 2023, users of the ''Touhou Project'', '']'' and ] subreddits collaborated to recreate "Bad Apple!!" on ] ] canvas, during its 2023 event.}} It's in German, so I can't really judge the reliability of this site myself - would it be considered a reliable source? ]] 22:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	I am looking for some guidance and advice please.
			:It's the self-published blog of Maik Zehrfeld. There's some advice about self-published sources here ]. I don't think it would be considered reliable, best to find a better source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	I see in the ] section "...books published by respected publishing houses;" and "reputation for fact checking". How is an editor to quantify 'well respected' or 'reputation for fact checking'? For instance, I might guess that ] is well respected with good reputation, though some editors would disagree. Or, for instance, I could also guess whether ] is well respected, but some editors would also disagree. Or, what about ]?
			== Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] ==
	Is there any way to objectively measure a publishing house's 'respect' and 'reputation' as defined by WP:V? ] (]) 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	::depends on the subject. There is no objective ranking, and all publishers publish a range of books of varying quality. The way one evaluates them as a librarian has been to look at the reputation of the other books they have published in the subject. Factors to look for are number of titles in an area, where they have been reviewed and what the reviews say, how many and which libraries hold them, and the individual reputations of their authors. In the academic world, but that's just the academic world, university publishers often (that's "often", not "always") have a higher reputation for quality than commercial, but within each group it varies widely. To take your examples, and giving my personal general impression, which I could not prove to withstand cross-examination without a very extended discussion, Duke is one of the most respected publishers in the humanities, Paladin Press is one of the top non-academic publishers within their specific field on specialization, and Praeger is a good specialized publisher for the applied social sciences. But there is the additional factor in each case that the overall quality of the scholarly humanities literature is very high, of the literature in the self-defense field, very variable, and in the applied social sciences, somewhere in the middle.
	there is only one firm rule--self-publishing & vanity-publishers are not reputatble, but even here there are exceptions. ''']''' (]) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] on the multiple issues regarding that article.
	== University Issued Transcripts ==
			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>
	'''1)''' Are transcripts issued by an accredited university considered under Misplaced Pages standards as a reliable source to evidence a person’s earned academic credits and/or degrees from the issuing institution?
			1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and<br>
			2. {{tq|1=Yemeni state-controlled media outlets}} wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")
			Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article.
	'''2)''' If university issued transcripts are considered a reliable source for the purpose of evidencing a person’s earned academic credits and/or degrees from the issuing institution, then what bibliographic information is sufficient to reference this under Misplaced Pages standards? --] (]) 02:20, 15 January 2008 (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>
	:These are interesting questions. On the first one, I have to ask: why would it be necessary to go through all of this trouble to cite academic transcripts? Surely, if the subject is notable, a third-party (or preferably multiple third-party sources) has/have already published ''something'' on the subject's academic degrees and credentials. Why not simply cite those third-party sources (e.g., newspapers, journal articles, or books) and be done with it? If there aren't any such sources, I would start to question the notability of the WP subject--but perhaps that's a separate matter. I suspect that the answer is that transcripts are primary sources that risk ] in interpretation and extrapolation. In short, ].
			]: 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):
	:On the second question, admittedly, this would be the first time I would see them being used on Misplaced Pages. Also, my ] citation software does not have a reference type entitled "academic transcripts." I mention it because, in my experience, I've never read an academic paper where the author cites academic transcripts. This is not to suggest that (say) a historian has not attempted this type of citation somewhere. It just strikes me as a little unusual. FWIW, ] (]) 03:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
			*
			*
			*
			* (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
			*
			*
			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)
	::'''J Readings:''' I appreciate your considered response. It is no trouble to cite an academic transcript when the student was born in the late 19th Century, which happens to be true in the instance leading to my questions. It is no trouble because retrieving a transcript in this circumstance is easier and less expensive than the process of having my library locate, retrieve and deliver an obscure journal article that was printed for general distribution.
			::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)
			== Bossip ==
	::The scenario I run across is this: '''1)''' I stumble upon a source that speaks to the individual’s university achievement at issue, but '''2)''' the source does not cite from where this information comes from. Because the information appears relevant if it is true, I do the legwork to confirm the information by asking my library to retrieve and deliver the transcript of record for me. '''3)''' I receive the transcript and it confirms the source’s presentation of information.
			Hello. I am debating on improving the "]" article for a possible ] nomination. I have a question about a potentials source. Would '']'' be considered reliable and high-quality enough for the FAC process (or for Misplaced Pages in general)? I would be using the following source: . The page says that the site has earned awards in the past and has been mentioned in various reliable sources. I am hesitant about it as ''Bossip'' is a "gossip" website. Apologies if this site was already discussed before, and thank you for any help and insight on this. ] (]) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::From a purely academic perspective the proper way to verify this information is to cite the source where information was first discovered and also cite the actual transcript of record by indicating the full name of the student and the name of the issuing institution.
			:Looks marginally reliable to me. Like it's not great. But by the standards of pop culture media it's not as bad as it might be. ] (]) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::When I took this approach editors initially '''1)''' complained that the bibliographic information was insufficient (i.e., name of student and issuing institution). Then editors began '''2)''' arguing that a university transcript is “unpublished” and for that reason it could not be cited. Finally, editors began 3) complaining that citing the transcript amounted to original research. I do not comprehend how any of these complaints could possibly be valid because '''1)''' publicity of the individual’s academic training at issue was not my doing (i.e., I am not the origin of the publicity), '''2)''' citing the issued transcript is no more than verifiable corroboration of the original publicity, and '''3)''' a <u>transcript</u> issued by an accredited institution is every bit as reliable as journal articles published by a press of which the same institution is the parent organization. The reliability of a transcript as old as the one in question increases with time because the student has had ample opportunity to remedy any inaccuracies (not to mention that the person’s life story is consistent with the transcript of record).
			::Thank you for the response. That is fair. I had a similar opinion about to be honest. If I do decide to work on this article in the future, I may use other sources first and then see if this one would even be necessary in the end or not. For the purposes of a FAC, which has stricter requirements for sources, it may not be the best option for that context. ] (]) 19:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:What exactly would 'Before she was the illest female in her Dillard’s department, Amil was the illest in all of Hip-Hop, making $40K/guest verse as the Roc’s first lady? Riiiiiiiight.' be used to source? ] (]) 20:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: It would be used as a negative review for the song as it is criticizing Amil's lyrics. ] (]) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yeah. The use of slang isn't the issue here. Reliability isn't a register of specific vocabulary. I suppose the question would be whether, Amil was, in fact, making $40,000 per guest verse previously. Should they be reporting that factual statement accurately and should they have a decent history of accuracy in reporting and clarity in corrections when they make an error then the rest is just aesthetics. ] (]) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::: It wouldn't be reported in the article as a factual statement. The "$40,000 per guest verse" bit is part of the song's lyrics and would be addressed in that context, not as an absolute fact. ] (]) 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Seems pretty odd if not outright illogical to use a gossip website if you're going to bring this to FAC. The typical reviewer there expects the '''''cream of the crop''''' of sources, not tabloid gossip. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Read some of the articles on the site and it's overly unserious and pretentious BS; my advice is to not use this source. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: Okay. Thank you for the response. I agree with your assessment. I have removed it from the article. I am honestly not sure why I used it in the first place. I just thought that it would be beneficial to open a discussion about it here to get further feedback. I believe my question has been answered, and hopefully this can be used to help any other editors in the future. ] (]) 02:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Science-fiction fanzines ==
	::So, the use in question does not present anything new. It is not an original synthesis. The use in question is purely corroborative. In fact, the incident in question cites three sources. '''1)''' The person’s life story published with their permission and cooperation wherein is confirmed the university attended and dates, and an overview of course work, '''2)''' a research publication (book) publicizing the individual’s formal academic training and '''3)''' the individual’s university transcript. Essentially the only thing the transcript does that the other sources do not do is to detail actual classes taken and credit hours earned. The latter details are expressed within online articles written by questionable sources, but it seems nonsensical that citing a dubious online source is necessary given the verifiability of the three sources already cited.
			I see the question of science fiction fanzines has come up many times in the archives. My question is fairly simple. Writer and translator Philippe Hupp, the founder of the Metz science fiction festival, sent a letter to ''PKD Otaku'', a sercon fanzine that is notable in the PKD community and is often referred to by PKD scholars, but is admittedly obscure in the grander scheme of things when it comes to reliable sources. (pp. 4-6), Hupp goes into some historical detail of his relationship with ] and how he was able to get him to speak at the festival in 1977, and provides important historical documents (correspondence, photos) that is reprinted with permission by ''PKD Otaku''. Currently, I'm citing this letter in an article about the festival to say some basic facts about the history. While Hupp and Metz have been covered by numerous reliable sources in France and elsewhere, I believe this kind of exclusive historical detail has only been revealed in ''PKD Otaku''. Is it acceptable for me to carefully cite this info from Hupp (it is, after all, about him and his relationship with PKD) and point to ''PKD Otaku'' as the source? The article I am working on, ], is currently on GAR, and it has been pointed out that this fanzine may not meet the criteria for a RS. It does have two editors, however, but I think it is safe to say it is self-published like most fanzines. It would be a shame for this historical information to be ignored. What is the best course of action? If it isn't acceptable to use as a primary source, I've thought that a brief mention of it in a footnote might be okay. Please let me know your thoughts. ] (]) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Any additional comments you want to add will be appreciated.--] (]) 16:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::I assume this is a continuation of the debate that started above, at ]. Misplaced Pages expects that only published sources will be used to substantiate articles. This is clear from a reading of ], which explains primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Even the sources called 'primary' in that policy are *published* primary sources. A school transcript can't be viewed as a publication. You mention above that you sought out the transcript instead of the 'obscure journal article' that might have made the same point. The obscure article would indeed be citable as a published source (subject only to concerns about ]), and as a secondary source, it avoids the difficulties that can arise in interpreting primary sources. ] (]) 06:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
			:If it's the only source available, and the facts are not controversial, and cited as being from Hupp's account of things, it seems fine to me. ] (]) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::'''EdJohnston:''' I separated this discussion from the one above because the question asked above is poorly expressed and the resulting responses have lost sight of the academic issue at stake.
			::I believe it meets that criteria, however, I will revise it further to make sure that it does. ] (]) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Beebom.com ==
	::::You state, “''A school transcript <u>can't</u> be viewed as a publication''.” <u>Who</u> says this? Does Misplaced Pages policy say this? Or does the statement manifest a limited and/or selective perspective of what it means to “publish”?
			Beebom has been in a few discussions previously about reliability but they've had few responses. I'm asking about their reliability after in ] where their opinion is being used as fact ]. Issues below also make it difficult to establish reliability via ].
	::::To illustrate the problem created by your statement:
			I'm not familiar enough with Beebom to know their overall reporting but I've come across issues.
	::::Were I to obtain a university transcript by having the institution “''issue''” (copy and distribute) a copy to me and then I immediately sent it to Lulu.com for it to “''publish''” (copy and distribute) on demand through the Lulu system (which it would then do on demand), would you then view the transcript as “''published''”? If so, then please explain the material difference between the institution providing a copy of the transcript on demand and Lulu providing a copy of the transcript on demand. The only difference I see is that end users can have more confidence in the institution as a source compared to Lulu as a source. Do you see any other difference between these organization’s publishing/issuing (copying and distributing) the same document on demand? --] (]) 23:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
			* They don't have a masthead so I don't know who their writers are or what their expertise is. The most they have is an with a few higher roles not in editorial and then two editors without any information. This makes it difficult to establish their level of independence and editorial control. A previous RS discussion pointed out some of their content being written by "Beebom Staff" which is still the case but not often.
	:::::Once again, the policy says '''published'''. No matter how you twist and turn, you cannot convince me that a transcript of which you have ordered a copy has been published. And stop trying to shop around until you find someone to agree with you. That behavior is not helping your case. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
			* Their are limited and don't disclose important information. For example, they don't state a separation of ads from editorial. They don't mention here the affiliate programs they're in or the sponsorship deals they do. They don't mention their Beebom Gadgets storefront where they sell phones and make videos on them. However, they disclose having an Amazon affiliate program in their . But they don't disclose the other "affiliate partners" they use. These issues brings into question conflicts of interest which they don't have a policy on. Alongside other basic guidelines like a corrections policy or how they handle accepting samples (if they do).
			**A 2016 interview explains that they make money from sponsored posts and partnerships. This isn't included in their editorial guidelines. I bring it up since they feature this interview on their About Us page, but Misplaced Pages blocks links to the interviewer's site, YourStory.
			**They as "#sponsored" 5 years ago but stopped. It seems they now use a byline named "Partner Content" for those articles. But they don't mention anything about a sponsorship or partnership in their latest article under this byline. Nor is there anything about this in their policies. So I can't confirm if they do this for all paid content or not.
			*I tried looking into their gaming coverage after seeing them on the ] page and found a where they deliberately lie. The headline is, "Black Myth: Wukong Is Now the Most Played Steam Game of All Time", which they almost immediately state isn't true. While also stating "Yes, Black Myth Wukong is now the most-played Steam game of all time!" This makes me question their overall fact checking and reliability when they lie in a news headline.
			I can't find much mention of Beebom aside from their own social media on google. Even after removing their social media, I can't find anything. ] (]) 02:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::'''Donald Albury:''' So glad to see you respond. Once again, you have offered a non-answer reply. Now if you would actually engage the discussion rather than parroting terms we can all read in Widipedia policy, it would be nice.
			:It should probably be removed as a source for the example you brought, since an "opinion" piece is not "reporting." As for the site as a whole, it seems to fit more the model of YouTube gadget reviewer, and could probably be used as a source for certain product reviews where appropriate. But they haven't shown that they have much editorial oversight. The two editors I see listed do not have bios. ] (]) 15:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::Misplaced Pages policy speaks of ''published'' and ''unpublished'' documents. I have consulted the usage throughout Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and find none that would contradict the term applied to copies sought and received from a third-party, such as a university. I have also consulted Oxford on these terms, and find no contradiction or inconsistency with using the term "published" in respect to an on demand printing and distribution. Earlier you admitted ignorance of such a thing! Do you think ignorance improves opinions? You have made an assertion of one of these terms. You have asserted that a particular document is not published. Yet the only thing you offer in response is an opinion that it is not published. Do you have anything else to contribute, other than your opinion? Perhaps you could explain why publish on demand (alternately, print on demand) documents <u>are not published</u> when they come from a university but <u>are published</u> when coming from an organization like Lulu.com?
			::So I did a bit of digging and they haven't really been keeping their website up to date. One of the two editors has now moved into the position of "content strategist". This looks like a very marginal source. I've definitely seen worse in the video game space but I'd personally hesitate to use it for anything controversial. I would also suggest that opinion from this source is likely undue unless there is a named author on the byline with some sort of expertise independent of the outlet. ] (]) 16:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Jacobin ==
	::::::If you want me to stop asking the question then perhaps you should try offering an answer. Asserting an opinion is something you have already done. Opinions are often helpful, but opinions are not always answers. Next it would be nice to see an answer from you. This is why the question is asked.
	::::::Earlier you said to me, “you do not tell me when or where to post.” Do you presume to do tell me when and where to post? At least I have shown the decency to explain my actions. You have yet to answer for yourself! --] (]) 01:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
			Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under ]. ] (]) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::'''Donald Albury:''' Oh, and one other thing. I am not trying to help any case, mine or anyone else’s. For sure I am not shopping anything. If you want to know why my separate entry under this heading then I suggest you read what I have written, and ask questions of me about my intent.
			:There are definitely issues with Jacobin, and a reevaluation of its reliability is probably going to come sooner or later. I don't think a Reddit page full of amateur pundits, who are in turn discussing another social media discussion, is going to give us anything meaningful to work with. ] (]) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::I am asking a question that, so far as I can tell, has never been raised on Misplaced Pages. I am not seeking to have any preferential rendering from administrators, or anyone else. I am looking for productive feedback. In the future, I would ask that you refrain from presumptive language directed at my person. I am not the issue. The issue is the question(s) asked. I am not trying to convince you of anything. <u>You</u> are the one who has asserted that transcripts are not published. Okay. I know <u>you</u> say this. Now please show me where <u>Misplaced Pages policy</u> says this. --] (]) 01:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
			:Not a good look, but I will note that the says at the bottom: {{tpq|q=y|Correction: An earlier version of this article overstated the amount of US housing stock that Blackstone owns.}} So far as I can tell, the sentence in question is removed from the current version of the article entirely. --] (]) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That would indicate, notwithstanding snark on Twitter, the website for snark, Jacobin actually did the thing we expect of a reliable source and made a correction to an article with a factual error, identifying with a correction notice that a correction had been made. ] (]) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think this justifies a significant increase in caution towards the author at the very least. In general, an in-depth look at it's reliability is probably due, even though a Reddit discussion isn't evidence. ] (]) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It's strange that it was closed as 'generally reliable' in the first place, when most respondents voted either 'no consensus' or 'generally unreliable' in the last RFC. ] (]) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Had a quick perusal of the r/neoliberal subreddit. It appears to be discussing one sentence in one (possibly opinion) article in Jacobin. Are you asking whether that particular article is a reliable source for that one sentence? ] (]) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Just as an aside, RFCs are ] (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Sources making corrections, as has happened in this case, is a sign of reliability. Things that happen on social media, and reactions on social media, are mostly irrelevant. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The ] that supposedly found ''Jacobin'' to be reliable really is a bit of a tenuous close. A simple beancount in that RfC would lean against treating it as ], and I'm not really able to discern ''why'' the arguments for reliability were so much stronger than those in opposition that an affirmative Option 1 consensus was declared instead of a no-consensus close (at minimum). I do think that it's ripe for re-evaluation. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The author's behavior would be annoying if we were chatting at lunch and I personally dislike the smugness, but reliability isn't a personality contest, and as Simonm223 points out the article itself was corrected and the erroneous information removed. That's basically what we expect a reliable source to do—fix itself when an error gets pointed out. So long as the actual content produced is dependable or gets fixed to become dependable, that's reliability. Anonymous Reddit complaints trying to score Internet points aren't a compelling reason for overturning the prior RfC. Evidence of a pattern of unreliable reporting and ''failures'' to make corrections would be more persuasive. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 03:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. ] (]) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			* I think it is time for a review of the past discussion and time to bring up Jacobin for a reliability check. ] (]) 03:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? ] (]) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::What does "NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus" mean? ] (]) 21:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* It looks like they handled this appropriately, can you explain what the issue would be? Your comment is a little light on details, its basically just spamming a reddit discussion... Maybe tell us what you think? ] (]) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			A new discussion on Jacobin is long overdue, particularly per ]. It's clear that Jacobin is not reliable on all topics, and at the very least additional considerations should apply in these cases. --] (]) 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Narrowing the Issue===
	This discussion is narrowed for comment in the subject heading . --] (]) 17:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
			:Agreed. ] (]) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			::An RfC next would be worthwhile. ] (]) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors ==
	{{article|Ed O'Loughlin}} - This is a fresh re-creation of a previously deleted, controversial article. Previous discussions of the earlier version of the article:
			{{Archive top|status=|result=The discussion is partially non-topical for this forum. The discussion about the issues that belong here continues below in {{slink||The Heritage Foundation}}.—] 19:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:#]
			Taking this here based on a recommendation from {{U|Aquillion}}. The conversation began where a report from forward was shared . According to this report, the Heritage Foundation {{tq|plan to use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia}}. A copy of the Heritage Foundation proposal deck is available . This Heritage Foundation plan to dox wikipedia editors also {{tq|would include creating fake Misplaced Pages user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them. It is unclear whether this has begun.}}
	:#]
	:#]
	:#]
	:#]
	:#]
	:#]
	:#]
	:#]
			Clearly this situation is alarming in the extreme and the discussion at the arbitration case brought forward the very reasonable suggestion of a project-wide block of all Heritage Foundation domains. So why here? Well Aquillion suggested a reasonable first-step toward this would be to get the site deprecated and blacklisted via RS/N. So that's what I'm here to do. ] (]) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	This new article's references are largely opinion pieces in reliable media and analyses by "think tanks", some a bit biased.
			:I am unsure about a retalitory deprecation (or whatever). ] (]) 14:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::No this would be a preventative deprecation. The idea, to my understanding, is to remove the ability of Heritage Foundation domains to interact with en.wp as much as possible. ] (]) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Is that not best done with range blocks, to prevent them from setting up accounts? ] (]) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think this is a discussion to be had at the Village Pump, as it's not a matter of reliability. Deprecation wouldn't have the effect that your looking for, you would need blacklisting and I don't think this would fall within the normal process of blacklisting. So a discussion at VP seems more appropriate as it's something outside of prior policy or guidelines. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::A village pump discussion was created and the suggestion to bring the conversation here actually arose from discussion of that conversation at the arbitration page. Honestly I'm pretty nervous about a pseudo-governmental organization trying to interfere with individual Misplaced Pages editors in this way so I'll happily take the conversation to whatever board we think is most appropriate. But right now we've got a whole lot of conversations pointing to different places as a precis to discussing the actual problem. ] (]) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Hostile actions by a third party against Misplaced Pages or it's editors isn't a reliability issue, and this isn't a forum for anything but reliability issues. If anything it sounds more like safe guarding, a much bigger issue that should probably involve the WMF. However if editors want to start a discussion about it's reliability, per the sources below, that would be a seperate matter. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I will point out that part of what I said there was that they're already used on some , and are probably ''already'' depracable for publishing obvious disinformation (especially since the 2020 election.) I wouldn't have suggested going through RSN to deprecate them if I didn't think they were ''also'' worthy of deprecating on their own merits, entirely separately from the threats to use their websites to dox Misplaced Pages editors; but deprecating them would make it easier to add them to the spam blacklist and would help avoid situations where editors are forced into a situation where they have to consider whether to click a link to an obviously Heritage Foundation-controlled site in order to verify a presented source. I suppose we could just move ahead with trying to get those sites added to the spam blacklist ''without'' deprecation, but for a site that also publishes disinformation, it seems easier to get it deprecated first, since it ought to be an easy call. --] (]) 14:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Apologies if I misinterpreted. I'll admit that reading the thread at the arbitration case upset me rather considerably. ] (]) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That is a more valid reason, there do seem to be issues with the recent work. ] (]) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:This discussion should be closed and a proper thread should be opened with substantiated concrete claims about problems with this source. —] 15:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The thread itself is the precursor to an RFC. That said, they've published misinformation or disinformation about climate change,<ref name="Washington_2011">{{Cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |location=London |page=75,77 |oclc=682903020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Michael |title=Heritage Foundation |url=https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808183550/https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |archive-date=August 8, 2021 |access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Ruth E.|last1=McKie|title=The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|publisher=Springer International Publishing|date=2023 |location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-33592-1|pages=19–50|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|quote=Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...}}</ref> the FDA<ref>{{cite book|first1=Zane C.|last1=Wubbena|first2=Derek R.|last2=Ford|first3=Brad J.|last3=Porfilio|title=News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAcoDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|date=1 March 2016|isbn=978-1-68123-401-4|via=Google Books|pp=49|quote=For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.’s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...}}</ref> elections and politics,<ref name="Kessler_2021">{{Cite web |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=March 31, 2021 |title=The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511214334/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |archive-date=May 11, 2021 |access-date=April 2, 2021 |newspaper=]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-GAvideo-2024-09-07">{{Cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Ken |last2=Fausset |first2=Richard |date=September 7, 2024 |title=Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907203454/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |last2=Swenson |first2=Ali |title=Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force |url=https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |publisher=Associated Press |date=July 12, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713110730/https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |url-status=live }}</ref> and more. --] (]) 16:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That's enough to open an RFC. ] (]) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Can I suggest closing this section and starting another, to afford accusations that questions of reliability are based on animosity to the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{+1}} I think it's time we started a RfC (perhaps in a new section, as suggested by AD). ] (]) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes, new section. —] 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::An RFC is in a new section already? You mean a new RFCbefore section? Titled Heritage Foundation? (ie without the dox part) ] (]) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::New level 2 section. —] 19:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I certainly have no objection to closing this discussion and opening a new one to host an RfC / RfC Before.] (]) 19:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}}
	Since these references fall into grey areas with regards to the ] and the ], others opinions would be helpful. Please leave them at ].
			{{abot}}
			== Could someone who can read Bengali take a look at ]? ==
	Thanks, --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 18:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
			Hello, I started the title AfD in response to some users recreating a rejected draft in mainspace and they responded by filling the discussion with sources that don't pass ]. I'm unable to read some of the sources, though, in particular one that the users claim has a whole chapter on the subject of the article. Could someone who can read the Bengali sources take a look at the discussion and see if the article passes ]? --] (]) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::See ]. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 23:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
			:You may have more luck asking at ] or ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			::Thanks, will repost there (West Bengal, since it's the Wikiproject whose scope covers the article's subject). --] (]) 22:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== The Heritage Foundation ==
	I have been trying to calmly explain to a rogue editor with multiple accounts that entry of non-valid names on this list from non-reliable sources is not valid. The key points of my argument are as follows:
			] has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change,<ref name="Washington_2011">{{Cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |location=London |page=75,77 |oclc=682903020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fisher |first=Michael |title=Heritage Foundation |url=https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808183550/https://www.desmog.com/heritage-foundation/ |archive-date=August 8, 2021 |access-date=September 1, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Ruth E.|last1=McKie|title=The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America|url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|publisher=Springer International Publishing|date=2023 |location=Cham|isbn=978-3-031-33592-1|pages=19–50|via=Springer Link|doi=10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2|quote=Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...}}</ref> the FDA<ref>{{cite book|first1=Zane C.|last1=Wubbena|first2=Derek R.|last2=Ford|first3=Brad J.|last3=Porfilio|title=News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAcoDwAAQBAJ|publisher=Routledge|date=1 March 2016|isbn=978-1-68123-401-4|via=Google Books|pp=49|quote=For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.’s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...}}</ref> elections and politics,<ref name="Kessler_2021">{{Cite web |last=Kessler |first=Glenn |date=March 31, 2021 |title=The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511214334/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/31/bogus-claim-that-democrats-seek-register-illegal-aliens-vote/ |archive-date=May 11, 2021 |access-date=April 2, 2021 |newspaper=]}}</ref><ref name="NYT-GAvideo-2024-09-07">{{Cite news |last1=Bensinger |first1=Ken |last2=Fausset |first2=Richard |date=September 7, 2024 |title=Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |work=The New York Times |access-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-date=September 7, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240907203454/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/07/us/politics/heritage-foundation-2024-campaign-immigration.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fields |first1=Gary |last2=Swenson |first2=Ali |title=Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force |url=https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |publisher=Associated Press |date=July 12, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713110730/https://apnews.com/article/heritage-foundation-biden-trump-election-2024-3056df8a1ea882e23f8e2faf2eff7a3b |url-status=live }}</ref> and more. It has been publishing obvious disinformation especially since the 2020 election. Its website heritage.org is used as a source on some <s></s> (<u>correction</u>: I copied "5000" with this search link from another editor uncritically. "heritage.org" includes all of "english-heritage.org" links; the real count is —00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—] 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Fantasia Barrino - In her biography, she claimed "that family rumor" says she might have Cuban ancestry. She uses the word rumor and I have explain to user that rumors are not valid source of information.
	*Sammy Davis Jr.- While he was alive, Sammy Davis Jr. always described himself as Puerto Rican. yet in an authorized biography released after his death an author claims he was Cuban. My argument here is that aunauthorized bios (think Kitty Kelly) are not valid and Davois's claims nixes entry on this list.
	*Bacardi family - I have pointed out that the founder of the company was born in Sitges, Spain. His descendants have relocate dto many countries including Puerto Rico, where the produce "Puerto Rican rum" and not "Cuban rum". How can a family claim that they are one nationality when there are members living in the US, Bahamas and Puerto Rico. Again there is a counterclaim for entry on this list.
	*Eamon de Valera; Eamon's father was born in Spain. Baptismal certificates in Cuba show that someone with a same name was baptized in Cuba. This could be a coincidence but de Valera stated that his father was Spanish in his memoirs. If I was baptized in New York, but lived in New Jersey does that make me a New Yorker? That report has never been confirmed and remains speculation and therefore it is not valid for entry.
	This is an ongoing dispute and any help with be greatly appreciated.--] (]) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)		:We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. ] (]) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::What about the ]? —] 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. ] (]) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. ] (]) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation?
			::What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in ]? —] 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods.
			:On a quick search, I only found in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. ] (]) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's ]. Not sure if we want this used or not. ] ] 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index {{tq|The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations}} suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. ] (]) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. ] (]) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes.
			::::Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --] (]) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Oh do stop. I've heard that particular ] violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a ] ] perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. ] (]) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::: I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --] (]) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? ] (]) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --] (]) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::That's a bold claim. Evidence? --] (]) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. ] (]) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —] 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by ], replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting ]. ] (]) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. ] (]) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I would consider it ] since it’s self published and openly partisan. ] (]) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. ] (]) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether ] applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. ] (]) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::There was an ] as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against ''always'' considering them to be self-published. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] Please review reference no. 6 in ] ({{tq|Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state}}). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —] 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. ] (]) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in ], supported by the Project 2025 publication, ''with attribution'': {{tqq|], a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their ''2025 Mandate for Leadership'', they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|title=Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise|first=Heritage|last=Foundation|date=1 February 2023|website=]|access-date=1 September 2023|archive-date=16 November 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231116113522/https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>}} Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —] 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. ] (]) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. ] (]) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It might be 'reliable' that the HF said what they said they said, but is it relevant? This is getting into questions about whether the content is even ]. Lots of people say lots of things about lots of stuff, but Misplaced Pages doesn't quote it all. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 07:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::There's the reputed ], for one. ] (]) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. ] (]) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —] 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. ] (]) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is ''directly'' relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. ] (]) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support ''' blacklisting ''']]''' 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Minor point but it's used on not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. ] (]) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Support''' blacklisting. I don't wanna get doxxed.. ] ] 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually ''prevent'' and/or ''stop ''any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? ] (]) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::They have threatened to start doxxing people on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 22:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::And also have said they will do it with links. ] ] 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It's unlikely that any professional phishing campaign by HF would use heritage.org, and if their home website were blacklisted, they would proceed to ''use other websites'' ] (]) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. ] (]) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			As with ALL think-tanks, I think they should be considered ]; though if some of their reports see ] than those could be used with attribution.---''']]''' 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	**Unfortunately ] chooses to misrepresent the truth about me yet again. I have never used multiple accounts. I have consistently used either my user name or an IP address assigned to my computer since I forgot my account name's password. Ruthermore I have provided references to support my claims (discussion can be found at ]) while ] have offered no sourced material just consistent arguing.
	**It's an issue of semantics. You'd be right to say that a rumor wouldn't be a valid source of info if it came from a secondary source, but this is a "family rumor" that she herself believes and even included in her autobiography. In that case it is a reputable source because it's coming from Barrino herself. If it was a rumor, from say a gossip blog then it wouldn't considered a reputable source? Do you understand the difference?
	**Sammy Davis, Jr.<ref></ref> First chapter of Wil Haygood's book published on ''The New York Times'' website reads: ''"My mother was born in San Juan," Sammy Davis, Jr., proclaimed. But it was a lie, and he knew it. She was born in New York City, of Cuban heritage. The Cuban ancestry, in the wake of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, which saw President John F. Kennedy and Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev battle to a standoff over nuclear arsenals, made Sammy nervous. Anti-Cuban sentiment had swept the land. The Cuban-haters might begin to dislike him, and Sammy was not in the business of losing admirers and fans. So he flipped the Cuban history-telling relatives to keep quiet about it-with made-up Puerto Rican history."'' XLR8TION claims this book is based on rumor, but Haygood conducted over 250 interviews with family and friends of Davis, including with Davis' own mother before she passed away. This book has been positively reviewed by ''The Washington Post'', ''The New York Times'' and ''Publisher's Weekly'' among others.
	**The Bacardi family is composed of Americans of Cuban descent. Hence, List of Cuban Americans. Here are two articles, in addition to the one already referenced by their name on the article page: from '']'']and the ]. Where the rum is produced is a non-issue, we're taling about the family not the corporation.
	**de Valera's father was born in Cuba. At the time, Cuba was still Spanish territory. Hence the confusion. It's no different then someone from Guam or Puerto Rico referring to themselves as Guamanian or Puerto Rican, even if they're nationality is American.
	] (]) 05:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
			Could we see some evidence of doxing please? If this is something they do to people it is a safety concern and we probably need to deprecate. As for the rest, I think they are an over-used fringe source, but there are probably times when their attributed opinion is due. The Economic Freedom Index was something you used to see quoted a lot in newspapers and on TV in the UK, not so much now. It shouldn't be mentioned in our ] or ] type articles.--] (]) 06:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Notice of proposal ==
			: expose in ], a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. ] (]) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	As most of you know, there has been a lot of discussion at WP:RS and at WP:V about merging. This is due to the fact that WP:RS keeps getting edited, rewritten, revised, and tweeked to the point where it contradicts things that are said in WP:V (I have seen this occur at least three times in the last two years). The idea is not to get rid of WP:RS, but to move it and make it a sub-section of WP:V.
			'''Support''' blacklisting. I don’t know if it’s “spam” per se but an organization that has stated an intent to dox editors is obviously just a simple threat to user safety. And I don’t think there’s any debate their content is all garbage, disinfo, and propaganda. Even ] content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. ] (]) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	It is my understanding that this idea has gained a solid consensus on both pages, and the time has come to more formally propose it to the broader community for approval. Since this page is tied to WP:RS, I thought some preliminary notice should be given here. Actually, I ''don't'' see a merger having a great impact on this page. There will still be a need for a notice board where editors can enquire about whether a given source is reliable, or complain about articles that need reliable sources.
			'''Support''' blacklisting. ] am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? ] ] 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	I encourage those who regularly help out on this page to get involved in the discussions about this merger. At the moment most of the discussions are going on at the WP:RS talk page. ] (]) 14:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
			:Heritage.org is marked as unreliable, yes. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 11:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Is Misplaced Pages a reliable source? ==
			'''Support''' blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	In other words, say I wanted to claim on article X that film Y had won a bunch of Academy Awards? Would it be acceptable to put a ref as the ] page, for example, or would I need to ref to the Academy Awards website? I am using this as an example - obviously the outside ref is easy to do in this case, but I hope you get the idea. Thanks. ] (]) 05:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
	:No, I believe we aren't to cite Misplaced Pages for Misplaced Pages articles. ] ]/] 05:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
	:No, per Marlith. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source. Since anyone can edit it, it cannot be considered a reliable source for its own purposes.] (]) 06:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
	:You should be able to copy and paste the sources that article uses. ] (]) 02:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
	::It would be unwise to do so without verifying that the cited sources support the 'facts' you want to use. Even in WP articles with lots of citations, there may be statements that cannot be verified from any of the cited sources. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 03:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
			'''Support''' blacklisting. The Heritage Foundation produces two things: disinformation and opinion. I don't think the opinion of a disinformation vendor is particularly noteworthy except in ] contexts. With such minimal value to use of this group as a source let's just show them the door. ] (]) 13:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Snopes==
	Two parts to this question: Is Snopes a reliable source? And is inclusion of a rumor on Snopes sufficient to say the rumor is "widespread" or "common"? ] (]) 21:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
			* '''Support blacklisting'''. The site is published by an ideologically-motivated group which is well-documented for making false claims of fact, using dubious methodologies in their work, and is now engaged in efforts to damage this very project. There's absolutely no use, and much potential harm to come from using them. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I would say the site is a reliable source by our rules. However, I am less sure about the second part of your question. Unless snopes ''states'' that the rumor is widespread or common we can not make that assumption. ] (]) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
	:I consider Snopes to be a reliable source on issues related to urban legends. ] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
			=== RFC: The Heritage Foundation ===
	::Agree with Blueboar. And extend. It would be argumentative to say that a rumour is "widespread" or "common" in any case. Although our sources may *state* that it is, since this is necessarily going to be contentious, their statement should be *quoted* rather than left unquoted to show exactly *who* is saying it, and with a full ref to the source. That method makes it clear in the mind of the reader that a certain skepticism should be effected. ] (]) 00:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}}
			{{rfc|pol|rfcid=08190DC}}
			What is the reliability of ] and should it be blacklisted? ] (]) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 1: ]'''
	== ] ==
			* '''Option 2: ]'''
			* '''Option 3: ]'''
			* '''Option 4: ]'''
			* '''Option 5: ]'''
			==== Poll: The Heritage Foundation ====
			* <s>'''Option 5: Blacklist'''</s>: Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. ] (]) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Pinging @]@]@]@]@], they voted above before I made this RFC. ] (]) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in.
			*:is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5] (]) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. ] (]) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@]: There is a way to warn users attempting to ''add these links'' (filter {{edit filter|869}}), but warning users who click on them would likely require some JavaScript magic that's above my pay grade. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support option 5''' - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP ''']]''' 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —] 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. ''']]''' 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source}}; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —] 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? ] (]) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said: {{tqq|We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization}}—] 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig ''']]''' 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::They don't. ] (]) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::What is the status of (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —] 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. ] (]) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —] 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. ] (]) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —] 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. ] (]) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::If ''Daily Mail'' is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):{{blist|
			<nowiki>{{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}}
			</nowiki>}}...?{{br}}I'll help you: ''Daily Mail'' is not blacklisted.—] 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::]. ] (]) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —] 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::::Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? ] (]) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::::I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see ] below. ] (]) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::::Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment: {{tqq|Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing).}} Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise. {{tqq|But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal?}} Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.{{pb}}Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question of {{tqq|Do paperbacks get special dispensation ...}}. That original question, mildly rephrased, is:{{pb}}''How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with ], which is how this RfC's question is also formulated ({{tqq|'''What is the reliability of <u>The Heritage Foundation</u> ...'''}})''?{{pb}}Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is ''possible'', but it is not what, say, ] thinks. He wrote: {{tqq|... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question ...}}. —] 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing ''']]''' 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —] 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::::Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. ] (]) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. ] (]) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —] 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support option 5 and option 4''' per my statements above. ] (]) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*: I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. ] (]) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3,''' with '''Option 5''' post 2016 and '''Option 4''' for any hard copy after 2016. ] (]) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. ] (]) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@] You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at ]; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —] 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::@] Interesting, it looks like it's possible ]. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". ] (]) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Yeah, that is interesting. In the present case, if blacklisting for ostensible security reasons, the date isn't a factor. —] 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 3: generally unreliable'''. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as by ] which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. ] (]) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	A very slow moving edit war has just started between myself and another editor ] over the inclusion or exclusion of India as a current great power. It started here ] because Encarta states that India is an upcoming super power not a current one, he (?) stated many reasons why he believes that India is a current Global Power and how Encarta is wrong and/or outdated for stating otherwise. I tried to answer some of those statements but concluded stating that it doesn't matter what either one of us say because we aren't published or accredited experts in Geo-politics and all our conversations come down was ]. I even gave him some academic papers that state that India though likely to be one sometime in the future is not one now & unless he could find some that say otherwise the page should stay the same. Now one of those papers predicted that in so many years India would most likely be a Great Power and by adding those years to the date it was published he used it as proof that India is indeed a current Great Power. I reverted the edits saying that while an accredited source is the best source you can find, using one that predicts the future to prove facts about the current world is not considered reliable (i.e. Predictions of the British Empire in 1913 had no relations to the reality of what actually happened). Once I did that I got threatened that he'd report me to an admin (''The article is a reliable as you have admitted and making any changes will be a violation of Misplaced Pages rules and I will have to report you to the Administrator.'') Which kinda bummed me out since up till that point I was enjoying our conversation. So I was hoping that I could get some other opinions involved in this since I think that no matter what I say at this point it will fall on deaf ears. Heck if you can find an accredited source that can prove his point please let us know! Thanks! -- ] (]) 06:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' and '''Option 4'''. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". ] (]) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. ] ] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 2 for pre-2016''' (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "]" think tanks) and '''Option 4 for 2016 and later'''. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., ''']''' (])), not from value judgements.—] 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. ] (]) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—] 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —] 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 5''' We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 5''' - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --] 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. ] (]) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' Blacklist -- ''but this does not mean removing the reference''. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- ] (]) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable ('''option 3''') as they are into ] conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.] (]) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "]." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. ] (]) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? ] (]) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. ] (]) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? ] (]) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::{{re|JoJo Anthrax|Bluethricecreamman|Abo Yemen|Dronebogus|Doug Weller|MjolnirPants|SarekOfVulcan|Vanamonde93|NatGertler|Boynamedsue|Gnomingstuff|Patar knight|1AmNobody24|Tryptofish|Chaotic Enby|Horse Eye's Back}}
			*:::While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. ] (]) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. ] (]) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! ] (] · ]) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. ] (]) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --] 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::If it wasn’t security related I wouldn’t have voted. But I would still allow older cites under a 3 ''if and only if'' they were replaced by wayback machine links. ] (]) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. ] (]) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 6''', ]. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you ''give out your IP when you visit any website'' and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, ''this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing''.{{pb}}The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a ''very specific link'', and they have to be fairly certain that ''only you'' could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that ''outwardly looks like'' something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.{{pb}}If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be ''more effective'' by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.{{pb}}The is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/] source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.{{pb}}What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-anonymize and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.{{pb}}The technical solutions offered at ] are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions ''would'' do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:We can do both. We can remove a ] source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of ] interference.] (]) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is ''very'' relevant. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing ] above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting.
			*:::Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --] (]) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. ] (]) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. ] (]) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. ] (]) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5: Blacklist''' (along with '''4: Deprecate'''). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --] (]) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the ''Forward'' piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --] (]) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{+1}} ] (]) 23:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I've been continuing to think about this, and I've also been reading the subsequent RfC comments by editors who argue that we should still consider that it's a think tank that can provide citable source material. Some editors have also said that we should not let our emotional reaction against the doxing issue influence how we evaluate Heritage as a reliable or unreliable source. In some ways, I agree that we should not make sourcing decisions based upon emotion. However, we should also not be naive about what a ''legitimate'' think tank does. Think tanks take advocacy positions, but they also are populated by ''thinkers'', people with expertise who think carefully about issues, and seek to publish well-reasoned analyses of issues. But it's frankly laughable to characterize Heritage that way. An organization that says, publicly, that they are going to go after Misplaced Pages editors, as persons, in order to enforce their preferred view of what information Misplaced Pages readers will find, is not an organization that is producing scholarly analyses of information that Misplaced Pages might want to cite. If it's a legitimate think tank, then ] is a think tank, too. Even if they also purport to produce thoughtful position papers, those publications simply ''have'' to be recognized by us as tainted by intellectual dishonesty. There is no passing that off as reliable sourcing. --] (]) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? ] (]) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::There's a wide range, in both directions, of how much valuable information a source can offer. On WP:RSP the only sources deprecated with antisemitism as part of the justification are Press TV, an Iranian propaganda outlet; The Unz Review, with justification mentioning "racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content" and "many apparent copyright violations"; and Veterans Today, which was blacklisted for abuse and deprecated for "unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories." Unz Review is the only deprecation citing racism. Searching for a few other "horrible things" keywords, I don't immediately see anything else.
			*::::With Press TV and Veterans Today it seems there are, I would say, much clearer underlying problems with the sources than is the case with HF. Unz Review seems to have been a clear-cut case — the only such case I see — of cancelling an outlet primarily for being unusably (i.e questionably) rabid, and it being an outlet that no one would miss because it doesn't seem (per its RfC) to provide useful info. HF may be unhelpful to an extent, but not ''that'' unhelpful. Apart from that, sources are flagged for their information being inappropriate for the encyclopedia, not for saying horrible things.
			*::::It's also worth looking at Asian News International. They're another organization hostile to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's mission, but despite ''that whole situation'', they're only MREL, and the description of why gives no mention to ''that situation.'' That's the most important precedent in this comment.
			*::::If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those ] (]) 02:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Well said @], "{{tq|If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those...}}" ] (]) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5: Blacklist''', primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, '''generally unreliable''' at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. ] (] · ]) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. ] (]) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:UKPhoenix79 you did the right thing by coming here. Content disputes over the reliability of a source belong on this page. Here is how I personally would approach the issue. Quote and cite both sources using footnotes to show exactly what each one is saying. I find that is the best method to solve contentious content-paraphrasing contests. I can assist you in how to do this if you're not sure. I'll also watch the article for a few days to see if you've been able to work it out to your mutual satisfaction. Have a great day. ] (]) 00:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			* I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense:
			:*In general, '''Option 5''' for editor security reasons, as per all above.
			:*With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, '''Option 4''' as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve ] theories.
			:*With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, '''somewhere between option 2 and option 3''' - ] would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- ]] 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	==What is “published”?==
			*'''Option 5''' on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. ] (]) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. ] (]) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 5''' This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. ] (]) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. ''']''' - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s ], which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. ] (]) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Yes. Their is no reason not to place fingerprint gathering html5 snippets as widely as possible if you want as much tracking as possible. ] (]) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::And consider, Misplaced Pages editors will only be one target. A large tracking network can be a used to doxx other people they dislike (advocates of racial equality, LGBT people, non-capitalists). Its pretty safe to assume they will have middleware somewhere in their webstack to affect fingerprinting. I'd be mad at my cyberattack consultant if they missed the obvious. ] (]) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites''' as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1''' this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --] (]) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. ] (]) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. ] (]) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. ] (]) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. ] (]) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::Fingerprinting everyone is useless for purposes of following and tracking Wikipedians. ] (]) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. ] (]) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:"This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. ] (]) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' per {{u|PARAKANYAA}}. Well said. - ] (]) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. ] 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. ] (]) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' and in case it's considered seperate '''Option 4''' as well. THF are not only publishers of ] but are posing an active threat to ] ] (]) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 5:''' While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. ] (]) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2-3''' There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? ] (]) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources ] (]) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@] makes the most well articulated point of anyone in this RfC. This would indeed be "very bad precedent" and we should not also retaliate based on the claims of a single source in such bad form. ] (]) 21:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''', at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (, '''' and academica ( and ) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from '''', a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''', per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least ''some'' things. ] (] - ] - ]) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. ] (] - ] - ]) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 1''', though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. ] (]) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? ] (]) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the ''Forward'' source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So '''Option 1: Generally reliable'''. ] (]) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. ] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. ] (]) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' as their own communications indicate that they are a security risk, that they intend of publishing malicious web content in order to identify people who click on their links.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rosenfeld |first=Arno |date=2025-01-07 |title=Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to ‘identify and target’ Misplaced Pages editors |url=https://forward.com/news/686797/heritage-foundation-wikipedia-antisemitism/ |access-date=2025-01-10 |website=The Forward |language=en}}</ref> '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 4 and maybe 5'''. Based on their (lack of) quality as a source this is an ''extremely'' obvious 4 but their recent outrageous threats were making me think that 5 was also justified, comparable to how we would treat a terrorist organisation. After seeing Red-tailed hawk's comment, among others, I am now less sure about that. What I am sure of is that they publish deliberate ] in intentional bad faith and that makes them utterly untrustworthy and unreliable (with both an upper and lower case "u") as a source for anything at all except for their own claims. Literally nothing that they say can be relied upon unless independently corroborated by actual Reliable Sources, in which case we should just use those Reliable Sources instead. If they say that the sky is blue then a Reliable Source needs to open a window and check before we can say that it is. I see people saying that they may have been more reliable in the past. I have my doubts about that. Sure, they are probably ''even worse'' now than they were before but were they ''ever'' really anything better than a 3 or 4? That said, if that does turn out to be true, and we do decide to blacklist, then I guess we could use Archive.org to refer to contemporaneous copies of their content which we know not to have been subsequently tampered with. --] (]) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 5''' because they have announced they are a security risk, and '''Option 4''' because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors. ] (]) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 4''' as they routinely publish material chock full of conspiracy theories and outright fabrications.--] (]) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 5, regrettably'''. I would normally have suggested '''option 2'''. But given they are actively trying to dox editors on Misplaced Pages and contributors to other internet sources, that is absurd and is not something that can result in them being tolerated as a source on Misplaced Pages. They do good work - they produce things that, while biased, are reliable, generally speaking. But their efforts have extended to doxxing contributors, and that is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages has an obligation to make ''reasonable attempts to protect'' its users - whether editors or readers - from having their information harvested through links. And since the Heritage Foundation has admitted they intend to engage in information harvesting based on links... nope. Not permissible. '''To clarify''' - my !vote here is '''not''' a comment on their reliability overall. If they cease their information harvesting, I support a further discussion on this topic. But if they intend to (and per reliable sources, may have already begun) use their links to harvest editor/reader information, '''absolutely not acceptable''', and they should be blacklisted until they cease engaging in such behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; ] &#124; ] 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be ''at minimum'' a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say ]. ] (]) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.] (]) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I counted two ] (]) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. ] (]) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''option 2/3''' - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them.
			:That said, what they publish is ''opinion'' and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE.
			:If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to ''Mein Kamph'' as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ])</small> 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --] (]) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable ] and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --] (]) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3''' for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. ] (]) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC''' per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. ] (]) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. ] (]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I agree with the '''BADRFC''' !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. ] (]) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Very poor option 2 or option 3''' gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. ] (]) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''' - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, ''if accurately recounted in the media,'' to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. ] (]) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —] 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. {{pb}}For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. {{pb}} For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. {{pb}} For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the ] because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. ] (]) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{Tq|This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular.}} {{+1}} 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::What about the democracy indices from ], or ], or ]? Or the ]? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL ] (]) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. ] (]) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC ] (]) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::] is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the ] outmoded. ] (]) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't ''current'' and ''reliable'' scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for ''Principia''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s estimate. I'm going to read ''current'' scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.{{pb}}The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. ''Wealth of Nations'' lies in the social sciences while ''Principia'' deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's ''Wealth of Nations'' in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the , not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly ''because'' it is ''inspired by'' The Wealth of Nations.
			*::::The IEF is not a problem with this organization ] (]) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{tq|If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference}}: No, it wouldn't make sense to reference the Heritage Foundation directly. If what we want to cover is the criticism, we want secondary source coverage ''of'' such criticism; citing such criticisms ''directly'' and just deciding to put them in an article is ] in the pursuit of a ]. Criticism of vaccination is an influential element of American culture, but we don't go out of our way to cite anti-vaxxers; we instead cite reliable sources that independently document and analyze such. The Confederate secession was a major part of American history, but we ought not write Civil War articles by citing 1860s South Carolina newspapers for information about anti-abolitionism; we cite historians and how they have documented and analyzed what's relevant, what's meaningful, what was disinformation, etc. Likewise, if what we want is coverage of the Heritage Foundation and its role as an agitation engine against certain kinds of policies (in your example, education), then we cite journalists, historians, sociologists, education professors, etc. who study and write about organizations like the HF. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::This is entirely correct. ] (]) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::The difference between anti-vaxxers and Heritage Foundation is that anti-vaxxers are a fringe perspective in the medical field, even if one of them is going to lead the NHS, and that Heritage Foundation is, like Cato, a well-established but POV/advocacy think tank. As for Civil War newspapers, the difference is timeliness: of course historical events have many better sources that are third-party analysis, but we do cite think tanks all over the place. I don't see why HF is substantially different from any other MREL <u>POV, advocacy</u> think tank whose work should be attributed.
			*:::To source HF's ''own role'' in policy, of course it wouldn't be used as a source for itself. The same holds for any source, MREL or not ] (]) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. ] (]) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::{{Strikethrough|What are you suggesting out of this, what we delete the ] page?}} ] (]) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::If you mean to say that HF is GUNREL because the IEF is pseudoscientific, then I'd ask for RS that say the IEF is ''pseudoscientific'' (not that it's just ''flawed'', because of course any index is flawed) ] (]) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in ], which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org): {{tqqi|] is an ] (3rd on the ]),<ref>{{Cite web|title=Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom|url=https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|access-date=2022-11-12|website=www.heritage.org|language=en|archive-date=21 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200521231822/https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking|url-status=live}}</ref> ...}} —] 23:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a ''non-scientific'' source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —] 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::To restate my own point, I don't think the IEF can at all be taken as a reason to call HF a GUNREL source.
			*:::::::::I actually think Economy of Ireland is a great example of an article where the IEF (<u>and by extension HF work</u>) can be brought up, since Ireland's corporate economy is based around being a regulatory/tax haven, though I do think the current phrasing especially with parenthesis is weird so early in the article ] (]) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —] 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven ] (]) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{tq|WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican}}: Reliable sources and the neutral point of view aren't determined by what is politically mainstream, whether Republican or Democrat in the United States, or Labour or Tory in the United Kingdom, or LDP in Japan, etc. The Taliban is a mainstream political faction in Afghanistan, insofar as it's the faction in power, but I don't think we would consider some kind of Taliban-aligned think tank to be a reliable source for Afghani society and politics. Mainstream reliability is determined not by the ideologies of politics but by the rigors and standards of academia and journalism. A , but that belief being 'mainstream' doesn't make it reliable, and we wouldn't treat a source attesting such as one that's reliable for biology or evolutionary anthropology. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::To clarify, I don't mean to assert that HF is reliable because of being mainstream Republican. I mean to say that WP:FRINGE, specifically, doesn't make much sense to use against what is, in the US, a political and academic giant. They might have some specific views that are fringe, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the source — The Economist has called for the legalization of cocaine, which is a fringe position, but The Economist is (rightfully) a well-respected source.
			*::TLDR I complain about specifically WP:FRINGE being invoked against HF as reason to deprecate ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2'''. Other sanctions may be appropriate for the privacy issues, but RSN is not an appropriate forum to pursue them. We cannot retaliate against sources for conduct which is not restricted by wiki accuracy and notability guidelines. And I'm leery of taking such wide action against an organization with a long and complicated history, comprising some intentional lying (especially the last 4 years) but also real and valuable research. Ideally we would give Heritage up to 2020 similar treatment to Cato {{tq|The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.}} (which I think is the only thinktank with an RSP listing) and minimally GUR it for 2020+, but with the RFC as-listed I think we have to err on the side of trusting editors to use their own judgement. This RFC did not arise from an editing dispute and I don't think Heritage is being regularly used inappropriately on wiki. If a dispute does arise, Option 2 will be enough to prefer other sources. ] (]) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2'''. It's a widely used source, not just on Misplaced Pages but also in other RS, including scholarly articles (, ), so ] applies. I'd support every effort to combat their scheme to influence Misplaced Pages but blacklisting them ''as a source'' is not going to help. Blacklisting them would make us look like vindictive amateurs rather than a serious encyclopedia. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			If its relevant would not other RS report it anyway? ] (]) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The Heritage Foundation is most cited through their ], which is a lot of data that's documented on that article in tables refreshed each year; no secondary source includes all the data included on that article. We could start a discussion on that article's talk page about removing the data under WP:Indiscriminate if we wish, but there does seem to be precedent with global indices to include all countries' rankings, indices, and historical rankings. ] (]) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. ] (]) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That's exactly what I just meant with the ] part of my reply. ] (]) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. ] (]) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Yeah. It would be a bit hard, though, since other indices also list everything. I would support such rampant restructuring if I had a clear picture of where the removed data would go. I'd say Wikidata, but that doesn't seem to have such facilities/pages. And no, I don't think it's reputation is that much worse to warrant deletion. Alaexis lists two sources that cite IEF: one source from the unreliable MDPI, but also one source from Nature, which is like top-tier iirc. ] (]) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor. ] (]) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:"{{tq|An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor.}}" How does this in any way comment on the RfC, "{{tq|What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted?}}"
			*:This is exactly the sort of comment that is not actually addressing the RfC, but is purely retaliatory and very angry (perhaps understandably, but that is besides the point). Nothing about this sort of comment is rooted in policy, and I hope any closer views such !votes with the correct and proper disregard that they deserve. ] (]) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. ] (]) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? ] (]) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::If they are unreliable on specific grounds, so be it, but so far mere retaliation is neither valid nor constructive. ] (]) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Nope. Their hostility is the icing on ]. ] (]) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 5''', or at the very least options starting from 3, due to its publication of fabricated and/or misleading information and its widespread use in the project. --] (]) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 3 or 2'''. As far as I can tell, their internal memoranda are a wishlist and aspirational, and so far they haven't been successful in any of their reprehensible ideas. As far as the source itself, I tend to see it as verging into pretty unreliable territory similar to Fox News, but it's a think tank, so sometimes they might have some well-researched reports or attributable opinions, and they're one of the largest right-wing think tanks so they have a large body of usable attributed information, similar to other think tanks or advocacy groups, biased, but occasionally useful with real academics working there, so I think full deprecation or blacklisting seems excessive. The reality is, their desire to dox editors is easier wished for than done, and it doesn't expressly impugn the reliability of their past material. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*After some thinking, I'm leaning towards '''option 4''' per Tryptofish above. Besides the extensively documented lying, I (unfortunately?) don't trust a source that aspires to covertly attack and burn down us and our library, and there should be a pretty good reason for someone to click twice on the "publish" button. This won't stop any "link injection", and it shouldn't: Thinking blacklisting would diminish security problems is pure security theater, per RedTailedHawk; it is not something we should do. Deprecating informs newer editors of the situation, and that's something we should do. ] (]) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). ] (]) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. ] (]) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. ] (]) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. ] (]) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::So you said. ] (]) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —] 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::How about you stop asking me to read what I read and disagree with? ] (]) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::M.Bitton, you're wrong to insist on blacklisting based on this discussion. The real discussion about what to do technically, and blacklisting is a technical and not an editorial measure is had at ]. It is also had at other places, where discussions aren't public. —] 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 5''' The sites are not reliable and the new information showing recently shows clear and obivous issues brought up by most here so far. ] (]) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 4''' - Are there any indications at all that their statements are a reliable source about anything that is not embarrassing to themselves? ] (]) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Option 4+5''' per the sources above. They routinely publish misinformation, and make no particular claim that I can see towards doing any fact-checking or having any editorial controls in the first place, so they shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with; but the fact that they somehow ended up used in so many articles shows that deprecation is necessary. In the rare case where someone there says something significant, it will be reported in secondary sources and can be cited via those; there is no exception to ] for "they're really important, tho", precisely because unreliable-but-important sources can be cited via secondary coverage. Their threats to use domains they control to dox and out Misplaced Pages editors is just an additional reason on top of this and a reason to take the step of a formal blacklist. While blacklisting obviously won't ''solve'' the problem, it will avoid situations where editors feel they have to click their links in order to evaluate a potentially-viable source, and force them to use lesser-known (and, for most editors, more intrinsically suspicious) domains in order to do any sort of spear-phishing attack. Some editors seem to be saying "well let them use their own domain for those attacks, that'll make it more obvious" - but if we don't blacklist it then it ''won't'', because allowing it means it could also be used in good faith. --] (]) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Routinely publishing misinformation would be a concern, but I haven't been convinced from the discussion so far that they do that. Could you elaborate? ] (]) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:'''Option 5:''' +1 (what Aquillion said) + Think tanks are rarely anything but a source of last resort on Misplaced Pages. We mostly use them when they have useful insight into niche security topics. If any primary research or opinion from the HF is particularly notable and due, it will be covered by reliable, secondary sources, and we can still cover it. We don't need to send users to a website with potentially malicious activity. ] (]) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 2''' This seems like a drastic overreaction. ] (]) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''5, and 3/4'''. If this had been asked a month ago, I'd've said '''3''' because, as Alalch and others laid out in the RFCBEFORE, they have a reputation for letting politics trump accuracy, leading to mis- and dis-information; in any situation in which their views are DUE, those will (by ]!) have been covered by other, reliable sources; and any ABOUTSELF statements needed on their own article can be handled as exceptions/whitelisted. But '''5''' is also in order: for a source to operate in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, is not only additional evidence that they do dishonest/untrustworthy things and are unreliable, the misuse of their domains in particular merits blacklisting. ''Pace'' those who think blacklisting their main domain is "security theater" because they'll also use other domains, I think it's necessary, as I (a) see no reason to doubt they're using their main domain for the same thing, and (b) view blacklisting them (under their main domain) as a necessary first part of blacklisting them (under any other domains they're caught using). ] (]) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 5''' given the explicit details of the threat they pose to editors here. (same reason that a site like Conservipedia should be blacklisted too). The content they produce would already make them generally unreliable (and I don't know if we ever considered them reliable before so deprecation doesn't sound possible), but we should go the step further to protect WP editors here. I can see limited exemptions to use them as a primary source only on a page about the Herigate Foundation itself if that absolutely needed, but likely not. --] (]) 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Discussion: The Heritage Foundation ===
	This question is a further narrowing of a question/issue initially stirred under the subject header and narrowed under the subject header . I will tag those articles to reference this narrower discussion for sake of readers/administrators.
			What exactly happens to the 5000 links if we blacklist them? Does a bot go through and remove the https:// from them so they are unclickable? (Seems reasonable.) Or are the citations deleted? (Seems a bit damaging.) Or something else? This will affect how I opine in the above RFC. –] <small>(])</small> 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@] I'm just noting that it isn't 5000 but cca 1750, please see ]. Sorry for propagating the incorrect number. —] 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	is an article represented as “not a guideline” but as presenting a “definition of ‘published’ for wikipedians.” This article offers several examples deemed “published”. One example is stated as,
			:It could either of those two options or it could be that the bot goes through and replaces the references with a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki>. I guess that should be discussed. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:] says "Ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting." —] 23:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the ] list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. ] (]) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to ]. The page ] (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. ] is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of ]. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see ]) only explains ''what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon''. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an ''additional outcome'' may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.{{pb}}The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —] 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I think a malware website can not be used as a reliable source. The intent is to misinform and endanger. Nothing reliable about that. ] (]) 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			I see arguments above that the Heritage Foundations declared hostility to Misplaced Pages's neutrality means we should treat them as a hostile organization. There are other entities hostile to our neutrality; Donald Trump and the Chinese government are two that come to mind. Neither is what I would call a reliable source, but we don't ban all links to them; they're treated as reliable for a very limited set of cases. What's the difference between these cases? There are governments who have imprisoned Misplaced Pages editors (so I gather; I don't have a reference but I've seen it said). Can those governments be cited for anything at all -- e.g. the names of their ministers? Option 5 seems inconsistent with the way we treat these other hostile entities. ] (] - ] - ]) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:“''A transcript or recording of a live event, including: plays, television programs, documentaries, court trials, speeches or lectures, demonstrations, panel discussions, or meetings, a song sheet'';”
			:Donald Trump doesn't have a detailed cyberattack plan to doxx editors here. The heritage foundation does plan on using web technologies to harm editors. ] (]) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	According to this stated example a transcript would be "published" if '''1)''' it presents “a live event” and '''2)''' it is a “documentary”. According to usage expressed in Oxford English Dictionary, a university transcript represents “a live event” because it “corresponds to actual facts”. According to usage expressed in the same source, a university transcript is a “documentary” because it is “of the nature of documents” and it is “factual”.
			::Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. ] (]) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''', a great many comments !voted purely out of retaliation to try and stop Heritage foundation from taking a certain action that some perceive to be "doxxing". I have a serious question though, "Does deprecating and removing any links to Heritage Foundation, IF the blacklist/deprecation retaliatory measure passes... does this actually stop them from initiating their plan, or parts of it? I am not familiar with all of the details, but with A.I. and other tools these days, couldn't they still try and do things to identify some editors with certain editing patterns or behavior completely independent of whatever happens with this discussion and then do the "doxxing" anyway? This seems to have larger legal implications, unless I misunderstand it, and if that is the case then this seems silly to try and solve with a angry RfC which might not have any real defensive benefit for the community. Has anyone taken this into consideration? Is anything being done about that? If not, why not? ] (]) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Reference Subsection ===
	A recurring objection to the use of a university transcript as a reliable source is that a university transcript is “not published”. Hence this question deals with the essential issue: What is “published”?
			{{reflist-talk}}
			== Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) ==
	Review and comment on this specific information and question is appreciated.--] (]) 17:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
			*] (PCORI)
	:Marvin thank you for a long and excellent question. When we originally worked, or slaved over the definition of Published for Wikipedians, we found there was a lot of confusion over the issue. In general published only means "made available to the public". So for example, books are published, your rough draft is not. Photographs which you can buy in a store are published, your family album is not. YouTube Videos are published, but your home movies are not. And yes Marvin, University transcripts, provided any member of the public, perhaps even paying a nominal fee can view them, or even better view them freely by *going* to said University, are published. I.E. they are made available to the "public", the public at large, or even possibly at small (although this last phrase "at small" is contentious). What type of source they are of course, is a different question.] (]) 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::'''Wjhonson::''' I appreciate your response. Other than the cited article, is this question given serious treatment anywhere else within Misplaced Pages? Previous editors/administrators have, essentially, asserted these transcripts are unpublished because ‘Transcripts are unpublished’. Opinions are fine, but to use an opinion to assert the same opinion is circular. When asked to demonstrate their opinion is valid in the face of challenge, suddenly responses end. I would like to examine more closely how Misplaced Pages treats this subject, if it does at all beyond what is already presented/cited --] (]) 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	::There is at least one university that will not release transcripts except at the request of the student whose records they are. See , which provides, "''Student records are confidential records. Transcripts will be released only upon written request of the student.''" Evidently the transcripts of the University of Michigan at Dearborn are not ''published''; the public has no right of access to them, even by paying a fee. ] (]) 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::'''EdJohnston:''' It is not unusual for a university to refrain from issuing official transcripts without the student’s permission. I can comprehend why unreleased transcripts could be, arguably, treated as unpublished. A parallel in judicial archives would be the difference between sealed transcripts and unsealed transcripts. Sealed transcripts are not made available except for privileged communications whereas unsealed court transcripts are available to anyone who wants to bother to look then up for review. Even sealed transcripts are accessible if these surface and the possessor is not a court official (lawyer, judge, reporter, court employee in general, etc) and wants to share them. (I am not suggesting this particular publishing would be ethical or moral, but rather that it would not be illegal) Getting back to college transcripts, if a student has released the transcript without a request for confidentiality, or if the university makes the transcript accessible without express permission from a former student, then do you see any reason to assert such a transcript is unpublished? --] (]) 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::Excellent point Ed, and I agree. If records are generally held to be private, or effectively private (by making them almost inaccessible) they would not be considered published. Fine lines can be drawn and in fact it's been argued back-and-forth here for years exactly where the line gets drawn. It's best to deal on a case-by-case basis as your example points out. Have a great day. ] (]) 00:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::'''Wjhonson:''' The particular instance seeding this discussion was my use of a university transcript recorded in the years 1911 through 1913. The document is of a notable historical religious figure (though not what I would call famous) deceased for about twenty years. The institution makes this transcript available basically to anyone making the request. This is precisely how I got a copy. Getting this transcript was easier than retrieving the typical court transcript. Release of relatively old information, even of a personal nature, is not unusual. Today we have nearly unfettered access personal passport applications received by the US State Department up to year 1925. Like these applicatoins, in general, the older the college transcript the easier is the access in terms on information release. In the instance of my use of a college transcript, do you view the document as "unpublished" or "published"? --] (]) 00:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	I don't think it's relevant to ask in this case for the document to become secondary so it can then be used for some purpose other than the most direct one. The transcript can be quoted from. Full stop. That's how we should *start* and see if we can go from there. ] (]) 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			Are PCORI statements a ] for medical claims? Do PCORI statements pass ] as coming from a ]?
	:'''Wjhonson:''' Okay. For sake of discussion let’s say transcript X records that in 1910 the University of Nowhere records that student Andy C. Wallace earned 2 credit hours for what it itemizes as Esperanto.
			I say yes. The organization is non-governmental, but was established by the United States government, and they have awarded about US$2 billion in grants over the past 10 years. They are a large research organization which takes care in making conventional statements. Also, they have good alignment with wiki community organizations, and have hosted and joined wiki editing events in the United States and with Wikimedia Medicine for almost 10 years. That alignment is because of PCORI's patient advocacy, and because typical people find this organization's statements to be more relevant than those from more industry-oriented medical organizations. While PCORI does drive a lot of research through peer reviewed journals, they also make expert consensus statements in the name of PCORI which are not peer reviewed.
	:If writing an article about the University of Nowhere I write, “The University of Nowhere issued credits for Esperanto in 1910” then citing this transcript would be using it as primary source material. Since the University of Nowhere is the originator of the document and actually responsible for issuing the transcript, then citing this source to state information about the university would be a primary use.
			{{ping|Zefr}} said that some PCORI statements are "neither vetted by peer-review nor is it mainstream clinical practice", which is correct, but I feel that they still meet MEDRS by being a statement from an authoritative organization. Similarly, {{ping|Whywhenwhohow}} reverted saying the sources were not MEDRS compliant. {{u|FULBERT}} made the statements as Wikimedian in Residence at PCORI, and I collaborate with FULBERT through United States Wikimedia groups and through the University of Virginia, where I also am a Wikimedian in Residence.
	:If writing an article about Andy C. Wallace I write, “Andy C. Wallace earned 2 credit hours for Esperanto at the University of Nowhere in year 1910” then citing the transcript would be using it as a secondary source. This is because the subject is Andy C. Wallace and Andy C. Wallace was not the originator of the document or responsible for issuing the transcript. In this case citing the transcript would be utilizing a third party document to verify something about Andy C. Wallace.
			Here are the talk notices about reversion. The statements are
	:Do you see this differently? --] (]) 01:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	::See below. There is zero difference in who you make the subject/object of any particular sentence with regard to whether it is a primary or a secondary source. In your example both are primary. See ] for information about what a primary and secondary source is ] (]) 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::'''Slp1:''' A college transcript is not the primary source you assert when it is used to verify educational achievement of a student. The transcript is removed from the primary source of the professor’s records that originally awarded grades and credits for coursework/academic achievement. If we were talking about a professor’s ledger of grade/credit awards then we would be talking about a primary source. Universities construct transcripts after reviewing these ledgers and achievements of record. There is also a vetting process where school administrators (and even the student) review the transcript for accuracy. The resulting document is the transcript.--] (]) 02:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::To take up ]'s early point here, the issue becomes in part "what type of source they are". ], I would suggest, and to be avoided for any interpretational citation. I think there is a grave danger of ] conclusions being drawn in this matter. --] (]) 00:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::'''Slp1:''' As an administrative document referencing actions of a university to show something of the university itself I can understand why a college transcript would be considered as a primary source. But it seems to me whether a college transcript is considered a secondary source depends on why and how it is cited. If, for instance, it is cited to verify statements of particular credit hours earned for a particular student then it would serve effectively as a third party verification. In short, if transcript X is used to represent something by the issuing institution about the institution, then it would be used as a primary source. But if transcript X is used to representing something of a student as verified by the institution then the statement of the institution is used as a secondary source. Do you agree or disagree with this assessment, or have an alternate perspective? --] (]) 00:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::I agree with ]. '''Marvin''' (may I call you Marvin?), please keep in mind that this entire discussion originally stemmed from the following problematic sentence: "''Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages.''" As other editors rightly pointed out, whoever wrote that sentence was making an interpretation (read: original synthesis) of the primary materials by (1) implying that all credentials have been viewed when, in fact, as editors we'll never know that for sure (it's imprecise language), and (2) assuming that transcripts (and ''only'' transcripts) can be viewed as "credentials of record" when, again, the assumption is debatable (degrees, for example, can constitute "credentials of record"). Your rejoinder was that the transcripts simply served as "corroboration" of other published secondary sources, and then added that the secondary sources themselves were somehow "questionable." I didn't understand what you meant by that statement (was another editor challenging the secondary sources?), but regardless, if they were cross-referenced by another reliable secondary source (and I take it you had two sources), that should have sufficed. The bottom-line is that had the original problematic sentence not claimed to have been representative of something more than it was, I suspect you wouldn't have encountered such resistance from other editors. FWIW, ] (]) 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::'''J Readings:''' Feel free to call me Marvin. The sentence you cite was not based on Franz’s transcript. The statement that ‘Franz had very little if any training in biblical languages’ was not based on the transcript, but I can understand why the original presenter of this issue felt that way. What should have occurred is the edit was improved to remove ambiguity and enhance the information accordingly.
			*]
	:::::::::Also, the original presenter was not questioning the use of the transcript, but rather he was questioning whether there was sufficient bibliographic data for the transcript. The original presenter only jumped on the “It’s not an appropriate source” bandwagon after reading hasty opinions to that end. It was the original mangled presentation on this issue that stirred frustrating responses, or at least that is what I chalk it up to.
			*]
			*]
			Here is an actual PCORI statement from the ] article. The reverted claim from this statement was that 40% of patients using a drug have adverse effects.
	:::::::::I have no problem with a view that an unverified statement should be removed. But to categorically assert that a college transcript is unpublished seems to go beyond the pale. It is certainly unsound to state something as circular as ‘Transcripts are published because I say so.’ --] (]) 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			*https://www.pcori.org/evidence-updates/comparing-treatments-multiple-sclerosis-related-fatigue
	:::::::: (edit conflict but the point remains) Actually no, I do not agree with Marvin Shilmer. It is entirely the same whether you are trying to show something about the institution or about the student. The document is being used "to show something" about <fill in the blank>". Where is the verification? How do you know that this is the end of the studying that the guy did? Where is the editorial oversight about any conclusions you draw about his qualifications? Published or not this is a primary source and using it to try to prove anything is original research especially ] and not allowed here. You have mentioned another secondary source for your point: if that it is a reliable source, and no matter how difficult to access, I suggest that as your best option. --] (]) 01:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			I support using this source for this claim.
	:::::::::Slp1: There is a relevant and dramatic distinction between using a transcript to speak to the issuing institution compared with using a transcript to speak to a student of that institution. The distinction lies in who is responsible for recording and issuing the transcript.
			Thoughts from others about PCORI generally? Thanks. ]] 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::A student is not responsible for recording and issuing his or her own educational achievements. From the perspective of, and for the benefit of the student college transcripts serve as a third party declaration of educational achievement. Hence, to use a transcript to state something of the student the transcript serves as a secondary source, whereas to use the transcript to state something of the issuing institution it serves as a primary source.
			:{{u|Bluerasberry}} - in the case of my , the was just a summary of preliminary results (n=33, i.e., primary research) from the "Treatment of Fatigue with Methylphenidate, Modafinil and Amantadine in MS" (TRIUMPHANT-MS) trial, which had been funded by PCORI.
	:::::::::A similar thing occurs with, for example, peer reviewed journal articles depending on whether an article is used to express something about the journal or the article’s author compared to using the article to express something stated by the article about a third interest (whether of a person, place or thing). --] (]) 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			:At this early stage,TRIUMPHANT-MS was actually just a ] reported . That study is not a MEDRS source for the article statement, "modafinil has been shown to be effective in managing fatigue in people with MS" when other more substantial sources, including a meta-analysis, are used.
			:Further, the PCORI statement is that ''"These findings <u>can contribute to clinician and patient discussions</u> about treatments to reduce MS-related fatigue."'' In other words, the PCORI article is a) a progress report, and b) an advice source for a physician-patient discussion.
			:In this case, such a brief update on funding for preliminary research is not an appropriate reference, and does not comment on the wider issue of PCORI as an organization. ] (]) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Reviewing the PCORI website leads to the conclusion that their strength is the cross-sectional diversity in how they evaluate, monitor, then disseminate summaries of research projects, described They are <u>not</u> the publication venue for completed research - the ] sources of journals, books or clinical organizations - but rather their reports are summaries of the research project. For this reason, I would ask why would we cite a PCORI summary when a peer-reviewed publication is the main source? Is there an example of a PCORI final report that you feel is a good MEDRS example?
			::There was concern that funded research groups submitting final reports to PCORI had which was caught and adjusted by PCORI before publication.
			::As of 2023, the with PCORI to improve the review process for evaluating research funding candidates.
			::The ] article needs updating. There are fewer than 30 watchers/editors of the article. ] (]) 03:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{ping|Zefr}} Two issues here: The extent to which PCORI publications meet MEDRS, and then presuming that PCORI is reliable, ] that Misplaced Pages reflects PCORI's claim in an appropriate context. Originally I think you were challenging PCORI, but here, I think you are challenging the claim. Do you agree with that distinction and separation, and if so, can you (or I) move your text discussing the claim to ]?
			:::This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, so this is the place to discuss your comments about the organization and your question about why to cite PCORI's summaries instead of the original source. Briefly, there can be multiple approaches to healthcare. Most approaches originate in the ], and it is challenging to escape that. PCORI speaks for itself, but I would describe it as remaining in the healthcare industry (as opposed to exiting it to seek ]), and within that context, recommending ] which prioritizes ]. So for example, many medical recommendations from industry seek to maximize curing disease, but a patient-centered approach could emphasize managing side effects and planning the financial cost of treatment. Regardless of what kind of recommendations PCORI is making, I sustain the notion that per ], Misplaced Pages includes expert institutional claims which may not go through the peer review process of a journal.
			:::I think the report we have been discussing is a good MEDRS example. It comes in different forms -
			:::* (we were discussing citing this one)
			:::*
			:::*
			:::Misplaced Pages typically does not cite trials, but here, PCORI is elevating the results of this case study into a special report and expert recommendation. We can attribute this to the organization following ]/] guidelines, which was .
			:::PCORI gets into cases like this which are fairly unusual. The situation is that there is an ] for a drug (so it is not indicated or approved, but there is evidence for it) and then PCORI is giving an alert about that off-label use. I am not a physician, and I do not know how to untangle expert institutional critiques of off-label drug use, but in general, I just trust PCORI's process and think Misplaced Pages can include PCORI recommendations attributed to them. I do not see this as the same as citing a case study without the backing of an expert org.
			:::Base question back to you - how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence? ]] 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::If PCORI published a summary of results from a multinational Phase III trial or a systematic review that it had helped to fund, then perhaps that would meet ] (although still not a national clinical guideline that would better meet MEDASSESS). In the case of the reference for modafinil, PCORI is giving an update on a pilot study, which clearly isn't MEDRS.
			::::''"how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence?"'' Defined on the PCORI website under ''Evidence Updates'': {{tq|''PCORI presents findings from systematic reviews and some of our funded research studies in concise, accessible formats called Evidence Updates. Most Evidence Updates are available in two versions: one for patients and caregivers and one for clinicians and other professionals. These updates, which capture the highlights and context for these new findings, are created and disseminated in collaboration with patients, health professionals, and other organizations."''}}
			::::Likely, the PCORI update for a systematic review would be more digestible for the common Misplaced Pages reader, but having the original journal publication would have to go with it as the more complete source. If there was a conflict with another source and both were MEDRS-qualified, ] would say discuss them both.
			::::It's ok to copy any of this to the modafinil talk page. ] (]) 03:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{ping|Horse Eye's Back}} I do not think there is a term for nonprofit organizations which have strong government ties, but yes, I understand what you mean. PCORI is a ] which receives government grants through the ].
			:I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Law&Crime Network ==
	::::::::::It appears to me that you still aren't clear on the different between primary and secondary sources from Misplaced Pages's perspective. Student transcripts are still primary sources whoever they are talking about and whoever is the subject of the sentence --] (]) 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::'''Slp1:''' Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you think a college transcript is not one step removed from its achievement of record, and this is why you think it a primary source. College transcripts are at least one step removed from the primary documents showing earned grades and credits. The primary documents are produced by the students professor. The university’s administration produces transcripts through a fairly rigorous vetting protocol where the information is checked for accuracy. Also, the student gets to take a look at the transcript as part of this protocol. Hence the official college transcript is removed from the primary source material. If you think college transcripts are primary for some other reason, please specify this. The link you provided above explains all this nicely. The university does not award credits and grades; the student’s professor does this. The university is an institution that provides a methodical and vetted process to verify this educational award. The university issues a transcript, not grades and credits. Hence the transcript is a vetted secondary soure rather than a non-vetted primary source.--] (]) 02:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::I cannot agree with your argument. A university transcript is an historical document equivalent to the "diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews" mentioned in WP:PSTS. Trials, public hearings, census results etc all have checks for accuracy as you are claiming from the university, but that does not make them secondary sources.--] (]) 02:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::'''Slp1:''' Being a historical document does not make a document a primary or secondary source. Also, disagreement is not refutation.
			Hello! I would like to know your opinion about youtube channel and their news site . Are they reliable source for information about murders/trials? ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::Diaries are primary because these are not removed from the person who created them. Census records are primary because, again, these are not removed from the source. Transcripts are at least one step removed from the information’s source. This is already expressed above, and you have not even taken time to respond to it. Not only this, college transcripts are rigorously vetted for accuracy. In the case of court transcripts, these are secondary sources based on how they are used. If you feel differently then please express the precise reason or reasons for this other than repeating you opinion. I know your opinion. I want to know precisely why this is your opinion. I am not interested in agreement or disagreement. I am intrested in specific reasons for agreement or disagreement.
	:::::::::::::::By the way, court transcripts and census reports have nowhere near the vetting brought to bear on college transcripts. -- ] (]) 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)		:Youtube channels are generally not reliable sources. Please see ] for additional context. ] (]) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I can't speak to their YouTube channel at all. Re: their website, ] used to be their managing editor (he's now a with ]), and I found him to be a very reliable reporter on legal issues. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::Incidentally, while we're on the topic of primary versus secondary sources, I checked ] for articles (secondary sources) relating to Frederick Franz's credentials in biblical languages. There were over twenty articles on Franz, but I did come across a couple of articles by journalists that might be of interest. The first was an obituary of Franz by ''Canada Newswire'' (23 December 1992) and the second was by ''PR Newswire'' (23 December 1992). Both articles state "A noted Bible scholar and public speaker, Mr. Franz was versed in the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek." I would have thought that these two cross-referenced articles could have been added to the article with little problem. ] (]) 01:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::'''J Readings:''' If either Franz or the organization he devoted his life to is responsible for wording in those obituaries then they have little value as a resource other than either his own view of himself (which it is probably not) or the view his organization of choice wants to project of him as its former president. Fluff is everywhere. --] (]) 01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)		:Their website is RS. However many of the sources there, you have to deal with BLPCRIME, for which you must be cautious anyway. But I have found them to be fine. ] (]) 01:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::Interesting. It wouldn't have occurred to me that these obituaries were propaganda pieces, but I suppose it could be true. What objective criteria would one use to identify newswires as being neutral and non-partisan? ] (]) 02:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::'''J Readings:''' The short answer is: research, research and more research. Some newswire articles are more likely than others to be propaganda. Obituaries are notoriously full of fluff. Hence these should always be used with care. Important pieces of information include who authored a given article and that author’s history on or with the subject (member, ex-member, conservative, liberal, name your poison). There is also the question of how testable the information is. Vague assertions are notoriously unreliable, for example, whereas precise assertions tend to be more reliable. But, at the end of the day, a presentation of information is as reliable as is the depth of research and aources that accompanies it, along with whatever reputation those sources have.--] (]) 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	(Outdent) While taking your points, may I ask how these opinions fit into Misplaced Pages's core policies of ] and ]? In the latter it states specifically that "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." ] (]) 02:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Firstly I agree with the idea that no matter what the article is about, the source is still a primary source. Secondly we should not make a presumption of ] about a source that then leads to a novel idea. To say the obit should be discarded, because we want to show that he was not versed in x would be ] in my opinion. Thirdly, the proper approach, in my humble opinion, is to allow the article to include both direct and indirect quotes showing the details, allowing the *reader* the intelligence, or crediting them with the intelligence to understand that some sources might be biased a bit. If this person is that well-known it would appear that a full standard biographies would have them listed and they could be consulted to see how they phrase particular issues. It would help in these discussions to give details of the specific real-world situation we're addressing here, without hypotheticals. ] (]) 02:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	::'''Wjhonson:''' Sources should not be '''1)''' accepted, '''2)''' discounted or '''3)''' rejected base on a bias. Sources should be evaluated and assigned weight based on veracity of the source itself, which can stand heated test of challange. Editors of encyclopedic content have a duty to express reasons for source weight assignment in the face of challenge. The extent this weight is tested by other editors and the resulting wherewithal of the source is the veracity of the material.
			== Catholic-Hierarchy.org ==
	::Regarding college transcripts and primary and secondary sources, in precise terms can you state why you believe these transcripts are primary sources and cannot be secondary sources? --] (]) 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			'']'' is a self-published source that has been featured in two prior discussions (2016 and 2020). Multiple editors appear to consider it a reliable source specifically because it is used in other independent publications. This is a noted exception for self-published sources that can be found in WP:RS/SPS. However, users also acknowledge that it should never be used in biographies of living people.
	'''Slp1:''' Use of a transcript would amount t original research just like any other vetted source would serve as original research. I fail to see what needs explaining about this. If you use any material to draw conclusions aside from what those sources express, then you are presenting original research. This is straightforward and relatively easy to evaluate. In terms of original research, either what is stated is a conclusion of the referenced material, or what is stated is a conclusion built on the referenced material. If it is constructed from the referenced material but not stated by the referenced material, then it is original research.
			Is there more discussion that should be had? Should these details be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? This source is used several thousand times on the English WP, so centralized standards for it might be desirable. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	As for verifiability, vetted secondary sources are typically accepted by Misplaced Pages as sources useful for purposes of verification. College transcripts are vetted secondary documents.--] (]) 02:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Mr Shilmer, with all due respect, I believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP policies here. Several people have tried to explain the issues. Several people have disagreed with your interpretations. Continually asking for further explanations is unlikely to be fruitful I fear. ] (]) 02:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			:Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has ] and can be discussed on ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::'''Slp1:''' Fine. Now show me. I am not looking for agreement or disagreement. I am looking for precise reasons for agreement or disagreement.
			:{{Reply|OldPolandUpdates}} Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? ] (]) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Mid-paragraph ]. ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" ] (]) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to ]. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles.
			::::] seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: ]. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is used ''enough'' by external publications.
			::::If you consider ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? ] (]) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The standard is mid-paragraph ] "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which does not appear to be the case here. ] (]) 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I would also note that there appears to be a consensus from 2020 that this is a SPS, see ] ] (]) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. ] (]) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a ] in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. ] (]) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? ] (]) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, '''whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications'''." ] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on ''Catholic-Hierarchy.org'' is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? ] (]) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::No, there has to be works other than the self published ones and they have to predate the self published one. Generally only academics and journalists satisfy our requirements. ] (]) 01:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I have modified the WP:RSPSOURCES entry to better reflect this comment. ] (]) 04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::It still feels off, you're giving wayyyyyy too much weight to the group that thinks its reliable when that view isn't supported by policy and guideline. You also make the consenus that it isn't an expert SPS look like just an opinion, but we clearly have consensus that the author isn't a subject matter expert by our standards. It also isn't a general opinion that SPS can't be used for BLP, thats solid policy. This comes off more as apologism than what consenus actually is. ] (]) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* This is a non-expert self published source. We have established that no such "noted exception" exists. ] (]) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*If it is used by reliable secondary sources then it shouldn't be difficult to find the information from the reliable source itself. ] (]) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			== RfC: The '']'' ==
	::You keep repeating the same opinion but without expressing precise reasons for this opinion. An opinion is only as testable as it is precise. If you want your opinion to have merit you need to allow it to be tested by expressing precise reasons for it. So, please express precisely why you opine that a college transcript cannot be used as a secondary source. I will respond, as always, with precision. I want my responses tested. I am not interested in being correct. I am interested in correctness. --] (]) 03:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			{{Closed rfc top|'''Withdrawn''' by JJPMaster --]&nbsp;(],&nbsp;],&nbsp;]) 21:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	::I have given multiple reasons why this is a primary source, pointing out WP policies. You apparently do not agree with them, and similarly keep repeating your contention that it is a secondary source, as is your prerogative. Like I said, further discussion appears unlikely to be fruitful at this point. --] (]) 03:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			The ''London Standard'', formerly known as the '']'', has 18,703 links on the English Misplaced Pages. Its reliability has not been discussed since 2018, and there is currently no consensus on its reliability. Therefore, '''what is the reliability of the ''London Standard''?'''
	:::'''Slp1:''' I am disappointed in this response from you. The difference between your presentations and mine on this issue is that you state an opinion buttressed by saying Misplaced Pages policy agrees with it, whereas I took what Misplaced Pages policy actually states and demonstrated how and why my position meets those precise criteria. It is one thing to state Misplaced Pages policy agrees with a position. It is something else altogether to demonstrate how and why an opinion agrees with a Misplaced Pages policy. I invite you to reconsider and offer your precise reasons for why a college transcript cannot be used as a secondary source. Basic reasons for my position are: these transcripts '''1)''' are at least one step removed from the subject addressed, '''2)''' they are prepared by a third party (the university does not issue the grades and credits, the university issues transcripts) and '''3)''' transcripts are rigorously vetted. Now, again, I invite you to express your precise reasons for your opinion.--] (]) 03:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			* Option 1: ]
	:I disagree with the above quote "use of a transcript would amount to original research". In my humble opinion, use a of source is research, but it is not original, it's more mechanical. You are not creating new facts in quoting any source, primary or secondary. You are regurgitating existing facts. ] (]) 02:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			* Option 2: ]
			* Option 3: ]
			* Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be ]
			]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I think you should also post some examples of the articles from this publication. People would then know why this outlet is now up for discussion. ] (]) 01:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	::'''Wjhonson:''' Yes. When we share established information verified by sources then it is patently absurd to characterize this as original research.--] (]) 03:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)		*Can we stop doing RfCs with no background? That is not what this is for. ] (]) 01:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@]: I brought it here (a) because of its recent change in format and (b) because it hasn't been discussed in seven years. I figured that the previous discussions would have been sufficient for ], so I didn't think to start a regular discussion beforehand. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::You don’t start off with the RfCs, for which you provided 0 context. ] (]) 02:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{summoned by bot}} I'm with Parakanyaa here. That it hasn't been discussed since 2018 is not sufficient reason for an RFC, in fact it's reason against one. I would have expected some recent discussion prior to an RFC, so that we have some context. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Bad RFC''' because of lack of ]. I have no context whatsoever here. Presumably if it's being brought up here, JJPMaster thinks there's some kind of problem with it, but if so it's not clear at all what problem(s) they think there is. ] (]) 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Bad RFC''' due to complete lack of ]. No discussion in any capacity since 2018. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 04:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Procedural Close'''. There is no mandatory periodical process for the reliability of specific sources. A source is brought here for discussion ''only'' after what the instructions demand, in large fonts, right at the header: {{tq|Please supply the article is used in, and the claim it supports. RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions .}} This is a bad RfC and should not be entertained nor continued. -] (]) 12:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Unless there's some new context in regard to it's reliability, disagreement between editors or discussion of London Standard's reliability in secondary sources, then there's no need for a new discussion let alone an RFC. Maybe the wording in header and edit warning needs to be stronger. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{Withdrawn}} per above. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 12:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Option 1'''. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable per ]. Since this newspaper is listed in RSP, we are within our rights to !vote on it. ] (]) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{closed rfc bottom}}
			== Checking a wikipedia source ==
	:I however agree with Martin when he says "if you use any material to draw conclusions..." (etc.) which is why we should not do that. We can state, paraphrase, join, edit and otherwise our sources, but if we draw original conclusions we whatever sources we are using than we are presenting ]. Trivial conclusions, holding community consensus, like "this picture shows a cat" are bland and acceptable. Contentious conclusions like "this picture obviously shows a ferocious man-eating cat" are not allowed. ] (]) 03:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			I'm curious as to whether in general I can copy an already existing citation from one Misplaced Pages article to another which says the same thing without having to check that citation. For example, on the page ] there's a citation which I haven't checked, but I'm assuming the person who added it did: <ref>Jacques Downs, ''The Golden Ghetto'' (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1997), 191.</ref>, and I want to use it to link his name on ]'s page. ''This example is the specific one and a little complicated (and I apologize for that), but the question also applies for other cases.'' Can Do I have to check the citation myself first to do this? ] (]) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I would totally agree that primary sources can be used judiciously in just the manner you have been describing, ]. What has been in dispute above has been whether the transcript is a primary or a secondary source, though it is unclear to me why this is so important. As ] (I believe) suggested early, it would be very helpful to know exactly what sentence the transcript is supposed to be supporting.] (]) 03:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			:@] You ''should''. Noone can force you, but sadly often, WP-sourcing is not what it should be. Gbooks and archive.org is sometimes helpful. Note also that you are close to have access to the ]. ] is sometimes useful. ] (]) 09:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::'''Slp1:''' Please consult the example given above of <u>transcript X issued in 1910 by the University of Nowhere for student Andy C. Wallace</u>. This example provides the essentials without getting bogged down in the weeds. --] (]) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			:You should be able to access page 190–191 via Google books here -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The advantage of checking sources yourself is that you're much less likely to see your edits reverted with a comment of ''failed verification, not in source'' later. ] (]) 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Thank you guys very much, I added it. ] (]) 21:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::I have already read and responded to your example above. Now perhaps you can respond to my question about what sentence you would like the transcript to source.--] (]) 03:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}}
	:::::'''Slp1:''' I fail to see where you addressed the example with more than a dismissive opinion. You offered not one iota of substance. You offered just opinion. You asked that I consult . I did and responded in precise terms. In reply, you offered nothing more than a restating of the same opinion.
			== RE: Lambgoat ==
	:::::Now you ask “''what sentence you would like the transcript to source''.” Of the example of transcript X issued in 1910 by the University of Nowhere for student Andy C. Wallace that he earned 2 credit hours for Esperanto, as I already expressed, as a secondary source of verification I would cite it for a sentence stating, “''Andy C. Wallace earned 2 credit hours for Esperanto at the University of Nowhere in year 1910''”. It is frustrating that this needs repeating.
			just got ], but I have a useage that hasn't come up yet in discussions that I want to get clarity on. Is an , about heavy metal genres, acceptable for use on the relevant Misplaced Pages genre articles, with the exclusion of any BLP claims or controversial statements? I'm pinging the other editors who were involved in that discussion. {{u|JeffSpaceman}}, {{u|Sergecross73}}, {{u|MFTP Dan}}.--] (] &#124; ]) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Now I ask of you that you express in precise terms why you believe a college transcript cannot be used as a secondary source. Please respond. --] (]) 04:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			:I have to say, I have ''never'' seen LG do something like this and would not be personally inclined to use it. It's only just over a year old, so maybe it's a new thing they're doing and I didn't keep up. ] <sup> ] </sup> 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	(Outdent) This thread is very long, it's hard now to grasp the whole thing. You wish to consider the transcript as a secondary source, could you explain what advantage this would convey to you? I.E. *Why* do you care if it's considered primary or secondary now? Evidently you see some advantage is making it be called secondary. If so, what is it? Thanks. ] (]) 04:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			::I found from 2024, so it looks like this might be a new addition to the type of coverage that they do.--] (] &#124; ]) 02:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
	:There is some language in ] that wants secondary sources to be 'interpretive.' It is not clear how a transcript can be viewed as interpretive. ''Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims.'' Where are the 'analytic or synthetic claims' in a transcript? A transcript seems even more primary than a court decision, where if you're lucky, the judge will give some reasoning and explanation. A written evaluation of a student's work, or a prize citation might be considered interpretive, but neither of these was said to occur in the transcript that led to this entire discussion. ] (]) 05:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
			:I would recommend verifying with other, more established reliable sources, and potentially citing those instead per ]. I think routine coverage (as you state, barring exceptional claims or third-party information about living people) is probably viable, but I'm not confident this source should be cited for what you are looking into it being used for. But I'll see what others think and where consensus goes. ] (]) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:They don't mention editorial staff or fact checking on their about us. ] (]) 21:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			::They do have an editor, per the , but the role is not explained.--] (] &#124; ]) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 06:16, 11 January 2025

Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

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

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Start a new discussion

---

RFC Science-Based Medicine

Is the blog Science-Based Medicine in whole or in part, a self-published source? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment for context: Note that a prior RfC has found a previous consensus has found that Science-Based Medicine is considered WP:GREL and not considered WP:SPS. See WP:SBM for more details at WP:RSN. Raladic (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Iljhgtn, is there a reason that you chose not to list this RfC on the Maths, science, and technology list? If not, would you mind adding that topic area to the RfC template? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, Raladic added it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Responses (Science-Based Medicine)

• Not SPS - Per the previous RfC, there seems to be no reason to rehash this. The editorial practices of SBM show that they do not act like an SPS and that has not changed since the prior RfC. So there appears to be no reason to deviate it from it now. What is the rationale for this repeat RfC other than to try to discredit it? SBM is one of the watchdog media that help keep WP:FRINGE science out of Misplaced Pages. Raladic (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment (Summoned by bot), @Iljhgtn has there been in discussion of this on this noticeboard since the last RFC? TarnishedPath 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  OP created different RFC here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Science-Based_Medicine"_blog which was closed as a bad RFC as it was not neutral and editors pointed out the lack of RFCBEFORE on a reasoning of why this needs to be rehashed. Given that that one was just closed and now this new one was immediately opened again without any RFCBEFORE discussion, it similarly appears to be looking for a problem without information as to why this RfC is here without any new evidence that should change the established consensus of the community. Raladic (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  There was a discussion from a few years ago listed on RSP that seemed very mixed as to whether SBM is a SPS Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• SPS. Per what they wrote on their site: "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" If people are able to publish directly, by themselves, without being reviewed, then that meets the definition of SPS and we need to treat it that way for BLPs. Noting that this only means that it can't be used for direct statements about living people, but can still be used for statements about the truth (or, more often, otherwise) of views held by living people, the views of the authors about living people, and statements about fringe theories themselves. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're citing a literal case where their editorial board retracted a published statement - that is literally acting like a non-SPS such as newspapers do and shows editorial oversight. This wasn't "random stranger published directly", it was a trusted author, and yet, their editorial board decided to retract the published article at the very link explaining their editorial oversight - After careful review, the editors of SBM decided to retract this book review. Because we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness, occasionally corrections need to be made post-publication. In this case we felt there were too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science, and leaving the article up would not be appropriate given the standards of SBM., so this looks like exactly what you'd expect from a non-SPS. You basically just made the case why they are not an SPS. Raladic (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  In that case, they literally stated that they literally allow some people to self-publish on their site. That they might then retract the story if later they find a problem is a good thing. But it does not change how that article appeared there. Medium, for example, is a self-publishing platform, yet they can and do remove articles. This does not mean that we need to treat Medium as if it is not self published. SBM is definitely better than Medium, and I am confident that they have much higher standards. However, as they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  "As they have stated that some people can publish directly on their site, without any form of review before publication, we need to keep this in mind in regard to BLPs". Which people though specifically? Where are the examples of this claim? Please list 5-10 authors at SBM who have self-published articles without any form of review. I do not see any good examples only one article from Harriet Hall that was retracted. Hall is now deceased. I would like to see the other examples. From what I can see none exist. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  It would seem that most of the content is self-published by only a small number (4) of writers, and yes, without any prior review as mentioned about by Bilby. The reliability is also debatable, but the self-publishing aspect of this blog seems as undeniable as WP:SKYISBLUE. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  You haven't provided any evidence of self-publishing. Show us links to the self-published articles, I want to see them. Links and specific names please! Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  This just seems like sealioning but here you go... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  You have linked to several articles by Steven Novella. Where does it claim on those articles they are self-published? David H. Gorski obviously reviewed those articles, he is listed in the link you cited below as the other editor. There are two editors so this isn't self-publishing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Where are you seeing that? SBM seems to say the opposite, that Novella's articles are not checked by Gorski... Gorski also wouldn't be the publisher in that scenario, you're confusing an editor with the publisher. Novella's publisher would be Novella (either as founder and chief editor or as President of the society). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  The website says "SBM is entirely owned and operated by the New England Skeptical Society" . So if you are after the publisher, not the editors it is that Society. Novella is listed as the current President of the New England Skeptical Society, he is not the publisher. We know that SBM has two current editors. The New England Skeptical Society that publishes SBM has 25 employees including its web manager Mike Lacelle. Its director is Jay Novella . This isn't a single man self-publishing house, an organization is behind it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is Jay Novella related to Steven Novella? If so this is getting worse, not better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes it's his son but he is not the web manager for the website so he is not the publisher. He is the Director of Marketing and Technology . My understanding is that all the websites owned by the Society are managed by Mike Lacelle who is listed as the web manager. So if you are looking for the specific man that actually publishes the articles after they are edited it would be him. Like I said the organization has 25 employees, there could be others involved. It's not just Steven Novella in his bedroom publishing this website. Novella is a very busy man, he wouldn't have time for that! Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, Jay and Steve are brothers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the correction. The dude looks young for his age, fooled me. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  So between Jay, Steve, and Robert Novella it seems that we have a lot of relatives here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  What is your source for the organization having 25 employees? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Psychologist Guy: you've claimed three times that the organization currently has exactly 25 employees... It is the core of your argument, but I don't think its true and I can't find it anywhere online... So how are you getting that number? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

1. It's on a company check website that mentioned 25 employees, unfortunately such websites appear to be blacklisted on Misplaced Pages. However, another one less specific says 20-49 employees . I believe there are 4 full time employees - Jay Novella, Perry DeAngelis, Steven Novella, Evan Bertnstein and the rest are part timers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

   Their website lists the full time employees, there are actually probably 6 full time including the web manager Mike Lacelle. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

   @Psychologist Guy: Those company check websites are hilariously bad, I don't know anyone who would actually take them at face value like that (we all had a good laugh when one listed the twenty odd person consulting group I was working for as "1,000-10,0000 employees"). The NESS website lists associated people but it doesn't appear to make any claim about their employment (volunteer vs paid or part vs full time). It also only lists six people total, a few of which we know have day jobs so they can't be full time employees and one (Perry DeAngelis) is almost two decades DEAD. Six doesn't seem to be any more legitimate a number than 25. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

   I have contacted someone who should know about this; hopefully they get back to me and I can let you know what the current figure of their employees is with documentation if possible. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

   @Psychologist Guy: it has been a week, did you find out anything useful? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Not SPS This isn't a self-published source, the articles are reviewed before being published by an editorial board. The four current editors are: Steven P. Novella, David H. Gorski, Kimball C. Atwood, Mark Crislip. Guest editors can submit articles to the website, all of which are reviewed before publication. Critics of SBM are jumping a single retracted article that this is an SPS. Seems like a bad case of cherry-picking. There is no good evidence this is an SPS. Update There are two editors not four my mistake. The publisher is the New England Skeptical Society. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't match what is currently on their website, they appear to only have two current editors who are also the main writers (thats where we get into SPS territory). One of those editors also appears to be the leader of the organization which publishes these two blogs, thats how we get even deeper into SPS territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. So they have two editors currently. If they have two editors they are not self-published. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Who is Steven P. Novella's publisher if not Steven P. Novella? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The link you cited says Steven Novella, MD — Founder and Executive Editor and David H. Gorski, MD, PhD — Managing Editor. They clearly review each others articles, this means it isn't self-published by a single individual. There used to be more editors in the past but some of them died. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

In this case it does appear to be self-published by a single individual, hiring your friends as editors doesn't make your blog not your blog. Also just to be clear what SBM actually say is "we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" so they clearly don't review each other's articles as a matter of course. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's much more than a single man. The SBM website is published by New England Skeptical Society, it says at SBM that they are "entirely owned and operated" by the Society. They have 25 employees currently. At SBM it doesn't claim that Steven Novella is the publisher it just says he is the "Founder and Executive Editor". If you want the exact publisher, it would be the New England Skeptical Society. As stated above, I am not convinced this fits the definition of self-publishing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The New England Skeptical Society, of which Novella is founder and president. Void if removed (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Their own statement was "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" Given that, it is clear that in at least some cases, people can publish directly on SBM without being reviewed before publication. - Bilby (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• SPS, seems to be pretty cut and dried at least when it comes to Novella's pieces (remember SBM claims to be a blog, its generally presenting personal opinions... When its two expert editors want to publish their actual work they do not publish it there but in real journals). I would also note that this discussion should include the sister blog NeuroLogicaBlog. If anyone wants to disagree with me they can lay out what editorial checks and balances would apply to Novella. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Neurologica is an obvious self-published blog authored entirely by Novella such that I do not think further discussion on that issue is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Science-Based Medicine and Neurologica have the exact same publisher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Neurologica's writer is the same as the head of the New England Skeptical Society. It's obviously Steven Novella's personal blog, similar to Gorski's own Respectful Insolence. There's no reason to think it's not a self-published source, unlike SBM which has several editors and apparently does review of at least some of what it publishes (though apparently not all), which is why we are having this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is it two or several? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  (How) does the following factor into your assessment that it's an SPS? In their discussion of "Why Dr. Harriet Hall’s review of Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage was retracted," they note that "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing," and that they "have mechanisms of quality control" for articles that are posted without prior review, including "clarification in the comments" and "corrections to the original text of the article." Their page about outside submissions says in part "The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using an informal peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a 'rough and ready' peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission." FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella) this feels like inaccurate or outdated info and so high time for a review. GREL, sure, but as a group blog still an SPS, with seemingly no consistent publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. Void if removed (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  I was asking Horse Eye's Back, in part because they wrote "at least when it comes to Novella's pieces" and "it does appear to be self-published by a single individual," which suggests that perhaps they don't consider it SPS for other authors. I'm wondering this for Bilby as well, as they'd previously said "I think guest authors can be assumed not to be self-published." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  With Quackwatch we came to a similar position - articles published by the editor are self published, but articles on the site by other authors are not. I'm ok with something similar here. The only problem is that all they say is "trusted authors" can post directly. I would read that as safe to assume people who do not regularly have articles posted on the site would not be trusted, but it doesn't say only the editors are trusted to publish without prior review. Thus there may be some gray area between the two. - Bilby (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  The others are more a grey area for me, most of what we are currently using on wiki is pieces by Gorski and Novella... And we have discussions elsewhere about some guest authors like Harriet Hall not producing work of the same quality/rigor as Gorski and Novella. Its a bit of an odd situation, normally the editors are not also the authors and even when they are they're normally not the primary and most reliable authors. Its made extra odd because most of the editors/authors are subject matter experts so usable under EXPERTSPS no matter where we come down on general reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• SPS. It's a group blog with some guest authors. Having multiple contributors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Having guest authors does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. Retracting a post does not turn a blog into a refereed journal. This language in WP:SPS is particularly relevant: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". As a pro-SBM editor argued in the aborted RfC, the need for SBM in Misplaced Pages is to enable wikivoice accusations of "grift, fraud and quackery" that cannot be sourced otherwise. In other words, the reason this group blog has been elevated to a reliable source is to work around NPOV. - Palpable (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see any evidence presented to back up the claim that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." It's not even clear to me how someone would go about studying that. Do you have any evidence that it's true? (And FWIW, the question of whether something is an SPS is distinct from whether it is independent or reliable.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  That is a direct quote from WP:SPS. - Palpable (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm aware of that. That someone added it to the WP:SPS text doesn't make it true, and since you're the one who chose to quote it, I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that it's true. For that matter, I'd be interested if you have thoughts about how one would go about studying it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  If you have a problem with WP:SPS the appropriate venue is WT:V - Palpable (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Do some people !voting here have a connection to the source? I see one editor referring to Steven Novella as "Steve" and another who may be affiliated with the New England Skeptical Society. I have seen some surprising interpretations of WP:COI in the past so I'm not sure if this is important, but thought it was worth noting. - Palpable (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  That is also a great point and worth investigating as part of any close here. Looks sus at the very least... Iljhgtn (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• SPS. I personally think this source is fine to use on BLPs, but there is no way to honestly read our (convoluted, strange) SPS guidelines and not come to the conclusion that it is one. It is a small group of people most of whom publish without prior review on a blog. That they make arguments we like does not make it not a blog. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• SPS. It's a group blog, but still a blog. Group blogs are specifically called out on WP:SPS. As noted above, SBM "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness". The fact that they later retracted one article doesn't negate that the norm for "trusted authors" (probably including regulars, and definitely including the owners of the site such as Gorski and Novella) is to publish without any editorial review of the author's work. Hence, it is clearly by and large an SPS.

The claim that we need this to not be an SPS to effectively fight fringe and quackery is often made but I've never seen it backed up with an example of a fringe topic whose Misplaced Pages article would become credulous to pseudoscience without it. There are plenty of published and even academic sources that stuff like homeopathy is pseudoscientific, quackery, etc.; we are perfectly capable of sourcing something like "John Smith is an advocate of homeopathy, a pseudoscientific practice" in just about any case it is needed. SBM being an SPS also doesn't preclude its use in cases of WP:PARITY, as pro-fringe sources themselves are often SPS or otherwise poor. Crossroads 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The germ theory denialism article relies a decent amount on SBM. There are other sources, but until recently there wasn't much critical attention towards that strain of fringe, with SBM having been 10+ years ahead of the curve on describing the contours of its recent resurgence in alt-med communities. In the past few years others such as BBC News, Science Feedback, and Snopes discussed it, though often missing details such as its direct relation to the anti-vaccination movement. Don't know how much this as example changes the overall equation, but was the first to come to mind. VintageVernacular (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no shortage of reliable sources establishing that the germ theory was a huge advance in medicine and that we have basically incontrovertible proof of it for maybe thousands of diseases.

- Palpable (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

But using any of those sources to draw conclusions about the specific claims of a particular germ theory denialist would be against policy. XOR'easter (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Reliable SPS - can be used to describe fringe theories proposed by people as discredited or as quackery, including on a bio... should not be used to describe people themselves as quacks. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Partial SPS - saw some of the info of arguments below from CoffeeCrumbs, and FactOrOpinon. I think the partial peer-review for some articles is... frustrating for a direct answer, but if there is peer-review on an article, it should stand as non-SPS material. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• SPS - We see at WP:SPS that an SPS has clear rules and restrictions, such as not being used ever for a WP:BLP, absolutely never. Some seem to be arguing that this obvious SPS should for some reason be granted an exception to the clear language of "never" and should be allowed on biographies of living persons in some cases (or in many). There are many reasons why that is not allowed generally, but we have now learned that this source is essentially the soapbox of primarily only two individuals, and most importantly, is not part of a media outlet or organization or inclusive of any external (or even further internal vetting). No, rather, it is a blog. An SPS blog. One perhaps run by scientists, two scientists, but a blog, nonetheless. Again, quoting directly from WP:SPS, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." So here we have this source, which is obviously beyond WP:SKYISBLUE a blog and a self-published source, we must then at the very least clarify that it absolutely must not be used in any circumstances for BLPs going forward, by the fact that it is so clearly a SPS.Iljhgtn (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Partly SPS and partly non-SPS - The site makes it clear that some authors can publish without prior review. I consider their articles to be self-published; for example, I put Steven Novella's articles in this category. The site also says that other articles undergo prior review (e.g., "Outside submissions undergo review by our full editorial board, and most are rejected or require revisions prior to publishing"). I consider the latter to be non-self-published. Examples of authors who clearly aren't regular article authors there and whose articles presumably underwent prior review: Nikolas Dietis and Kiarash Aramesh. For some articles/authors, it's not clear to me whether they fall in the SPS category or instead in the non-SPS category. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• It seems that posts by some established contributors are self-published (as shown by links above), while guest contributors are not. So the answer to whether SBM is an SPS or not is 'yes'. SPS and not SPS. Certainly the idea that it's fully SPS has no basis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• SPS: As noted by other contributors, SBM openly acknowledges that it often publishes content without prior peer review. Consequently, this makes it a self-published source (SPS), with the opinions expressed representing those of individual authors. Like any other SPS, its use requires caution, especially in articles about living people or controversial topics, where ensuring accuracy and neutrality is critical. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not SPS for reviewed articles They directly state they have editorial peer review for a number, if not most, of their articles. And only a select few don't go through that process (though appear to have after the fact review, considering the retraction, so even that seems to be in question). I will note that this appears to be yet another attempt by WP:FRINGE pushing editors to try and remove skeptical debunking media from negatively covering their fringe topics. Par for the course attempt, honestly. Silverseren 18:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's a day that ends in -Y.... XOR'easter (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  If we can't tell what is and isn't peer-reviewed and what is SPS material, is that not a problem? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  And how we will determine which articles have been reviewed? Also note that editorial review and peer review are different things and they do not appear to make a claim of peer review. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Right. These "Not SPS" !votes completely fail to respond to this criticism or address this perfectly valid and critically important counterpoint other than to say things along the lines of, "Come on man, THEY SAY that some stuff is reviewed! Let's take their word on it bro! Even if they are generally a blog, they are a trusted blog." Iljhgtn (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Poor editorial control is a matter of reliability, but all matters of reliability don't have to be decided by classifying a source as self-published. It's accepted that other sources follow their stated editorial practices, and noone has shown why that shouldn't be the case here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not SPS for reviewed articles They've got editors, which sets it apart from a standard SPS. Those articles that could be self published are still reliable for most purposes anyway, since they are from subject matter experts. It is also worth noting that while it should not be used for biographical details in general, even if this were to be considered a SPS that would not rule it out for comments on science, medicine, or the reception of fringe ideas, even when those ideas happen to appear on an article with a person's name at the top. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not SPS by virtue of having either pre-publication review or the possibility of editorially imposed retraction. A source that is truly self-published wouldn't have either of those. XOR'easter (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Partial SPS It's a bit awkward since they do so much good work, but "our own editors, however, have earned the privilege of publishing articles without prior review, since they have a proven track record," is extremely concerning. What they describe as an editorial process for these articles, saying that "if any concerns about accuracy, fairness, or completeness come to our attention, we deal with them in a number of ways," is just not enough. The job of an editor is checking before, not just maybe cleaning up after "if," so I would have to say that the articles by their own editors have to be considered SPS until they revise this. Things they actually do vet before putting up, I consider as being subjected to an editorial process, however. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Generally not SPS, though additional scrutiny for articles by Gorski and Novella may be appropriate. Essentially per my previous comment. I'm also frankly not impressed with this RFC, and the manner the proposer starts these discussions in general. Said discussions are not quite up to the point of disruption, but I would nonetheless heavily suggest that they seek advice as to the drafting of their statements and formatting of their proposals and whether adequate prior discussion has taken place, from one of the other editors supporting their point of view. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• SPS A group blog posting guest postings is still a group blog, and still self-published. Seeing as they only list two editors on their site (Gorski and Novella, whose blog it is), previous claims to having a robust editorial process seem unconvincing. There is no consistently documented publication process, no corrections or complaints procedure, and this source is nothing like a traditionally published source like a newspaper, book or academic journal. Void if removed (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I can easily give examples of non-SPS that don't have a documented corrections or complaints procedure, such as here, and whether they have a documented corrections or complaints procedure seems to be more a matter of whether they're an RS rather than whether they're an SPS. Are non-SPS generally reviewed by more than two editors? It seems to me that by your favored WP:USESPS definition for SPS, the guest articles aren't SPS, as author!=publisher. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am responding to suggestions that some sort of allegedly robust editorial and accountability process makes it not an SPS, which I think is a nonsense.

  My favoured definition of SPS is: if it isn't traditionally published (book, newspaper, journal) or something directly comparable structurally, it is an SPS. That is in line with USESPS since it considers virtually all websites to be self-published. It is narrow, yes, but it is also consistent across media. It is also not a reflection on reliability in other ways, as SPS vs GREL are two different concerns.

  I think the "self" in "self-published" causes much confusion, as does the consideration that "publishing" is the mere act of putting information online. A publishing company is more than a person who vets content and presses a button to place material on a website. If we consider something not self published simply because the person who writes it has to go through another person before it is published, that means celebrity social media accounts where an intern reports to a manager aren't self published, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing (ie, virtually nothing is self-published by that standard).

  I consider "science based medicine" to be a publication as a whole rather than something that can be approached article-by-article. There is no distinct, separate, traditional publishing entity, as with a newspaper, a book, or an academic journal. The owners and editors are all the same, and that they solicit other people's content to add to their own publication which they entirely control still makes it their own self-published publication, in exactly the same way as any blog with guest posts.

  I know there are difficult edge cases to the whole "what is a traditional publisher" model, but I don't think a group blog like SBM is even close to that, and considering it to be one (because editors want to use it to make BLP claims about quacks) has turned into a slippery slope IMO. Void if removed (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for elaborating on why you consider the SBM guest articles to be SPS, even though they're not published by the authors. Re: the rest, as others have noted, USESPS is an essay, not a policy; it should be consistent with policy rather than vice versa. I think we need an RfC to clarify what the meaning of SPS is in the WP:SPS policy, and once the RfC about grey matter from advocacy orgs is closed, I'm going to try to create one for WP:SPS, though so far I've found it tremendously difficult to figure out how to word such an RfC. WP:PUBLISHED says "Published means, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form," so that's much broader than your use of it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources is policy, not an essay. It is clear policy that blogs like Science-Based Medicine not be used for BLPs at a bare minimum. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I said "USESPS is an essay, not a policy" (emphasis added). It seems that you're confusing WP:USESPS (which as I noted is an essay) with WP:SPS (which is a policy). People clearly have different opinions about whether SBM is wholly SPS or only partially SPS, and if the consensus of this RfC is that it is only partially SPS, then the part that isn't SPS can be used for statements about living persons despite identifying itself as a blog. Also, the BLP policy is for statements about living persons, wherever they occur, but AFAIK, RS expert blogs can be used for DUE statements about non-persons, even if that statement appears in a biographical article. BLPSELFPUB is also an exception. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm aware. We have multiple highly debatable and contested terms, at the heart of a core policy, and radically different interpretation of them. When I raised this weeks ago I asked what I was missing, and it turned out I wasn't missing anything except a massive intractable tarpit. I think none of it is obvious. Your objection here is understandable depends very much how you interpret "author", "publisher" and the work being published, and a narrow definition restricted to natural persons means any source with two people can be argued to be not self published. But to me it remains obvious that for a self published book in which my friend writes the foreword, their content is still self published even though I acted as "editor", and I don't see a difference between a self published book with multiple contributors and a group blog with multiple contributors. And the trouble is a lot of the discussions about how we classify X or Y revolve not around what they are, but about how we want to use them, which makes it ever more messy. Personally I would like to see clarity on *why* BLPSPS exists, and define the standard clearly there, because that would inform what sort of sources are acceptable in BLPs, which is really the nub of the matter. BLPSPS feels like it might once have been shorthand for "a source who's probably had the lawyers look it over before publishing it", but that's just my impression/speculation. Absent BLPSPS, the question of whether sources like grey literature or SBM are SPS or not is largely moot. Void if removed (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Void if removed makes a great point. Literally any propaganda shop could just have TWO people and then instantly always not be SPS according to this B.S. argument being pushed for why this source is allegedly "not SPS".............. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  So basically most local news is self-published as well then. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, most local and hyper local news outlets are in fact self-published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not SPS for reviewed content. Where content is clearly reviewed, definitely not SPS. Where we’re not certain, treat it with extra caution. By the way “blog” and “SPS” are not synonyms. Blog is a format that can be edited and published by reputable organisations, as with eg The Conversation or perhaps the SPLC’s Hatewatch. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I would agree with you that your two examples are not SPS, however I have seen people argue the contrary in both cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Everything in The Conversation (website) is effectively an opinion piece and as such is actually treated like a SPS per WP:NEWSOPED. I also don't believe that any of the content in SBM is "clearly reviewed." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back makes probably the most important point of this entire discussion, which is effectively "How can we determine clearly which articles by this blog are considered reviewed, and which are not?" many, at least all published by Gorski and Novella are unquestionably 100% SPS and therefore should not touch any BLP. This excellent point has been largely or entirely ignored by the minority "Not SPS" camp which really doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on other than "If this was considered SPS then articles on XYZ subjects would get worse." Sorry. That is not an argument supported by WP policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

That argument is directly supported by Misplaced Pages policy. To be clear, I don't think it's an argument that anyone needs to make, but policy overrides guidelines. The only policy-based concern, even granting the application of the SPS label despite the fact that it doesn't really fit, would be about biographies of living people, but an article on a topic like germ-theory denialism isn't a biography of a living person. XOR'easter (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Both of those links are to IAR, if thats the policy you're claiming trumps the relevant guidelines I would question your competence (especially as you appear to be calling WP:V a guideline). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Both of those links were deliberate. Like I said, the only part of WP:V that could be pertinent here is the prohibition against using self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, but that fails to apply in two different ways. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

How does "fail to apply in two different ways"? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot more than that which is pertinent, that whole section for example is pertinent not just that one sentence. Many of the "not SPS" arguments also seem to be based on WP:NEWSBLOG. As for it somehow not applying you've lost me, gonna have to explain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment, several editors seem to claim something along the lines of "since Science-Based Medicine is 'reviewed' it cannot be a SPS". This claim would benefit from some proof, ideally other secondary sources validating this claim, and not just the very same source saying that it does so. Alex Jones might claim that he is reviewed and reliable etc. That claim by itself does not make it so. Also, I am not saying that Science-Based Medicine is anything like AJ in terms of reliability etc., and to be clear, this RfC is not about reliability, it is just on whether or not the SBM source is an SPS, which I think it pretty obviously is. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  When we're looking at obviously non-self-published sources, they usually fit into one of these three models:

  1. Book publisher: External authors submit book outlines and sample chapters; if selected, the publisher contributes substantially towards editing (including developmental editing if necessary), designing, and marketing the book. The author pays for none of this and expects to get paid (at least if sales exceed a minimum threshold). If the publisher rejects the book, then the author is free to sell it to a different publisher.
  2. Newspaper: The publisher/publication hires editors and journalists. The editor assigns stories (to internal staff) or commissions them (among freelancers; alternatively, editors may accept external pitches, in the book-publisher model). The journalists write the stories; the editor and publisher/publication representatives decide whether to publish what the journalists wrote. If an employee instead of a freelancer, the journalist expects to get paid the same even if the article is canned (not published). If a freelancer, and the piece doesn't run, the freelancer is free to sell it to a different publication.
  3. Peer-reviewed journal: The (usually for-profit) publisher or (usually academic) sponsoring body creates the publication and hire editors. External authors submit whole papers; editors send the papers for external review and use that information to decide which ones to publish. The authors usually pay for publication, but this is understood to be akin to volunteer work on all sides, with the money usually coming from a third-party grant rather than the author's own funds. If the journal rejects the article, the author is free to submit it to another journal.

  I wonder if any of these models feel similar to how you imagine SBM to work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have expanded on this concept in a sandbox. I wonder whether people would find that comparison useful in, say, Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using self-published works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I do not think any of the above apply to SBM, but I'd like to see you perhaps write up a few methods for what clearly SPS look like, and then we could compare to the above, and determine which SBM most closely resembles. Again, if you write stuff, then you are the publisher, that is by definition "self-published", which is very often the case even if not always for Science-Based Medicine...even by their own admission! Iljhgtn (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think defining none self-published sources are the ones we give a free pass because of our social-culture background is a good way to define them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• SPS. The website describes itself as a blog. According to WP:SPS blogs are considered SPS. In addition, SBM publishes unknown proportions of articles without prior editorial review. Therefore, SBM could only be used with attribution, because it is impossible to tell which articles passed editorial review and which did not. JonJ937 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  @JonJ937, WP:SPS says "...self-published material such as...personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above)...are largely not acceptable as sources". Are you sure that this isn't a WP:NEWSBLOG? They have an Executive editor and a Managing editor, which are positions that we expect to find in news organizations. Someone in the prior discussion says they sometimes "allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness", which is something that sometimes happens with WP:NEWSBLOGS, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Still only a "may", not "is", acceptable, and even then we would need to proceed with extreme caution, and almost certainly exclude BLPs from being acceptable for use by the source, see the rest of the quote you left off, "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Iljhgtn (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think by this point, we all know that you really, really, really don't want Science-Based Medicine to be considered an acceptable source. You don't need to keep pushing for your desired outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Normally newsblogs are run by news outlets and SBM is not an established news organization. Even if it was, per WP:NEWSBLOG we are advised to use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. So I don't think SBM should be used for factual statements, it can only be used for statements of opinions. JonJ937 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Use with caution and statements of opinion are covered by other parts of the guidelines, separate from SPS. Whether a source is self-published or not doesn't mean it's reliable or unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Mostly SPS. It seems to be the Novella and Gorski show. That doesn’t make it unreliable for topics in which they are recognised experts - neurology for Novella and oncology for Gorski, apparently. That would make them reliable reviewers of any guest content on those topics too. But outside their domains of expertise, they are just blogging. Expertise in one domain does not imply expertise in another - and sometimes it’s quite the opposite, in that smart people who are accomplished in their niche start to think their opinions on everything else are equally robust (looking at you, Elon). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• SPS. Editorial oversight is insufficiently verifiable nor independent enough to call this something other than self-published. SmolBrane (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• SPS It seems their peer-review is only for new contributers, the staff is volunteer and they explicitly say that they like to avoid as much editing as possible. There also doesn't seem to be much of editorial indepencence from the owner (New England Skeptical Society) which is an advocacy group. Especially troubling is that the Executive Editor is also the President of NESS. NESS also has two other members of the Novella family on the board. That makes three of the five board members from the same family. This is no what oversight should look like. The group of writers is also small and probably know each other well and are of course, ideologically similar. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Partial SPS Partly unclear, partly not SPS As discussed above, it isn't clear which articles by Gorski and Novella have been reviewed and we should probably lean towards treating those ones like WP:EXPERTSPS just to be safe. They do, however, have a very clear review policy on guest articles (see ) which states volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission (emphasis added). That's pretty obviously not self-publishing. I do want to note though that this type of discussion would really benefit from more consensus on what an SPS is. Maybe some more experienced editors should consider drafting a big RfC to revise SPS with more detail on what it means in practice (probably after ARBPIA5 is over so admins have more time to focus on it)? CambrianCrab (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@CambrianCrab:The main problem is that they currently only have two editors (one being the managing editor), so we can be relatively sure that they do not follow that policy becuase it requires a minimum of four editors to follow (the managing editor and at least three others). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Good catch on the number of editors, I missed that the other ones had retired/passed, but I don't really think that makes it SPS since articles are still getting reviewed. Imo, it's a red flag in terms of reliability that either the list of editors and/or review policy is out of date, but no impact towards whether or not it's SPS. CambrianCrab (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

See and that is interesting because I draw the exact opposite conclusion. I think that it could be reasonably argued that SBM is reliable, but that there is no case at all that it is somehow not SPS. When there is one person in most cases writing something and then just directly launching it to the internet on a blog, that is self-published. Which we have no way of knowing if these two editors even check one another, so it is very possible that frequently this is exactly what is happening. However, how different is it really when there are only two editors from one checking on anything. That is practically and definitionally a self-published source by every possible measure for evaluating whether or not a source as SPS or not. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? And again, even if that is true, if there are only two editors doing the "reviewing", that is not due diligence, that is back scratching and rubber stamping. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think SBM is unreliable, just that outdated pages would be a red mark towards reliability. Whether or not pages or up-to-date has nothing to do with if something is self-published.

I don't really follow the rest of your argument. We are supposed to just take a blog's "word" on it that material gets reviewed? Yeah we generally take sources at their word on their own policies unless we have reason to question it. SBM is a relatively long-running and well-known outlet run by experts in the topic area. I don't see any reason we should think they're lying about their policy. CambrianCrab (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Those are fair point, review is review and it seems that at least some are seemingly getting reviewed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not SPS. What someone means by "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" is "these writers aren't dumbasses and we trust them" with an implied "if an issue is found after the piece is out, we'll put out a correction", not "these people are infallible and we will never correct them because reasons". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  So they are essentially "Not SPS" because they claim to sometimes not be SPS. Got it. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  The purpose of oversight is due diligence, not dumbass detection. SmolBrane (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Partly SPS and generally unsuitable for contentious topics on Misplaced Pages. While SBM is valuable for some scientic topics, it self-described as blog with inconsistent editorial oversight, allowing authors like Novella and Gorski to pubish without review. Gorski, who often takes strong positions, is a polarizing figure, and his articles often reflect a bias and lack of nuance. For controversial topics or biographies, more neutral and independently vetted sources would better meet Misplaced Pages standards. IntrepidContributor (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• SPS As I've said before on previous RfCs, this is explicitly a self-published source. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Not SPS unless Gorski and Novella wrote the piece: SBM is one of the best sources for coveraging WP:FRINGE and WP:FRINGE activism we have and I'll note some, certainly not all, wanting to make it a SPS tend to have, at best, a WP:PROFRINGE attitude . Simply put, there is editorial oversight of contributors. We don't know if there is for Gorski and Novella, and should act accordingly and treat them as subject matter experts outside BLPs, but we do know that there is for other contributors. I'm somewhat concerned with the shape of this RFC - we have longstanding consensus that SBM is a reliable source and not an SPS. Instead of challenging that, this RFC was opened to challenge specifically the SPS designation in a seemingly roundabout way to question it's reliability.

I also want to note that per WP:PARITY In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed. - so while I still maintain it's not an SPS, the standards for WP:FRINGE allow non-peer reviewed sources on fringe topics as long as they're reliable, so an SPS designation should not, unless we also agree it's not reliable, be used to go a purge of its use. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• No due to editorial oversight. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Given that the editors have stated that they do not provide oversight on all contributers prior to publication, this does not seem to be universally true. - Bilby (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• SPS I think it's important that the arguments about whether Science Based Medicine is SPS or not are removed from our own assessment of the topics they’ve covered, otherwise we infuse topic bias on a process matter and risk floating away from the core question of this RfC. SBM is SPS simply because of the lack of editorial oversight and independence needed for subject matter of medicine.--Evathedutch (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Not SPS when it's "... we allow trusted authors to publish without prior review for the sake of efficiency and timeliness" it means that you have to become a trusted author first before you can publish without prior review, i.e., the editorial oversight comes from becoming a trusted author. Banedon (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Editorial oversight means reviewing content prior to publishing to ensure the content being published is factual, etc. It's not about who the author is, it's about the substance of the content. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that if I write a letter to the editor of some local newspaper, and it is published, then the newspaper is a SPS? Banedon (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Banedon If it was published without review? Yes. A website that published unreviewed content is not a publisher, it's a self-publishing platform. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that the editors of the local newspaper basically do nothing? Banedon (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think you are using the wrong analogy. If you can publish directly, based on your own decision to publish, without anyone else reading or vetting your writing before it appears, you are self publishing. If an editor checks the material and approves it before publication, it is not self publishing. SBM allow some editors to publish without checking or vetting the material before it is published, as you akcnowledged, so in those cases it is an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  At the very least anything written by Gorski and Novella there seems to be strong consensus that at minimum those articles are very clearly SPS. In other cases, I think it is dubious at best, since Gorski and Novella run the show and whether or not any real "editorial review" is happening on this blog appears to be very, very much in doubt. The analogy of a "local newspaper" and a blog is not actually analogous, and it is weird that an exception was ever carved out for this blog for it to somehow not be considered SPS. Thankfully it appears as if a new consensus has emerged as a result of this RfC in favor of SBM now being considered SPS, or at minimum, anything published by Gorski or Novella absolutely is without a shadow of a doubt SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Bilby: That's where we disagree. By letting you publish directly, the editor is saying they trust you to write content that doesn't need to be edited - and that means it's not SPS. In fact, one could argue it's a higher bar than having to read and vet the writing. Banedon (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  By publishing directly, it is by definition self publishing. By being trusted to publish directly, it means you are seen as reliable. The two are not mutally exclusive. - Bilby (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  We are all making assumptions about "what it means" because SBM is not transparent enough about its editorial policies. It pales in comparison to journals that tackle many of the same topics. This is precisely why it's SPS. Evathedutch (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thats right. This "Not SPS" argument is without merit. SBM is not a journal, it is a blog and is 100% SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind. Banedon (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that they post "bogus content"? If not, how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  "Bogus content" is related to an argument about reliability. Which some contributors to this RfC have mistakenly believed is part of this discussion, it is not. This RfC is on the question of whether or not SBM is SPS, which it so obviously is. Therefore, my response was simply reframing that we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all, instead, we are simply discussing whether or not the "editorial review" which some allege occurs at SBM (with scant evidence), is done by the very same people who publish content (Gorski and Novella).

  Given the self-publication by Gorski/Novella, which evidently is what happens, then the source is a self-published source, and "bogus" doesn't even enter into the conversation. Or at the very minimum, any article published by SBM by Gorski/Novella ought to 100% be considered SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Banedon wrote: "If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind," and you responded "If I was Gorski or Novella, state your comment again and see how it looks."

  As best I can tell, you did not respond to my second question, so I'll ask it again: If , how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote?

  Just so you're clear, the current WP:SPS characterization "self-published" explicitly refers to reliability. When you say "we are not arguing about whether or not the content is "bogus" at all," that's not entirely true. It's relevant to whether some of the content on the site is not self-published. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  You've moved the goal posts, Banedon is arguing that none of the content on the site is self-published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I know that Banedon's !vote was "Not SPS," but I interpreted Banedon's comment to Iljhgtn (who claimed that SBM is "100% SPS") as a point about outside contributors to SBM (outdated description here). Maybe I misinterpreted. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think in the case of Gorski and Novella there is absolutely no question that it is SPS, but I am more and more wondering how much "editorial review" actually happens even in other cases. From the link you provided if we review, "How to submit a guest article: Anyone is welcome to submit content to ScienceBasedMedicine.org, regardless of credentials. We’ll publish anything we think is interesting, relevant, well-written, and, above all, scientifically sound. (The less editing we need to do, the better.) The volunteer editorial staff looks at all promising submissions using a peer-review process that has two steps, a screening step by our managing editor and a peer review step in which at least three of our editors evaluate the submission. Please embed citations as weblinks rather than footnotes or endnotes, it saves us a lot of time. How to submit a guest article for publication on SBM Submit your article by email directly to Dr. Gorski (SBMeditor@icloud.com), the managing editor . If he thinks it has potential, he will distribute it to the editorial staff for further consideration. Please note that none of the editors are paid for our work on SBM, and most of us have demanding day jobs. That means that, more frequently than we would like, the process is less than optimal and not as fast as writers (or we) would like. (For instance, if Dr. Gorski is working against a grant application deadline, you might not hear for a while, because trying to keep his lab afloat trumps his extracurricular activities on SBM.)" There are claims that "at least three of our editors evaluate the submission", but again, I don't trust this, but beyond that, this only applies (if they even do it) to guest submissions, which can be Gorski may post even if he just thinks its "interesting" and "The less editing we need to do, the better" (all well and good, but again, doesn't sound like much "editorial review" is happening even in the case of guest submissions... But again, that is only part of the discussion. The other part that has overwhelming consensus at this point is that anything from SBM authored by Gorski or Novella is SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  No offense, but you just posted a bunch of text that once again didn't answer my question. Here it is again: If , how is your comment at all responsive to what Banedon wrote?

  I'm not looking for your personal opinion about SBM, as you've already made that clear in your many comments. I'm not looking for your opinion about the RfC consensus. I'm trying to understand your response to Banedon. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  His comment was, "If you can write in your own article with bogus content, and get it published, I'll change my mind.". I was not in any way focused at all on the "bogus content" aspect that you are laser focused on, I was refuting the fact that obviously I, Iljhgtn, cannot get stuff published on their page, but that if I could sure, it would not be a self-published source perhaps. Though it is a ridiculous point he made and that is why I am citing the direct text, instead of offering opinion. If that does not answer your query then I am exasperated and we can both just move on from this odd reading comprehension and/or semantics confused discourse we've been having. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I think we're talking past each other, and it's fine with me for both of us to step away from it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  But you're not Gorski or Novella, are you? That kind of renders the entire point moot. Obviously you can't publish bogus content, because you're not trusted, ergo, there is editorial control and it is not SPS. Banedon (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Contributions by the editors are SPS. Definitely contributions by Gorkski, Novella, and the other listed editors are clearly WP:SPS by both the letter and spirit of WP:SPS. By the letter of WP:SPS I don't think contributions by other people are SPS but I do have serious doubts about the editorial policy, and thus the overall reliability, of SBM if they're allowing the editors to regularly publish articles without fact-checking. Loki (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Not SPS. This is a web publication of the New England Skeptical Society, not the personal vlog of Randy from Boise. Just because it's called a blog doesn't mean it's a personal, self-published blog. The premise that organizations publishing stuff written by members of their organizations amounts to self-publishing seems like it can't help but lead to something like, "the LA Times publishes stuff written and reviewed by members of the LA Times so the LA Times self publishes itself". Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society whose leadership overlaps with that of the blog and is largely restricted to a single family, the Novellas. The same man, Steven Novella, is in charge of both so there is no independence here that would make it not self published. I would also note that if the Washington Post ever fired all its professional staff and started hosting stuff by Jeff Bezos and his buddies we would treat it as a SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Did you consider the editorial that Bezos wrote in the Post (re: his decision to block the Post's endorsement of Harris) to be SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, but note that we already treat editorials and opinion pieces as SPS so its a bit of a moot point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's news to me. Are you saying that an editorial or opinion piece cannot be used unless it either falls under EXPERTSPS or BLPSELFPUB? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Its a bit (some would say a lot) wider than that because WP:ABOUTSELF also applies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't understand how ABOUTSELF comes into play, since an editorial / opinion piece is typically representing the view of a single person, though I guess it's occasionally written by more than one, as with something from an editorial board. But even assuming that ABOUTSELF is in play, that says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that we cannot use an opinion piece or editorial in the NYT to make a statement —attributed to the author(s) — about a living person whose relationship to the author(s) is third-party. If that's the case, I think there's a lot of WP content that's in breach of this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  There might be some (wikipedia is full of violations of any rule you care to name), but most of those uses are as primary (under aboutself) not as third-party sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Whether it's primary is distinct from whether it's self-published. Many opinion pieces are used as third-party sources for attributed opinions about living people. Here's an example: in the Trump and fascism article, the text "Following the January 6 Capitol attack, Robert Paxton, who had initially resisted calling Trump a fascist, announced that the label now seemed necessary," sourced to this opinion piece by Paxton, which is a third-party source for a statement about Trump. Are you saying that you think that text must be removed because the source is SPS? WP:RSEDITORIAL certainly doesn't say that all opinion pieces should be treated as SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  You argue they're amateurs and unqualified to write the coverage that they do; that doesn't on its own bear on whether they're self-published or not. I've limited the scope of my !vote here to concluding they aren't self-published. Whether they are a reliable publication that isn't self-published or an unreliable publication that isn't self-published is a different question. As for Novella heading NESS and Science-based Medicine—um, well, yeah, duh. The latter is an organ of the former. I'm not aghast that the editor in chief of the LA times runs the LA Times, or that Alfred A. Knopf ran Alfred A. Knopf. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society. The LA Times is owned by Patrick Soon-Shiong, the editor in chief of the LA times is Terry Tang. A book by Alfred A. Knopf Sr. or Blanche Knopf published by Alfred A. Knopf would be considered SPS for wikipedia purposes, that isn't groundbreaking thats totally normal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  To add to this, being an editor and running an interest organization are (and should be) two very different roles. I can't imagine the director of the National Association for People that Can't Edit and Hate Editorial Integrity (NAPCEHEI) would make a good editor in chief for the org's publication. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I said, You argue they're amateurs; you said, No, I'm arguing that The New England Skeptical Society is an amateur society (emphasis added). I'm not seeing how I've mischaracterized what you believe about their qualifications when you immediately repeated it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  There is a distinct difference between the LA Times and SBM in that it would appear as if at SBM just Gorski can write something or just Novella and then publish it. That is different that the LA Times or other non-SPS in that those have editorial review by other staff. These staff are known and are publicly verifiable as they have publicly findable jobs as seen here.

  At minimum, it must be acknowledged that material written by Gorski and Novella is SPS. For the record, that is also not saying it is not reliable (as several commenters above continue to be confusing), just that Gorski and Novella work from SBM is SPS. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Forbes.com is owned by Forbes Media LLC. Because it is owned by a company, does that mean we should not regard it as self published? In the case of Forbes.com it is not the ownership that matters, but the ability of people to publish directly as contributors without editorial review. With SBM, I would argue that it is also not the ownership that matters, but whether or not people can publish directly without editorial review. - Bilby (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Forbes.com includes content both from Forbes staff and from Forbes contributors. So some of the Forbes.com content is SPS and some isn't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Presumably, that is because the Forbes staff material is published under editorial control. It is not the ownership that decides if something is an SPS, but the process by which material becomes available after it has been written. - Bilby (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  That was my point, as it seemed you were claiming that we should regard all of Forbes.com as self-published. Why did you conclude that the subset of SBM material that does undergo prepublication editorial review is nonetheless SPS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've never assumed that material on SBM that undergoes editorial review is SPS. My only concern is that the argument that the publication belongs to the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not SPS, is not sound. I think you can reasonably argue that some material published by SBM does not under go editorial review prior to publication, and that some material is therefore self published, or you can argue that all material undergoes pre-publication editorial review, and therefore SBM is not an SPS at all. But I don't think you can argue that SBM is owned by the New England Skeptical Society, and therefore is not an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I should have been clearer. I was asking because in your Dec.6 !vote, you said that you consider SBM to be wholly SPS (or at least, you didn't qualify your SPS response). FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• SPS A group blog where the participants can publish without review is a SPS, even if it calls certain people editors and sometimes deletes things (if that were the standard, even much of social media wouldn't be a SPS, because sometimes those sites have deleted stuff like COVID misinformation). I also do not think accepting occasional outside submissions consistutes "review" to the degree those posts become not-SPS. Nor do I think being "published" by an organization the blog authors *also* control consititutes sufficient independence, as some have claimed. I think sometimes the authors can be cited under the WP:SPS subject-mattere expert exception, but only in the specific area of their academic speciality (e.g. neurology, surgery and oncology, family practice medicine) but not in other areas. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Bild

What is the reliability of the German tabloid Bild, including its website Bild.de?

1. Generally reliable
2. Additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable
4. Deprecated

Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Responses (Bild)

• Option 3/4 Bild is a sensational tabloid, that according to Foreign Policy magazine, archived link, routinely violates basic journalistic ethics and is regularly sanctioned for it by German Press Council, being sanctioned by them 26 times in 2021 alone. As evidenced by this piece in Deutsche Welle their process of verification and fact checking is below the standard expected for a reliable source. For those looking for a more comprehensive account of the newspaper and its ethics, I've found this freely accessible short book (less than 100 pages, including references) in German from 2023 on the topic (which can translated using google translate's PDF translate feature) Some quotes from the book (in translation) Driven by a special editorial culture ("We are tabloids after all") and driven by editorial decisions in which sales interests take precedence over media ethics, articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers. ... The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary... EDIT: another quote BILD's journalism does not focus on the task of providing information, but rather on examining a suitable fact for its emotionality and framing it with commentary.} Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  As an addendum: here are some other examples, including a fake story about migrants committing sexual assault in 2017 , as well as taking scientists quotes out of context to further an agenda regarding COVID during the pandemic Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 - per Hemiauchenia. I'll add an argument that's weaker but nevertheless entertaining and somewhat indicative, which is that Bild's infamy is so well-established that an acclaimed book presenting a lightly-fictionalized denunciation of its practices is a common inclusion of university German language, German literature and media studies courses. There hasn't been any argument made, however, that our current usage of Bild is so pervasive a problem that deprecation is necessary. _signed, Rosguill 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3/4. I don't think we should cite Bild anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It's a sensationalist tabloid like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• 3 at least, and I wouldn't say no to 4. This is one of the weakest sources in the region, though I could see it being cited for special purposes, like examples of "headlinese" that aren't in English, etc. But at this point I don't think it's even usable for WP:ABOUTSELF material; if they claimed something as simple as X number of employees, I would strongly suspect it of being an exaggeration.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• 3 I honestly have no idea how one could even come to approach the idea that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but if previous discussions haven't been enough, I suppose it's worth piling on. Sources should not be considered reliable until they prove themselves to be. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• 3/4 Bild is a tabloid and well known for its lack of fact checking and heavy bias. The closest english speaking equivalent would be things like the Daily Mail. In my opinion broadly unusable. Magisch 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• bad 2 for miscellaneous or political content, unusable for the private lives of BLP and particularly recently deceased people it's rather rare that they publish straightforward misinformation, particularly when considering the volume of content published. Having said that, they have a nasty habit of violating both journalistic and actual ethics (and allegedly breaking the law), so using them is probably broadly unwise. There are some rare cases where they can be useful, but as far as usable sources go, they are on the very lowest end IMO, being a tabloid in an area with an otherwise strong media environment. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a significant issue to justify depreciation. Note: this applies to Bild only, other sources owned by that publisher are usually a lot more reliable, even if I personally consider much of what they believe to be rather questionable FortunateSons (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2, provisionally, since no examples of publishing falsehoods and misinformation have been provided so far in this thread and I couldn't find them in the article. See my comments in the discussion section. Alaexis_¿question? 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, I don't see the need for deprecation. Bild is tabloid journalism, and falls far short of the high quality sources that BLP calls for. It shouldn't be anywhere near anything contentious to do with a living, or recently deceased, person. When it comes to it reliability in other areas how other reliable sources view Bild is important, I suggest reading the work by Prof Lilienthal posted by Hemiauchenia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 Tabloid journalism is generally incompatible with the Misplaced Pages project. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, there even exist a German blog whose aim is mainly to publicize errors of Bild – Bildblog. But see my comment in the discussion section below. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per ActivelyDisinterested. The Kip 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 so no change. Most of our current usage of it seem to be interviews which per WP:ABOUTSELF would be fine. I see no evidence they’re fabricating interviews. Probably usable for mundane things like sports (they seem to cover that a lot). For any contentious anything should not be cited - but they seem to get a lot of interviews with notable people, so we can keep using that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 per Hemiauchenia... tabloids in general post sensational info that is poorly fact-checked and rife with errors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  it's snowing 3 Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3/4. Academic coverage frequently treats it as an archetypal example of a publisher of misinformation. See eg. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3/4: Tabloids usually fail reliability. It seems this one is no different. ToThAc (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 (depending on whether anyone can make a case that there's some e.g. ABOUTSELF use we would still want them for — but I doubt we should be using them 1,800 times, as Hemiauchenia says we are at present) per Aquillion and Hemiauchenia; as RSP says, a reliable source "has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction"; BILD has the opposite reputation. -sche (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Bild)

Bild is currently used over 1,800 times on the English Misplaced Pages per bild.de  . It is already currently listed on RSP as "generally unreliable". This RfC was prompted by a discussion at WT:RSP, where a user questioned the lack of participation in previous discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I asked the initial question at WT:RSP since I don't like when we classify sources based on vibes. So I'll play the role of the devil's advocate. I have very little knowledge of the German media landscape and I'm open to arguments in both directions. The sources provided by u:Hemiauchenia make two claims:

• articles are published that hurt those affected and irritate readers." ... "The way celebrities are treated , who are initially favorites and then quickly become fallen angels who are pursued even in their private lives, is legendary" - this should have no bearing on reliability, unless they actually published falsehoods about said celebrities
• In 2018 Bild fell for a hoax. Someone leaked emails supposedly between a major political party in Germany and a made-up Russian online figure. Bild published an article based on it. This is definitely a failure of their editorial process but they definitely did not do it on purpose and when this became known clarified that the whole thing was a hoax. I don't think that one such issue that happened 6 years ago should automatically lead to GUNREL status. Many other RS fell for hoaxes . Alaexis_¿question? 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a massive understatement of what Lilienthal 2023 cited by Hemiauchenia actually says. The better part of the text's 92 pages is a critique of Bild's practices in a systematic fashion, summarized in its introduction (translated): From the perspective of critical readers, BILD is constantly chipping away at its own credibility.

If that's not enough, the paper includes an 8-page bibliography of other extensive studies of der Bild. It's silly to act like what should decide this source's reliability is some "gotcha" wiki-sleuthing based on recent scandal--we have the verdict of mountains of peer-reviewed research. Make a case based on that, as others have. _signed, Rosguill 14:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm just surprised that given the reputation of the source and all these analyses no one has come up with a examples of inaccuracies other than the 6-year old hoax. Unfortunately I don't speak German and so can't read Lilienthal's report. Alaexis_¿question? 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The linked PDF is readily readable by downloading it and then using Google translate's PDF translation feature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, I've managed to translate it using Google Translate, thanks!

These are the key points from the foreword

1. articles are published that hurt those affected and (can) irritate readers
2. BILD is running campaigns against political opponents – against Angela Merkel, Karl Lauterbach, Annalena Baerbock, to name just three examples
3. is said to have felt personally affected . Because he is co-owner of such a property in Berlin. He then prompted BILD editor-in-chief Reichelt to write extremely critical reports about Adidas and the rent freeze
4. A woman who says she suffered under former editor-in-chief Reichelt is suing the German media group in the USA because she felt let down by her former employer
5. A particularly drastic case occurred in early 2017, when the Frankfurt edition reported on sexual assaults by men with a migrant background on visitors to a prominent nightlife district - completely fabricated by people the editorial team trusted without checking. The embarrassment was great, and the retraction in the paper itself was inevitable.

I think I understand the issues with it better now. Would you say that this is a reasonably complete summary or is there something else I missed?

In my view #5 is most relevant for the assessment of reliability. They certainly didn't a good job as journalists but it doesn't seem like they fabricated stuff and in the end they published a retraction which is what we expect from sources. #2 and #3 show that it's clearly a very WP:BIASED source. I'm still not sure it satisfies the WP:GUNREL criteria. Alaexis_¿question? 23:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually the example you gave after your !vote about Bild's campaign against Christian Drosten is pretty convincing. Alaexis_¿question? 23:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what is meant by classif sources based on vibes, but if it means assessing the reputation of a source based on other reliable sources, that's kinda what we're required to do by policy. WP:SOURCE says reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as does WP:RS multiple times. No reputation, no evidence of reliability. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Because of Bild's outstanding importance and high circulation, politicians, celebrities and sportspeople often give Bild interviews. I consider these texts as generally reliable, in contrast to Bild's other articles. I've checked some of the bild.de  , most of them belong to the first category. --Cyfal (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Nigerian newspapers

WP:RSNP has nothing about Nigerian newspapers, but references a project-list of them which seems rather too optimistic. It seems to me that these newspapers are filled with completely unreliable promopieces. You can see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Martina Ononiwu, where a completely unknown Nigerian/French person supposedly got a US-only award from President Biden. Not a single source outside Nigeria confirms this, there seems to be no reason at all why she would have received this, but it got reported by Vanguard, Guardian, Nation, Roving Naija, The Sun...

We had similar issues with e.g. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Musa Muhammed (entrepreneur), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Omogboye Saheed Ayodeji, and probably many others which I can't find as easily.

Isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers which routinely publish such completely unreliable promo pieces as articles? Fram (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that if you deprecated these newspapers, there'd be basically no usable Nigerian sources left, which hardly seems good in terms of attempting to fix Misplaced Pages's coverage biases. I do agree that it is standard practice at a lot of Nigerian newspapers to run effectively undisclosed promotional material, and it seems good to note this somewhere on RSP, but I think deprecating them outright would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's a relevant BBC News story about the issue from 2015 . Apparently Nigerian newspapers also regularly suppress stories due to advertisier pressure. Another interesting story from 2020 which says realised that their top quality journalism or influential columnists alone weren’t going to win the battle for eyeballs. Enter “viral content” and clickbait headlines. Press releases were repackaged as news stories, fact-checking and verification became redundant. Aanu Adeoye says, “the traditional gatekeepers of journalism (newspapers) in this country don’t give a hoot about the quality of what they’re churning out daily.” In a few years, stories from Nigeria’s top newspapers looked as hurriedly written as stories from blogs. It had become a game of who could break the news the fastest and who could churn out the most news. Nigerian traditional media beat the upstarts at their own game and occupied spots at the top of Nigeria’s most visited websites. But the true cost of this pyrrhic victory was quality control. If even mainstream Nigerian newspapers can't be trusted as factual sources then it's not clear what Nigerian sources can be trusted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I really don’t get arguments like this one. How does it help Misplaced Pages to use unreliable sources from countries with more limited media landscapes? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

One of Misplaced Pages and the WMF's goals is to be "diverse" and to lessen systemic bias to western nations. Limiting coverage to Western liberal democracies will obviously prevent that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

How does it help the English Misplaced Pages to eliminate practically all English-language sources for about 1 billion English-speakers? There's not an easy answer, here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Much of the editor population vastly underestimates how much of our reader base comes from these regions of the globe.

Formally deprecating sources is a last resort for widely misused stuff like the Daily Mail (arguably part of the issue there was the perceived credibility of a mainstream Western paper subject to strict British libel laws). Simply following and enforcing existing P&G should address the issues adequately.

Furthermore, if one of these Nigerian papers were to come under new and improved management or ownership, I doubt WP would take notice with any real celerity.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a problem with virtually every newspaper published in Nigeria and India. We cannot simply deprecate all news from two of the largest English speaking countries in the world. Or, we could, but we would get called very racist for doing so. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing racist about applying basic standards of reliability to sources. If there are newspapers from Nigeria, or India, or the US, or ... which don't have these issues, then they will be treated as reliable sources. But we shouldn't be afraid to label a source as being unreliable just because someone might shout "racism" without good reason. Allowing unreliable sources just because we want to have more articles about a country is probably the worst thing we could do. Fram (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the damage to the encyclopedia that comes from effectively banning most coverage of two of the most populous countries in the world outweighs the benefit here. We are biased enough towards the West as is. I do not think there are major newspapers in either country without these practices. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Its not bias to refuse to allow falsehoods, it is racist (to my mind) to give them exceptional status. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If it results in a racially biased coverage how is that not racist? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Becasue we allow other African news media, its just that we do not allow, falsehoods. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It still has a disparate impact in a racially biased manner. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No its not, it is based upon lack of truth, no one here has raised race once apart from you. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Whatever the intention banning the entire media ecosystem of a developing country of 230 million people (plus India's 1.43 billion because we would ban them for the same reason) and making our encyclopedia irrelevant to large swathes of the non western world would have a biased outcome - doesn't matter the intention if it gets you the same result. Is that a sacrifice we are willing to accept? Because if so we need to stop pretending we have any interest in "combatting systemic bias". PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion it hasn’t been shown that reliability issues already aren’t being handled at in a nationally disparate manner. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

if these sources want to be accepted as reliable on Misplaced Pages, they should give up their practice of publishing paid news and writing puff pieces for anyone willing to pay. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to be banning every single news source of a country of 230 million, then we should be very aware we are doing it. And possibly throw out all the project's virtue signaling over countering systemic bias along with it, if we decide to go that route. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

We should allow perpetuation of misinformation on Misplaced Pages because it would be racist not to? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It would disproportionately affect the writing and sourcing on articles and topics on highly populated non-Western formerly colonized countries. That’s pretty obviously racist whether it is the right or wrong thing to do (disparate impact or something analogous). If we do it, we will get called racist for it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it but it is reality. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It would affect them by prohibiting bad information from bad sources to be included. Sounds good. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we do the same and ban all news from India? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

We should ban all shitty sources. If that wipes out all of India’s news (I’d sure be surprised) then yes. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't see how it would be preferable to have our coverage of non-Western developing countries be dominated by propaganda, paid-promotion, tabloids, and un-fact-checked reports... JoelleJay (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

No one is suggesting an either-or dichotomy. We should start by enforcing existing policies with regard to usage of these sources on a case by case basis. Mass deprecation was merely an impulsive suggestion someone made somewhere above, and would self-evidently be overkill unless all other options had been exhausted, which they haven’t. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this claim should be presumed true but not notable. The PVSA award is given out annually by any number of authorized NGOs to their own volunteers without any US government involvement, and it does come with a form letter in the president's name. Ononiwu apparently received hers from Innovate Africa Corp. There's no reason any US press to write up such a thing, and there doesn't seem to be a public database of honorees. Note however that Ononiwu should not have been eligible for the award because she's not a US citizen or permanent resident. I guess these newspapers went along with exaggerating the award's prestige, but I don't see it as a major problem for reliability on facts. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it could be worth writing some guidance along the same lines as WP:NEWSORGINDIA, though I'm not sure it rises to the point of a general deprecation yet. Reuters Institute report here might also be helpful in developing such guidance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

As with WP:NEWSORGINDIA Nigerian news sources are full of undisclosed advertorials. It's a common practice, so editors need to be cautious with anything that uses promotional language. Their use for establishing notability needs to be seen in a similar light.

Formally deprecating all Nigerian news media just isn't an option, in the same way deprecating all India news media with the same issue isn't an option. I would support changing the language of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it highlights the same issue in other countries not just India. I doubt this is an issue limited to those markets, and one that will likely become more of an issue everywhere with the difficulties newsedia currently face. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I recall at least one instance of them churning out AI generated puff pieces e.i daily times ng puff piece about Pranav Adani and GPTzero analysis of first 5000 words of it. Oddly enough Daily Times NG is listed as a "generally reliable" source for Nigerian topics at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources.- Ratnahastin (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There's evidence that their promotional articles aren't reliable. But I've yet to see anyone present evidence here that other kinds of news from these sources are unreliable. Does anyone here have evidence of that? If not, I don't see why we'd deprecate these Nigerian news sources in their entirety, and instead I support Hemiauchenia's having added "Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability" to RS/P, perhaps adding something like "especially for promotional news articles." FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Since the PROMO issues seem to be localized particularly to biographies, perhaps we could have guidance similar to what we use at NCORP that calls for heightened Nigerian source scrutiny re: independence when it comes to BLPs. Deprecating them just for BLPs might also be an option. JoelleJay (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I refuse to comment on the instances that led to this proposal because they can happen on a platform with the format adopted by Misplaced Pages. However,  I oppose the proposal to deprecate all Nigerian newspapers on English Misplaced Pages. Applying a blanket judgment based on issues with a few outlets among many is unjust and undermines Misplaced Pages's inclusivity. Nigeria's media landscape, shaped by its diverse population of over 500 languages and 300 ethnic groups, plays a critical role in democracy and accountability.

"While no media is flawless, treating all Nigerian newspapers as unreliable disregards their contributions and efforts to uphold global standards. Media reliability concerns exist worldwide, yet discussion of this nature is sensitive and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through blanket exclusions. Adopting this precedent ensures fairness and avoids marginalizing voices from the Global South.

"I recommend individual evaluations of Nigerian newspapers, involving local expertise and ongoing monitoring, to maintain Misplaced Pages's mission of inclusivity and accuracy. A nuanced approach will preserve diversity and strengthen the platform's credibility."Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes banning falsehoods is a sacrifice I am willing to make, be they from White people black people, or yellow people. As I said about Fiox and the Daily Myth, if you do not want to be accused of telling lies, there is a simpler solution, do not tell them. This is my last response here with a firm not reliable. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind, but it has to be proof and not emotive appeals to (so-called) fairness. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

or yellow people
Uhhh.... JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Obviously meant as in "persons of any color, including colors in which persons don’t exist" and not a reference to the antique Western epithet for East Asians ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not "obvious", even to those of us who have interacted with Slatersteven enough to presume he wasn't intending to use a racial epithet. JoelleJay (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm against this. Nigerian sources, like all sources, are entitled to be evaluated one by one. EEpic (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Nigerian newspapers)

I've gone ahead and created a new section covering Nigerian news organisations at RSP Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Nigerian_news_organisations. It's a bit stubby at the moment but it's at least a start. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources. —A. B. 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but this is by Nigerian editors who ranking Nigerian sources relative to each other. This is different from the standards that non-Nigerian Misplaced Pages editors have for sources. There are serious issues with quality of Nigerian media across the board, as elaborated on in this article: . It's definitely useful to tell the relative quality of Nigerian sources though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

From direct experience, I have not observed Nigerian editors to be somehow inferior to non-Nigerian editors. They’ve been especially insightful in the several Nigeria-related AfDs I’ve participated in. I invite you to go through the more experienced Nigerian editors’ edit histories and see for yourself. —A. B. 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that their judgment is poor or that Nigerian editors are inferior in any way, but that there are issues with Nigerian press across the board, such as low press freedom that is very different from say, news sources in Western Europe and North America, which should be kept in mind with evaluating their content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I encourage you to engage with folks at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria as you develop guidance on Nigerian media. A. B. 21:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I second this. I conversion about Nigeria WP should not be done without Nigerians editors involvement. Just because you found something wrong in some sources that doesn’t give you the right to assume all is bad. I can literally give you examples of where BBC published falsehood, in 2024! So let’s listen to these editors as they are more familiar with these sources. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources can churn out a lot of rubbish once in a while. No matter what anyone says, the likes of Vanguard, Guardian, Daily Times, Punch, Daily Independent, The Sun, etc, would always be notable relating to general issues about Nigeria. Some weeks back, a state in Nigeria held their governorship election. These media houses in question were the source of verified information about the election. When a political appointment is made by the president, it is the same media houses that Misplaced Pages editors would use to establish the claim. If we make them unreliable, it means we are putting an end to Nigerian contents on English Misplaced Pages. These media houses will dish out promotional materials whenever they want and we can do nothing about it (it is business for them). All we can do as Wikipedians is to speedy norminate articles for deletion if they are not notable to be on the Wiki. The major issue we are having now is a result of a loophole in the notability criteria. GNG should not be used ALONE to establish notability. SuperSwift (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

If these media houses(e.g The Daily Times) are churning out AI generated puff pieces then we should indeed add a cautionary clause in the guideline that care must be taken when using these sources to establish notability, especially at venues such as AfD. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

GNG still works. The sources have to be independent. What this means is that in the case of Nigerian media, it's tricky but necessary to try and determine if a particular report is independent of the subject.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Judging articles on a case-by-case basis is something we (Nigerian editors) are already doing and believe it or not, we’re doing a damn good job at it. Deprecating these sources means that articles on Nigerian topics would be deleted in batches——thousands, if I might add——and this doesn’t necessarily reflect the systemic bias we are supposed to be fighting.

There are tells that give off a sponsored/paid article and every Nigerian editor in good standing already knows this and by this, I vehemently disagree with Hemiauchenia that Nigerian editors are not able to distinguish a reliable source from an unreliable source.

Also, I think sometimes, what we consider as “poor journalism” (in the Western standard) are just Nigerian journalist (correctly) using Nigerian English to write articles that it seems like it is promo. This does not mean that undisclosed paid journalism does not happen but sometimes, we confuse the two. So, this is me opposing any form deprecations as this will have unintended consequences. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

If this is something Nigerian editors are already doing then what's wrong in codifying this on RSP? Indian sources engage in same practice and we have a section on RSP that tells users what to look for in order to discount press releases and undisclosed sponsored content when evaluating notability, nothing wrong with having one for the Nigerian media. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin, uhm, if Indian editors did so, someone took the liberty of doing it for us (possible due to our incompetence): WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA; no one is opposing it. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It is true that Nigerian news outlet like their Western counterparts (RSBIAS?) do publish opinions, promotional and advertorials like reliable news without explicitly marking them as much. In fact, this has long history in African media and it is mostly associated with UPE editors who want to create contents for their gain.

Yet, deprecating Nigerian sources is not the solution. It will definitely do more harm than good to the visibility of the most populous black nation on earth. This means that we would have no reliable source to either curate or create contents. This is just an indirect way of saying that Nigerian content is no longer acceptable on English Misplaced Pages. This is because reliable sources are the backbone of contents creation. Prior to this discussion, we have been sending a lot of articles with promotional sources to Nigeria AfD noticeboard. This is what we can do from our end. We can neither stop people creating them nor stop the media from doing their business.

Also, there is currently a section at WP:RSP tagged WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA notifying reviewers and editors of caution in dealing with Nigeria sources. This alongside thorough analysis of Nigerian sources should drastically reduce the promotional articles and create a better future for Nigerian contents on the English Misplaced Pages.Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

We cannot disregard Nigerian sources entirely. Yes, there are issues with some outlets, such as publishing promotional content or reworded press releases, but this isn’t unique to Nigeria. Even in countries with established media systems, there are sources that can’t always be trusted. The solution isn’t to write off all Nigerian sources but to evaluate them individually. Some articles might be biased or promotional, and we can avoid those. However, there are also credible reports and investigative pieces from Nigerian media that meet our standards. By treating each source on a case-by-case basis, we strike a balance, avoiding systemic bias while ensuring the content we use is reliable. A blanket approach would only create more gaps in coverage, which isn’t what we want for Misplaced Pages. And as Reading Beans mentioned, we Nigerian editors are already doing a good work judging sources on a case-by-case basis. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

], the only keep argument is based on just the above "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?". This is why they should not be acceptable because content is being created (and defended) using dubious sources (on the very grounds those sources are being defended here, false allegations of racism or false balance). Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Such a statement from a suspected UPE with limited knowledge around Wp:BIO and Wp:GNG shouldn't hold water let alone be used as a basis or argument for the deprecation of an sources of information. The WikiProject Nigeria volunteer are doing enormous tasks to ensure content that doesn't meet the English Misplaced Pages standard is nominated for deletion. Atibrarian (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, like already stated above, every sources presented in an AfD discussion is analysed carefully. FYI, majority of !delete votes there are Nigerian editors and the only keep !vote there being the paid creator (whom I suspect of UPE). If you can get a deletion discussion where a non-notable article was kept and defend with unreliable sources, I would appreciate it. Like the examples shown, the unreliable of the published articles were always pointed out and the articles were (correctly) deleted. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

No. No. No. my friend, @Reading Beans, I have told you ever and anon that this editor is not into UPE. So STOP THE SUSPICION and even voicing it out. It is affecting the reviewing of my articles. It is a blessing in disguise that my article brought this intense discussion. My take away from here is the guide being created for Nigerian sources and the caution I will employ in future creations. Royalrumblebee (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

What I'm seeing in that AfD, and in the others mentioned that all ended in deletion, is editors using their own good judgement to deal with this issue. Hopefully the new advice at NEWSORGNIGERIA will help encourage other editors to use the same caution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, if someone argues "so you want to dismiss all Nigerian sources?", the response should be "no, we don't. We're rejecting notability based on these specific Nigerian articles, because (a) the articles being used to assert notability all focus on a single "event," (b) the articles are extremely similar and might have been content farmed, especially since they seem overly promotional (e.g., it's not a "prestigous" award, it's solely based on number of hours volunteered and being nominated by a relevant organization), and (c) US government info about the award makes it clear that she's not eligible for that award (as she's not a US citizen or permanent resident), which means that these articles aren't reliable for this content. But the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do you have evidence of the latter? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Which is what Im did say, more than once. To me met with stonewalling "but that's racism" comments (and still am), at which point if the best argument you have is emotive, I have to assume you have no others, thus Im assume its an accepted problem with them. And as this is about "reputation for fact-checking" and the best argument is "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism"...well I have to assume they dio not have said reputation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure what the referent of "them" is in "Im assume its an accepted problem with them."

As for the rest, my argument isn't "well yes they are a bit rubbish, but racism." My argument is "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter. Do you have evidence of the latter?" You still haven't presented any evidence that articles from Nigerian news media are generally unreliable. Either you have evidence for that or you don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

] ]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you actually read those articles? Neither one makes any mention of any of the Nigerian news outlets identified in the OP. The BBC piece is about new websites "established around the time of Nigeria's general elections in February 2023." The SSRC piece is about "the spread of disinformation and how social media has only furthered this spread by providing new, fast-moving arenas for confirming and amplifying such false information" in Nigeria, including uptake by traditional news media, while noting that "The increasing threat to democratic institutions posed by disinformation is a global phenomenon." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Vangaurd and The nation ]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

"This story is part of a series by the BBC on disinformation and fake news - a global problem challenging the way we share information and perceive the world around us," where this particular article focused on the "spread of fake news in Africa" by looking at how five false stories — one each from five African countries, including Nigeria — was picked up by some news media in those countries. Yes, "The Nation and the Vanguard, both published stories with a very similar theme" to one of those false stories, but absolutely nothing in the BBC article suggests that Nigerian news media are generally unreliable. Is there any country globally where the BBC couldn't write an analogous report? For example, another BBC story in this series is "How President Trump took 'fake news' into the mainstream." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You have it in reverse, we judge a source on its reputation for fact-checking, I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not, it down to you to show they do, We do not judge sources based upon how local editors will police pagers, but on the sources alone. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I have shown sources that clearly say (named) sources do not ] No, you haven't. Nothing you cited says anything about their reputation or suggests that they're generally unreliable. If you believe that something you cited provided evidence of general unreliability, please quote what you have in mind. it down to you to show they do I haven't claimed that they have a reputation for fact-checking, so I have no burden to prove that they do (and more generally, if you want me to show something that I've said is true, just quote it, so we're both clear about the claim in question). What I said is (again): "the fact that these specific Nigerian articles aren't reliable doesn't imply that Nigerian articles are generally unreliable. I've yet to see anyone here present evidence of the latter." Fram proposed "to formally deprecate these newspapers," and you responded with "a firm not reliable." Since you're claiming that they're generally unreliable, you have a burden to show that they're generally unreliable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I finally dug up an old AfD comment I'd made after reading a bunch of literature on Nigerian sources:Nigerian newspapers in particular are well known to flout broadcasting rules on paid advertising. Professor Omenugha describes a similar trend in the print media: “In the newspapers, the so called specialised pages of the property, IT and computer businesses and finance pages are prime examples of commercialised spaces. The point is that no attempt is made to let the audience or readers know that these spaces are paid for and they end up holding them as sacred as they would news”. Some journalists also work as paid consultants to politicians and businesses thus threatening professionalism. AIT’s Amarere says it is demeaning to journalism as “some of the concerned journalists now work for companies through which they obtain jobs. They cover their track by saying they are staff of this or that company and run offices outside the newsroom. In this situation it is difficult to balance profession with commercial interest”. "Awards" issued by media are also considered corrupt. “The awards are not free, they are for money and anything that comes with a prize has implications”, says Olumide Adeyinka-Fusika, a lawyer. “If a newspaper names a bank as the best bank of the year and the bank is later indicted for corruption, that newspaper will not be willing to publish the story because that will be like passing a vote of no confidence on their own judgement”. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Here are some other references: chapter "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome" For example, such practices as pack journalism by beat associations of journalists which operate like cartels, the payment of protection fees by reputation managers of institutions, the granting of awards of dubious credibility to non deserving individuals and organisations are some of the ways in which corruption manifests in the media.Nigerian media and corrupt practicesEven though over 64 % of those sampled believed that acceptance of any form of gratifications was unethical, over 75 % of the
journalists engage in corrupt practices with impunity. More than half of the 18 media outfits covered by the study are indifferent to certain identified corrupt practices in their organizations.The Nigerian Press, Brown Envelope Syndrome (BES), and Media ProfessionalismAdewale (2008), in his "The Rot in Nigerian Journalism Is Much Deeper Than We Thought" cited a controversial statement by Graham Greene to back up his position thus: "A petty reason perhaps why novelists more and more try to keep a distance from journalists is that novelists are trying to write the truth and journalists are trying to write fiction". This embarrassing irony aptly describes the state of Nigerian journalism and journalists in particular.Deep rot in NigeriaIn its mildest form, press releases are published almost verbatim. Reporters either have an agreement with the government media men and are ‘settled’ with money, or threatened they will not be paid what is known as ‘qua”, or ‘mobilisation”. Some papers don’t pay salaries, and journalists have to make what they can on commission. In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men. Newspapers have a straight conflict of interest, they are financially reliant on political adverts, full-page colour hagiographies to governors and other political players. Last year, one paper alone took an estimated £270,000 in advertisements on one edition from supporters of former military ruler Ibrahim Babangida, celebrating his birthday. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we need something similar to User:Ms Sarah Welch/sandbox/Paid news and private treaties for Nigerian media as well. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@JoelleJay the "Corruption in the Nigerian media: the brown envelope syndrome" is an auto-expiring link that doesn't let anyone else use it. Could you provide a better link/where you found the original link? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Clicking the link from this should work. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

All seriousness aside, In its more malevolent form, journalists are all but owned by powerful men - those powerful men should just buy the newspaper or hell even a whole media empire to rebroadcast their personal opinions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I was pointed to this discussion by @Axad12 after a similar discussion when I ran across Bella Disu. It does seem like much of Nigerian media simply writes whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay for. It seems like these sources should simply be banned except in cases where it is clear that the article was not purchased. 🄻🄰 00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

unhelpful ChatGPT wall of text

My humble take and summary from these deep debates: Analysis of Nigerian Newspapers as Sources for Misplaced Pages Articles The reliability of Nigerian newspapers as sources for Misplaced Pages articles—particularly in Biographies of Living People (BLPs)—has ignited considerable debate within the Misplaced Pages editing community. A complex interplay of skepticism regarding the veracity of these sources and the recognition of systemic biases in coverage dynamics has led to high-stakes discussions. This report delves into the characteristics of Nigerian newspapers that contribute to their portrayal as unreliable, as well as those that underscore their potential value as information sources, and the broader implications for Misplaced Pages's commitment to inclusivity and diverse representation. Characteristics Leading to Distrust Nigerian newspapers often face criticism for their propensity to publish promotional content, undisclosed advertorials, and sensibly sensationalized reporting. This trend raises significant concerns regarding the integrity of journalism in the country. A primary issue is the commercial influence on editorial decisions, wherein advertising dollars can lead to the suppression of unfavorable stories or the propagation of misleading information to satisfy financial backers. High-profile examples, such as the case of a female personality—where numerous Nigerian news outlets reported unverified claims regarding an award from America—underscored the media’s failure to provide corroborative sources from outside Nigeria. Such instances not only reveal a troubling trend toward questionable journalism but also invite closer scrutiny of the claims made by various outlets. The environment fostered by these publications has seen a shift toward prioritizing clickable, viral content over factual reporting. This prioritization can obscure quality journalism and make it increasingly difficult for both editors and readers to discern credible information from misleading narratives. Such practices contribute significantly to the stigma that Nigerian newspapers face in the eyes of the Misplaced Pages community. Reliability in Context While there exists a notable trend of unreliable reporting among many Nigerian newspapers, it is critical to contextualize this within the broader media landscape of Nigeria. Not all publications succumb to dubious practices; several outlets continue to uphold high journalistic standards, successfully publishing well-researched investigative reports and reliable coverage of current events. For instance, reputable newspapers often play an essential role in reporting on significant political developments, including elections, thereby contributing positively to public discourse. From the perspective of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for sourcing (specifically WP:RSNP), engaging in a case-by-case assessment of sources is pivotal. This approach emphasizes the necessity for editors well-versed in the Nigerian media landscape to identify which sources maintain their integrity and contribute substantively to Misplaced Pages’s mission. A blanket rejection or deprecation of all Nigerian sources would, therefore, overlook the valuable contributions that some publications make, ultimately hampering the representation of Nigerian voices in global discourse. Recommendations for Misplaced Pages Editors 1. Develop Specific Guidelines: Create detailed guidelines akin to those for other regions, such as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. This document should articulate the acceptable use of Nigerian sources while pinpointing common issues like promotional materials and the nature of reporting practices. Such clarity will assist editors in evaluating sources effectively. 2. Engage Local Expertise: Encourage the involvement of Nigerian editors in determining the reliability of local sources. Their unique insights can significantly enhance the community's understanding of the nuances of language and reporting styles prevalent in Nigeria. 3. Enforce Critical Scrutiny: Emphasize the importance of thorough evaluations of articles from Nigerian newspapers, particularly regarding BLPs. Editors and reviewers should be trained to recognize promotional language and ensure the use of independent, verifiable sources. 4. Adapt to Changes in Media Landscape: Continuously monitor and research the evolving landscape of Nigerian media, documenting improvements in journalistic integrity and the emergence of new, credible news organizations. This ongoing reassessment will allow Misplaced Pages policies regarding sourcing to adapt in line with current practices. 5. Maintain a Balance in Coverage: While it is essential to prioritize accurate information and avoid systemic bias, it is equally crucial to reflect the diverse perspectives from non-Western countries. Dismissing all Nigerian sources could marginalize important voices, undermining Misplaced Pages's mission of being a comprehensive encyclopedia. Finally, the integration of Nigerian newspapers into Misplaced Pages remains a multifaceted challenge that requires a balanced approach acknowledging both their shortcomings and their capacity for delivering credible information. By applying informed scrutiny and developing nuanced guidelines, Misplaced Pages can adeptly navigate the complexities involved in sourcing from Nigerian media while committing to enhancing its inclusivity and representation in global knowledge sharing. Royalrumblebee (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC) That's not "your humble take", that's a bloated ChatGPT-generated regurgitation of this discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment pretty much everything has already been said; the news media in Nigeria seem to be in the habit of puffing everyone and everything. As with the Indian news sources, we almost have to evaluate each news story on a case-by-case basis. We can keep Nigerian sources, but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability. The sources in the country are in the habit of puffy reporting, we just have to learn to use them. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'd be ok if we create a policy similar to the NewsOrgIndia ... We allow the sources, but to be taken with a grain of salt. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  See WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. What did you mean by “…but if we can find coverage from outside of the area, it helps show notability.”? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Hemiauchenia's addition of WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA is helpful but the link to the unvetted WikiProject list is not, in my opinion. It lists, for example, This Day as "reliable" which is the publication I made a thread about which seemed to have drawn the conclusion to disregard promo and use with caution. It also lists pretty much every newspaper which reported inaccurately sparking this thread as "reliable"

  Beyond the issue of promo, Reporters Without Borders state "Nigeria is one of West Africa’s most dangerous and difficult countries for journalists, who are regularly monitored, attacked and arbitrarily arrested, as was the case during the 2023 elections." 🄻🄰 10:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  @लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक What sort of opinionated and unstructured comment did you just make? What do you mean by "unvetted WikiProject list"? Do you, by any chance, know the efforts I and few other editors who are Nigerians have put to bring up that list? Please be careful when making comments, especially when the topic has to do with one you're not entirely familiar with. As far as I am concerned, you cannot call a list which I have put efforts in contributing to "unvetted", the comment is not only unreasonable but also incorrect.

  I couldn't locate the thread you linked but whatever you brough up there are your opinion. I know the efforts I have been putting at AfD when it comes to Nigerian sources. Be careful, please, with all due respect.

  In a more general note, this thread is not going anywhere, This Day is a reliable source of information whether anyone "who is not a Nigerian" likes it or not, in fact, any source listed in the WikiProject as reliable is indeed reliable. The Herald, Guardian, New York Times, and other UK or US papers all publish nonsense piece as well, no one is permitted to call Nigerian sources unreliable because there are only a few Nigerian editors? I can't tell. I guess when this thread was initiated it was thought that there'd be no editor to oppose. SMH. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  The link they are referring to has been archived, see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 460#This Day on Bella Disu.
  In regard to who is not a Nigerian There are many non-Nigerians who don't agree with the comment that started this thread. I both support and encourage projects to maintain there own sources lists, as they most likely to have knowledge of that particular area, but they are subject to WP:CONLEVEL and so from to time discussions like this will happen. The net result of this discussion has been WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, which only writes down the advice that has been given in many other discussions.

  If any editor wants to discuss a particular source they believe has issue outside of what's already covered by WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA I suggest they start a new section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested last time we discussed This Day, you pointed out that they have a tag for advertorials. Currently, top of the advertorials is this article about a former governor's successor's parents visiting him. As you noted, there is no indication on the article that this is an advertorial and it looks like a normal news item. This one is also also in the advertorials category with no indication on the article.

  How can this be a reliable source when advertorials are completely indistinguishable from reporting? 🄻🄰 15:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Because otherwise it would result in the making all news organisations in multiple countries completely unusable, and it wouldn't be limited to India and Nigeria. Such undisclosed advertorials are common in a lot of countries, and will likely become more common not less due to the changes effecting news media across the globe. It wouldn't help to improve the encyclopedia by saying that such vast swathes of the news media are generally unreliable, and in many ways that isn't a fit description for the sources. They are reliable for many things, but not for the promotional nature of these advertorials.

  As has been said before the AfDs show that noone is being fooled. Editors are correctly spotting when this is happening and acting accordingly. Promo content being added to Misplaced Pages is certainly not an issue limited to these countries, just look to all the reputation management companies found elsewhere.

  Ultimately it's what effect should be had. We don't want those advertorials being used to add promo content to Misplaced Pages, that is achieved by WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. So do we need to class all those news media organisations as generally unreliable, will that help to improve the encyclopedia? I very much doubt it would. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Are they? How are they being spotted? For example, see Eko Heritage Awards - there are many sources here but every single one of them appears more dubious than the two advertorial examples linked above. For an active AfD, see Misters of Nigeria. It was moved out of drafts by an editor who is now blocked and the editors voting keep simply insist that the sources are reliable without any evaluation. 🄻🄰 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  (Pinging you is difficult) Let me be blunter, you deletion rationale in that AfD Sources all appear to be WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA is not only unappealing but also vague. Why? you simply said that "ALL" of them are NEWSORGNIGERIA without telling us what analysis you did that made you come to that conclusion. I figured since we're not doing anything in-dept here, it would make sense to also tell you, since this area is my expertise, that the subject clear-cut passed GNG. If you did any analysis and showed it, then we'd be discussing what you analysed and not something else. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  I do not get the impression that advertorials are regularly passed off as real news in countries with strong protections for journalism. What the academic papers I linked earlier were emphasizing is that Nigeria has a striking systematic problem with unethical journalism that goes beyond what is seen in respectable broadsheets (the "brown envelope syndrome" being one example) and appears to affect all major outlets. The last link talks about an egregious political advert for Babangida's birthday that ran in the Daily Trust—listed as generally reliable—and characterizes the newspapers as being reliant upon such revenue sources. Some of the other journals note that several newspapers don't even pay their journalists; surely at least those should be considered generally unreliable? JoelleJay (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not sure why you're responding with so much emotion. It would be better to discuss this dispassionately. Your reply doesn't actually explain why a publication like This Day, which publishes disguised promotions, should be viewed as reliable. @JoelleJay also provides very compelling evidence above which has not been rebutted. 🄻🄰 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe the rather emotionally charged use of "unvetted" to describe another editors work had something to do with it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  So, my reply is emotional to you, and you think I am dispassionate, lol. I'll entirely ignore this your comment. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

People may defend WP:RSNG, but when I see that e.g. The Nation is considered "generally reliable" but publishes (with a byline!) e.g. this pure promo drivel (used in a new article here, not something I went looking for especially), then it is hard to take that list or the defense of it seriously. It turns out to be (at least in part) a copy of a four year old article from the Vanguard, not some actual journalistic effort by the Nation, but how could one tell? Fram (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose blanket ban. The proponents of the ban have failed to actually demonstrate that all Nigerian newspapers have always been unreliable. As far as I can see, the evidence presented does not, for example, give any indication that the Lagos Daily News or the Daily Times were unreliable in 1925. In fact, they do not even appear to have been mentioned. This source, actually cited above, claims that the quality of Nigerian newspapers was better before the internet. This source, also cited above, only applies to the South-West geo-political zone, and not the other five geo-political zones (something not mentioned above). We need to take one newspaper at a time, and we need to look beyond the last five minutes. James500 (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • There has been no proposal to blanket ban all Nigerian Newspapers, so you are bold opposing a strawman. Fram (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Expressions such as "isn't it time to formally deprecate these newspapers" do look like proposals for a blanket ban. Everyone else in this thread seems to think that this is a proposal for a blanket ban. If you are not proposing a blanket ban, perhaps you should rephrase your comments in grammatically and semantically correct plain language that other people can actually understand. Anyway, in view of the statement that there is no proposal for a blanket ban, I have struck my !vote. James500 (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I too, interpreted it as a blanket ban, and it's clear from people's comments that many other people did as well. Glad to know that that's not what you meant. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I would support RSNG in that I would support projects creating source lists. How specific sources are listed on RSNG is first a matter of discussion at the project level (as the list is only at the project level), and RSN if there is no agreement there. This is the same for all project level lists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Brainstorming RfCs

It is clear that referring to the overly optimistic Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources is not a good approach to determine the current reliability of some Nigerian newspapers. If we were to reconsider the status of e.g. The Sun (Nigeria), to list it as e.g. "generally unreliable", what question should be posted in an RfC? Should we first try to find a cut-off date (i.e. "no longer generally reliable from year X on")? Are the above examples and reports sufficient, or is more needed? Or would it be easier to change WP:RSNP, correcting "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability. Wikiproject Nigeria has assembled a list of sources that they consider reliable/unreliable: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources." to "As such, Nigerian news coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability and verifiability", adding "verifiability" and removing the link to the project-based list? Fram (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I think correcting WP:RSNP is a good start, simply by undoing this edit which there clearly wasn't agreement to add. 🄻🄰 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

What to include or not include on the RSP (outside of the results of discussions at RSN) are probably best discussed at the RSP talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It was WP:BOLDly added without discussion, though, so I've removed it for now as a first step. --Aquillion (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that editing the section be done this way. RSP is no different from any other page, edit, discuss on talk page, then third opinion or noticeboard. Exact wording in the section doesn't immediately necessitate an RFC unless there is unresolvable differences of opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest against one RFC to cover all the sources, unless there is a very specific question about the sources (more specific than 'are they reliable?'), as it will likely result in a train wreck.

If the issue is just to add 'and verifiability', or removing the project link, I would suggest just doing it. Consensus is first built through editing, and the RSP is no different in that matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Whatever way the discussion goes it, I suggest an RFC should be in a completely new section. RSN gets overloaded, and this section is already very large. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. Fram (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I have been reading old RfCs about unreliable medias to reference. Many of these discussions start with a blanket question. For example: "Is The Sun (Nigeria)

1. Generally reliable
2. Additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable
4. Deprecated"

From there, editors can make their own arguments so if there should be a cut-off date for reliability. I think we can start with the more egregious media with examples and those who do not view them as unreliable should make the argument for why and when they should be considered reliable. 🄻🄰 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

If the TechCabal article is correct, then Nigerian newspapers were better before the internet. This might not apply to The Sun (Nigeria), which began publication in 2001. One of the earliest accounts of "brown envelopes" dates to the Second Republic (1979 to 1983): . On a search of Google Books, I found no references to "brown envelopes" in Nigeria in any book published before 1983. I found no more than 8 such references in books published before 1990, and 5 of those were from 1989: . In the absence of further evidence, I think we could take 1979 as a complete cut off point. Even after that, the evidence is not unequivocal. The study from 1984 says that NAN journalists may not be as corrupt as journalists are depicted: . And the claims of bribery during the Republic seem to relate more to government journalists, than to independent newspapers. The sources also suggest that Next (Nigeria) was more reliable. James500 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Jeff Sneider / The InSneider

Used for many claims throughout pages for CBM movies, such as The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Superman (2025 film), Kraven the Hunter (film), and Peter Parker (The Amazing Spider-Man film series), including those which are otherwise unverifiable like Victor von Doom appearing in the first or that Spider-Man was supposed to appear in Madame Web (film) but was cut.

I really do not see why his claims is so widely allowed and accepted as fact, even though he is undoubtedly more reliable than random blogs or posts on Twitter he's still a journalist making claims without evidence. I would like to establish here definitively if we continue to site theinsneider.com as a source, as we currently do in many articles. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I did a Google News search and when other outlets report his stuff it is described as a rumour or "reportedly". He is also described as a "scooper". I don't think most of that should be used on Misplaced Pages because of NOTNEWS. Rumours about media that haven't been released yet aren't even news yet. Does he say that he got his info from a source? Then it should be attributed to that source. It also looks like a SPS. So everything sourced to him should be attributed, but even then it probably shouldn't be used. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Right now, much of what is sourced to him is just taken as face value, for example Doom is listed in the cast for the Fantastic Four movie without clarification that it's based off a claim by him. My changes to remove such information from the pages were undone, so there seems to be some ambiguity if he is currently accepted as a RS. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

For any stories about named people (e.g. casting), WP:BLPSPS would probably bar use of this source, since he's self-published. His record on this is at best mixed from a quick search. For example, he reported that Sydney Sweeney would be starring in a new Johnny Depp film, which was swiftly denied, kept posting that it was true, and then a few months later, Penelope Cruz was announced as the co-star.

I did some digging and apparently he made a recent post, copied here, , in which he says This may speak to my own reckless vanity, but I’d rather be wrong sometimes than sit on 100 accurate stories and stand idly by and watch as Nellie Andreeva breaks every single one of them. Yes, it’s nauseating to get a story wrong — seriously, it makes me sick to my stomach — but it’s an even worse feeling when you don’t report something and then get beat by the competition. If that's his attitude to reporting, then it would probably be best if we don't use him for non-BLP subjects as well. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I've removed everything that clearly failed WP:BLPSPS and tried to beef up non-BLP uses of this (e.g. filming dates, projects in development) with better sources that cite his work. Honestly most reputable don't really cite him and hedge by using "rumoured" or "reportedly" and cannot corroborate. Definitely not an ideal source and probably runs afoul of WP:NOTGOSSIP, especially if not picked up by better sources citing him at all. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 07:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

In the future it would be appreciated if you notified other editors of such a discussion rather than going on what I would describe as a deletion rampage, making dozens of edits to remove a source that is widely deemed to be reliable. Sneider clearly meets the SME requirement at WP:SELFPUB, he is a long time film and entertainment journalist whose work has previously been published by various reliable sources. The fact that he is now self-publishing his reporting does not now make him unreliable, which is what the wording at SELFPUB caters for. If you take issue with specific claims he has made or the wording of specific claims then the place to discuss those is at the talk pages of the articles in question, not here where the majority of editors will never see it. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I have notified editors at WP:FILM, WP:TV, WP:MCU, DC Universe (franchise), and Sony's Spider-Man Universe. I think that should cover all the articles impacted so far by this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

For a lot of these pages, the relevant policy isn't WP:SELFPUB, but WP:BLPSPS, since the InSneider is self publishing reporting about living people (e.g. A didn't role B, C got fired because of D, E might be in F). BLPSPS is a bright-line rule and while WP:IAR exists, superhero movie rumours isn't going to justify that. This is especially true when non-selfpublished exist to cover the same claims or when WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies.

For example, your revert at Black Widow (2021 film) restored The InSneider when the material in the sentence is already fully supported by the already cited The Hollywood Reporter piece and your revert at X-Men '97 restored material alleging very specific allegations of sexual misconduct with young men that is corroborated by independent sources . I've reverted the latter given the serious BLP issues there.

It's less of an issue when the BLP-connection is less direct such as when it's talking about a film production in general (e.g. G starts filming in H, I was delayed to J, K is in development at L), but even SELFPUB recommends replacing with better sources when possible and I highlighted some reliability issues with Sneider above.

I have also notified WP:BLPN since this touches on BLPSPS. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting that there is a very big distinction between Sneider's pieces written for Collider and other RS and those he written on his own blog. He speculates much more and gives unverified, evidence-free information on his blog than he does when working with publications, and he isn't impeded by an editor or journalistic oversight in his own website.

If you want to see proof that Sneider has made false and provably false claims on his own website before, then there's compilations of all the time he has made false claims thanks to the people at the subreddit for Marvel spoilers. Among the falsehoods he has promoted on his site include that the Fantastic Four movie would start filming in March, that Adam Driver was cast as Doom, that Jack Quaid was cast as Johnny Storm, and that Tom Holland was going to appear as a full role in Across the Spider-Verse. Sneider should be used in articles only when he is writing for reliable sources, otherwise we are inviting unsourced and oftentimes completely imagined speculation on our pages. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow, so he's basically correct about 2/3 of the time. Not terrible, I guess for online postings, but this would seem to fall well-short for WP:SELFPUB purposes, much less making an exception for WP:BLPSPS. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should be letting some people from a Reddit community dictate what they think is true or false to determine notability on this encyclopedia. I understand Sneider gets a bad rap from some people and in the press, but he does qualify as a WP:Subject-matter expert in the field of entertainment news. I am subscribed to his newsletter and Sneider does a pretty good job clarifying what he is actually reporting from what are his own opinions and beliefs. A lot of what he says in his newsletter tends to be blown out of proportion or taken out of context, and not everything pans out in the film industry. For the Sydney Sweeney thing, I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart and thus, Cruz came onboard, not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading. A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions (because they get ad revenue from major companies involved) but Sneider has a good track record of reporting on industry details, deals, and events as they are in progress, which goes for the Fantastic Four castings and Black Widow. I have been working on adding third-party sources for some of his recent newsletter issues being cited to help make verifying his reports easier, though this takes time. I do not agree with removing his published articles from Collider, Variety, or his newsletter outright as we cannot disregard a source simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT or you don't believe in it. We go by WP:Verifiability, not truth, and report all the facts as presented, which is how an encyclopedia ought to be. I have not found any instances to my immediate recollection where editors cited a Sneider report only for it to be proven intentionally wrong or misleading. The Madame Web report was not disputed or debunked, and the recent reports of Superman and Beyond the Spider-Verse have since been clarified as a matter of semantics, not actually being intentional false news reporting on Sneider's part. A lot of what he says is regurgitated through aggregators and social media which tends to be less reliable or transparent than what he actually says in his newsletter or on his podcast The Hot Mic. I would not go as far as to say Sneider's newsletter reporting is "speculation", as he is an independent working journalist with 20+ years of experience in this profession. He knows his stuff but gets a lot of bad publicity from his social media activity and because some of his reporting hits a nerve with select communities. I would consider him a reliable source, but with clarification needed to specify when he is making an educated guess or providing an opinion alongside what he is reporting from his industry sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, because @Tinynanorobots questioned what Sneider's sources are, I suppose it ought to be explained that every journalist gets their information from sources. These individuals are usually people who work within the industry they are reporting about, so they are often talent agents, managers, PR workers, producers, involved creatives in a production, etc. who have first-hand information and provide information as a tip to a journalist. Most of these sources prefer to remain anonymous, so we cannot just find who his sources are to verify their tips. That's just not how this industry works. Filming schedules and castings change all the time, so to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false, and if you have any reliable sources saying Sneider specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report, that should be presented rather than just going off of some editors' opinions of a controversial figure. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Anonymously-sourced reporting obviously can be used in RSs, but you're not really making a strong case for reliability and encyclopedic quality by defending Sneider with to say his reporting on Fantastic Four's filming and casting process and the Holland-Across the Spider-Verse appearance are definitive "falsehoods" is a WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS concern because no sources said these were absolutely false,. In respect to the Holland thing, it's not a good look to be confidently stating things about major casting at the tail end of February 2023 that then don't pan out upon release in at the end of May that year. Maybe he was right at the time, though no one else has corroborated this from what I can tell, but even then he would've published too early given he was ultimately wrong.

specifically intentionally lied or reported an intentionally false report would meet the standard for defamation of a public figure, but it isn't the standard for assessing if a particular source is reliable or a good indicator of if something is encyclopedic. If someone gets a lot of stuff wrong in good faith, they're still not reliable, especially in WP:BLPSPS situations. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 05:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, using anonymous sources is common in journalism, but is not standard. The standard is to cite their sources. Sure, NYT and WaPo don't always follow their own guidelines on anonymous sources. Usually such guidelines involve mentioning that the information is from an anonymous source and giving clues as to the credibility of the source. When including information from anonymous sources, wikipedia should follow suite. If the NYT cites a "source close to the president" for a claim, the wikipedia article should also mention a "source close to the president" So how much info does Sneider give?

Also, information should be verified. This might involve asking another source if they object to the publication of the information. Also, really, the studio should be asked to comment. If there is not a comment from the studio or a line saying that comment was sought, then best practices have not been followed.

The idea that Sneider is a SME is questionable. The reporting in question seems to be a matter of insider knowledge not expertise. Basically, people are leaking the information to Sneider or gossiping to him about who will get the part. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI, we are also not here to be WP:Righting great wrongs. It is completely acceptable to note what an SME reports about an industry topic they have been covering for two decades now. The reports should be judged on a case-by-case basis to determine if Sneider has ever actually intentionally made any false or misleading statements and passed them off as a report directly by himself, and not by sheer opinion or a lack of or misunderstanding of the filmmaking process and journalistic procedures. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if he is 100% correct (which he isn't), none of his tweets and InSneider reports can be used per WP:BLPSPS to verify anything about living people since they are self-published. There's presumably no issue with his work in non-self-published sources with editorial control like Collider, but for the self-published stuff in respect to living people (e.g. castings, cut scenes, staffing), Misplaced Pages has a bright line rule against it. The only stuff that is even allowed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for self-published stories would be for instances where it's being used for stuff that is general enough to not really implicate BLP (e.g. filming schedules, runtime, episode length). -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 05:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The whole sum of BLPSPS is that no self-published blogs may be used. Sneider's publishing is via a newsletter and is part of his job as a journalist. In what ways are his newsletter reports violating any core and basic BLP policies or how are they of a major concern to it beyond the X-Men '97 allegations. A lot of journalists nowadays are posting on their own outside of major trades or news organizations because those options have become more prevalent to do so. Anonymous sourcing is also how all journalists operate, so if we say journalists who post on their own cannot be cited as reliable sources for doing their job without disclosing their sources and having a company watch over them, that sets a very bad precedent for the freedom of the press and what we actually allow to be included, let alone mentioned, in this encyclopedia. If it applies to Sneider, it ought to apply to all self-published journalists and newsletters, and I don't see how that could go well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a misreading of BLPSPS, which says: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts— (emphasis added). Unless there's a clear organizational structure (e.g. 404 Media), most newsletters are little more than self-published blogs. There's tons of great journalists with their own newsletters that I think are most likely reliable that I would love to cite (though Sneider may not be one of them), but BLPSPS is crystal clear on this front and for good reason. If you want to start a new discussion somewhere (here, WP:BLPN WT:BLP, etc.) on whether we should move to a case-by-case basis for journalistic SPSs, you can do that, but until then BLPSPS is policy and can't be overridden by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Don't really care about the anonymous sources issue, since that is an accepted norm for journalists. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 07:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Not all of the instances of Sneider's reports are about people themselves. They are primarily about the Hollywood projects which naturally involve people's jobs and castings. I fail to see how a technicality should prevent us from using a decent source at all. If the issue is of verification, find a third-party source verifying the report. This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This should not be the place to determine what ought to be changed with a policy, this is to determine if the journalist is reliable or not., so we ought to stick to that. The InSneider can be separately assessed for reliability for any claims not about living people, but as WP:BLP makes clear in the first sentence, it applies regardless of if the article is a biography or not, so the fact that Sneider is cited on movie articles is immaterial in respect to WP:BLPSPS.

There's been multiple discussions on this noticeboard about Substack and other newsletters involving much more prominent journalists than Sneider and the consensus has always been that BLPSPS bars their use in respect to living people unless the publication has editorial oversight and a reputation for reliability (e.g. Glenn Greenwald , David Sirota , Matt Taibbi , in general )

I don't object to the underlying facts per say if they are indeed verifiable through third-party sources. I did try to find non-self-published sources that independently corroborated what Sneider reported, and replaced InSneider with them when I did. I only removed when I was unable to do so. WP:BLPRESTORE makes it clear that the onus to restore material removed for BLP issues is on those who want to restore it to do so in a policy-compliant way, which seems unlikely since nothing in this section has challenged the individually self-published nature of InSneider. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 21:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your lengthy examination of Sneider as a reliable source. I think a potential compromise that I hope the editors here could agree on- is to restructure all current citations to his self-published website so that it clearly states that it is journalist Jeff Sneider reporting. The example on The Fantastic Four: First Steps that spurred me to open up this discussion in the first place, for example:

Additionally, the character Mole Man is expected to appear, and Robert Downey Jr. is expected to appear as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.

could be reworded to:

Journalist Jeff Sneider reported in 2024 that the character Mole Man is expected to appear, as well as Robert Downey Jr. as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene.

This would be done for every single citation that uses his personal site. I see your arguments defending his inclusion as a verifiable source, but I also feel as the central issue here- that a lot of pages take him at face value as equivalent to official news from Deadline or Marvel Studios themselves, should still be rectified. We could also add him to the RS list as a source that can be used in the articles with attribution only.

Thoughts? @Trailblazer101 @Patar knight @Adamstom.97 HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

For anything that involves stories about living people, this would be BLP violation, attribution or not, since The InSneider is a self-published source and that's barred by WP:SPS. If no other sources are writing about it besides a self-published report from Sneider, that's a good indicator that we shouldn't include it on Misplaced Pages. Attribution for stuff like "Mole Man" might be okay depending on Sneider's reliability and how tied that is to a specific actor in the text. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 06:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I support attribution being applied to Sneider's reports, and most of the instances where his reports are used already do this in prose while third-party refs are being added to them. The BLP violation reads to me like a bit of a stretch with semantics itself and could probably be re-evaluated when it comes to journalists reporting as part of their job. Reporting on allegations should not be a reason to be barred as a source when major news outlets do the same. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Reporting on allegations a reason to be barred as a source is a straw man. Major news outlets have a reputation for fact checking and reliability, while Sneider has had multiple confirmed reports not pan out. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 07:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Which ones have not panned out? Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Sweeny, Lindelof, and Holland make at least three incorrect reports in approximately a year. If I did more spot checks from the spreadsheet, there would probably be more. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, not everything in Hollywood pans out. That does not mean the reports were false. Unless other independent sources confirmed they were false, you are assuming they were not true, which draws into some dangerous POV issues here on your apparent bias. I have asked you to provide sources which confirm Sneider's reports were false, and you have provided none of the sort. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Lots of stuff in all kinds of different fields don't pan out. However, if a source often reports things as confirmed and they don't pan out, there's a reliability/jumping the gun issue and its starts falling into unencyclopedic WP:RUMOUR territory. The end result is that Sneider either misjudged how correct the story originally was or how likely that status quo was going to remain. If you look at the Deadline and Variety archives, they only reported on certainties in respect to the Sweeey/Holland/Lindelof stories (i.e. Cruz hiring/nothing/hiring and departure).

Genuine question, does Sneider ever issue corrections/retractions or do retrospectives on why he got stories wrong? Obviously sometimes reliable sources get it wrong, and the proper thing to do in that case is to issue corrections/retractions.

I think I've seen only even heard of Sneider once before (when the X-Men '97/Beau DeMayo story was happening) so to accuse me of bias is wild when you've created a position where it is functionally unfalsifiable that Sneider could ever be wrong. If it pans out, he was correct. If it doesn't, he was correct but things changed afterwards, despite in many cases no reliable sources backing up his original story. Sneider isn't important enough for something like the Columbia Journalism Review or an an actual reliable source to investigate his methods and he uses anonymous sources (which isn't an issue in and of itself) so it's essentially impossible to prove if any of his reports are false in a way that would satisfy you. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that is an argument for waiting until things are officially announced, before putting them in the article. The problem isn't Sneider, but the kind of reporting that he is doing. He is reporting other people's predictions. He also isn't a SME. He is a reporter that chases leads and reports what may be hearsay or leaks or outright lies by his sources. He is reporting on Hollywood, after all. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@HadesTTW: I just saw that you pinged me in this message. I agree that a good resolution here would be to add Sneider to the RS list as an SME for entertainment reporting as long as he is attributed, and potentially with the caveat that his self-published sources should be replaced with non-self-published sources if available. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You can spot check the examples used and some definitely seem to hold up as poor reporting. Besides the Holland/Across the Spider-Verse example I discussed above another one I spot checked was this comment made March 9, 2023, in which Sneider says it's 100% confirmed that Damon Lindelof's Star Wars film would be coming out in December 2025 film. On March 21, 2023, Lindelof's departure is announced.

I am subscribed to his newsletter Can you confirm if the quotation from the post I cited is correct then? It matched the title of this post from InSneider and it went unchallenged in the thread and seemed to match the style from what I've found.

not everything pans out in the film industry., I read that as the actress either being in talks or close to a deal but it likely fell apart...not that it was somehow false or intentionally misleading. and A lot of the major trades do not cover every aspect of these film productions. I don't think Sneider is maliciously creating false reports or anything, but if he's reporting too early on things that aren't confirmed yet while the major trade publications are reporting when it's certain, that does not bode well for his reliability nor for the encyclopedic value of his coverage (WP:NOTNEWS).

removing his published articles from Collider, Variety Pretty sure no one here is suggesting that. The main issue is WP:BLPSPS and then reliability as a WP:SPS. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Sneider's report and those quotes are correct from his newsletter. I have no idea what "thread" you are referring to, but a lot can change and happen in the 12 days between Sneider saying Lindelof's film was confirmed for that release and when Lindelof ultimately exited the film. That's just how Hollywood, and all of business, pans out. You can't seriously hold that against Sneider to say his statement is false when Disney's Star Wars films have pretty much languished with development hell issues for years. Even major trades report on projects in early development and when directors or writers are in talks. That's just what the trades do. They report on the production process, which is always in flux. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation. I copied the quotation from a Reddit thread from a film podcast subreddit which I linked in my comment above. I dealt with how the other trades operate and the issues with using Sneider for the truth of what he's reporting above, so I won't repeat them here. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 22:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty, I wrote the below on The Acolyte (TV series) and I'm copying this below.

Jeff Sneider being used as a source in Hollywood reporting.
Jeff Sneider's reports, found in his TheInSneider blog and also Above the Line, have been covered in several other reliable sources. His career besides his self-published blog: He has had two notable tenures at TheWrap, and in between those two tenures, he had a stint at Variety covering the film industry. This is confirmed here, with information here on his tenure at Variety. Collider also has him listed as Senior Film Reporter, and says he did work at Ain't It Cool News before his venture into trade publications, and at one point he contributed reports for Mashable.

These following perennial sources have cited his self-published blog, exemplifying WP:USEBYOTHERS:

• Forbes, including here and here

Forbes describes him here as, "Jeff Sneider, an industry insider and reporter", and covers his reporting, even providing a link to another site he contributes to, Above the Line.

• HuffPost covers his reporting here

• NME covers his reporting here

and here's him reporting that Kaitlyn Dever was chosen to play Abby in the second season of The Last of Us, which ended up being spot-on correct, via NME:

• per a Vox Media publication, New York (magazine)'s own Vulture, covers one of his reports here

• Screen Rant, (noted in the perennial source list as considered reliable for entertainment-related topics but not for controversial statements related to living persons, which in this case, we're sort of concerned about that stuff in relation to Sneider's reporting) covers Sneider in many, many instances.
  

and reported by Screen Rant here is an InSneider report that The Bikeriders, (a film with Austin Butler and Norman Reedus) was dropped by Disney's 20th Century Studios. Sneider's report ended up being true, as Disney let the rights go to Focus Features.

• And Variety - reporting on the InSneider report mentioned above concerning Bikeriders, right here. Can hardly get better than trade publications.
• Deadline Hollywood - reports that Sneider was the first to get the news that the Russo brothers were coming back for Avengers 5 and Avengers 6.
• via The Hollywood Reporter - Sneider first reported that Jeremy Allen White was playing Jabba the Hutt's son in The Mandalorian & Grogu.

BarntToust 14:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I also find the Mary Sue story about Johnny Depp and Sydney Sweeney to be drama mongering. Their punchline about Sneider's story amounted to "and internet users were pissed about the actress potentially working with the subject of the Amber Heard lawsuit" - like who cares about internet people being ticked? Was there doxxing? was anonymous or a world government involved? No!

If Sneider gets something wrong, nobody gets mangled or tangibly harmed. The WP:BLPSPS policy is for claims concerning living people themselves, not films and casting processes or anything of the like. and for randoms who are not, something that is not what Sneider is doing.

Let's WikiLawyer the concept of this policy and apply it to the Moon. Even though the chunk of rock is the subject of the article, there are parts of the article for the Moon which concern living people, like Buzz Aldrin and how he walked on it. Holy hell! the very association of living people to a subject of an article clearly not about people means we must NEVER use any WP:EXPERTSPS about the Moon in the article because it is WP:BLPSPS.

I don't think that Sneider should be used to state facts about casting. I certainly don't believe we need to add a person to a cast list because he says something on his podcast: while I question his nature of jumping the gun on reports, I don't believe the rationale should be that the info he reports is concerning a living person. I figured that saying RDJ was gonna be in Fantastic Four was bold, but it's concerning that a character is going to be in a film, not some claim about a person's life and times. Besides his casting scoops, I think he gives worthy insight into the film industry and its processes. I think that his branding is corny and I'm concerned that once he implied a joke about suicide after losing a scoop to a THR reporter but hey, Kubrick was cruel yet he was still held in high regard for his work. Same thing for Sneider. BarntToust 21:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I started this discussion because I was bothered by the Fantastic Four page where he's used for the cast list. I hope we are able to at least agree that he shouldn't be cited without attribution, lest he gets something wrong (not maliciously, but because his sources may have been wrong, or events changed in the production process that he was not aware of). Advocating him to be deprecated for BLP violations is a massive stretch that I do not agree with- he's generally reliable, and I trust that his self-published site can be used for article content. He just shouldn't be taken as absolute fact. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. I agree with all of that. The Fantastic Four page's cast section is something that is being discussed at Talk:The Fantastic Four: First Steps and would be best handled there rather than here, though I agree with the core points with the attribution and use with non-BLP content. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's best if we formalize it here, anyways. It's my hope that we can get a consensus enough to write an entry on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which would be helpful for everyone editing CBM articles that refer to his claims. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer listing Sneider at perennial sources. The WP:MCU taskforce already has an entry for his reports at WP:MCURS, for reference. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to note that this wouldn't meat the criteria for inclusion on the RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, saying someone was going to get a job, and then it turns out they didn't might have a negative effect on their career. A casting director might wonder why they weren't chosen. This is just speculation, and it probably helps the actors, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. The stakes are low either way, and it makes sense to wait for an official announcement. As it has been said, things don't always pan out. Speculation on casting seems like news to me. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

All three of the listed Forbes articles are written by Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry), which are generally unreliable due to lack of editorial oversight. Please note that Forbes.com contributor articles do not count toward WP:USEBYOTHERS. As a policy, WP:BLPSPS takes precedence over the WP:USEBYOTHERS guideline. — Newslinger talk 02:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

alright, we can consider the other 97 out of 100 joking exaggeration sources I've laid down here. We've still got use by Hollywood trades, reliable entertainment websites, and other popular sources. My point stands still. BarntToust 02:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that Sneider's reporting of casting is 90% of the time on point, but the margin of error warrants attribution and additional consideration. I do not believe that info about a person being cast in a film constitutes personal information, and thus I believe that BLP does not apply to that extent. I believe additional considerations and attributions should apply for the first reason, rather than depreciation for a grossly WikiLawyered reading of BLP policy. I believe he is considered reliable for general behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood, having been at it for a long-o time and that he would know about these things. BarntToust 02:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS is a bright-line rule that prevents self-published sources from being used for third-party claims "about a living person". The policy is phrased with the word "Never" to emphasize that routine exceptions for claims such as film castings are not appropriate. This language is repeated in the WP:SPS policy in more explicit terms: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Like the remainder of WP:BLP, this rule applies to all claims about living persons, and not just "personal information". — Newslinger talk 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay. We seem to agree to not use it as a third-party source. We seem to agree to give Sneider attribution and consideration of due weight in these reports he does.

If there are any concerns, I suggest you turn to the great policy that is ignore all rules. BarntToust 02:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by behind-the-curtains technical info about Hollywood? Like what a gaffer is? Or the type of camera used? Or does he know more about things like how casting directors and location scouts work? I thought he was a reporter that covered the Hollywood beat. Does he do anything besides report what industry people tell him? Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if reporting what industry people tell you is, uh, what trade journalism is the definition of? BarntToust 19:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think he is a trade journalist, either. A trade journal covers an industry with people in that industry as the target audience. Jeff Sneider describes him as an Entertainment Journalist and describes him writing for publications aimed at the general public. His own website describes itself as Scoops and insider analysis. This isn't about being an expert, it is about being in the know and chasing down leads. A lot of the articles are even labelled "Hot Rumor". He is a reporter, he reports things. The nature of what he reports means that it involves making predictions as well as discussing rumours and other gossip. A lot of it involves upcoming movies, that is, events that haven't happened yet. It also means a lot of his stuff isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

know what? I think his insights have merit. Glad to see you found the article about the journalist that I wrote. Did you see the part where he threatened to drive his car into a tree when he lost a Christopher Nolan scoop, then got fired from Variety? Or when he said something racially insensitive and got fired from Mashable? I personally enjoyed the part where he went on about getting his butt kicked by Uwe Boll in a boxing match.

Anybody think that he does a self-published newsletter because he can't hold down a job? BarntToust 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It did strike me as surprisingly negative considering the defence he is getting here. It is basically a hit piece. The boxing thing was confusing, it is probably undue. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe Sneider the way that they do, so that should be reflected in the article. This is a rationale that is based on a concept which is probably best explained by Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.

As for the boxing match, that is a notable event he was involved in. Fighting the director of one of the worst films is plenty notable for inclusion. BarntToust 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I like Paul Tassi's work, but per WP:FORBESCON, he can't be used in USEBYOTHERS analysis. However, he, like the other links in this post generally refer to Sneider's reports as in terms of rumors instead of certainties. The one exception is Screen Rant article, where it is corroborated by THR, and they suddenly switch to writing in certainties. The last three links here from the major trades are clearly doing their own independent corroboration of Sneider's story and doing the polite thing in journalism and crediting him with being the first to break the news.

As for accuracy, many of the links were about the Beatles casting, which Sneider was actually wrong about Charlie Rowe as George Harrison, which was immediately denied, and ultimately ended up being wrong. The many commentary pieces about the rumored casting that it sparked might justify inclusion, but the miss doesn't speak well to his reliability. So even from your own links, it seems that for content that doesn't run afoul of WP:BLPSPS and is encyclopedic enough to include, it would have to be attributed and written as though it's a certainty. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 04:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I have not kept up with this discussion over the holidays but I see a bunch of dubious arguments have taken place. Trailblazer was correct above when he said that Sneider makes it clear when he is noting rumours versus reporting on something that his sources have confirmed to him, and the high-profile instances where he "got something wrong" are not examples of him lying but clearly examples of things being true or potentially true at the time which did not pan out. Several instances have been mentioned where a potential casting was reported but did not pan out. That is not a lie or a "miss" or anything of the sort, he is reporting on people being eyed by a studio or even entering negotiations but he can't guarantee that everything will work out in the end, and his wording reflects that. The exact same can be said for any of the Hollywood trades who have reported on potential casting that ended up falling through. The level of scrutiny being put on the accuracy of his reporting here is a bit ridiculous considering the same would not be done if he was still writing for TheWrap or Variety, which is what WP:SELFPUB protects. If any of these reports had come from a journalist who was still working at the trades we would not be having this conversation at all. As for WP:BLPSPS, its wording is oddly vague. "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person" -- what does that even mean? Any sentence that mentions a living person cannot be sourced to any self-published source, regardless of what that source is or what the sentence says? If an expert on the life of Donald Trump had a meeting with him and then tweeted out something Trump had said, we could not include that in any articles even if it was not a detail about Trump's personal life? I think it is crazy to say that we can't use a tweet or a blog post from a person we otherwise consider to be reliable to note when an actor is being considered for a role in a film or that they may have a scheduling conflict that could prevent them from doing a certain job. I am sure the wording at BLPSPS could not have been meant to prevent that. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

In your example, if that expert's tweet contained anything of substance, a reliable source would mention it, and you would be free to cite that reliable source. Alternatively, you could wait until the WP:BLP policy no longer applies to Trump, although I highly doubt that the tweet would constitute due weight in any Misplaced Pages article if no reliable source mentions the tweet by that time. In all other cases, yes, WP:BLPSPS would prohibit that tweet from being cited on Misplaced Pages to support a claim about Trump, despite the tweet being written by an expert, because the tweet is self-published. — Newslinger talk 22:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

There are situations where DUEWEIGHT allows a mention even if there is no wider coverage, which is the case here where useful context is being provided. Regardless, I still think the vague wording at BLPSPS is being used to inappropriately prevent additions that should not be covered by it. A subject-matter expert on the entertainment industry is providing noteworthy context on the development process for high-profile film and television articles, we are not talking about unreliable sources making exceptional or contentious claims about individuals and their personal lives. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The WP:SPS policy, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer", is as explicit as can be. That longstanding requirement has been part of the verifiability policy since February 2007, and part of the biography of living persons policy when it became a policy in July 2006. (It was added to the latter page as a guideline requirement in April 2006.) If you would like to contest these policies, you are free to do so on their respective talk pages. — Newslinger talk 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I was going to mention the wording in WP:V, as it's more explicit, but Newslinger beat me to it. I've found this annoying in the past, where the project of a living person is detailed in a otherwise reliable third party self-published source. However that exact situation is meant to be covered (and excluded) by it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

As I and others have said, the policies against self-published sources used for anything about living people is a bright line rule. And as for WP:DUEWEIGHT and ignoring the self-published/BLP issue, if the only source that mentions an aspect of an article subject is a self-published newsletter, then it would more likely to be undue to include based on the proportion of RS coverage. Misplaced Pages is not the great place to right great wrongs about what reliable sources should be covering. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 06:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not denying what BLPSPS says or how long it has said it, I am taking issue with the way it is being applied. I do not agree that we are violating BLPSPS by sourcing film production and development information to a self-published SME. I also do not agree that it is UNDUE to include information that only a single self-published SME has provided, particularly when it aligns with other details from other reliable sources. I'm not advocating for building an entire article based on such a source or for prioritising it over contradictory reliable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

When I went through and removed most of the mainspace uses of InSneider, the overwhelming majority were reports of people being cast, people being considered for a acting/directing role, when an already cast role was going to make a secret appearance in a film, or creative decisions that can only be made by a very small number of people at a studio (i.e. director, producer, executives) that the guidance at WP:BLPGROUP leans towards applying the policy.

If something aligns with what other reliable sources have said, then it would be best to use what those sources have said instead of a SPS. But in any case, UNDUE is not an avenue to bring in content that doesn't meet our verifiability/sourcing policies. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, we are not writing a biography about James Gunn or Peter Safran and using Sneider to source claims about their person. Sneider is used to write about the particulars of film production.

One side of this discussion is looking at the forest, while the other side is focused on the trees. BarntToust 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

BLPGROUP doesn't seem to be relevant to this discussion, it is talking about "corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons" and specifically refers to harmful claims, neither of which apply here. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The subsection is about when BLP applies to "legal persons" AND "groups". It does not displace WP:BLPSPS and in no way limits the applicability of BLP to groups to instances of potentially harmful material.

The first part of the paragraph is a clarification about how legal persons existing as a term of art in law doesn't mean that they are always covered by BLP, which is meant to protect natural persons. The second half of the paragraph applies to all groups and tells us to look at each group on a case by case basis to see where it fits on the spectrum between groups that are small enough that BLP should apply and ones where they are too large. The part about harm is simply noting it is part of the analysis. For creative decisions on films, the people actually making that decision would be very small, so it should attract BLP protections, which means BLPSPS applies. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 03:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact that people make creative decisions on films does not mean we cannot use self-published sources to support those creative decisions, that is such a ridiculous stretch of what the policies say and mean. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Besides the stories involving named people where BLP would obviously apply, the level of creative decisions that InSneider reports on and that Misplaced Pages uses him for are those that would clearly be attributable to a very small number of people (5-10 max). They're typically stuff such as what projects a studio is considering, what characters will be cast, and what the plot of film will be about.

We're not using InSneider for lower-level stuff like what belt buckle was used on a particular costume, what brand of communication devices the PAs use, or what shade of a color was used in a particular CGI shot. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this discussion with two absolutes. #1: Sneider is a dude who knows the industry of which he speaks about, and so long as we consider in-text attribution and consideration of due weight, we are fine. #2: ignore all rules. if BLPSPS or otherwise are keeping us from something helpful and insightful to the subjects of articles, it's within our power to ignore it. These policies don't exist to keep us from expanding the encyclopedia with expertise, especially from sources who don't have to worry about holding back information from seeing publication because of ulterior motives. That is where self-published sources are at an advantage ahead of traditional media. If you wish to hear tales of another subject-matter expert journalist putting a major media organisation on blast for withholding information for ulterior motives, see #Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson on this very page. NYT censored CEO killer Luigi Mangione's face for shady purposes. Not saying all legacy media is compromised, but I'm saying I enjoy seeing self-published journalists actually giving uncompromised coverage of their subjects that is made possible by self-published status. Just like Sneider. If general association, not even direct, with living people makes these sources unusable despite clear merits, then ignore all rules. BarntToust 17:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The one policy that WP:IAR does not bypass is consensus. From this discussion, there is no consensus on ignoring the WP:BLPSPS and the WP:SPS policies to use Sneider's self-published claims about living persons. That type of content would be permissible on a wiki hosting site like Fandom – which typically uses minimal reliability requirements for the sake of completionism, but Misplaced Pages's sourcing standards are higher than that of most Fandom wikis. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful", particularly if it does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements. — Newslinger talk 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

A few editors here are trying to stretch the BLPSPS and SPS policies to prevent Sneider from being used at all, which shouldn't override the existing community consensus and clear evidence that he is a reliable source for film-related reporting. HadesTTW suggested wording that is a good start towards a common-sense solution where Sneider is used, with attribution, for reports on film-related coverage where better sources do not exist. This should lead to a compromise, with Sneider being used in situations where his reports are improving articles while editors become more aware of whether he should be used (and not using him in situations where his reports genuinely fall into BLPSPS territory, could be replaced by a better source, or some other issue such as DUEWEIGHT). All that is preventing us from moving on to that conclusion and ending this discussion is the idea that BLPSPS and SPS apply to every little mention of a living person in a source, which I maintain is ridiculous and inappropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

If you do not agree with excluding self-published sources from being used for claims about living persons, you may propose a change to the relevant policies at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons. What you believe is "ridiculous and inappropriate" is actually how these policies have been applied on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, per community consensus. — Newslinger talk 18:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I never said I was against the central ideas of BLPSPS, I completely understand why we want to have a higher standard of verifiability when it comes to exceptional/controversial claims about real people who may take issue with said claims. That makes sense from multiple angles. What I take issue with is using the same standard for non-exceptional claims that happen to involve people. In my opinion, there is a very big difference between not trusting a SPS to report on claims of sexual misconduct (which I accept) and not trusting them to report on basic casting and filming details for a movie. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

exactly! If I actually paid any attention to X-Men 97, I would have rm'd that in a hot second. Sneider making claims that Beau DeMayo was doing heinous stuff to his staffers is some outrageous content that I would insist we wait on reports by NYT or WaPo or The Times, any particular source of merit to include those claims in the article. Outrageous claims require usage of especially reliable sources like newspapers of record. BarntToust 19:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

In the 18 years since that BLPSPS policy was enacted, the industry of journalism has changed drastically with a variety of seasoned journalists and subject-matter experts publishing their reports on their own accord, and I believe it is about time that the policies are updated to compliment such changes to update with the times. I do not think Sneider's status as a self-published source should discount his reliability with his actual reporting in his newsletter, and am more than happy to raise concerns for the policy to be updated elsewhere, but that is not the central issue to determine reliability in this discussion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Most people on this board are aware of the poor state of traditional journalism and the rise of indie outlets. I myself noted in a section below that Ken Klippenstein, who has a track record of good journalist work and whose stories I think are accurate, should nonetheless not be used without corroboration and/or discussion by non-SPS RSs because he's a BLPSPS. If any of you think there's appetite in moving from the current bright-line rule to another system for BLPSPSs (e.g. limited carve out where RSN endorses use with attribution), that might be a worthwhile discussion to have. As its stands though, BLPSPS is quite clear and the overwhelming majority of the uses of InSneider are in such cases.

If we do want to go back to discussing the reliability of InSneider for non-BLP claims, I would start with something I asked earlier, are you as a subscriber to InSneider, able to provide examples of if he retracted, corrected, and/or explained why he missed on the Sweeney/Day Drinker, Holland/Spider-verse, Lindeloff/Star Wars stories? Getting a story wrong isn't fatal to use as a reliable source since even the best sources aren't 100%. However, for assessing new sources, correcting mistakes is an indicator of reliability (as long as the miss rate is not too high), but not addressing them is a sign of unreliability. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The language in WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS does not provide an exemption for self-published content about other living persons that is deemed to be uncontroversial. The "central idea" of this requirement is to ensure that any claim (not just controversial claims) about a living person passes adequate editorial oversight before it can be included in Misplaced Pages. There is nothing special about Sneider or his self-published newsletter that would warrant an exception to this requirement, which applies to every other individual who meets the WP:EXPERTSPS criterion. If anyone wants to amend this requirement, which has been applied on Misplaced Pages for more than 18 years, a discussion at WT:V, WT:BLP, or WP:VPP would be the first step to enact the change you are looking for. Such a change, if it gains community consensus, would apply to all sources of this kind and not just Sneider's content. Until then, the use of Sneider's self-published claims about other living persons remains a violation of core content policies. — Newslinger talk 06:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Once again, that is your interpretation of the policies which is clearly not shared by all editors. I fear a discussion at one of those other places will have similar luck due to a few editors that like things the way they are, but I am happy to give it a go. As for wrapping up this discussion, I still think we should return to the wording that I suggested above in response to HadesTTW. I am not concerned about these apparent "misses" that Patar knight keeps harping on about. Some of these may have been genuinely wrong, but not many of them (which is the case with almost all reliable trade sources as well). Most would have been accurate at the time but then things changed due to the developing nature of films (i.e. Lindelof leaving his SW film, Driver being considered for FF but not getting the part). The Sweeney instance seems to be a blatant case of him getting it wrong and being called out immediately, but that one time isn't enough to make him an unreliable source especially when nearly everything else he has reported aligns with other sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I've started a policy talk page discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability § Self-published claims about other living persons. — Newslinger talk 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a particular problem with using Sneider as a source, as long as we attribute his speculations properly. He has a generally good track record and is used by reliable sources. But I have come across situations where we report his speculations as fact. When he has an expectation that is not attributed to an official or at least genuinely connected source, if we choose to report that expectation at all, it needs to be attributed as "Sneider's expectation that such and such will occur", not as a Wikivoice statement that "such and such will occur." Rlendog (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Telegram (software)

Once Telegram gets mentioned on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, its shortcuts would be WP:TELEGRAM and WP:RSPTELEGRAM.

Telegram is unreliable because:

• Telegram is an alt-tech platform, which means that it is highly unreliable as a source because it is used by the alt-right to evade censorship and publish far-right opinions and pseudoscientific conspiracy theories.
• Telegram is a self-published source because it is a social networking service.
• Most far-right things (such as Red Ice, The Light (newspaper), and Nicholas J. Fuentes) have escaped to Telegram after getting suspended on several mainstream social networking services.
• Telegram has been described as a "safe haven for spammers and crypto scams" because of how most Telegram groups are flooded with cryptocurrency scammers and other types of spammers. However, t.me links are barely seen on Misplaced Pages (or i just don't see them often).
• Pavel Durov has been arrested in France.

Telegram would either be WP:GUNREL (like all other self-published sources) or WP:DEPREC (because it is alt-tech). However, if t.me links are commonly used to violate WP:NOTSOAPBOX, it would be WP:SPB.

67.209.128.52 (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was anyone suggesting that it might be reliable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Telegram doesn't need to be on the RSP, it's obviously unreliable and I don't see anyone arguing that it is reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it's just a user-generated source (WP:USERGEN). Reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF claims and posts by respectable experts/journalists/reliable sources, unreliable generally. Ca 16:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the alt-right i.e. literal neo-Nazis use it (which is something you can say about almost every social media platform at this point), Telegram, as a platform where anyone can create content with no clear editorial oversight, is a self-published source and unreliable, except in cases such as basic self-descriptions. I thought this was pretty obvious. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson

Ken Klippenstein is cited in the Media outlets section of this article. He's an independent journalist who self-publishes and doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist. Reliable or not? I say no. Some other editors from that article might come here with more context. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

permalink of the 'Media outlets' section. Mr. Klippenstein is being used to cite:

1. Klippenstein also alleged that The New York Times directed their staff to "dial back" on showing photographs containing Mangione's face.
2. A report on the killing by the NYPD was obtained by independent journalist Dan Boguslaw, and published by Klippenstein on December 26. The report focused on Mangione's motive and people who express sympathy for him, whom they labeled as "extremists". Klippenstein alleged that multiple media outlets had access to the report, but selectively quoted it in a way that focused on Mangione. He said that "By withholding documents and unilaterally deciding which portions merit public disclosure, the media is playing god."

1. Klippenstein, Ken (December 11, 2024). "NY Times Doesn't Want You to See Shooter's Face". kenklippenstein.com. Retrieved December 15, 2024.
2. "Read the NYPD's Mangione report the media won't publish". Ken Klippenstein. Retrieved 28 December 2024.

Some1 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It's crap. "Media reactions" or "in the media" sections in Misplaced Pages articles too often, like this article, become dumpsters where Wikipedians simply like to show off how good they are at finding random sources and shoehorning them into an article, for reasons. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, but the focus here is on the reliability of Ken Klippenstein and whether or not his statements (sourced to his own website and attributed) are usable in the article. Some1 (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist That's not accurate, as you could have confirmed by checking out the references in the Klippenstein WP article that note that he's been a journalist for outlets like The Nation and The Intercept. Both of those are generally reliable on the RSP. He's also seen as serious by other journalists (e.g., in this Columbia Journalism Review interview, which describes him "as one of the most fearless reporters of the Trump era").

His self-published work cannot be used as a source for WP content about living or recently dead people (e.g., about Mangione's letter), per WP:BLPSPS. He could be used as a source on a BLP if the WP text sourced to him is not itself about a person (e.g., if it's about mainstream media). But in this case, I don't see how to disentangle his statements about the press from content about Mangione. Some other news outlets have reported a bit about the content currently sourced to Klippenstein, such as this Hill article, noting Klippenstein's apparent publication of Mangione's letter. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I was just going to say something similar - it's definitely inaccurate to say he hasn't written for other reliable sources in the past. It's true that his own stuff would fall foul of WP:SPS, but his stuff picked up by other reliable sources is usable, conceptually, with proper context and attribution. Sergecross73 msg me Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hell no, get rid of this Kenny guy now. WP:BLPSPS: this content directly involves a living person (Luigi), and to make self-published claims about info regarding these living persons is against policy. And, Kenny boy over here is using his blog to write WP:BOLD things about an American newspaper of record. BarntToust 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

BarntToust - Dial it back a bit. WP:BLP applies to all BLP is all Misplaced Pages spaces. You calling him weird names like "Kenny Boy" probably doesn't constitute "written with the greatest care and attention". Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

If this was like WaPo or The Times writing this about NYT then yes I would support inclusion. This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here. "Ken" should be more concerned that he is writing damning blog posts accusing a reputable newspaper of compromised journalistic integrity. Who else will pick this up? Who else will corroborate this bold as all hell claim with trusted journalistic process? BarntToust 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

"This guy's fact-checking or editorial processes are zilch to be known by anyone here" is false, as is "he is writing damning blog posts." More than one person here has noted that he's a reliable journalist. Unbandito explained why he chose to start his own journalism Substack (not a blog). There are a number of established writers using Substack to host their reporting; here's WP's incomplete list. It's bizarre that you put his name in quotation marks, especially after calling him "this Kenny guy" and "Kenny boy." Nothing is stopping you from answering your own questions. I already noted a couple of sources that had picked it up; here's another. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I personally believe that bold claims against these news organisations need other comparable news organisations to corroborate them, to establish wp:due weight. the spreading of claims by sources who are especially biased and opinionated means nothing. "Ken" can make a bombshell accusation against NYT for spineless reporting but can we get The Guardian or some other prestigious institutions to back these claims? BarntToust 18:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

A reminder that WP:RS states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject," so I don't agree that his reporting "means nothing." This thread started off with the false claim that he "doesn't seem to have any history of employment as a mainstream journalist" and the question "Reliable or not?" The false claim has been addressed. The question shows that people have different opinions. Whether some mention of Klippenstein is DUE is not a matter of reliability and belongs on the Talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Having been employed by two ultra-partisan outlets for some short period, and then by "The Young Turks" which is marginally better than InfoWars, does not indicate this individual's self-published works meet the encyclopedia's reliability standards. And it has not been shown that I made a false claim, only if you think these ultra-partisan sources are "mainstream". Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent, which is laughable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

He was employed by The Young Turks before he worked for The Nation and The Intercept, not after, and those aren't the only other media for which he's written. Partisanship doesn't determine whether a given media outlet is/isn't mainstream media. They're both listed on Harvard's Index of US Mainstream Media Ownership. Some people here are acting like Klippenstein is a young Ted Koppel who's gone independent Please quote whomever you're referring to, because I don't see any comment suggesting that. I'd be happy to be corrected, but otherwise, it's counterproductive to characterize people's comments as more extreme than they actually are. Again: people clearly have different opinions about whether he's "Reliable or not?" You have your opinion, and I have mine. Personally, I consider the Columbia Journalism Review interview as evidence of his reliability; if they happen to focus on someone who's unreliable, I think they say so, as here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Funny, Misplaced Pages lists The Federalist as "generally unreliable due to its partisan nature" yet they're listed as mainstream on Harvard's index. Seems like some kinds of partisanship are more acceptable than others. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't claim or imply that all MSM on Harvard's list are reliable. Reliability, partisanship, and mainstream media status are all distinct dimensions. A source can fall into any one of their 8 combinations. The full RSP sentence is "The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories." Maybe you think a source that promotes conspiracy theories is reliable, but I don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a source promoting conspiracies is reliable, and I'm not disputing the decision against The Federalist. I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview, and I disagree. Even the content in question isn't just a professional critique of editorial decisions, but it's couched in nefarious undertones, even going so far as to accuse MSM of "playing god." Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm simply saying there's a selective approach to both partisanship and what constitutes a conspiracy theory on here. That's a very general claim for which you've provided no evidence and that also seems way beyond the scope of this particular thread. Journalists like Klippenstein who frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters are not typically perceived as promoting a conspiratorial worldview... Another very general claim, though this one at least touches on the thread's topic. Focusing just on Klippenstein, if you have evidence that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it. If you do have that evidence, then you really should have presented it when you first asked "Reliable or not?" FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I would just refer you over to the article's talk page where discussion of this issue has continued, and a resolution has been reached. As to Klipp's conspiratorial worldview, see his latest media rant which I also submitted in talk.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how anything on the talk page provides evidence for your claim that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters," and either you have evidence of that or you don't. So far, it looks like you don't. The only thing I see in your link relative to a "conspiratorial worldview" is his claim that "every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is," which hardly rises to the level of "frequently." FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

is that a conspiracy or is that just actually saying a taboo? BarntToust 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation to keep calling him a conspiracy theorist is what it is. One that Jonathan f1 seems quite committed to. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Like I explained to you on the talk page, I'm using his own words. He's alleging that politicians and major media outlets "conspired" against the public. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Him using a turn of phrase one time doesn't give us cause to start throwing insults at him on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Please provide a couple of reliable sources calling Klippenstein a conspiracy theorist or desist immediately. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

if it looks like a duck, do we need reliable sources? I don't think we should explicitly be throwing around the Alex Jones-word, but rather show don't tell. Keeps BLP vio away. BarntToust 22:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not putting him in the same bucket with Alex Jones, but his repeated attacks on major media followed by a remark about them "conspiring" with each other is what it is. But okay, to move past all this pointless tone policing, I'll find a new phrase. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash his entire career as a journalist here, and particularly his time with The Young Turks which will certainly provide you with ample evidence of this. It isn't even relevant here -the articles in question are attack pieces where he is either implicating major media outlets in a plot or calling their journalistic ethics into question. That we are even debating inclusion with no corroboration from high-grade sources is remarkable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, I said if you have evidence that he "frequently write of large corporations as dark plotters" (emphasis added) and therefore should be seen "as promoting a conspiratorial worldview" and not reliable, you should present it. You're the one who made the claim, and you're the one with the burden of proof for it. Don't try to shift the burden onto me. I'm not "debating inclusion" of any specific edit right now. I'm telling you that if you can't or won't substantiate your claim, then you should retract it, as it's an unsubstantiated contentious claim and a BLP violation. The BLP policy applies to any statements about living persons on all WP pages, including this one. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll retract it just to move on from this. My objection to Klippenstein in this particular case does not hinge on this little side issue. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Why did you put his real name in quotes like that? Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

As an indicator that I generally distrust Substack reporters and their methods. I can't believe that anything will pass as qualified journalism nowadays 😐 BarntToust 18:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

In this case, I'd say keep it. Klippenstein obtained and published the manifesto, which mainstream sources begrudgingly admitted was the same one they refused to publish. It appears that the citations in this article are of secondary coverage of his work, which makes them even more admissible. Klip is not just some guy, he has journalistic credentials and a past of reliable reporting for multiple reliable orgs. He's one of a number of journalists who was laid off from major outlets in the last year or so as part of a broader trend of restructuring in media that is ongoing. He and others like Ryan Grim and Jeremy Scahill have moved on to independent work, but despite the loss of their association with an established organization, their reporting remains influential and they've made a number of valuable contributions to our knowledge of and discourse on current events. I worry that Misplaced Pages policy, which assumes that mainstream media has a static financial and ethical position in perpetuity, is not adequately nuanced to accommodate major shake-ups in the press such as what we're seeing today. I think it's also worth noting that while Ken publishes on substack, at least in some other articles he's written (such as his publication of a US intelligence report on Israeli preparations to strike Iran) he employs an editor to review his work. This is the same sort of self-publishing that mainstream RS do, and another argument in favor of his reliability. Unbandito (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

"multiple reliable orgs."

Really, like what? The Young Turks? I'm aware that Nation and Intercept are considered generally reliable, but there's also consensus that they're opinionated, biased and partisan, and should be used with caution. Klipp doesn't work for any of these publications anymore; he self-publishes on substack and has made a career for himself publishing MSM polemic. That's what this section includes currently -Klipp's self-published polemic directed at NY Times, CNN etc. Even if this appeared in The Nation, there'd be weight issues. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, The Nation and The Intercept. All media has bias, and any media-literate person should understand this. I think weight arguments are a lot stronger regarding content that is more than a few sentences or a short paragraph long. I don't think the due weight for this content is zero, and therefore I think the material is appropriate. If there is a significant view in opposition to Klippenstein, I think the page would be better improved by expanding it. Unbandito (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course all media, and all humans, are biased, but when a consensus on here comes with that caveat, you know you're not dealing with a gold standard RS. And this is only relevant here if you think his past employment with these outlets, however brief, in some way lends credibility to his self-published substacks. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think what his past employment in media shows is that he has the training and follows the same standards of verifiability as prestige media organizations. I think it's worth noting that when a fake version of the manifesto was making the rounds, Klippenstein declined to publish it and called it out as misleading because he couldn't verify its authenticity. Regardless of where he's publishing them, I think his publication of several leaked documents ahead of the mainstream press as well as his history as a FOIA journalist shows that he is well connected to valuable sources of information and is engaged in "real" investigative journalism of the sort that prestige outlets are increasingly unwilling to pay for when opinion pieces get them just as many clicks.

His perspective on the unwillingness of the media to publish a document which they had verified is true is granted some additional relevance by the fact that he is the one who published the document and inquired to these organizations as to why they hadn't, as well as by the fact that journalists from those legacy organizations leaked internal communications to him which showed the decision those organizations had made.

I think that this is frankly a strong example of the way that Misplaced Pages's current RS policies are inadequate to handle the reality that with the traditional media in financial and organizational crisis, sometimes breaking news is going to be published by small independent outlets or individuals. Any conception of reliability that uniformly dismisses sources like Klippenstein as if they're some random blog post by John Q. Public while reifying legacy media despite the history of its errors and shortcomings and the media studies scholarship that problematizes a simplistic conception of source reliability, is sure to exclude some valuable material and include a lot of junk. Without getting too far off topic, I think the solution to this is to emphasize verifiability and source consensus over things like editorial process and organizational prestige, and to attribute wherever there is controversy or disagreement. Unbandito (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyone using phrases like "MSM polemic" ought to be stepping well away from deciding the reliability of any sources, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

NY Times and CNN are mainstream media, a polemic is "a piece of writing expressing a strongly critical view of someone or something." Thus, Klippenstein's hit pieces on MSM are polemics. I don't see why me knowing what these words mean implies I need to "step well away" from assessing reliability. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

if someone else reports on it, its not sps, its secondary coverage of SPS, which should be admissible in BLP, right? I think we can't directly use any details in his blog that aren't vetted and cited by another non-SPS news source Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, secondary sources can be used for a BLP, if they are RSs. For example, this LA Times article confirms that Klippenstein published Mangione full "manifesto." And this Mediaite article could be used re: his criticism of other media for not releasing the whole thing, though RSP says "There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement." Perhaps there are other reliable non-SPSs that are better sources for the content about Klippenstein's criticism of other media; I'm not going to take time right now to search further. There may still be questions about due weight, whether a claim needs to be attributed, etc., but those are distinct from the question of reliability and what can be used for BLP material. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

See, this is the thing, we've got LA Times, a high quality RS for news, so there's no reason to cite Klippenstein. But that covers the manifesto issue, which I wouldn't object to including. But the hit piece on those MSMs? Yeah, that's not found in LA Times or any other source on that level, only a "marginally reliable" source. I do not think Klipp is any position to critique editorial decisions at these publications, and do not see how that's due weight anyway. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I had to read the section again (didn't remember it from memory) so let me rephrase this:

• I don't object to the bit about media not publishing the manifesto, and this could be sourced to the LA Times (the secondary source referencing Klippenstein).
• The next line about the NY Times not showing the suspect's face -no RS is talking about this and I personally find it irrelevant.
• The last part about media outlets selectively quoting from the NYPD report -this exceeds weight limits and makes the section read like a hit piece against MSM, all sourced to one man. Klippenstein objects to the NYPD using the term "extremists" to describe the suspect's supporters, and cites a report by security firm Dragonfly to argue that the risk of violent attacks on corporate leaders will likely remain low. If you read his source, they, too, use the word "extremists" to describe people who support the killing.

Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I read his work and personally trust Klippenstein. However, his substack is clearly a self-published source. Unbandito's comments on broader issues with Misplaced Pages, while interesting, don't address the WP:BLPSPS issue. Ultimately, Klippenstein is the person with final approval on what he wrote.

I would consider Klippenstein's views WP:DUE if they are reported on by reliable sources. Based on what I know and see here, I can't consider him to meet the WP:EXPERTSPS criteria in this topic area. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Chess here - WP:EXPERTSPS is appropriate here. Klippenstein is a respected journalist. He's also self-publishing. But, in this case, he's an expert who is self-publishing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

See talk page (article linked up top). Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll endorse this as position as well. Klippenstein has a good track record with reputable outlets and hasn't had issues so far on his own, but is ultimately a WP:BLPSPS that should only be included when corroborated and/or discussed by non-SPS RSs. That appears to be the case with the manifesto itself, but not the other reports. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 01:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Pretty much yes. There's no issue with the manifesto content, but the other reports are not mentioned in any secondary RS of any quality (ignoring Washington Times and the art website). There's also the fact that he's mentioned 3 separate times in a section of only 8 lines, which is hard to defend. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I merged the 'Media outlets' section with the 'Other' section. An editor made a good point on the talk page that according to Klippenstein's article, he's a FOIA document expert, and that much of his journalism draws on information he has uncovered from records requested at state and national levels of the US government, which also frequently include information from leaked documents. Some1 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of expert status, BLPSPS applies and would bar the use when it's not corroborated. It seems the new combined section has some sources that discussion Klippenstein's work in and of itself, which partially solves that issue. The issue then is if the amount of coverage is DUE. Klippenstein is an established journalist and some inclusion is probably due given the coverage, but a lot of the paragraph is repetitive, so I would probably cut it down by half. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you comment in the article's talk page, because despite what is being said here in this thread, certain editors still think he's a "certified rando", "a random blogger", and unreliable 1, 2, 3. Some1 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

From what I can tell, a consensus has not yet been achieved here. I don't wish to step on anybody's toes, but I have reverted User:Toa Nidhiki05's blanking of a large portion of the disputed section here. Kire1975 (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You should self-revert your reversion until consensus has been reached in one way or another. Astaire (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

But WP:NOCON is also relevant: When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion is still ongoing, so I don't see that as relevant yet. Astaire (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The material that User:Toa Nidhiki05 removed had been in the article since December 13 without any dispute (until now). Some1 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ken Klippenstein is a bit of a weird special case because he's an experienced reporter whose Substack is nevertheless still clearly an WP:SPS but because he has very different views on the direct publication of source documents (like manifestos) than much of the rest of the media, he is reasonably often the main source of the full text of a document that the rest of the media acknowledges exists, is real, and that Klippenstein's version of the text is correct, but refuses to actually publish the text themselves. A sort of one-man Wikileaks situation.

I honestly think that since he is clearly reliable in these situations he is actually a fine source for these sorts of documents, presuming we bear in mind that:

a) Documents published by him should be clearly acknowledged in the text to be sourced to him alone.

b) Just because Klippenstein is reliable for the text of the documents he publishes doesn't mean that the documents themselves are reliable for facts or that Klippenstein is endorsing or even has checked their factual claims.

c) Klippenstein doesn't have to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and so it's very possible that documents he publishes don't follow BLP guidelines for some reason. AFAICT usually what he publishes is about public figures but that doesn't have to be the case, and in cases where a document has private information about a private figure we shouldn't repeat it. Loki (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: NewsNation

What is the reliability of NewsNation?

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

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

Survey (NewsNation)

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

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

• Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage Personisinsterest (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2: Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. BarntToust 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Chetsford. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. Compare WP:ROLLINGSTONE. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 why are we putting any stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “broken clock” syndrome. Dronebogus (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (NewsNation)

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

Is this article declaring the Newport Tower a 12th c. baptistry a reliable source for the tower??

The autho rhas emailed me demanding it be added to the Newport Tower article as it has been peer reviewed.. Other non-peer reviewed papers of his can be found here. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

For reference the tower is Newport Tower (Rhode Island) The answer is no. The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming. Even academic presses slip up sometimes and Istanbul University Press is frankly quite a bit distant from Rhode Island such that I would be cautious about the level of rigour of its fact checking (if any) on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

In addition to this, the author is retired from the U.S. Navy and a student of aeronautics, while this paper involves a great deal of cartography, religious history, etc. In other worlds, far outside of the author's field, even if there was some question about its reliability. Looking at the non-peer reviewed papers, I see that the author also believes the Kensington Runestone is legit. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, that WP article has an entire section on alternative hypotheses, so it's not clear to me that "The evidence that Newport Tower is a 17th century colonial structure is overwhelming" is a reason to exclude this hypothesis. Given that context, what does it means to be a RS for a fringe theory? A source may be reliable for the existence of the fringe theory but unreliable otherwise.

It's unclear to me whether this chapter is truly peer-reviewed. It appears in an edited book, and the editors are on the faculty of Istanbul University, but it's not clear to me that they have expertise in this area, whether they reviewed all of the chapters for accuracy or only for things like pertinence and organization, or if they sought any outside review for any of the chapters. Their Google Scholar info: , . The book was just published, and I couldn't find any reviews for it. What the author of the chapter "demands" is irrelevant. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The question is, does this source add anything to the "Norse hypothesis" such that it is worth adding the article to include it? I think the answer is no. There's no evidence that this paper has had any impact on the wider discourse surrounding the tower. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't read the paper, but the abstract says "Two Turkish cartographers, the earliest being Maximus Planudes (c. 1260-1310), and later, Piri Reis (c. 1465-1553), illustrated the North American Baptistery on their respective cartographic works." I know nothing about the "Norse hypothesis" and so cannot judge whether this is something new; the current WP text makes no mention of Turks, but perhaps that's just a matter of what was judged to be DUE. The book link above says that the book was only published last week, so at this point the chapter cannot possibly have had any impact on wider discourse. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems the text is mostly taken up by attempting to divine meaning from certain blotches on an old map. This is not a particularly convincing hypothesis for what it's worth. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Peer review is only as good as the peers in question... Istanbul University and history have a rather fraught history when it comes to Turkish nationalist historiography (which I would fit this under given the elements of Turkish exceptionalism). We have a long history of disregarding those views because academics outside of Turkey do (especially as it concerns claims of Ottoman voyages of discovery, the Kurds, and the Armenian Genocide). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

No, obvious crank. I would take it as evidence that Istanbul University Press is not reliable. I imagine he was stationed at the base in Newport and got interested, but he should seek professional training in history and learn to read some relevant languages before leaning in on a claim this unlikely. There's really nothing in his article except some maps so extremely magnified that they don't resemble anything in particular. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinkvilla

Pinkvilla has been flagged as an unreliable source, and there is growing consensus around its exclusion from the list of acceptable sources on Misplaced Pages:ICTFSOURCES. Previously dicusssed (see 1, 2). Due to concerns about the site's editorial standards, accuracy, and potential biases, I propose to dicussss the credibility of Pinkvilla. The aim is to ensure that Misplaced Pages articles are supported by sources that meet higher standards of reliability and credibility. Pinkvilla itself states that the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data. However, it asserts that the numbers are generally reflective of the box-office performance of the films in question ().Morekar (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you think there's a difference between the box-office numbers in Pinkvilla and their general articles? Could one be considered reliable and the other not, or is this looking at the site as a whole? Ravensfire (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

the figures provided may be approximate and does not make any claims regarding the authenticity of the data it probably shouldn't be cited then. EEpic (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Reliability discussion took place previously Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_9#Can_Pinkvilla_be_considered_a_reliable_source_? putting it as one of the best sources for movie related news and box office collections. RangersRus (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu

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

• A: Geni.com
• B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
• C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav

Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.

They should be:

• Option 1: listed as Generally unreliable (change nothing to A; add B and C at WP:RSP as such)
• Option 2: Deprecated (list them as such at WP:RSP)
• Option 3: Blacklisted (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)

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

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

• A: See "Geni.com" at WP:RSPSOURCES.
• B: See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#Have we got lists of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research?, in particular subsection #genealogy.eu, where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @ActivelyDisinterested. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
• C: See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Preliminaries

Probably need to add the website Genealogics.org to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be WP:CIRC. --Kansas Bear 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. NLeeuw (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Read Background: B. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Survey A: Geni.com

Deprecate. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. JoelleJay (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Deprecate.Question. Isn't it already deprecated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Deprecate A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Unsure. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley

Deprecate, per background discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Deprecate Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.

Deprecation of this source will reduce the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.

Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

Deprecate. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. JoelleJay (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as genealogy.eu and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Deprecate. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Deprecate. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Lancaster (talk • contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the Europäische Stammtafeln, Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. Ghirla 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". NLeeuw (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Deprecate. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; Foix. --Kansas Bear 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Franklin Open

I would like to know what is known about "Franklin Open" (link). It claims to be peer-reviewed but charges $1900 to publish an article. Should we count this as an RS, or should its articles be treated as self-published? (Apologies if it's already dealt with somewhere — I searched and couldn't find it.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It's published by Elsevier on behalf of the Franklin Institute. So not self-published. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

But the question is, is the stuff peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense? --Trovatore (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Like any other Elsevier/Franklin Institute journals. Reliable in its area of expertise, which is mostly engineering and applied mathematics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing. They published a paper with no meaningfully new content on the so-called infinite monkey theorem, here. This thing should never have gotten past peer review, not because anything in it is wrong per se, but because it's not a novel contribution (and is also not a survey). It's a bunch of trivial calculations, put together well with nice illustrations, but with an overall conclusion that is not remotely new.

So this makes me wonder about their standards, and whether they should be treated as a predatory journal or something similar. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Article processing charges are completely standard, expected, uncontroversial aspects of nearly all open access journals, including Franklin Open. If a journal can't charge for subscriptions or article access, it needs to make at least some money through APCs. Does this discussion concern the journal itself and every article it publishes, or rather a single article regarding monkeys and typewriters? If the latter, then the qualifications of the authors and which salient points of the paper merit mention should be discussed on article talk pages per WP:DUE, WP:ASPECT & WP:ONUS. Not all articles ever published warrant stuffing into every Misplaced Pages article about a topic, no matter how much individual Wikipedians may slobber over the authors, and thousands of perfectly reliable and decent-quality articles should not be cited per WP:MEDRS and WP:PRIMARY. But I'd almost always place more importance on published academic journal articles, even if I dislike the methods or conclusion, over the quibbles and beard-strokings of Wikipedians. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Per the scope of the journal "Original manuscripts and special topic issue are welcome as well as multidisciplinary topics or application-oriented articles, reviews, surveys, and educational articles." (emphasis mine) There's zero issue with a journal publishing an educational article with routine calculations and no new conclusions. You said yourself the illustrations were nice. What's the reliability concern here? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

What? reliable journals publish educational articles all the time and they're preferable to novel hypotheses and research. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be an educational article. The authors seem to think they're making a novel contribution. --Trovatore (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if that is the case why would this have any bearing on the reliability of the journal? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, it might not, or at least not very much. In my opinion they should not have published this particular article, and I think that reflects badly on them, but of course that is going to happen from time to time. I was trying to find out what was known about the journal, specifically whether it was predatory or predatory-adjacent, and I did that because I didn't think a reputable research journal would publish this. But it seems that that was not the issue. --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Twitter

I want to raise a concern about Twitter or known now as X. I'm planning to nominate a list to Featured List and some awards are cited as a tweet from a Philippine Record Label, Star Music, and some cited on YouTube but originally from a significant subscribers (1 Million plus subscribers) and have a Official Artist Channel and can be treated as a reliable source per WP:RSYT. So, is it okay to cite a tweet directly from record label because some awards aren't covered on a news article, which is only acknowledged on their social media.

P.S: I added a discussion just in case some reviewers have a disagreement on citing a tweet. Royiswariii Talk! 01:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

From your description alone, it sounds like you're asking if Star Music's tweets about (themselves or their bands) winning awards can be cited as sources? If that's the case, the tweet would be a self-published, primary source, and inherently self-serving. So no, I wouldn't consider that appropriate. Reliable, independent, secondary sources reporting on the awards are what makes them important.

If I've misunderstood your question, can you give us some examples of the tweets and how they would be used? Woodroar (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Woodroar one of their post is here , they recognized the awards for the Best Inspirational Secular Song at the 46th Catholic Mass Media Awards, and this is only the piece of sources i searched. Royiswariii Talk! 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

the List of awards and nominations received by SB19 a Featured list was cited from a Facebook too cause they considered it. and List of awards and nominations received by Bini cited this on ref 28. So, I think needed to be considered to since it was awarded. Royiswariii Talk! 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem isn't really Twitter/X or Facebook, it's that you want to use a post by the record label about an award they received. That's inherently self-serving, which means we should avoid using it.

The Facebook sources at List of awards and nominations received by SB19 were posted by Awit Awards (still a primary source, but not the recipient) and the Philippine Movie Press Club (a secondary source, though I wonder how reliable they are), so I'm assuming that's why they were included. Personally, I think both of those should be removed until they can be supported by better sources, but that's just me. Woodroar (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Woodroar I think it can be considered? because The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. The claim made in the post is specifically about Bini (girl group) under the record label Star Music, which is not considered a third party in this context.

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim

The award mentioned is neither excessively self-serving nor extraordinary (such as a prestigious recognition like the Grammys). Instead, it is a straightforward of Bini achievements. Royiswariii Talk! 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course it's self-serving, it's about an award that one of their bands received. As far as the claim about third parties, I hadn't considered that. But Star Music's tweet does involve claims about third parties, both the group Bini and the organization Catholic Mass Media Awards.

As others have pointed out, there are also NPOV concerns. Alongside reports from reliable, secondary, independent sources, it's WP:UNDUE to include an award sourced only to a self-published, primary tweet from the record label. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• I would say that coverage of winning an award is obviously unduly self-serving. As I said below, we're not just relying on the source for the statement that the award was given but for the implication that it is worth noting; we can't rely on the recipient for that! --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

If an award isn't covered by secondary independent sources, how is it BALASP on the page? JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

exactly. Had it recieved media coverage, it would've been notable and due for inclusion. BarntToust 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment overall for due weight in articles, but this is a list after all. Per WP:FLCR, a high-quality list would; "comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items", suggesting that all items would ideally be included in the list, even if not a requirement. I'm inclined to agree with opinions above that documenting an award you have received is not unduly self-serving, even if publishing such information is entirely self-serving. I otherwise don't agree with the argument that publishing an award won is effectively unwarranted. The question should be more about the awards themselves, for example if the awards were meaningless or irrelevant then sure it would be unwarranted. Give the awards referenced above, the Catholic Mass Media Award by the Catholic Media Association, I'd say it's questionable, but otherwise there are enough secondary sources reporting on them even if not widespread, even if not those in question it seems. CNC (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Twitter, when cited that way, is WP:ABOUTSELF, which carries several restrictions; it's also obviously WP:PRIMARY. One key thing is to avoid such about-self cites for anything self-serving - things companies post on Twitter are often promotional in nature and therefore potentially self-serving. "We intend to release this at date XYZ" would be something we could cite to Twitter. Winning an award, unfortunately, is almost certainly self-serving and therefore is probably something we can't. Note that even if you're absolutely certain they're not making it up, you're still relying on them for the implicit statement that this award is worth noting, which they are obviously not a good source for. And similarly, even beyond that, it raises WP:DUE issues - if there is no coverage of the award anywhere except by the recipient (who is obviously not a neutral party and could therefore be expected to highlight even exceptionally marginal things, providing little weight to them), this makes it hard to justify as worth including. --Aquillion (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Far Out Magazine

Would Far Out Magazine be considered a reliable source for music and the arts? 2600:100C:A21D:971A:1418:AFA9:3465:D674 (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Only RSN-comment I could find on it here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_458#Rockpasta.com. I can't find an "about"-page. Currently it's used on WP quite a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments at Talk:Far Out (website) indicate caution is called for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I make it a point to remove this source whenever I see it because of the fact that, beyond the WP:CIRCULAR concerns noted on the talk page linked above, many of their articles seem to republish content from years ago, while titling them to make it sound as if new insight has come out recently. For a few examples as of late, see , , and are all examples of this website recycling content from other, more reliable sources that can (and should) be cited instead. For all I know, there may be minor instances where this site can be used, but I'm familiar enough with Far Out Magazine to say that, for the most part, their content is clickbait churnalism, and in particular, should not be used for information about living persons. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Credit to User:Binksternet for explaining the unreliability of this source on this user talk page message. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

TL;DR, no, Far Out is unreliable; it's a website that engages in churnalism. See this discussion at WT:ALBUMS. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 14:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Minimally reliable, there may be some use but in general I don't think they're reliable for the reasons that have been mentioned (especially the churnalism/CIRCULAR concerns). I don't think that this is suprising, they are what it says on the label... "Far Out" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Are the sources in these articles primary or secondary?

Are the sources in these two articles primary or secondary? 1874 Waitemata by-elections and 1886 Waitemata by-election. The book provided is just a collection of parliamentary records, elections, terms served etc. an example is here: Traumnovelle (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Those articles are sourced to contemporary newspapers, which would be secondary sources; one of which, the New Zealand Herald, is included in the "perennial sources" page and categorised as "Generally reliable". Daveosaurus (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• • Newspapers are interesting to discuss because their classification evolves with time. Historians usually classify recent newspaper reports as being secondary, but old reports are classified as primary (this is because the sources used by the newspaper have been lost, and so the newspaper becomes the earliest available record of the events… with more modern sources based on that old newspaper). Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Reliability isn't the issue here. It is if the sources are primary or secondary. Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, and Berkeley considers contemporary newspaper articles as primary sources: Traumnovelle (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

AdWeek

Would AdWeek be considered a reliable source in terms of advertising campaigns? 2600:100C:A21D:971A:19F4:96E7:9B0B:1686 (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• AdWeek is a perfectly reliable advertising trade magazine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  The thing is public relations notices aren’t usually considered reliable for companies. 2600:100C:A21D:971A:19F4:96E7:9B0B:1686 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  As an established trade magazine, I consider AdWeek generally reliable for topics related to the advertising industry. AdWeek's own press releases, which consist of a small number of articles published under adweek.com/press between 2017 and 2022, are non-independent primary sources that are promotionally toned, and should not be considered the same as AdWeek's standard content. Are these press releases the public relations notices that you are referring to? — Newslinger talk 05:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Langweiledich.net

I came across this article being used in the Bad Apple!! article to support this claim: In 2023, users of the Touhou Project, Osu! and Hatsune Miku subreddits collaborated to recreate "Bad Apple!!" on Reddit's r/place canvas, during its 2023 event. It's in German, so I can't really judge the reliability of this site myself - would it be considered a reliable source? MiasmaEternal☎ 22:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It's the self-published blog of Maik Zehrfeld. There's some advice about self-published sources here WP:SPS. I don't think it would be considered reliable, best to find a better source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

This thread is opened at the request of @Kovcszaln6 following the dispute between me and @Javext in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) on the multiple issues regarding that article.

I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:
1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and
2. Yemeni state-controlled media outlets wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")

Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article.

Special:diff/1266430566: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used.
Special:diff/1266448873: This is the version that Jav wants to keep

Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):

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

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

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

I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle
WP:AGE MATTERS?
citing Portuguese records
That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above Abo Yemen✉ 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama. pp. 290-291. (link) GordonGlottal (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Bossip

Hello. I am debating on improving the "4 da Fam" article for a possible WP:FAC nomination. I have a question about a potentials source. Would Bossip be considered reliable and high-quality enough for the FAC process (or for Misplaced Pages in general)? I would be using the following source: Rappers Be Lyin: 10 Greatest Rap Lies. The About Us page says that the site has earned awards in the past and has been mentioned in various reliable sources. I am hesitant about it as Bossip is a "gossip" website. Apologies if this site was already discussed before, and thank you for any help and insight on this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks marginally reliable to me. Like it's not great. But by the standards of pop culture media it's not as bad as it might be. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. That is fair. I had a similar opinion about to be honest. If I do decide to work on this article in the future, I may use other sources first and then see if this one would even be necessary in the end or not. For the purposes of a FAC, which has stricter requirements for sources, it may not be the best option for that context. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

What exactly would 'Before she was the illest female in her Dillard’s department, Amil was the illest in all of Hip-Hop, making $40K/guest verse as the Roc’s first lady? Riiiiiiiight.' be used to source? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It would be used as a negative review for the song as it is criticizing Amil's lyrics. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. The use of slang isn't the issue here. Reliability isn't a register of specific vocabulary. I suppose the question would be whether, Amil was, in fact, making $40,000 per guest verse previously. Should they be reporting that factual statement accurately and should they have a decent history of accuracy in reporting and clarity in corrections when they make an error then the rest is just aesthetics. Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It wouldn't be reported in the article as a factual statement. The "$40,000 per guest verse" bit is part of the song's lyrics and would be addressed in that context, not as an absolute fact. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems pretty odd if not outright illogical to use a gossip website if you're going to bring this to FAC. The typical reviewer there expects the cream of the crop of sources, not tabloid gossip. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Read some of the articles on the site and it's overly unserious and pretentious BS; my advice is to not use this source. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the response. I agree with your assessment. I have removed it from the article. I am honestly not sure why I used it in the first place. I just thought that it would be beneficial to open a discussion about it here to get further feedback. I believe my question has been answered, and hopefully this can be used to help any other editors in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Science-fiction fanzines

I see the question of science fiction fanzines has come up many times in the archives. My question is fairly simple. Writer and translator Philippe Hupp, the founder of the Metz science fiction festival, sent a letter to PKD Otaku, a sercon fanzine that is notable in the PKD community and is often referred to by PKD scholars, but is admittedly obscure in the grander scheme of things when it comes to reliable sources. In the letter that they published (pp. 4-6), Hupp goes into some historical detail of his relationship with Philip K. Dick and how he was able to get him to speak at the festival in 1977, and provides important historical documents (correspondence, photos) that is reprinted with permission by PKD Otaku. Currently, I'm citing this letter in an article about the festival to say some basic facts about the history. While Hupp and Metz have been covered by numerous reliable sources in France and elsewhere, I believe this kind of exclusive historical detail has only been revealed in PKD Otaku. Is it acceptable for me to carefully cite this info from Hupp (it is, after all, about him and his relationship with PKD) and point to PKD Otaku as the source? The article I am working on, If You Find This World Bad, You Should See Some of the Others, is currently on GAR, and it has been pointed out that this fanzine may not meet the criteria for a RS. It does have two editors, however, but I think it is safe to say it is self-published like most fanzines. It would be a shame for this historical information to be ignored. What is the best course of action? If it isn't acceptable to use as a primary source, I've thought that a brief mention of it in a footnote might be okay. Please let me know your thoughts. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

If it's the only source available, and the facts are not controversial, and cited as being from Hupp's account of things, it seems fine to me. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe it meets that criteria, however, I will revise it further to make sure that it does. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Beebom.com

Beebom has been in a few discussions previously about reliability but they've had few responses. I'm asking about their reliability after their reference in Game Science where their opinion is being used as fact WP:RSOPINION. Issues below also make it difficult to establish reliability via WP:SOURCEDEF.

I'm not familiar enough with Beebom to know their overall reporting but I've come across issues.

• They don't have a masthead so I don't know who their writers are or what their expertise is. The most they have is an About Us page with a few higher roles not in editorial and then two editors without any information. This makes it difficult to establish their level of independence and editorial control. A previous RS discussion pointed out some of their content being written by "Beebom Staff" which is still the case but not often.
• Their editorial guidelines are limited and don't disclose important information. For example, they don't state a separation of ads from editorial. They don't mention here the affiliate programs they're in or the sponsorship deals they do. They don't mention their Beebom Gadgets storefront where they sell phones and make videos on them. However, they disclose having an Amazon affiliate program in their privacy policy. But they don't disclose the other "affiliate partners" they use. These issues brings into question conflicts of interest which they don't have a policy on. Alongside other basic guidelines like a corrections policy or how they handle accepting samples (if they do).
  • A 2016 interview explains that they make money from sponsored posts and partnerships. This isn't included in their editorial guidelines. I bring it up since they feature this interview on their About Us page, but Misplaced Pages blocks links to the interviewer's site, YourStory.
  • They used to tag sponsored posts as "#sponsored" 5 years ago but stopped. It seems they now use a byline named "Partner Content" for those articles. But they don't mention anything about a sponsorship or partnership in their latest article under this byline. Nor is there anything about this in their policies. So I can't confirm if they do this for all paid content or not.
• I tried looking into their gaming coverage after seeing them on the Game Science page and found a clickbait news article where they deliberately lie. The headline is, "Black Myth: Wukong Is Now the Most Played Steam Game of All Time", which they almost immediately state isn't true. While also stating "Yes, Black Myth Wukong is now the most-played Steam game of all time!" This makes me question their overall fact checking and reliability when they lie in a news headline.

I can't find much mention of Beebom aside from their own social media on google. Even after removing their social media, I can't find anything. Snakester95 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

It should probably be removed as a source for the example you brought, since an "opinion" piece is not "reporting." As for the site as a whole, it seems to fit more the model of YouTube gadget reviewer, and could probably be used as a source for certain product reviews where appropriate. But they haven't shown that they have much editorial oversight. The two editors I see listed do not have bios. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

So I did a bit of digging and they haven't really been keeping their website up to date. One of the two editors has now moved into the position of "content strategist". This looks like a very marginal source. I've definitely seen worse in the video game space but I'd personally hesitate to use it for anything controversial. I would also suggest that opinion from this source is likely undue unless there is a named author on the byline with some sort of expertise independent of the outlet. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Jacobin

What's worse about this Jacobin take on housing: the woeful lack of fact checking or the smug attempt to blame you for noticing?

Jacobin is currently listed as "generally reliable" under WP:RSP. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

There are definitely issues with Jacobin, and a reevaluation of its reliability is probably going to come sooner or later. I don't think a Reddit page full of amateur pundits, who are in turn discussing another social media discussion, is going to give us anything meaningful to work with. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Not a good look, but I will note that the article referred to says at the bottom: Correction: An earlier version of this article overstated the amount of US housing stock that Blackstone owns. So far as I can tell, the sentence in question is removed from the current version of the article entirely. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That would indicate, notwithstanding snark on Twitter, the website for snark, Jacobin actually did the thing we expect of a reliable source and made a correction to an article with a factual error, identifying with a correction notice that a correction had been made. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this justifies a significant increase in caution towards the author at the very least. In general, an in-depth look at it's reliability is probably due, even though a Reddit discussion isn't evidence. FortunateSons (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It's strange that it was closed as 'generally reliable' in the first place, when most respondents voted either 'no consensus' or 'generally unreliable' in the last RFC. Hi! (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Had a quick perusal of the r/neoliberal subreddit. It appears to be discussing one sentence in one (possibly opinion) article in Jacobin. Are you asking whether that particular article is a reliable source for that one sentence? Burrobert (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Just as an aside, RFCs are not votes (if they were then reliability would be based on the personal opinions of those taking part). I can't speak for the closer of that RFC, but it appears those saying that Jacobin is 'general reliable' had better policy based reasons. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources making corrections, as has happened in this case, is a sign of reliability. Things that happen on social media, and reactions on social media, are mostly irrelevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The original RfC that supposedly found Jacobin to be reliable really is a bit of a tenuous close. A simple beancount in that RfC would lean against treating it as WP:GREL, and I'm not really able to discern why the arguments for reliability were so much stronger than those in opposition that an affirmative Option 1 consensus was declared instead of a no-consensus close (at minimum). I do think that it's ripe for re-evaluation. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The author's behavior would be annoying if we were chatting at lunch and I personally dislike the smugness, but reliability isn't a personality contest, and as Simonm223 points out the article itself was corrected and the erroneous information removed. That's basically what we expect a reliable source to do—fix itself when an error gets pointed out. So long as the actual content produced is dependable or gets fixed to become dependable, that's reliability. Anonymous Reddit complaints trying to score Internet points aren't a compelling reason for overturning the prior RfC. Evidence of a pattern of unreliable reporting and failures to make corrections would be more persuasive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think reviewing this again is going to change anything much, the "worst" outcome is likely a 2, but because it often mixes news and opinion, even a 1 is going to be caveated with caution or attribute, so absent falsehoods, etc might as well let sleeping dogs lie. Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• I think it is time for a review of the past discussion and time to bring up Jacobin for a reliability check. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't hold Jacobin in any particular high regard but, as I mentioned above, publicly issuing a statement of correction when a factual inaccuracy is identified is the standard Misplaced Pages expects from reliable news media. So I guess my question is, aside from it having a bias that is different from the NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus, what, precisely, is it that makes Jacobin less reliable? What is the basis for an RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  What does "NYT / WaPo pro-capitalism consensus" mean? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• It looks like they handled this appropriately, can you explain what the issue would be? Your comment is a little light on details, its basically just spamming a reddit discussion... Maybe tell us what you think? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

A new discussion on Jacobin is long overdue, particularly per Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin. It's clear that Jacobin is not reliable on all topics, and at the very least additional considerations should apply in these cases. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

An RfC next would be worthwhile. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors

The discussion is partially non-topical for this forum. The discussion about the issues that belong here continues below in § The Heritage Foundation.—Alalch E. 19:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Taking this here based on a recommendation from Aquillion. The conversation began at the PIA arbitration evidence talk page where a report from forward was shared . According to this report, the Heritage Foundation plan to use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia. A copy of the Heritage Foundation proposal deck is available here. This Heritage Foundation plan to dox wikipedia editors also would include creating fake Misplaced Pages user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them. It is unclear whether this has begun.

Clearly this situation is alarming in the extreme and the discussion at the arbitration case brought forward the very reasonable suggestion of a project-wide block of all Heritage Foundation domains. So why here? Well Aquillion suggested a reasonable first-step toward this would be to get the site deprecated and blacklisted via RS/N. So that's what I'm here to do. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I am unsure about a retalitory deprecation (or whatever). Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

No this would be a preventative deprecation. The idea, to my understanding, is to remove the ability of Heritage Foundation domains to interact with en.wp as much as possible. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Is that not best done with range blocks, to prevent them from setting up accounts? Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a discussion to be had at the Village Pump, as it's not a matter of reliability. Deprecation wouldn't have the effect that your looking for, you would need blacklisting and I don't think this would fall within the normal process of blacklisting. So a discussion at VP seems more appropriate as it's something outside of prior policy or guidelines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

A village pump discussion was created and the suggestion to bring the conversation here actually arose from discussion of that conversation at the arbitration page. Honestly I'm pretty nervous about a pseudo-governmental organization trying to interfere with individual Misplaced Pages editors in this way so I'll happily take the conversation to whatever board we think is most appropriate. But right now we've got a whole lot of conversations pointing to different places as a precis to discussing the actual problem. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hostile actions by a third party against Misplaced Pages or it's editors isn't a reliability issue, and this isn't a forum for anything but reliability issues. If anything it sounds more like safe guarding, a much bigger issue that should probably involve the WMF. However if editors want to start a discussion about it's reliability, per the sources below, that would be a seperate matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I will point out that part of what I said there was that they're already used on some 5000 pages, and are probably already depracable for publishing obvious disinformation (especially since the 2020 election.) I wouldn't have suggested going through RSN to deprecate them if I didn't think they were also worthy of deprecating on their own merits, entirely separately from the threats to use their websites to dox Misplaced Pages editors; but deprecating them would make it easier to add them to the spam blacklist and would help avoid situations where editors are forced into a situation where they have to consider whether to click a link to an obviously Heritage Foundation-controlled site in order to verify a presented source. I suppose we could just move ahead with trying to get those sites added to the spam blacklist without deprecation, but for a site that also publishes disinformation, it seems easier to get it deprecated first, since it ought to be an easy call. --Aquillion (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies if I misinterpreted. I'll admit that reading the thread at the arbitration case upset me rather considerably. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That is a more valid reason, there do seem to be issues with the recent work. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This discussion should be closed and a proper thread should be opened with substantiated concrete claims about problems with this source. —Alalch E. 15:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The thread itself is the precursor to an RFC. That said, they've published misinformation or disinformation about climate change, the FDA elections and politics, and more. --Aquillion (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That's enough to open an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I suggest closing this section and starting another, to afford accusations that questions of reliability are based on animosity to the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

+1 I think it's time we started a RfC (perhaps in a new section, as suggested by AD). M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, new section. —Alalch E. 18:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

An RFC is in a new section already? You mean a new RFCbefore section? Titled Heritage Foundation? (ie without the dox part) Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

New level 2 section. —Alalch E. 19:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to closing this discussion and opening a new one to host an RfC / RfC Before.Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. Washington, Haydn; Cook, John (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. London: Earthscan. p. 75,77. ISBN 978-1-84971-335-1. OCLC 682903020.
2. Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
3. McKie, Ruth E. (2023). The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19–50. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2. ISBN 978-3-031-33592-1 – via Springer Link. Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...
4. Wubbena, Zane C.; Ford, Derek R.; Porfilio, Brad J. (1 March 2016). News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-68123-401-4 – via Google Books. For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...
5. Kessler, Glenn (March 31, 2021). "The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 11, 2021. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
6. Bensinger, Ken; Fausset, Richard (September 7, 2024). "Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2024. Retrieved September 7, 2024.
7. Fields, Gary; Swenson, Ali (July 12, 2024). "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.

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.

Could someone who can read Bengali take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tamluk Royal Family?

Hello, I started the title AfD in response to some users recreating a rejected draft in mainspace and they responded by filling the discussion with sources that don't pass WP:SIGCOV. I'm unable to read some of the sources, though, in particular one that the users claim has a whole chapter on the subject of the article. Could someone who can read the Bengali sources take a look at the discussion and see if the article passes WP:GNG? --Richard Yin (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

You may have more luck asking at WT:WikiProject Bangladesh or WT:WikiProject West Bengal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, will repost there (West Bengal, since it's the Wikiproject whose scope covers the article's subject). --Richard Yin (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation has published misinformation or disinformation about climate change, the FDA elections and politics, and more. It has been publishing obvious disinformation especially since the 2020 election. Its website heritage.org is used as a source on some 5000 pages (correction: I copied "5000" with this search link from another editor uncritically. "heritage.org" includes all of "english-heritage.org" links; the real count is around 1750 —00:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)). I'm inviting editors to consider whether this source should be deprecated. Another thing to consider are possible other sources such as websites and publications operated by or published by the Heritage Foundation.—Alalch E. 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

We should definitely be avoiding using sources that intentionally put forward disinformation. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

What about the Index of Economic Freedom? —Alalch E. 19:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Nothing of value would be lost if we had to do away with that one. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I like how the United States is 0.6 points away from not being green in that index. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

What about the books published by the Heritage Foundation?

What about https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future as a source in Laffer curve? —Alalch E. 19:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I would want to go direct to deprecation unless they are demonstrably churning out falsehoods.

On a quick search, I only found this discussion in the archives, about the Daily Signal, which looks like a pretty partisan affair. Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

A lot of these are country rankings on the foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. Not sure if we want this used or not. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I was a bit flip above with my comment regarding that index but I guess my question would be what value it is? I mean, let's be honest, the methodological claim in our own article on the index The creators of the index assert that they take an approach inspired by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations suggests they've derived their index from theories in an outdated treatise on economics from 1776. Furthermore we could probably reproduce the index just by measuring how deregulated any given economy is. I'm not sure what neutral value there is to Misplaced Pages giving breathing space to an index that equates economic deregulation with freedom on the basis of a 250 year old book. Simonm223 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean, just as an example, their benchmark for Government spending is $0. IE: The ideal case, for this index, is that there is no government at all. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That just means you personally disagree with them. I could turn it around on you by asking what value there is to the contributions of editors who describe themselves as socialists in their userboxes.

Obviously the index in question is from a particular point of view, but I don't see any evidence adduced that it's not reliable for descriptions of countries according to that POV, which is something that can be of interest. --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh do stop. I've heard that particular WP:NPA violation a thousand times. My argument is that they have no valid methodology and a WP:FRINGE WP:AGEMATTERS perspective, it is not that they are an extreme right-wing group. Simonm223 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know much about their methodology; that's something that could be explored. As to the perspective, I think the reference to Smith is more normative than descriptive. I don't think you can apply AGEMATTERS to moral propositions. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a moral proposition tp build your economic worldview on a text that predates electricity? Simonm223 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a moral proposition to value lesser regulation per se (as opposed to achieve some other goal). --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Their index is pseudoscience. We aren't supposed to use that in Misplaced Pages except to critique it. Simonm223 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a bold claim. Evidence? --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I don’t really care about whatever their wacky economic index dealio is, we just flat-out shouldn’t trust an organization that wants to systematically attack our userbase and will most likely harvest any data it finds for that purpose. It’s like reaching for a source in a bear trap. Dronebogus (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

What about https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB850689110237569500 (archive.is). We are not worried that the Wall Street Journal will systematically attack our userbase etc. —Alalch E. 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears that the use in these pages are not problematic and supported by WP:EDITCON, replacing sources in 5000 pages would be a ton of work. I would like to first know in which pages did the actual use of this source appear unreliable, such as promoting WP:FRINGE. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think they can be counted as a reliable source but I see no objection to saying what they think since they are important if it is obvious they are being quoted as a heavily biased party. They make it fairly clear what they are rather than trying to be deceptive about their aims which at least is a mercy. Really most of these 'think tanks' and 'foundations' and 'institutes' and even 'research organizations' are like that and we'd be well off if they were specially marked as such instead of being mixed up with reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I would consider it WP:GUNREL since it’s self published and openly partisan. HenrikHolen (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not self-published in the sense we use that term. Lots of reliable sources publish their own materials, including e.g. serious thinktanks. It may be GUNREL, but SPS is not a valid policy-based argument in this case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

There was recently (may still be going on) a very extensive discussion about whether WP:SPS applies to "gray" sources such as think tanks and advocacy groups. This line of reasoning probably is coming out of that discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

There was an RFC as well, there wasn't a consensus on how to define such sources but there was consensus against always considering them to be self-published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it can be used, but like with most such sources attribution is appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Please review reference no. 6 in Special:PermanentLink/1264352480 (Additionally, each state is entitled to select a number of electors to vote in the Electoral College, the body that elects the president of the United States, equal to the total of representatives and senators in Congress from that state). Is the source adequate? Would we want to replace it? —Alalch E. 23:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah thats somewhere where I just don't see using Heritage (or any other think tank) being due. That seems like a place where academic sourcing should be pretty easy to find. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. What do you think about the following paragraph found in Special:PermanentLink/1262085410#History, supported by the Project 2025 publication, with attribution: The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, dubbed the Space Development Agency "a model for the military". In their 2025 Mandate for Leadership, they call to develop new offensive space capabilities to "impose will if necessary". They further claim the Biden administration "has eliminated almost all offensive deterrence capabilities" in space that were planned under the Trump administration. Is this where "attribution is appropriate", or should this entire paragraph simply be removed unless there's a secondary source on the fact that the Heritage Foundation has said so and so. —Alalch E. 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Given what we now know, this can be cited as another example of their modus operandi: do what they say, or else. M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It could go either way, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It might be 'reliable' that the HF said what they said they said, but is it relevant? This is getting into questions about whether the content is even WP:DUE. Lots of people say lots of things about lots of stuff, but Misplaced Pages doesn't quote it all. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

There's the reputed Index of Economic Freedom, for one. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is them being unreliable. I think the issue is them tracking the IP of anyone who visits their sites and trying to doxx editors with that info. There might be a way to just archive all the links and then replace the links with links to the wayback machine or something to avoid sending people directly to their site. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not a topical matter on this noticeboard. —Alalch E. 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about that. If a source is willing to go to such extent to silence people, then I don't see how it can possibly be considered reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, if a source is operating in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, that is directly relevant to an evaluation of whether they are a reliable source; namely, it's (additional) direct evidence that they do dishonest and untrustworthy things and are unreliable. Together with the other evidence of unreliability presented in OP's first post, I think they have gone beyond unreliability, into territory where deprecation and blacklisting is in order. -sche (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Support blacklisting Abo Yemen✉ 07:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Minor point but it's used on 1700 pages not 5000. The search caught false positives such as english-heritage.org. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Support blacklisting. I don't wanna get doxxed.. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Serious, non-sarcastic question... Does blacklisting actually prevent and/or stop any alleged doxxing? Or is it merely a retaliatory action and !vote I am seeing? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

They have threatened to start doxxing people on Misplaced Pages. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 22:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

And also have said they will do it with links. ~≈ Stumbleannnn! ≈~ Talk to me 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It's unlikely that any professional phishing campaign by HF would use heritage.org, and if their home website were blacklisted, they would proceed to use other websites Placeholderer (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Should just be considered unreliable for unreliability in general, but the implications they would go to doxxing is icing on the cake to suggest blacklisting at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

As with ALL think-tanks, I think they should be considered WP:GUNREL; though if some of their reports see WP:USEBYOTHERS than those could be used with attribution.---Avatar317 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Could we see some evidence of doxing please? If this is something they do to people it is a safety concern and we probably need to deprecate. As for the rest, I think they are an over-used fringe source, but there are probably times when their attributed opinion is due. The Economic Freedom Index was something you used to see quoted a lot in newspapers and on TV in the UK, not so much now. It shouldn't be mentioned in our Economy of Narnia or Socialist Republic of Zenda type articles.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This expose in the Forward, a respected progressive Jewish outlet, is the main source of information on this scheme. Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Support blacklisting. I don’t know if it’s “spam” per se but an organization that has stated an intent to dox editors is obviously just a simple threat to user safety. And I don’t think there’s any debate their content is all garbage, disinfo, and propaganda. Even WP:ABOUTSELF content should easily be obtainable via respectable 3rd-party sources. Dronebogus (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Support blacklisting. User:Headbomb am I right in thinking your script marks this as unreliable? Doug Weller talk 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Heritage.org is marked as unreliable, yes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Support blacklisting of this Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Support blacklisting. The Heritage Foundation produces two things: disinformation and opinion. I don't think the opinion of a disinformation vendor is particularly noteworthy except in WP:ABOUTSELF contexts. With such minimal value to use of this group as a source let's just show them the door. Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support blacklisting. The site is published by an ideologically-motivated group which is well-documented for making false claims of fact, using dubious methodologies in their work, and is now engaged in efforts to damage this very project. There's absolutely no use, and much potential harm to come from using them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

RFC: The Heritage Foundation

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 list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate
• Option 5: Blacklist

Poll: The Heritage Foundation

• Option 5: Blacklist: Multiple examples of the foundation publishing complete misinformation. The use of links to try to determine and datamine user identity moves to a trust issue and indicates a need to blacklist links to protect users and editors. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Pinging @Dronebogus@Doug Weller@M.Bitton@Simonm223@MjolnirPants, they voted above before I made this RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Barnards.tar seems correct... We need to be able to cite some of their opinions, and pure blacklist would harm our mission... but i'm not certain its worth using their material if this is the new world we are in.

  is there a way to place warnings on links when you click on them that would warn users about this scenario though? that would be a good compromise.. otherwise keeping vote for 5Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I honestly don't see how blacklisting such a garbage source would harm this project. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Bluethricecreamman: There is a way to warn users attempting to add these links (filter 869), but warning users who click on them would likely require some JavaScript magic that's above my pay grade. JJP_Master (she/they) 23:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support option 5 - Allowing this website to exist on wikipedia is a danger to editors' privacy and safety. The Heritage Foundation needs to be blacklisted ASAP Abo Yemen✉ 15:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Heritage Foundation is not a website. It's an organization. You can treat the website as one of its publications. There may be other websites. There are further publications, such as the paperback yearly Indices of Economic Freedom: https://isbndb.com/book/9780891952930. We can't blacklist paperback sources. What's the status of that going to be? How does your recommendation answer this question? —Alalch E. 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Not our problem. We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization. Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  They are works published by the organization. If an organization is such an unreliable source (in the conception of an organization as a source as per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources § Definition of a source; that's point no. 3), which is the framing of this RfC, as to be "blacklisted", should we really retain the status quo wrt its printed works? —Alalch E. 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Do paperbacks get special dispensation in policy from reliability requirements? If (say) David Irving published a paperback would it magically become reliable? Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, according to Abo Yemen. He said: We can keep paperback sources as long as they aren't hosted on a website made by that organization—Alalch E. 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ay dont be quoting me on that. I didn't give a complete answer. I have no idea how unreliable this source is but according to other editors, it is not reliable. But if the paperback was reliable enough compared to stuff they publish on their website then i dont see why it shouldn't be used. All i did was try to give an answer to your question ig Abo Yemen✉ 17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  They don't. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  What is the status of 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, Institute for Economic Freedom (a printed work) going to be then, according to you: perhaps a deprecated source? —Alalch E. 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Whatever we decide, but (again) it being a paperback has no relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  This is an RfC, Slatersteven, it's the time when things are decided. Saying "Whatever we decide" is clearly not moving things forward. —Alalch E. 17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Its status now is that is is an RS, its status when this is over will be determined by this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Please start engaging more meaningfully. It doesn't appear that you're getting it. How do you blacklist a printed work? Only web domains can be blacklisted. What is the consequence for the printed work as the outcome of this RfC if the consensus is to "blacklist the Heritage Foundation"? —Alalch E. 17:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  We do it all the time, we have plenty of blacklisted printed works (the Daily Mail for one). Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? So it would not, in fact, be covered by any ban on the heritage foundation. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  If Daily Mail is blacklisted, how is this possible (edit: I intentionally broke the link later after a complaint that a source highlighter script is painting too much red):

  • {{cite web |last1=Earle |first1=Geoff |title=Justin Trudeau glares at Trump amid his threat to absorb country |url=https://www.d ailymail.co.uk/news/article-14267497/justin-trudeau-glares-trump-jimmy-carter-funeral-canada-threats.html |website=Mail Online |access-date=9 January 2025 |date=9 January 2025}}

  ...?
  I'll help you: Daily Mail is not blacklisted.—Alalch E. 17:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  ]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's not an entry marked as blacklisted. Please find me an entry which is in fact blacklisted, for me to believe that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking when discussing specifically blacklisting something. —Alalch E. 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ahh I see, well yes we cannot blacklist spam if is hardcopy, but we can depreciate it, and it can be assumed that if you choose 5, you are choosing to also depreciate it. Are you you arguing that if you vote 5 it will not cover hard copy? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant "blacklisting the source". Please see this comment below. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, I'll give more responses to your slightly earlier comment: Nothing in policy says we can't depreciate printed works (by the way, printed and paperback are not the same thing). Yes, nothing says so; I wasn't arguing otherwise. But is this not also been published by The Wall Street Journal? Does not appear to be. The sole publisher of this paperback edition is The Heritage Foundation.Going onward... You said that this country ranking, which is a primary source and an unscientific publication from a think tank, is a RS. On no day would that simply be a reliable source. So I'm going to circle back to my original question, to which you replied with the rhetorical question of Do paperbacks get special dispensation .... That original question, mildly rephrased, is:How does the recommendation to blacklist heritage.org the website for safety reasons answer the question of how to treat the reliability of The Heritage Foundation as a source, whereby "source" means publisher, consistent with Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Definition of a source, which is how this RfC's question is also formulated (What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation ...)?Your answer to this question is that blacklisting an organization's website creates an assumption that all publications from that organization which can not be blacklisted are treated as deprecated sources. This answer is possible, but it is not what, say, User:NatGertler thinks. He wrote: ... we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question .... —Alalch E. 18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hey Alalch can you change the source you change this to a normal link because the entire section is now colored red because of the source reliability gadget thing Abo Yemen✉ 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I'll break the link. My highlighter doesn't work like that. It only colors the link red, not the whole section. —Alalch E. 18:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ultimately I think this is somewhat moot as, notwithstanding the safety concern, they're also a deeply unreliable fringe source that has been spammed all over our project. As such I do sincerely think there is a justification for options 4 and 5 even if this group wasn't trying to target Misplaced Pages editors. That they're also doing this is, in my view, an inflaming element but I think that getting this pervasive fringe source out of our project is a good for the project on its own merits. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also this is an online source, so may be a security risk. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  You are mistaken. The link I posted is a link to a database entry on the website isbndb.com. It contains information about a printed work published by The Heritage Foundation. —Alalch E. 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5 already said why, garbage source that’s a threat to user safety. Dronebogus (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support option 5 and option 4 per my statements above. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I added option 4 to my support message to clarify I support both blacklisting and deprecating this source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3, with Option 5 post 2016 and Option 4 for any hard copy after 2016. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Only blacklisting/deprecating content from a certain time period is not possible unless the domains are different. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu You're correct separately about blacklisting but you're not correct separately about deprecating, but maybe (probably) that's not what you meant specifically ("blacklisting/deprecating" was probably not separately addressing deprecating)—see Lenta.ru at WP:RSP; deprecated status only extends to content published from March 2014 onward. I.e., it's possible to deprecate content from a certain time period. —Alalch E. 00:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Alalch E. Interesting, it looks like it's possible only if you can do some regex trickery. Heritage does not include article dates in their URLs, though. Not even their static content includes them (unless you can somehow decipher "824-MHT-304". Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, that is interesting. In the present case, if blacklisting for ostensible security reasons, the date isn't a factor. —Alalch E. 03:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3: generally unreliable. Too many examples of them publishing bunk. However, blacklisting would also be wrong, because they seem to have a deep archive of relevant material, such as this article by Clarence Thomas which we link to on his article. For readers who want to read the subject's writings, that is a useful link. Putting the heritage.org domain on the spam blacklist would prevent this. This is far from the only example. Furthermore, the call to blacklist seems to be a misguided attempt to prevent the doxxing op that they have planned. Blacklisting will not prevent any of that plan being executed. It's just the wrong tool. By all means aggressively block accounts and IP addresses implicated in doxxing, but blacklisting their domain is a completely unrelated action. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 and Option 4. this is literally a Stasi-like "source of misinformation and disinformation". M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 maybe the doxing threat would be a good enough reason, but the fact it publishes misinformation is an overwhelming reason. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 for pre-2016 (meaning: same status as the Cato Institute and the other "yellow" think tanks) and Option 4 for 2016 and later. While spam websites can get spam-blacklisted if they're recognized as obvious spam in discussions held in this forum (happens rarely), I oppose the notion that this forum has an ability to decide to blacklist a non-spam source for computer security reasons, because the subset of editors at large interested in reliability of sources used on Misplaced Pages, who are predominantly the editors commenting here, here do not have the competence to make an informed decision on matters of user safety. Facts and arguments should be collected in a discussion devoted to that specifically, which discussion has a chance of attracting editors with suitable knowledge and skill, and decisions should be made going forward from that (i.e., this (permalink)), not from value judgements.—Alalch E. 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Actually, we do have the competence and the right to decide whether a source should be blacklisted in this appropriate venue. M.Bitton (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Disagreed. I.e., agreed for spam, disagreed for safety.—Alalch E. 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm noting that multiple other editors also disagree in a discussion a bit further below, or state that blacklisting is pragmatically poor on its own merits as a protective measure. —Alalch E. 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5 We can't control what they do with their site, and they've indicated their willingness to use malicious applications and methods to harm Misplaced Pages. Allowing links from our site to theirs is a fundamental cybersecurity concern, given their announced intention to target our editors. And given their use of misinformation, their all but explicitly stated goal of engaged in broad political activity to undermine the constitution of their home nation, which is also the host nation of this project and whose constitution outlines fundamental principles of this project, there will be no appreciable loss to the project from doing so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 - blacklist website for cybersecurity reasons. Not sure about non-website references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 blacklist for security reasons, noting that they have brought this on themselves - I would otherwise oppose blacklisting, as they sometimes carry content from individuals whose opinions we would give weight to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 Blacklist -- but this does not mean removing the reference. Rather, we can remove just the URL, and people can treat it much as they treat references to magazine articles which are not online (or can point to an archive source). Whether they should be deprecated as a source is a separate and legit question, but with their announced intent to use links to try to break Misplaced Pages privacy, they are a malware site and should be treated as such. This needs to be done to all links to their websites, regardless of date. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 They are often publishing pure opinion, and what they publish is definitely the opinion of the people writing. Where these opinions might be due is to be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Their editorial content (i.e. anything published by them without a name attached) is generally unreliable (option 3) as they are into WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories and disinformation. I don't get how anybody is voting 4 or 5 on merit here though, and this board no jurisdiction over their alleged cyber-stalking attempt.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 per Vanamonde93, the known security risks make this an exception to past precedent, basically they have now entered "find out." I would guess anything notable published there would be picked up by on other news outlets and/or scholarly sources that can be cited instead. The Clarence Thomas article mentioned above, for instance, is widely cited and also has a Google Books entry which at least is not a technological risk. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 per Vanamonde93. If necessary to use, we can use other sources that refer to the organization, to an offline publication, or use an archival link (which I think would resolve security issues). Perhaps archiving all existing links might be an option as well? -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Since it's relevant apparently, 5 & 4, with older links being converted to archival links if they fall within the allowed uses of deprecated sources. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 08:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 I have seen enough to make me think that attribution is insufficient here, gunrel leaves the door ajar for citations but not that many, hopefully. Blacklisting their websites seems more of a technical question, but wouldn't it require a 4 first? Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  They go hand in hand. Blacklisting the source means deprecating the source and blacklisting the main domain and any other domain that it uses. M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is 3 + 5 a legit !vote? Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  @JoJo Anthrax, Bluethricecreamman, Abo Yemen, Dronebogus, Doug Weller, MjolnirPants, SarekOfVulcan, Vanamonde93, NatGertler, Boynamedsue, Gnomingstuff, Patar knight, 1AmNobody24, Tryptofish, Chaotic Enby, and Horse Eye's Back:

  While it's reasonable to assume that "option 5" would automatically include "option 4", some editors seem to think that it doesn't. Please ignore this request if you agree with them, otherwise, you might want to adjust your !vote (i.e., also comment on the reliability) to alleviate any confusion. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  My comment is only on security grounds. I don't believe that in the current context it is possible to evaluate their reliability independent of those security concerns and so will not be attempting to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I did already comment on the reliability in my !vote, but thanks for the reminder! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have a strong opinion on this - if it weren't for the security risk I'd be somewhere between options 3 and 4. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I do have a strong opinion on this, but am backing it down to 3+5 for NPOV reasons. As said elsewhere, named op-eds might be legitimate references. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  If it wasn’t security related I wouldn’t have voted. But I would still allow older cites under a 3 if and only if they were replaced by wayback machine links. Dronebogus (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5 Don't think this needs any explanation anymore. Nobody (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 6, Mu. We're trying to solve a very real issue of not giving out personal information, but blacklisting isn't really a way to do this. The risk by clicking on the link is something like the risk of clicking on a link to a state-owned media site, or frankly any potentially hostile website. This is because there's no malware required to be installed to get one's IP; the execution is extremely simple because you give out your IP when you visit any website and, if you allow cookies to be downloaded generally, this is the exact way that advertisers track your browsing.The way that spearphishing to get one's IP address works is that you have to click on a very specific link, and they have to be fairly certain that only you could have clicked on that link (or that a very small number of people could have done so). Blacklisting one domain name is sufficient to start a game of Whac-A-Mole, but it doesn't really protect us against this sort of thing; all they have to do is register a new domain name that outwardly looks like something benign and send it to you in an email (or even posting it on a rarely-viewed talk page). And, if they're already engaging sockpuppet burner accounts to do this, we're going to see this often and possibly without even knowing it.If the concern is spearphishing, blacklisting a public website that has some legitimate uses is the wrong approach. In fact, it would wind up making the spearphishing be more effective by necessity, since people who are alert to Heritage urls would be directed to click on something that doesn't look like one. And perhaps it would even lull people into letting down their guard in this respect.The Heritage foundation is used in >5000 articles often as a supplementary/WP:PRIMARY source. And that's because it's influential in the course of AmPol and it's often useful to include those links in a reference work. This sort of spearphishing would appear to be a new low.What I really don't want is for editors to have a false sense of security here; blacklisting is not going to stop this sort of activity, and it's somewhat trivial to get around this. The proposal would give us as much extra security as blacklisting state-owned media/government-controlled websites from countries known to try to de-anonymize and harass Wikipedians. We don't generally do that, and we really don't need to; it would be ineffective in achieving its goals of protecting our users. (Perhaps I'm off-base here, and the community would want to blacklist those too.) But it really is a bit of a feel-good measure more than an effective one for privacy from a sophisticated actor.The technical solutions offered at the Village pump are in some ways more robust than a blacklist. What the technical solutions would do is make it harder to trace back traffic to ordinary (i.e. non-spearphishing) links on the website to Misplaced Pages, and it would reduce the risk associated with existing citations. They're not perfect; ultimately nothing can prevent you from clicking the outlink to a burner website, but those solutions don't lull users into the false sense of security that blacklisting the Heritage website would. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  We can do both. We can remove a WP:FRINGE source that is being far too pervasively used across Misplaced Pages and we can also pursue those technical solutions to protect privacy. And this would have a tertiary effect of pointing out that the Misplaced Pages community will vigorously protect itself from this sort of bad-faith interference.Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  The issues outside of reliability or blacklisting is out of scope for this noticeboard. Discussion about protecting editors from hostile actions should continue on the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  If the purpose of blacklisting is to protect editors from hostile actions, as is enunciated several times above, then... yeah, that this is not going to be effective on a technical level is very relevant. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah that isn't really a valid reason for blacklisting. The point of closing #Heritage Foundation planning to dox Misplaced Pages editors above, and starting a new section, was to focus on reliability issues. That they appear to be taking hostile actions against Misplaced Pages's editors isn't a V/RS policy reason for blacklisting.

  Blacklisting won't protect editors, which is something that will proby need WMF involvement, which is why I suggest the VP discussion continue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a really pertinent point, there are genuine security concerns, we need to discuss them in the correct place. Most of the people here are clueless about online security, I know I am, it's not a reliability issue. The comments on here seem to be completely reactionary, and more about sending a message to the ghouls in question that they can fuck off. Let's be honest, the people voting option 5 are doing so as retaliation. I understand that instinct, I'm fuming about this myself, but it's making us look daft. We shouldn't be getting into bunfights with organisations that are so clearly beneath us. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm all for discussing the Heritage Foundation based on the merits of its reliability and protecting Wikipedians from their harassment, but I completely agree with Redtail here. I really doubt that we'd need to blacklist new Primary additions, and Heritage can't doxx Wikipedians through existing citations without doxxing everyone who visits a Heritage link; we don't have trackers on our Heritage reference links. What we should do instead is try and rangeblock Heritage or other stuff already discussed. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Basically agree with Red-tailed hawk on everything here. Reliability is always dependent on the statement a source is being used to support, and The Heritage Foundation's website is reliable for statements about what The Heritage Foundation believes in. Blocking them would undermine our ability to write about what The Heritage Foundation believes, while not really addressing their spear phishing efforts. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

So, in fact it IS being argued that 5 does not also include 4, so if you also think derpication as well you need to (explicitly) say it, as I now do. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5: Blacklist (along with 4: Deprecate). For our security as editors, and for the security of our readers – and yes, they brought this on themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I want to add: it seems to me that any organization that says that it will do what is described in the Forward piece, is not a source that we can trust to be reliable. It would be a disservice to our readers to use such a source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  +1 M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've been continuing to think about this, and I've also been reading the subsequent RfC comments by editors who argue that we should still consider that it's a think tank that can provide citable source material. Some editors have also said that we should not let our emotional reaction against the doxing issue influence how we evaluate Heritage as a reliable or unreliable source. In some ways, I agree that we should not make sourcing decisions based upon emotion. However, we should also not be naive about what a legitimate think tank does. Think tanks take advocacy positions, but they also are populated by thinkers, people with expertise who think carefully about issues, and seek to publish well-reasoned analyses of issues. But it's frankly laughable to characterize Heritage that way. An organization that says, publicly, that they are going to go after Misplaced Pages editors, as persons, in order to enforce their preferred view of what information Misplaced Pages readers will find, is not an organization that is producing scholarly analyses of information that Misplaced Pages might want to cite. If it's a legitimate think tank, then Antifa is a think tank, too. Even if they also purport to produce thoughtful position papers, those publications simply have to be recognized by us as tainted by intellectual dishonesty. There is no passing that off as reliable sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is threatening WP editors a problem because it indicates the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are such threats in a broader category of "horrible things to say"? Should all sources that say horrible things be deprecated and blacklisted even if they do produce some valuable work, because it indicates intellectual dishonesty? Placeholderer (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, especially if the said valuable information is extremely low and under debate. (Though blacklisting I disagree with.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  There's a wide range, in both directions, of how much valuable information a source can offer. On WP:RSP the only sources deprecated with antisemitism as part of the justification are Press TV, an Iranian propaganda outlet; The Unz Review, with justification mentioning "racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content" and "many apparent copyright violations"; and Veterans Today, which was blacklisted for abuse and deprecated for "unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories." Unz Review is the only deprecation citing racism. Searching for a few other "horrible things" keywords, I don't immediately see anything else.

  With Press TV and Veterans Today it seems there are, I would say, much clearer underlying problems with the sources than is the case with HF. Unz Review seems to have been a clear-cut case — the only such case I see — of cancelling an outlet primarily for being unusably (i.e questionably) rabid, and it being an outlet that no one would miss because it doesn't seem (per its RfC) to provide useful info. HF may be unhelpful to an extent, but not that unhelpful. Apart from that, sources are flagged for their information being inappropriate for the encyclopedia, not for saying horrible things.

  It's also worth looking at Asian News International. They're another organization hostile to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages's mission, but despite that whole situation, they're only MREL, and the description of why gives no mention to that situation. That's the most important precedent in this comment.

  If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those Placeholderer (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well said @Placeholderer, "If we're going to deprecate or GUNREL Heritage Foundation, it shouldn't be because they threaten us. I don't think that's the standard. There are better potential reasons, and I think we should focus on those..." Iljhgtn (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5: Blacklist, primarily for editor safety reasons. While I agree with Red-tailed hawk that blacklisting this specific source will not be a perfect solution, editors posting unknown websites for spearfishing purposes can be dealt with individually (in fact, I don't think they would wait for heritage.org to be blacklisted to do so, and blacklisting the main site keeps us more alert on that fact). If the Heritage Foundation intends to directly endanger Misplaced Pages editors, blacklisting their website and treating it as potential malware is the minimum we should do. In terms of accuracy, generally unreliable at least, and neutral on deprecation, although NatGertler's approach (removing the links in existing citations) can also be up for consideration. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

NO security is perfect, and if its not they even black list spam (they will find a way). it is about not making is casual. So easy that it just means copying and pasting nickyouriddotcom into a cite. Making it even slightly harder might be enough to prevent its casual use. Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've got a multi-stage vote of sorts, if that makes sense:

• In general, Option 5 for editor security reasons, as per all above.
• With specific regard to HF-authored pieces/editorials, Option 4 as they repeatedly publish dis/misinformation intended solely to serve WP:FRINGE theories.
• With specific regard to op-eds that have an actual name attached to them, somewhere between option 2 and option 3 - WP:NEWSOPED would typically lean toward the former, but even the op-ed pieces veer into FRINGE often enough that I'm not comfortable with an outright 2. The Kip 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 Because as Bernards points out, there are still some good links, particularly in archives. And as Red-tailed explains, Blacklisting creates its own set of problems that won't solve what many think it will ie. it's a dangerous solution because it puts a veneer on the problem that looks like solid wood underneath that is not. -- GreenC 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 on security grounds, this is a bit atypical but we don't have a large history of sources purposefully turning their links into honeypots with the explicit intent of harming wikipedia editors and readers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 for any web-based source connected to the organisation on grounds of cybersecurity. No comment as to reliability. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 This foundation knowingly and intentionally publishes disinformation, and it has self-identified as a threat to Misplaced Pages and its editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Um why does anybody think the links they would use would be to a heritage foundation url? Also, this isn’t a social media site, this isn’t some place where the interests of the users are supposed to trump the interests of the product, that being our articles. If there is some evidence that an actual heritage.org link has been used for some nefarious purpose then you can talk about blacklisting, but other than that this is supposed to be judged based on what’s best for our articles, not our editors. nableezy - 19:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is the main problem with blacklisting. It’s security theater, which generally does more harm than good, as I think Red-tailed hawk articulated well. Using heritage.org as the actual spearphishing domain doesn’t line up to the MO given in the leaked slides, which talk about using redirects. It would also be weirdly amateurish to create that kind of paper trail leading directly to the perps, especially now that they (presumably) know we’re onto them and any of their agents caught in such an obvious blunder could be subject to countermeasures. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. Their is no reason not to place fingerprint gathering html5 snippets as widely as possible if you want as much tracking as possible. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  And consider, Misplaced Pages editors will only be one target. A large tracking network can be a used to doxx other people they dislike (advocates of racial equality, LGBT people, non-capitalists). Its pretty safe to assume they will have middleware somewhere in their webstack to affect fingerprinting. I'd be mad at my cyberattack consultant if they missed the obvious. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5: blacklist any and all known Heritage Foundation websites as soon as possible, past and present links included. The organization has made its malicious intentions clear. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 this is purely retaliatory behaviour based on an alleged document. The usage of this source hasn't been shown to be problematic and a few bad articles doesn't inherently make a source unreliable. If you're worried about your safety then block the links yourself, but Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to serve you and your paranoia. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I understand what you are saying, but please don't call it paranoia. The concerns are very real. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  The document mentions nothing about using phishing links nor would their references serve as a useful phishing link. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  The document explicitly calls for using redirects from their web technologies to collect edior fingerprints via html5. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  There's no way for existing URLs to fingerprint Wikipedians without fingerprinting everyone. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  They don't mind fingerprinting everyone, and it only makes their campaign stronger. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Fingerprinting everyone is useless for purposes of following and tracking Wikipedians. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 (like all think tanks). This seems purely retaliatory. I mean sure, they want to spy on us, but famously so did the NSA, for which we sued the NSA and lost. And it’s not like we are banned from citing US websites. This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity, do you think an FBI agent led attempt to steal our information would use their basic domain? They have millions of dollars they will just buy more or use connections to do it to other sites. This does nothing and is performative. And I don’t find the evidence above convincing, it’s a think tank, producing think tank type fare. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  "This has virtually no impact on our cybersecurity." This is really badly incorrect. Someone publicly saying they were going to add malicious links to our site to track and doxx our editors is a huge threat. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 per PARAKANYAA. Well said. - Amigao (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 There is absolutely no downside to blacklisting this source. Nothing of value is lost, and unreliable information is kept out - it's a win-win situation. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 Those sites are not reliable enough. Privacy wise, those sites are dangerous for editors and readers to visit. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 and in case it's considered seperate Option 4 as well. THF are not only publishers of WP:Fringe but are posing an active threat to WP:NOTCENSORED Bejakyo (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5: While blacklisting does not preclude HF from using any number of other domains for various malicious schemes, it's the least we can and should do. Any source that seeks to subvert the encyclopedia and harm its editors thereby confirms it is inherently unreliable. HF now demonstrates it is barely this side of a criminal organization. soibangla (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Barely this side of a criminal organization? I would ask if you are serious but you probably are. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

They are a criminal operation in many jurisdictions. Running an identity theft ring with a promise of blackmail is a stack of felonies. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2-3 There are a lot of problems with this RfC. First, like them or not, the Heritage Foundation is a widely cited think tank. As a think tank, and like basically all activist type organizations, we should be very careful about directly citing them for anything. However, if they release a report or study that is widely reported on or if they release a metric which is quoted by many source then we are doing our readers a disservice by deciding the source must be avoided. This would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge. As for the idea that the source is a danger, what evidence do we have? A single source has made claims. Do we have any corroboration? Absent concrete evidence the idea that we would blacklist the site is a very bad precedent. Springee (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Why wouldn't we rely on secondary sources? 166.205.97.9 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Think tanks are widely cited as secondary sources Placeholderer (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Springee makes the most well articulated point of anyone in this RfC. This would indeed be "very bad precedent" and we should not also retaliate based on the claims of a single source in such bad form. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3, at the very least. Heritage Foundation has long since departed from typical think tank-ery into axe-grinding, conspiracy theories, disinformation, and artificially stoking culture wars. Reliable sources from journalism (Associated Press, New York Times and academica (Springer International and Routledge) have identified Heritage Foundation as a publisher of disinformation, falsehoods, and exaggerations. It is unreliable as a source. Obviously, the news from The Forward, a reliable and reputed journalism outlet, that the Heritage Foundation plans to doxx Wikipedians who contribute content with which they disagree—something that would basically amount to a campaign of ideologically motivated harassment—is also chilling and troubling. It suggests the Foundation, unable to win in the marketplace of ideas, is trying to impose itself by force. This is not the behavior of trustworthy coverage or analysis. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2, per PARAKANYAA and Springee. Their threat is repellent, and whatever can be done to prevent them making good about it should be done (and is being discussed elsewhere), but that has nothing to do with their reliability as a source. They're a think tank, and are a reliable source for at least some things. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Adding that I agree with restricting links to archive.org versions if it seems that direct links may lead to identification of editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1, though heavily biased to the right and certain qualifications on some subjects may need to be stated if there are any COI concerns related to funding and topics they write about where such funding is directly involved. The alleged "misinformation" appears to mostly just be right wing bias to a very pure degree. However, that has never been reason to question reliability by itself. The same goes for a high amount of left wing bias in any given source. So called "bias" alone is just bias, it does not introduce reliability concerns. Full deprecation does seem to be more of a knee jerk action and not a real and careful evaluation of the numerous citations where alleged reliability may be called into question. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  What do you think of the incidents described in the opening statement? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I answered that and offered a !vote accordingly based in policy and not in retaliation for an alleged proposal from the Forward source. Heritage is biased, though reliable. So Option 1: Generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Couldn't most misinformation be described as bias to a very pure degree? That to me seems like a distinction without a real difference, bias which is so pure as to abandon a factual basis isn't distinguishable from mis/disinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe, but then that sure would alter probably hundreds or thousands of these discussions. So if we want to define it one way or the other, that should be baked in to the P&G. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5 as their own communications indicate that they are a security risk, that they intend of publishing malicious web content in order to identify people who click on their links. TarnishedPath 03:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 and maybe 5. Based on their (lack of) quality as a source this is an extremely obvious 4 but their recent outrageous threats were making me think that 5 was also justified, comparable to how we would treat a terrorist organisation. After seeing Red-tailed hawk's comment, among others, I am now less sure about that. What I am sure of is that they publish deliberate disinformation in intentional bad faith and that makes them utterly untrustworthy and unreliable (with both an upper and lower case "u") as a source for anything at all except for their own claims. Literally nothing that they say can be relied upon unless independently corroborated by actual Reliable Sources, in which case we should just use those Reliable Sources instead. If they say that the sky is blue then a Reliable Source needs to open a window and check before we can say that it is. I see people saying that they may have been more reliable in the past. I have my doubts about that. Sure, they are probably even worse now than they were before but were they ever really anything better than a 3 or 4? That said, if that does turn out to be true, and we do decide to blacklist, then I guess we could use Archive.org to refer to contemporaneous copies of their content which we know not to have been subsequently tampered with. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 because they have announced they are a security risk, and Option 4 because they have announced they are seeking to undermine collaborative consensus-reaching among editors. Sita Bose (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 as they routinely publish material chock full of conspiracy theories and outright fabrications.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5, regrettably. I would normally have suggested option 2. But given they are actively trying to dox editors on Misplaced Pages and contributors to other internet sources, that is absurd and is not something that can result in them being tolerated as a source on Misplaced Pages. They do good work - they produce things that, while biased, are reliable, generally speaking. But their efforts have extended to doxxing contributors, and that is unacceptable. Misplaced Pages has an obligation to make reasonable attempts to protect its users - whether editors or readers - from having their information harvested through links. And since the Heritage Foundation has admitted they intend to engage in information harvesting based on links... nope. Not permissible. To clarify - my !vote here is not a comment on their reliability overall. If they cease their information harvesting, I support a further discussion on this topic. But if they intend to (and per reliable sources, may have already begun) use their links to harvest editor/reader information, absolutely not acceptable, and they should be blacklisted until they cease engaging in such behavior. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment to anyone voting “1”: do you seriously believe that or is it just a protest vote, because I’d say objectively an ideological think-tank should be at minimum a 2. An activist organization simply isn’t at the same level of trustworthiness as, say a newspaper of record with a notable ideological bias. Dronebogus (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Tbf, only one person has !voted option 1 so far, and they then listed a couple of additional considerations.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I counted two Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant, it would be for the closer to access the strength of any arguments. If they are weak that will be noticed, it is thus up to the poster to decide if their argument is good enough. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• option 2/3 - Heritage is a very influential think tank. What they publish matters in political discourse. We can not ignore them.

That said, what they publish is opinion and there are limited circumstances when it is DUE to mention opinion. So… when discussing what they publish we should be careful to use in-text attribution - to present what they say AS opinion and not as fact. We can and should allow ABOUTSELF, primary source, citations when these are DUE.

If you need an extreme analogy… we allow citations to Mein Kamph as an ABOUTSELF primary source for Hitler’s opinion. There are very few situations where it is appropriate or DUE to mention Hitler’s views… but IN those limited situations we allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Mein Kampf is a book and Hitler is dead. We can reference it without any risk that doing so might leak information about our editors and readers back to Hitler. The more comparable situation would be if we allowed links to an online copy of Mein Kampf which was hosted on a neo-Nazi website operated by an organisation that had previously threatened our editors and readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5 On any other occasion I would have gone for "generally unreliable" and suggest citations to it require attribution, as it's a politically partisan think tank which publishes fringe views and has been known to publish misinformation. But in this case, I think such an extraordinary situation requires us to take extraordinary measures. This goes beyond the question of reliability, as the Heritage Foundation has signalled its intentions to "target and identify" our colleagues on this platform; this represents a clear and actionable threat of harm and it demands a response. Preventing them from using links to their website to carry out their attack campaign is just a reasonable act of self-defence. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 for the relibility of what they say as it often conflicts with scientific evidence or facts. They have in effect declared war on Misplaced Pages editors but are an important site so if there is a way of automatically warning readers if they click on a link that they are doing it at their own risk I think that would cover the business of the doxxing. I think that could be a useful facility if it looks like a link should be included in the encyclopaedia but there is evidence it may be malicious in some way. NadVolum (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3/Option 6/BAD RFC per Red-tailed hawk, Springee, GreenC. The Heritage Foundation is an important think-tank source for representing the views of its faction, and should not be deprecated or blacklisted for that reason. Also 1) WP:RSN is not the right venue for deciding on how to deal with the alleged browser fingerprinting, 2) fingerprinting can be addressed through much less drastic means than blacklisting (e.g. the idea of only allowing archive links), 3) the fingerprinting honestly sounds like fluff to me, and text analysis/facial recognition seems more likely to be the thing that can actually identify editors, and there's little we can do about that besides taking down pictures from profiles. GretLomborg (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  The planned attack includes fingerprinting users coming from Misplaced Pages, adding tracking cookies, identifying who they are on other sites based on the extensive fingerprinting capable with html5, and using off-wiki data to complete the doxx. So any information connecting IPs to Misplaced Pages is the foot in the door to check say, the fingerprints from html5 being run on a malicious ad campaign via Twitter aimed at people who are interested in some tv show that an ARBPIA area editor also edits about. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  All of these techniques are things advertisers like Google Ads already do. You can't connect any particular fingerprint to "edits Misplaced Pages" unless you send out a specific phishing link only Wikipedians would click on, which is something we might want to look out for. However, there's no reason to think blacklisting Heritage will rid us of this threat any more than the US TSA prevents bombings, as they're unlikely to not use another domain. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with the BADRFC !vote as well. A !vote made as retaliation (even pre-emptive retaliation) is not supported in policy or guidelines of any kind that I know of. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Very poor option 2 or option 3 gunrel for a significant number of facts per the arguments above, including some fringe (for now, and will hopefully remain so) views, with particular caution regarding gensex and similar strongly recommended. They are often due either for their opinion, that index mentioned (?), or expert opinions published by them. Regarding the source quality (as in, the jurisdiction of this board), I see no policy-based reason for depreciation or blacklists. Having said that, if it can be plausibly shown that they intend to use their own domains to harm editors (which I consider unlikely because domains are easy to get and unwise to link to yourself), I would support any technical measure, preferably a warning for editors clicking on links (if technically possible). If that can’t be shown, I believe that a ‘punitive’ blacklist is understandable from a human level, but not beneficial to the encyclopaedia. FortunateSons (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I think that categorizing sources as "reliable" and "unreliable" is an idiotic parlor game. Life is not 1/0 on such matters. It is ahistorical and leads to cultish thinking. That said, I consider the Heritage threat, if accurately recounted in the media, to be akin to a violation of the NOLEGALTHREATS rule; worse, actually, as it is arguably a call to terrorist vigilantism. I can see banning links to that site on that basis. I question whether this is the proper venue for that determination, however. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Being GUNREL or deprecated just means that their publications aren't good for determining when it's due to include their viewpoints in an article. —Alalch E. 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 Short answer: 1. Security is irrelevant to this RfC; 2. WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican; 3. HF should be treated the same as other well-established but POV think tanks like Cato, which is to be MREL. For point 1, apart from this RfC being about reliability and not security, it's hard to believe that any professional phishing attacks would use "heritage.org". Blacklisting their website won't accomplish anything for internet security. As explained by others, it would also be undue to blacklist HF when there are plenty of other organizations and governments hostile to Misplaced Pages. For point 2, I think saying HF is GUNREL for being WP:FRINGE is to lose the meaning of WP:FRINGE. What is fringe? Funky low-traffic websites saying hurricanes are controlled by lizard people. What is not fringe? Possibly the most policy-influential conservative think tank in the US, where half of people are Republicans. There are other arguments that HF could be considered GUNREL (which I disagree with so far), but I think WP:FRINGE is the wrong argument to take. For point 3, while I acknowledge in particular the sources provided by @Hydrangeans (is it appropriate for me to ping here? sorry if not), which I'll put here for convenience, and I admit I can't access the full 3rd and 4th source, I think the concerns highlighted by these sources are best addressed with MREL/additional considerations. HF is an advocacy group, and should be treated like an advocacy group in that not everything it says should be taken at face value — that's what "additional considerations" is for. Cato (MREL source), for example, gets criticized for its potential Big Oil conflict of interest, but they have lots of great work on, for instance, the economic benefits of immigration. I'm less familiar with HF, and though I know they've gotten lots of press for saying wacky things recently (though, again, security concerns irrelevant to this discussion), I do know they've had a long and recognized history of Republican policy work. Of course they'd get press for the wacky stuff, but a big part of the think tank industry is boring statistics and information gathering. If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference. If people don't like the Index of Economic Freedom because it's "pseudoscientific", they should think hard about the value of the index industry in general Placeholderer (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  As I'm a person who has explicitly called out the Index of Economic Freedom as pseudoscientific let me say that the majority of think-tank indices are crap that is unworthy of including in any respectable encyclopedia. This one is just particularly bad, derived from an outmoded economic treatise penned before the advent of the carbon arc lamp and then not even doing a very good job of cleaving to that in favour of the unproven, unscientific and entirely ideological claim that deregulation is equivalent to freedom. This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. This piece of pseudoscience is also being published by people who have openly declared themselves as enemies of this project. That leaves me feeling... substantially uncharitable. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  This piece of pseudoscience may be popular among a certain set of Americans but that doesn't make it less pseudoscientific. We didn't start lending credence to anti-vax hokum when it started getting popular. +1 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  What about the democracy indices from The Economist, or V-Dem, or Adam Przeworski et. al? Or the World Happiness Report? The Index of Economic Freedom is not indicative of GUNREL Placeholderer (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Unrelated, please start a new RFC about those. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  This isn't an RfC about the Index of Economic Freedom. This is an RfC about The Heritage Foundation (HF), where the Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is being given as an example of HF being a bad source. I am comparing HF to other think tanks, and IEF to other indices/indexes, because it is relevant to this RfC Placeholderer (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Wealth of Nations is in no sense "outmoded". That's like calling the Principia outmoded. Placeholderer (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Because both are. They're classic works, sure, but they aren't current and reliable scholarship. If I want to know the sun's mass, I'm not going to look for Principia's estimate. I'm going to read current scholarship making those kinds of estimates that have the benefit of an additional three centuries of research and knowledge with which to work.The comparison in any case is still pretty apples to oranges. Wealth of Nations lies in the social sciences while Principia deals with hard sciences, and social ideas about how humans function—and, for that matter, the societies within which said humans function—have changed a lot more than, say, the hard facts of gravity and the sun. For example, the "invisible hand" in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in its original context referred not to market competition but rather to the Providence of God, not exactly a prevailing academic interpretation for how economics work. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Instead of us in this discussion deciding the academic or economic value of Adam Smith, I'll ask for RS that the IEF is unscholarly because it is inspired by The Wealth of Nations.

  The IEF is not a problem with this organization Placeholderer (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  If we want a source that articulates Republican criticisms of the Department of Education, HF makes total sense to reference: No, it wouldn't make sense to reference the Heritage Foundation directly. If what we want to cover is the criticism, we want secondary source coverage of such criticism; citing such criticisms directly and just deciding to put them in an article is original research in the pursuit of a false balance. Criticism of vaccination is an influential element of American culture, but we don't go out of our way to cite anti-vaxxers; we instead cite reliable sources that independently document and analyze such. The Confederate secession was a major part of American history, but we ought not write Civil War articles by citing 1860s South Carolina newspapers for information about anti-abolitionism; we cite historians and how they have documented and analyzed what's relevant, what's meaningful, what was disinformation, etc. Likewise, if what we want is coverage of the Heritage Foundation and its role as an agitation engine against certain kinds of policies (in your example, education), then we cite journalists, historians, sociologists, education professors, etc. who study and write about organizations like the HF. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  This is entirely correct. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  The difference between anti-vaxxers and Heritage Foundation is that anti-vaxxers are a fringe perspective in the medical field, even if one of them is going to lead the NHS, and that Heritage Foundation is, like Cato, a well-established but POV/advocacy think tank. As for Civil War newspapers, the difference is timeliness: of course historical events have many better sources that are third-party analysis, but we do cite think tanks all over the place. I don't see why HF is substantially different from any other MREL POV, advocacy think tank whose work should be attributed.

  To source HF's own role in policy, of course it wouldn't be used as a source for itself. The same holds for any source, MREL or not Placeholderer (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Are you saying economics is not a science or social science? Because I am saying that their index is specifically pseudoscientific within the field of economics. No amount of "well its ideology" irons that out. Simonm223 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  What are you suggesting out of this, what we delete the Index of Economic Freedom page? Placeholderer (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you mean to say that HF is GUNREL because the IEF is pseudoscientific, then I'd ask for RS that say the IEF is pseudoscientific (not that it's just flawed, because of course any index is flawed) Placeholderer (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  What do you think about the second sentence of the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article as seen in Special:PermanentLink/1268161574, which begins as follows, reference included (the reference is the Index of Economic Freedom on heritage.org): Ireland is an open economy (3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom), ... —Alalch E. 23:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  No matter what happens here that doesn't seem due... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  To connect better to the preceding comments in this thread: Even if certain experts may be behind the Index of Economic Freedom, it is still a non-scientific source (which is different from pseudo-scientific), it can't be treated as a secondary source, and can't be used to directly support statements of fact, such as "X is Y". —Alalch E. 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  To restate my own point, I don't think the IEF can at all be taken as a reason to call HF a GUNREL source.

  I actually think Economy of Ireland is a great example of an article where the IEF (and by extension HF work) can be brought up, since Ireland's corporate economy is based around being a regulatory/tax haven, though I do think the current phrasing especially with parenthesis is weird so early in the article Placeholderer (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  This exact phrasing, meaning this sentence supported with this citation, does not belong anywhere in the article. —Alalch E. 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think "Ireland ranks 3rd on the Index of Economic Freedom" is perfectly reasonable to include in an article about the economy of a corporate tax haven Placeholderer (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  WP:FRINGE doesn't apply if HF is mainstream Republican: Reliable sources and the neutral point of view aren't determined by what is politically mainstream, whether Republican or Democrat in the United States, or Labour or Tory in the United Kingdom, or LDP in Japan, etc. The Taliban is a mainstream political faction in Afghanistan, insofar as it's the faction in power, but I don't think we would consider some kind of Taliban-aligned think tank to be a reliable source for Afghani society and politics. Mainstream reliability is determined not by the ideologies of politics but by the rigors and standards of academia and journalism. A majority of Americans believe a creator deity was involved in the origins of humanity, but that belief being 'mainstream' doesn't make it reliable, and we wouldn't treat a source attesting such as one that's reliable for biology or evolutionary anthropology. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  To clarify, I don't mean to assert that HF is reliable because of being mainstream Republican. I mean to say that WP:FRINGE, specifically, doesn't make much sense to use against what is, in the US, a political and academic giant. They might have some specific views that are fringe, but that shouldn't necessarily disqualify the source — The Economist has called for the legalization of cocaine, which is a fringe position, but The Economist is (rightfully) a well-respected source.

  TLDR I complain about specifically WP:FRINGE being invoked against HF as reason to deprecate Placeholderer (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2. Other sanctions may be appropriate for the privacy issues, but RSN is not an appropriate forum to pursue them. We cannot retaliate against sources for conduct which is not restricted by wiki accuracy and notability guidelines. And I'm leery of taking such wide action against an organization with a long and complicated history, comprising some intentional lying (especially the last 4 years) but also real and valuable research. Ideally we would give Heritage up to 2020 similar treatment to Cato The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed. (which I think is the only thinktank with an RSP listing) and minimally GUR it for 2020+, but with the RFC as-listed I think we have to err on the side of trusting editors to use their own judgement. This RFC did not arise from an editing dispute and I don't think Heritage is being regularly used inappropriately on wiki. If a dispute does arise, Option 2 will be enough to prefer other sources. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. It's a widely used source, not just on Misplaced Pages but also in other RS, including scholarly articles (, ), so WP:USEDBYOTHERS applies. I'd support every effort to combat their scheme to influence Misplaced Pages but blacklisting them as a source is not going to help. Blacklisting them would make us look like vindictive amateurs rather than a serious encyclopedia. Alaexis_¿question? 20:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If its relevant would not other RS report it anyway? Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation is most cited through their Index of Economic Freedom, which is a lot of data that's documented on that article in tables refreshed each year; no secondary source includes all the data included on that article. We could start a discussion on that article's talk page about removing the data under WP:Indiscriminate if we wish, but there does seem to be precedent with global indices to include all countries' rankings, indices, and historical rankings. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Secondary sources may not list it because it's minutia from the pro-pollution lobby. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

That's exactly what I just meant with the WP:Indiscriminate part of my reply. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah Misplaced Pages would be improved by removing their deregulation index in full. Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. It would be a bit hard, though, since other indices also list everything. I would support such rampant restructuring if I had a clear picture of where the removed data would go. I'd say Wikidata, but that doesn't seem to have such facilities/pages. And no, I don't think it's reputation is that much worse to warrant deletion. Alaexis lists two sources that cite IEF: one source from the unreliable MDPI, but also one source from Nature, which is like top-tier iirc. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5 An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  "An organization that declares its hostility against the very concept of a neutral encyclopedia deserves to be treated as a hostile actor." How does this in any way comment on the RfC, "What is the reliability of The Heritage Foundation and should it be blacklisted?"

  This is exactly the sort of comment that is not actually addressing the RfC, but is purely retaliatory and very angry (perhaps understandably, but that is besides the point). Nothing about this sort of comment is rooted in policy, and I hope any closer views such !votes with the correct and proper disregard that they deserve. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Reliable sources don't need to resort to hostility to impose their POV. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  So their reliability is called into question only due to alleged "hostility" of some kind reported in one source and which hasn't even occurred yet from what I can tell? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  If they are unreliable on specific grounds, so be it, but so far mere retaliation is neither valid nor constructive. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Nope. Their hostility is the icing on the cake. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5, or at the very least options starting from 3, due to its publication of fabricated and/or misleading information and its widespread use in the project. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 2. As far as I can tell, their internal memoranda are a wishlist and aspirational, and so far they haven't been successful in any of their reprehensible ideas. As far as the source itself, I tend to see it as verging into pretty unreliable territory similar to Fox News, but it's a think tank, so sometimes they might have some well-researched reports or attributable opinions, and they're one of the largest right-wing think tanks so they have a large body of usable attributed information, similar to other think tanks or advocacy groups, biased, but occasionally useful with real academics working there, so I think full deprecation or blacklisting seems excessive. The reality is, their desire to dox editors is easier wished for than done, and it doesn't expressly impugn the reliability of their past material. Andre🚐 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• After some thinking, I'm leaning towards option 4 per Tryptofish above. Besides the extensively documented lying, I (unfortunately?) don't trust a source that aspires to covertly attack and burn down us and our library, and there should be a pretty good reason for someone to click twice on the "publish" button. This won't stop any "link injection", and it shouldn't: Thinking blacklisting would diminish security problems is pure security theater, per RedTailedHawk; it is not something we should do. Deprecating informs newer editors of the situation, and that's something we should do. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  We can do both (deprecate the source and blacklist its domain for good measure). M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I just said blacklisting would bad due to being security theater in my comment. You should read RedTailedHawk's comment for a slightly more in-depth layman's explanation on the technical-ish side. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I know what you said and I have read RTH's comment. That doesn't change anything. M.Bitton (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, I thought your comment meant that blacklisting would constitute good measure. It'll only make stupid attempts at spearphishing less obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  So you said. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  So you said. How about you cut it out, huh? —Alalch E. 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  How about you stop asking me to read what I read and disagree with? M.Bitton (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  M.Bitton, you're wrong to insist on blacklisting based on this discussion. The real discussion about what to do technically, and blacklisting is a technical and not an editorial measure is had at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. It is also had at other places, where discussions aren't public. —Alalch E. 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5 The sites are not reliable and the new information showing recently shows clear and obivous issues brought up by most here so far. ContentEditman (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Are there any indications at all that their statements are a reliable source about anything that is not embarrassing to themselves? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4+5 per the sources above. They routinely publish misinformation, and make no particular claim that I can see towards doing any fact-checking or having any editorial controls in the first place, so they shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with; but the fact that they somehow ended up used in so many articles shows that deprecation is necessary. In the rare case where someone there says something significant, it will be reported in secondary sources and can be cited via those; there is no exception to WP:RS for "they're really important, tho", precisely because unreliable-but-important sources can be cited via secondary coverage. Their threats to use domains they control to dox and out Misplaced Pages editors is just an additional reason on top of this and a reason to take the step of a formal blacklist. While blacklisting obviously won't solve the problem, it will avoid situations where editors feel they have to click their links in order to evaluate a potentially-viable source, and force them to use lesser-known (and, for most editors, more intrinsically suspicious) domains in order to do any sort of spear-phishing attack. Some editors seem to be saying "well let them use their own domain for those attacks, that'll make it more obvious" - but if we don't blacklist it then it won't, because allowing it means it could also be used in good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Routinely publishing misinformation would be a concern, but I haven't been convinced from the discussion so far that they do that. Could you elaborate? Placeholderer (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Option 5: +1 (what Aquillion said) + Think tanks are rarely anything but a source of last resort on Misplaced Pages. We mostly use them when they have useful insight into niche security topics. If any primary research or opinion from the HF is particularly notable and due, it will be covered by reliable, secondary sources, and we can still cover it. We don't need to send users to a website with potentially malicious activity. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 This seems like a drastic overreaction. Nemov (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• 5, and 3/4. If this had been asked a month ago, I'd've said 3 because, as Alalch and others laid out in the RFCBEFORE, they have a reputation for letting politics trump accuracy, leading to mis- and dis-information; in any situation in which their views are DUE, those will (by definition!) have been covered by other, reliable sources; and any ABOUTSELF statements needed on their own article can be handled as exceptions/whitelisted. But 5 is also in order: for a source to operate in bad faith, using fake links and sockpuppet accounts and doing other dishonest things, is not only additional evidence that they do dishonest/untrustworthy things and are unreliable, the misuse of their domains in particular merits blacklisting. Pace those who think blacklisting their main domain is "security theater" because they'll also use other domains, I think it's necessary, as I (a) see no reason to doubt they're using their main domain for the same thing, and (b) view blacklisting them (under their main domain) as a necessary first part of blacklisting them (under any other domains they're caught using). -sche (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 given the explicit details of the threat they pose to editors here. (same reason that a site like Conservipedia should be blacklisted too). The content they produce would already make them generally unreliable (and I don't know if we ever considered them reliable before so deprecation doesn't sound possible), but we should go the step further to protect WP editors here. I can see limited exemptions to use them as a primary source only on a page about the Herigate Foundation itself if that absolutely needed, but likely not. --Masem (t) 05:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion: The Heritage Foundation

What exactly happens to the 5000 links if we blacklist them? Does a bot go through and remove the https:// from them so they are unclickable? (Seems reasonable.) Or are the citations deleted? (Seems a bit damaging.) Or something else? This will affect how I opine in the above RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae I'm just noting that it isn't 5000 but cca 1750, please see Special:Diff/1268481621. Sorry for propagating the incorrect number. —Alalch E. 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It could either of those two options or it could be that the bot goes through and replaces the references with a {{cn}}. I guess that should be discussed. TarnishedPath 23:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting says "Ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting." —Alalch E. 23:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Spam-blacklisting is not the same thing as a Reliable source/Noticeboard discussion around "blacklisting" a source per the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. No action should be taken pertaining to this discussion prior to the formation of a clear closing and consensus being reached. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why you are making this comment here, and what it's supposed to accomplish, but you are incorrect. Spam-blacklisting is adding an entry to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The page Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting (the same page I linked to in my previous comment you replied to) is a supplementary page explaining some principles and workings of the spam blacklist. Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist is the (pretty basic) guideline about the spam blacklist. But the real instructions that are the most useful are actually in the header of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. The "Legend" section of the Perennial sources information page (see WP:RSP#Blacklisted) only explains what it means for a particular row in the table of perennial sources to have a grey background and that entry's status to have a particular icon. RSP does not contain general advice about blacklisting pages. RSP only records when a page is blacklisted in addition to having a status describing the consensus around its reliability. The list of blacklisted domains is the spam blacklist itself. Sometimes, relatively rarely, when a source is discussed at RSN, an additional outcome may be to add the source to the blacklist; this generally happens when editors discover that the website is simply a spam website. The underlying discussion, the main thrust of the discussion, is a discussion around reliability, consistent with the name of this forum: The Reliable sources noticeboard.The problem with this RfC was that it erroneously began as a discussion around computer safety, which is out of scope. But it has somewhat, partially, corrected itself. —Alalch E. 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I think a malware website can not be used as a reliable source. The intent is to misinform and endanger. Nothing reliable about that. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I see arguments above that the Heritage Foundations declared hostility to Misplaced Pages's neutrality means we should treat them as a hostile organization. There are other entities hostile to our neutrality; Donald Trump and the Chinese government are two that come to mind. Neither is what I would call a reliable source, but we don't ban all links to them; they're treated as reliable for a very limited set of cases. What's the difference between these cases? There are governments who have imprisoned Misplaced Pages editors (so I gather; I don't have a reference but I've seen it said). Can those governments be cited for anything at all -- e.g. the names of their ministers? Option 5 seems inconsistent with the way we treat these other hostile entities. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump doesn't have a detailed cyberattack plan to doxx editors here. The heritage foundation does plan on using web technologies to harm editors. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's not that they're hostile, as lots of organizations are hostile; it's that they've identified themselves as having planned a specific, malicious digital attack vector against the community. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment, a great many comments !voted purely out of retaliation to try and stop Heritage foundation from taking a certain action that some perceive to be "doxxing". I have a serious question though, "Does deprecating and removing any links to Heritage Foundation, IF the blacklist/deprecation retaliatory measure passes... does this actually stop them from initiating their plan, or parts of it? I am not familiar with all of the details, but with A.I. and other tools these days, couldn't they still try and do things to identify some editors with certain editing patterns or behavior completely independent of whatever happens with this discussion and then do the "doxxing" anyway? This seems to have larger legal implications, unless I misunderstand it, and if that is the case then this seems silly to try and solve with a angry RfC which might not have any real defensive benefit for the community. Has anyone taken this into consideration? Is anything being done about that? If not, why not? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Reference Subsection

References

1. Washington, Haydn; Cook, John (2011). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. London: Earthscan. p. 75,77. ISBN 978-1-84971-335-1. OCLC 682903020.
2. Fisher, Michael. "Heritage Foundation". Archived from the original on August 8, 2021. Retrieved September 1, 2021.
3. McKie, Ruth E. (2023). The Foundations of the Climate Change Counter Movement: United States of America. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 19–50. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33592-1_2. ISBN 978-3-031-33592-1 – via Springer Link. Heritage engaged in several accounts of misinterpreting the evidence on climate change...
4. Wubbena, Zane C.; Ford, Derek R.; Porfilio, Brad J. (1 March 2016). News Media and the Neoliberal Privatization of Education. Routledge. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-68123-401-4 – via Google Books. For the past several years, a group of conservative think tanks with close ties to congressional Republicans has waged an aggressive public relations and lobbying campaign against the federal Food and Drug Administration. The campaign relies on misinformation and distortion of the F.D.A.'s record. Between 1992 and 1995, seven of the think tanks received...
5. Kessler, Glenn (March 31, 2021). "The bogus claim that Democrats seek to register 'illegal aliens' to vote". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 11, 2021. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
6. Bensinger, Ken; Fausset, Richard (September 7, 2024). "Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2024. Retrieved September 7, 2024.
7. Fields, Gary; Swenson, Ali (July 12, 2024). "Conservative group behind Project 2025 floats conspiracy idea that Biden could retain power by force". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
8. Foundation, Heritage (1 February 2023). "Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise" (PDF). The Heritage Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 November 2023. Retrieved 1 September 2023.
9. Rosenfeld, Arno (2025-01-07). "Scoop: Heritage Foundation plans to 'identify and target' Misplaced Pages editors". The Forward. Retrieved 2025-01-10.
10. "Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom". www.heritage.org. Archived from the original on 21 May 2020. Retrieved 2022-11-12.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)

• Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)

Are PCORI statements a WP:Reliable source for medical claims? Do PCORI statements pass WP:MEDRS as coming from a medical organization?

I say yes. The organization is non-governmental, but was established by the United States government, and they have awarded about US$2 billion in grants over the past 10 years. They are a large research organization which takes care in making conventional statements. Also, they have good alignment with wiki community organizations, and have hosted and joined wiki editing events in the United States and with Wikimedia Medicine for almost 10 years. That alignment is because of PCORI's patient advocacy, and because typical people find this organization's statements to be more relevant than those from more industry-oriented medical organizations. While PCORI does drive a lot of research through peer reviewed journals, they also make expert consensus statements in the name of PCORI which are not peer reviewed.

@Zefr: said that some PCORI statements are "neither vetted by peer-review nor is it mainstream clinical practice", which is correct, but I feel that they still meet MEDRS by being a statement from an authoritative organization. Similarly, @Whywhenwhohow: reverted saying the sources were not MEDRS compliant. FULBERT made the statements as Wikimedian in Residence at PCORI, and I collaborate with FULBERT through United States Wikimedia groups and through the University of Virginia, where I also am a Wikimedian in Residence.

Here are the talk notices about reversion. The statements are

• Talk:Modafinil#Clarification_on_a_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted
• Talk:Amantadine#A_recent_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted
• Talk:Methylphenidate#Update_on_a_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted

Here is an actual PCORI statement from the Modafinil article. The reverted claim from this statement was that 40% of patients using a drug have adverse effects.

• https://www.pcori.org/evidence-updates/comparing-treatments-multiple-sclerosis-related-fatigue

I support using this source for this claim.

Thoughts from others about PCORI generally? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Bluerasberry - in the case of my revert at Modafinil, the PCORI report was just a summary of preliminary results (n=33, i.e., primary research) from the "Treatment of Fatigue with Methylphenidate, Modafinil and Amantadine in MS" (TRIUMPHANT-MS) trial, which had been funded by PCORI.

At this early stage,TRIUMPHANT-MS was actually just a pilot study reported here. That study is not a MEDRS source for the article statement, "modafinil has been shown to be effective in managing fatigue in people with MS" when other more substantial sources, including a meta-analysis, are used.

Further, the PCORI statement is that "These findings can contribute to clinician and patient discussions about treatments to reduce MS-related fatigue." In other words, the PCORI article is a) a progress report, and b) an advice source for a physician-patient discussion.

In this case, such a brief update on funding for preliminary research is not an appropriate reference, and does not comment on the wider issue of PCORI as an organization. Zefr (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewing the PCORI website leads to the conclusion that their strength is the cross-sectional diversity in how they evaluate, monitor, then disseminate summaries of research projects, described here. They are not the publication venue for completed research - the WP:MEDASSESS sources of journals, books or clinical organizations - but rather their reports are summaries of the research project. For this reason, I would ask why would we cite a PCORI summary when a peer-reviewed publication is the main source? Is there an example of a PCORI final report that you feel is a good MEDRS example?

There was concern that funded research groups submitting final reports to PCORI had "spin" language, which was caught and adjusted by PCORI before publication.

As of 2023, the National Academy of Medicine is collaborating with PCORI to improve the review process for evaluating research funding candidates.

The PCORI article needs updating. There are fewer than 30 watchers/editors of the article. Zefr (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zefr: Two issues here: The extent to which PCORI publications meet MEDRS, and then presuming that PCORI is reliable, WP:Verifying that Misplaced Pages reflects PCORI's claim in an appropriate context. Originally I think you were challenging PCORI, but here, I think you are challenging the claim. Do you agree with that distinction and separation, and if so, can you (or I) move your text discussing the claim to Talk:Modafinil#Clarification_on_a_WP:MEDRS_sourced_claim_that_was_reverted?

This is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, so this is the place to discuss your comments about the organization and your question about why to cite PCORI's summaries instead of the original source. Briefly, there can be multiple approaches to healthcare. Most approaches originate in the healthcare industry, and it is challenging to escape that. PCORI speaks for itself, but I would describe it as remaining in the healthcare industry (as opposed to exiting it to seek alternative medicine), and within that context, recommending evidence-based medicine which prioritizes person-centered care. So for example, many medical recommendations from industry seek to maximize curing disease, but a patient-centered approach could emphasize managing side effects and planning the financial cost of treatment. Regardless of what kind of recommendations PCORI is making, I sustain the notion that per WP:MEDORG, Misplaced Pages includes expert institutional claims which may not go through the peer review process of a journal.

I think the report we have been discussing is a good MEDRS example. It comes in different forms -

• for clinicians (we were discussing citing this one)
• for patients
• the peer reviewed research article for the trial

Misplaced Pages typically does not cite trials, but here, PCORI is elevating the results of this case study into a special report and expert recommendation. We can attribute this to the organization following WP:ACCORDINGTO/WP:INTEXT guidelines, which was the original attempted edit.

PCORI gets into cases like this which are fairly unusual. The situation is that there is an Off-label use for a drug (so it is not indicated or approved, but there is evidence for it) and then PCORI is giving an alert about that off-label use. I am not a physician, and I do not know how to untangle expert institutional critiques of off-label drug use, but in general, I just trust PCORI's process and think Misplaced Pages can include PCORI recommendations attributed to them. I do not see this as the same as citing a case study without the backing of an expert org.

Base question back to you - how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence? Bluerasberry (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If PCORI published a summary of results from a multinational Phase III trial or a systematic review that it had helped to fund, then perhaps that would meet WP:MEDORG (although still not a national clinical guideline that would better meet MEDASSESS). In the case of the reference for modafinil, PCORI is giving an update on a pilot study, which clearly isn't MEDRS.

"how do you feel about including statements attributed to PCORI based on trials, when they conflict with other evidence?" Defined on the PCORI website under Evidence Updates: PCORI presents findings from systematic reviews and some of our funded research studies in concise, accessible formats called Evidence Updates. Most Evidence Updates are available in two versions: one for patients and caregivers and one for clinicians and other professionals. These updates, which capture the highlights and context for these new findings, are created and disseminated in collaboration with patients, health professionals, and other organizations."

Likely, the PCORI update for a systematic review would be more digestible for the common Misplaced Pages reader, but having the original journal publication would have to go with it as the more complete source. If there was a conflict with another source and both were MEDRS-qualified, WP:BALANCE would say discuss them both.

It's ok to copy any of this to the modafinil talk page. Zefr (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I do not think there is a term for nonprofit organizations which have strong government ties, but yes, I understand what you mean. PCORI is a 501(c)(3) organization which receives government grants through the Affordable Care Act.

I wouldn't say its non-governmental... It seems to be more semi or quasi governmental (Interestingly enough a notable concept that we seem to lack a wiki page for) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Law&Crime Network

Hello! I would like to know your opinion about Law&Crime Network youtube channel and their news site Law&Crime News. Are they reliable source for information about murders/trials? SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Youtube channels are generally not reliable sources. Please see WP:RSPYT for additional context. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't speak to their YouTube channel at all. Re: their website, Adam Klasfeld used to be their managing editor (he's now a journalism fellow with Just Security), and I found him to be a very reliable reporter on legal issues. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Their website is RS. However many of the sources there, you have to deal with BLPCRIME, for which you must be cautious anyway. But I have found them to be fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Catholic-Hierarchy.org

Catholic-Hierarchy.org is a self-published source that has been featured in two prior discussions (2016 and 2020). Multiple editors appear to consider it a reliable source specifically because it is used in other independent publications. This is a noted exception for self-published sources that can be found in WP:RS/SPS. However, users also acknowledge that it should never be used in biographies of living people.

Is there more discussion that should be had? Should these details be added to WP:RSPSOURCES? This source is used several thousand times on the English WP, so centralized standards for it might be desirable. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there any context, any new disagreement about the source that would warrant a new discussion? If not the RSP has inclusion criteria and can be discussed on WT:RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@OldPolandUpdates: Where can that noted exception for self-published sources be found in WP:RS/SPS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Mid-paragraph here. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others, that isn't there. The self publisher here is an amateur, a self described "Random Catholic Dude" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

What is WP:EXPERTSPS? It redirects to Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Do we have standards on who is/is not an expert? If Catholic-Hierarchy.org is not an expert source, then it is not a reliable self-published source, and this has implications for thousands of WP articles.

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources seems to imply that if one's material is used by reliable publications, then one might be considered an established expert. Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used in peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and other types of articles. Some of the usage is described here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_203#catholic-hierarchy.org. Therefore, the discussion might revolve around whether Catholic-Hierarchy.org is used enough by external publications.

If you consider Catholic-Hierarchy.org not reliable, then would you also agree that it be depicted as such in the WP:RSPSOURCES table? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The standard is mid-paragraph here "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." which does not appear to be the case here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would also note that there appears to be a consensus from 2020 that this is a SPS, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Catholic-Hierarchy.org Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I have added the source to the WP:RSPSOURCES list. Please take a look. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

From the wording you've used there ("Other editors do not consider the website to be a subject-matter expert in its field.") I think you're getting EXPERTSPS confused with used by others... Its not the website which isn't a subject-matter expert, its the self publisher who isn't. The argument that "some editors have considered the website to be reliable because some of its content has been published in reliable, independent publications" is seperate from the argument about whether or not its a SPS... A SPS which is used by others still has to follow SPS rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide the standard that you are using to determine whether someone is an expert? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The standard: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It is possible that I am misinterpreting that, and I did consider that bolded section to basically be similar to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If work that appears on Catholic-Hierarchy.org is published in the form of a reference in reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and reliable newspapers), then isn't this bolded section satisfied? What does the bolded section mean? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

No, there has to be works other than the self published ones and they have to predate the self published one. Generally only academics and journalists satisfy our requirements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I have modified the WP:RSPSOURCES entry to better reflect this comment. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It still feels off, you're giving wayyyyyy too much weight to the group that thinks its reliable when that view isn't supported by policy and guideline. You also make the consenus that it isn't an expert SPS look like just an opinion, but we clearly have consensus that the author isn't a subject matter expert by our standards. It also isn't a general opinion that SPS can't be used for BLP, thats solid policy. This comes off more as apologism than what consenus actually is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• This is a non-expert self published source. We have established that no such "noted exception" exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• If it is used by reliable secondary sources then it shouldn't be difficult to find the information from the reliable source itself. Shankargb (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: The London Standard

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn by JJPMaster --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 21:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

---

The London Standard, formerly known as the Evening Standard, has 18,703 links on the English Misplaced Pages. Its reliability has not been discussed since 2018, and there is currently no consensus on its reliability. Therefore, what is the reliability of the London Standard?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Marginally reliable, or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

JJP_Master (she/they) 23:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• I think you should also post some examples of the articles from this publication. People would then know why this outlet is now up for discussion. Shankargb (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Can we stop doing RfCs with no background? That is not what this is for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA: I brought it here (a) because of its recent change in format and (b) because it hasn't been discussed in seven years. I figured that the previous discussions would have been sufficient for WP:RFCBEFORE, so I didn't think to start a regular discussion beforehand. JJP_Master (she/they) 01:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You don’t start off with the RfCs, for which you provided 0 context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) I'm with Parakanyaa here. That it hasn't been discussed since 2018 is not sufficient reason for an RFC, in fact it's reason against one. I would have expected some recent discussion prior to an RFC, so that we have some context. TarnishedPath 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Bad RFC because of lack of WP:RFCBEFORE. I have no context whatsoever here. Presumably if it's being brought up here, JJPMaster thinks there's some kind of problem with it, but if so it's not clear at all what problem(s) they think there is. Loki (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Bad RFC due to complete lack of WP:RFCBEFORE. No discussion in any capacity since 2018. The Kip 04:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Procedural Close. There is no mandatory periodical process for the reliability of specific sources. A source is brought here for discussion only after what the instructions demand, in large fonts, right at the header: Please supply the article is used in, and the claim it supports. RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions . This is a bad RfC and should not be entertained nor continued. -The Gnome (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Unless there's some new context in regard to it's reliability, disagreement between editors or discussion of London Standard's reliability in secondary sources, then there's no need for a new discussion let alone an RFC. Maybe the wording in header and edit warning needs to be stronger. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

   Request withdrawn per above. JJP_Master (she/they) 12:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable per WP:NEWSORG. Since this newspaper is listed in RSP, we are within our rights to !vote on it. James500 (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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.

Checking a wikipedia source

I'm curious as to whether in general I can copy an already existing citation from one Misplaced Pages article to another which says the same thing without having to check that citation. For example, on the page George Robert Russell there's a citation which I haven't checked, but I'm assuming the person who added it did: , and I want to use it to link his name on Jonathan Russell's page. This example is the specific one and a little complicated (and I apologize for that), but the question also applies for other cases. Can Do I have to check the citation myself first to do this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662 You should. Noone can force you, but sadly often, WP-sourcing is not what it should be. Gbooks and archive.org is sometimes helpful. Note also that you are close to have access to the WP:LIBRARY. WP:RX is sometimes useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You should be able to access page 190–191 via Google books here -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The advantage of checking sources yourself is that you're much less likely to see your edits reverted with a comment of failed verification, not in source later. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you guys very much, I added it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. Jacques Downs, The Golden Ghetto (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1997), 191.

RE: Lambgoat

Lambgoat just got discussed recently, but I have a useage that hasn't come up yet in discussions that I want to get clarity on. Is an article like this, about heavy metal genres, acceptable for use on the relevant Misplaced Pages genre articles, with the exclusion of any BLP claims or controversial statements? I'm pinging the other editors who were involved in that discussion. JeffSpaceman, Sergecross73, MFTP Dan.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I have to say, I have never seen LG do something like this and would not be personally inclined to use it. It's only just over a year old, so maybe it's a new thing they're doing and I didn't keep up. mftp dan 19:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I found another music history article from 2024, so it looks like this might be a new addition to the type of coverage that they do.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend verifying with other, more established reliable sources, and potentially citing those instead per User:MFTP Dan. I think routine coverage (as you state, barring exceptional claims or third-party information about living people) is probably viable, but I'm not confident this source should be cited for what you are looking into it being used for. But I'll see what others think and where consensus goes. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

They don't mention editorial staff or fact checking on their about us. 166.205.97.9 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

They do have an editor, per the staff page, but the role is not explained.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:

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