| Revision as of 01:36, 20 September 2009 view sourceOttava Rima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,327 edits →Source in Oscar Wilde← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:40, 24 January 2025 view source ActivelyDisinterested (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users50,621 edits →Survey: Jacobin: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}} | |||
| {{redirect|WP:RSN|"Misplaced Pages will be ready ]"|meta:Eventualism}} | |||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{editabuselinks}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| {| style="background:transparent; width:100%; margin: 2px 0; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF;" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! align="center" style="background-color:#CAE1FF" | <inputbox> | |||
| bgcolor=transparent | |||
| type=fulltext | |||
| prefix=Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard | |||
| break=yes | |||
| width=60 | |||
| searchbuttonlabel=Search Reliable sources noticeboard archives | |||
| </inputbox> | |||
| |} | |||
| {{shortcut|WP:RSN|WP:RS/N|WP:V/N}} | |||
| Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article ]. Please post new topics in . | |||
| 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 the ]. | |||
| If your question is about whether material constitutes ], please use the ]. This noticeboard is '''not''' a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content. | |||
| This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "''which sources in ] are reliable?''" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested ]. | |||
| <div class=plainlinks style="text-align: center; width: auto; margin: .5em 15%; padding: .5em 1em; border: solid #aaaaaa 1px; font-size:125%">''''''</div> | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 465 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchivSee = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(8d) | |||
| |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__ | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| <!-- | <!-- | ||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| Line 41: | Line 15: | ||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| ] | |||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |||
| == Fox News on ] == | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| I am being told by an experienced editor that the following article cannot be used to establish that the environmentalist, Lawrence Solomon, is in fact an environmentalist. I do not understand why this article would not qualify as a reliable secondary source. ] (]) 22:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, for one the article does not look like a very good source to me, but rather like a collection of tidbits used as a teaser. But more importantly, it does not say that Solomon is an environmentalist. So I can fully understand the concern. --] (]) 23:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fox News is, in broad terms, considered a reliable source ... The problem is that, in this instance, the source does not support the statement. That means that this specific Fox News report is not a reliable source for the specific statement it is being used to support. ] (]) 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why not simply ignore a source that does not support what you need it to, and look toward where several sources refer to him as an environmentaist. Then there's , and which all call him environmentaist. Heck, the even calls him an "internationally acclaimed environmentalist". ] (]) 02:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you Michael, it looks like it may be easier to find this stuff than I thought, and your refs look better. Meanwhile, for my own humble Wiki-education, I am still unable to understand the concern and would appreciate a response from uninvolved editors. The article states: "''A former adviser to President Carter's global environment task force and '''one of Canada's leading environmentalists''' is disputing the claim that there is a scientific consensus about the human origins of global warming. '''Lawrence Solomon''' writes ...''" What is the problem here? ] (]) 04:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Fox News is '''not''' a reliable source. We've been through this in many different cases. Find a better non-partisan source.] (]) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::But it's fair and balanced! Seriously, though, where has it ever been determined, by consensus, that it is "'''not''' a reliable source"? My search through pages and pages of matching archives shows it, time and time again, being defended as a reliable source. I don't watch it (and don't like it), but that's because of its editorial slant, not because of any inherent bent towards factual inaccuracy. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 05:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Fox is a reliable source. They have a right wing slant, but that doesn't take away their RSness. - ] (]) (]) 05:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Sources that pass ] for one fact or in one context often fail under different circumstances. Trying to get a definitive answer about whether something ''is'' a reliable source in every case is an exercise in frustration. In this case, if other sources support it as well, I'd just cite it to several and move along to the next project :) -] (]) 07:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Fox news is reliable under our guidelines. That doesn't mean it is preferred as a source for cases like this. Just like cnn's website wouldn't be preferred, fox's 'print' side isn't great. That's without taking into account their slant. ] (]) 07:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@Michael - every single one of your sources are opinions (Op-Ed's, letters to the editor etc.). The trouble is that so far no one has been able to come up with a sufficiently reliable source to the effect of calling Mr Solomon an environmentalist. And that is the problem in this case. The insertion has historically on the article been controversial (several edit-wars), and thus it requires a reliable reference - which is all that is being asked for, before insertion. For what it is worth, my personal opinion is that he is/or has been an environmentalist - but that is neither here nor there. --] (]) 08:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Alex... the problem here is in the writing at the fox news article (caused by the fact that they created the print report by simply transcribing the vocals on a TV report). The way they wrote it up, there a paragraph break in the middle of what you are citing. A new paragraph indicates that there is a clear separation between the two sentences ... that | |||
| :*Canada's leading enviromentalist (unnamed) is disputing something... and | |||
| :*Someone named Lawrence Solomon has written something. | |||
| For the citation to support the contention that the leading environmentalist actually is Lawrence Solomon, it would have to read something like ... " | |||
| :*A former adviser to President Carter's global environment task force and one of '''Canada's leading environmentalists, Lawrence Solomon, is disputing''' the claim that there is a scientific consensus about the human origins of global warming. | |||
| Hope that helps clarify why that particular article doesn't work. ] (]) 14:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Ah. this is a critical distinction. I didn't even read that closely. Thanks, blueboar. ] (]) 19:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Geez, I don't think there's any doubt that the sentence is referring to Solomon, and a lot of newspaper-style articles introduce a subject in this way. If it's not referring to Solomon, then who else is it referring to? ] (]) 03:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Point taken. FOX still has an obvious POV to push here. They have every incentive (and a history of doing so) to pump up the prominence of anti global warming claims. ] (]) 22:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And that is why FOX news is not and will not ever ever ever '''EVER''' be considered a reliable source for anything that is remotely political in nature. It has been repeatedly stated and verified in other actually reliable news sources regarding their bias. Do I have to seriously write an essay "Dont use FOX News!" to get the point across? It seems we go over this question once a month. It is my period apparently because it happens like clock-work and I get cranky everytime it occurs. How about a hatnote at the top of this page- ''if you have a question regarding using Fox News, dont bother asking, the answer is "probably best to find a better source"''.] (]) 23:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Fox News is great. ] (]) 18:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::For heaven's sake, we've described ] as a reliable source here at ]. Are you really going to argue that Fox News is so much ''more'' biased than ''The Nation'' as to make it an unacceptable source? --] ] 06:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't think ''Worldnet Daily'' is more biased than The Nation is. Not after seeing the last time it was brought up in RSN.. ] (]) 12:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thanks everyone who responded; we have opted not to use this source but appreciate the feedback. ] (]) 11:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Sites providing reviews/critiques of comic books == | |||
| I need to know if the following sites are considered journalistically reliable to rely on for providing critical reaction information on comic book articles, not in the matter of including information about the reviews, but on general reaction as a whole to a given book or series, and more generally, regarding reaction to ]'s work as in general, particularly with regard to ] in Loeb's aritcle. Does relying on these violate ]? I really would appreciate that as many experts in RS's chime in here as possible, because this is extremely important. I've included the authors of the reviews as well as the names of the sites in the links: | |||
| * | |||
| * (Source not only for reviews of '']'' #1 but reaction to Loeb's work as a whole.) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * (This is an interview with Loeb in which he is asked about the reaction of some fans to the content of Loeb's ''Hulk'' work. If the interview is authentic, I'd imagine that it's reliable, since Loeb himself is responding to the matter, but I'd still like to know your thoughts on this.) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * (The fact that the reviewer only gives his first name leads me to wonder if this would be seen as an RS.) | |||
| * (Again, this review provides only a username.) ] (]) 03:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **Well, this is kinda a big question for one post. Anyways, without actually looking at any specific link, and understanding it may be dependent on the author and what you want to cite, here goes. | |||
| ***Comic book resources and IGN are generally reliable. No forum posts or fan edits, obviously. The Examiner is not reliable, unless they've got a heck of an author, and then it's only based on the author. Interviews are different from normal articles, but we need to believe that the site would transcribe the interview correctly. Look for info on the interviewer or on the site itself. Are there sources on Google news that cite the interviewer or site? (For instance). The rest I've never heard of, and I work on comic stuff, so there will have to be a good reason to think they're reliable which you should look for. Look at about pages for editors and reporters and whatnot. Hope that helps. - ] (]) (]) 04:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks. Can you tell me why the Examiner is not reliable? ] (]) 05:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a user submitted site. There's discussion in the archives (and recently) I think. - ] (]) (]) 05:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Big Shiny Robot! seems to be a reliable source. They're often quoted by CBR and Newsarama, and even the top news link on www.starwars.com leads to an article of theirs at the moment. They have user names, but the editors have real names and a way to give them feedback. | |||
| :::It doesn't look good from its about page. If it was owned by a media conglomerate, I might look more closely, but as it is it's not a RS. - ] (]) (]) 05:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's absurd to assert that a news source is unreliable if it isn't owned by a media conglomerate. It's run by a prominent media figure and Huffington Post columnist. ] (]) 07:20, 29 August 2009 | |||
| :::::See my explanation below. - ] (]) (]) 00:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| How does posting here work? Are the respondents on this board supposed to be those who are experts in Reliability, or at least make it one of the aspects of Misplaced Pages on which they work on frequently? Why are there unsigned posts from an anonymous IP? | |||
| And how binding are the responses here? ] (]) 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, I have another site: ] (]) 17:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The reason I mention a media conglomerate, is that there a lot of sites that are run like newspapers, but call their writers bloggers. If it's "run by a prominent media figure and Huffington Post columnist." it may be one of those. Huff Post is considered borderline here, though (it's one of those blogs run like a newspaper, although it depends on the particular article too.) Being quoted is a good sign. The other thing about media companies, is it means there's someone with money to sue if they commit libel. That adds to reliability. | |||
| ::The people here are sort of experts on RS stuff. Anyone who wants to do it can, of course. I've probably answered roughly 100 questions here. It's not binding, anymore than any other discussion on WP. The more clear cut the case, and the more people who respond, the stronger the conensus, I guess. | |||
| ::For the comicsboard.com review. Is Neil Shyminsky an expert? Otherwise it looks like that site allows anyone to post, making it not reliable. They may be reliable for interviews, although I don't think that's what this source is. - ] (]) (]) 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not sure what 'expert' means in this context - I'm Neil, though, and I've taught comics to undergraduate university students and published academic writing on the X-Men. I figure that's worth something, right? (I found this discussion when I Googled my name.) As for Comicboards, they solicit, review, and edit unpaid reviews - and reject them, too. One could disagree with their standards, but they certainly don't allow just anyone to post to their review page. | |||
| '''1.''' If it's not binding, then what are the criteria by which I can add or remove material in articles that cite them? This is important. Can I remove information sourced by these sources and cite this discussion as a rationale? If I do, can others revert it?<br> | |||
| '''2.''' How can I get more experts to respond to this discussion?<br> | |||
| '''3.''' If I can't find anything on Google in reference to that interview, what then? The only things I can find on Google are the site where the interview is, the Misplaced Pages article itself, and some other sites that are forums, message boards or other sites whose reliability themselves I can't figure out.<br> | |||
| '''4.''' Regarding the others you never heard of, you said, "there will have to be a good reason to think they're reliable which you should look for." Well, I don't know what reasons there are, or how to look for them. I usually just come here for RS matters. What do I do? ] (]) 22:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Got another source. Is reliable? In it, he talks about his involvement with the upcoming series ]. ] (]) 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :1. Other than arbcom, there isn't much binding here at WP. Comments here can be good ammo, but if the disagreement is too big, we usually just recommend (our crappy) dispute resolution. | |||
| :2. You get what you get. Your first mistake was listing a ton of sources, and asking about them in a group. What you want to do, is figure out the ones you can yourself, and then only ask about 1 (or maybe 2) here. There's a thing at the top of this page that kinda tells you what to do. Basically, ask about one source, and include what article it would go in, what you would like to say, and what the source says. That makes it easy for people here, and they're more likely to reply. | |||
| :3. For interviews, I generally say use them, if they aren't saying something controversial. If another editor disagrees, then more discussion is probably warranted. | |||
| :4. The best things to look at are the sites about page (or whatever they call it), and whether sites on google news reference them. If the about page talks about editors and writers, that's a good sign. If it talks about submitting your own articles, that's a bad sign. With google news, if other reliable sources say "according to site x..." that's a good sign. If sites on google news don't mention it, your forced to look for other signs of reliability. Another good thing to do is google the writer. If they're an expert, then they're OK. To check expert status look at other things they've written. Do they have their writing in google books or google news, for instance. - ] (]) (]) 02:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. Sorry I neglected to notice the protocol up top. ] (]) 00:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Amazon.com as an RS for unreleased material == | |||
| Well right now there is a small discussion going on at ] as to whether or not Amazon.com is a reliable source regarding the tracklisting. There has been no mention of any track listings on the Backstreet Boys' official website, or their Record Label's website, yet it is on Amazon.com. Should Amazon.com be used? ''']''' <sup><font color="black">''']'''</font></sup> 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Personally, I don't think so. Amazon is a retailer, not a publisher. The material on their site is intended to sell things, not to inform. ] (]) 19:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I would say wait until October on this one unless you can corroborate the list with a source independent of Amazon. The lack of mention at the official label websites would sometimes indicate that the track list might not be finalized, but with just over a month until release I doubt that that is the case here. If they mention any song titles in promotional interviews and the like, then those could be mentioned. - ] <small>(])</small> 17:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah. There are articles purporting to have a track list (www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00026793.html), but these don't claim to be from press releases. Might be listings assembled from web forums. Seems to have been some leaking issues on this album. ] '']'' 18:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think this is a case of ]... We don't need to "scoop" anyone by including the latest rumor. It won't hurt the project one iota to wait until the album actually comes out before we say what songs are on it. ] (]) 21:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I now changed it, as everyone says no so far, in accordance with ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. ''']''' <sup><font color="black">''']'''</font></sup> 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| If the general consensus is that Amazon is not an accurate source then we can revert the article back to its former version. However all i would like to say in Amazon's defence is that since i began editing articles over 1 year ago amazon has only ever been wrong once and this was with Keri Hilson's debut album where one song was removed from the final pressing of the album. I would say that i have edited over 100 articles and must have used amazon as a source for maybe 1 quarter of them. I have like i said only found Amazon to be wrong once. I assumed that because it is the second largest retailer behind iTunes that it would be seen as more credible than blog sites etc. I can see everyone's point though about how the album is not released till october but Amazon have posted a tracklisting over 1 month in advance and this could constitute a ]. i agree to the track listing being removed and only being added should an independent source be found to validate the information. (] (]) 23:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| : Accuracy is only part of it - specifically, what we call on Misplaced Pages ''reliable'' sources, have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ''and'' are independent of the subject. It's not ''just'' about perceived accuracy. As a retailer, not an independent publisher, Amazon is never independent of the subject. ] (]) 04:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::"It won't hurt the project one iota" – I think your statement may have consensus, but I think a reader visiting the page and looking for the info is ever so slightly "hurt" by not finding it. | |||
| ::"Amazon is never independent of the subject" – I don't think independence matters (that's a NOTE thing, not an RS thing). Whick leads me to... | |||
| ::Our assumption is that all retailers can't have a rep for fact checking and whatnot. I think this may not be true. - ] (]) (]) 04:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, if these were ''not'' independent from the publisher, it would be a more reliable source. ] '']'' 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Cite it with attribution. Amazon may be a primary source, but it is reliable. Perhaps remove it from the song listing but in the prose have something like "Amazon.com reports an additional song entitled XYZ", which protects us from the slight possibility of the listing being in error. I looked into CRYSTAL, but unless we want to delete the whole article, it wouldn't be appropriate to use CRYSTAL to delete one song that's going to appear on the album with the others. Gut feeling is that it should be mentioned somewhere in the article; it's these hard-to-find nuggets of information that I rely on WP for, well, if I cared about the Backstreet Boys. ] (]) 14:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| My question is always: can't you find an independent news source that contains the same information, and not a retailer? ] (]) 01:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be nice, but it isn't necessary. It's pretty unlikely that ''Rolling Stone'' is going to mention a B-side track on a Backstreet Boys album. Album reviews in general don't always list every song, just whatever caught the author's fancy at the time. We'll need to use a primary source for the time being. ] (]) 12:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why not wait for a secondary source to emerge? ] (]) 22:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::We already have a source, why wait? ] (]) 14:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook == | |||
| Is the | |||
| # a reliable source to show that ] has gained mainstream acceptance? | |||
| # a peer-reviewed source? | |||
| # a ] source? | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 13:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : It is not entirely clear at the moment. The description of the book's contents imply that it contains significant new theories and evidence, but it is a collection of conference papers (which typically, may summarise work in progress but do not provide definitive data). To answer your questions- | |||
| # it will show mainstream acceptance when it is reviewed seriously by respected mainstream scientific journals; until then, no | |||
| # the editorial process may have involved editor or peer-review, or not. Unless the book says explicitly that its contents were peer-reviewed, treat with caution - most conference paper volumes allow the speaker to say what they wish | |||
| # not a secondary source (it would appear), since each paper will reflect the view of the speaker; if some papers comment on/review others, they would be secondary. But a good secondary source would be reviews, critiques and third-party references to the volume as a whole or individual papers.] (]) 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's published by <s>OEP</s> ('''OUP''', I was confusing it with the journal ). Whatever complaints one might have about how marginal the views expressed in it are, it's a reliable source per ]. ] (]) 00:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd agree it is an WP:RS for the views of authros. I don't agree that it can be used to demonstrate that the topic has 'gained mainstream acceptance' - to me that means acceptance by others in the academic community, and that would require a mainstream publication reviewing it respectfully (which they may well do). The decision by OUP to publish a collection of papers from a conference does not, in my opinion, demosntarte that.] (]) 08:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well then frankly your opinion doesn't comport with the reliable source guideline. Publication by one of the preeminent academic publishing houses in the world is more than sufficient for ]. Whether those views are mainstream, whether the data support the conclusions, whether the material is being used to push a view rather than present science is a more nuanced discussion that needs to happen in an RfC or on the talk page. ] (]) 17:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why are other fora more suitable venues for discussing those aspects of reliability? ] (]) 18:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Because they principally aren't aspects of reliability. I think cold fusion is a sham, but no one knows me from Adam and it isn't really my business to say that even though the OUP published some conference proceedings on it that the contents are probably hokum. Likewise I have no idea what the conference admission requirements were or what stage the research was in when it was presented. I'm also not competent to evaluate their data (even if they had presented it along with the papers) so I can't decide that research presented without all underlying data is immediately suspect just in this field (where I might accept it elsewhere). ] (]) 19:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have a copy of the book, generously donated to me by Oxford University Press, and much has been written about it here which is not true. Protonk, thanks. You are correct, as far as you go, except about "conference proceedings." --] (]) 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|more detailed discussion by Abd}} | |||
| It's unfortunately not on-line, most of it, and that can make it hard to discuss. But it was sponsored by the ], which is the largest scientific society in the world, through, as Protonk notes, ]. | |||
| I have written that there are grounds to conclude that cold fusion had moved back in or close to the mainstream by 2004, based on the friendly reception by many experts on the U.S. Department of Energy review panel that convened and reported then. To summarize that, from the overall report, half of the reviewers considered that evidence for the basic experimental claim of anomalous heat was "conclusive." Very few in the other half, if we look at the individual opinions, considered it bogus! -- merely not well enough established for them to consider the matter proven. One, however, used the F word, Fraud, and made hardly any comments at all, giving a clue as to how seriously he took the whole thing. One-third of the experts, however, considered the evidence for nuclear origin to be "somewhat convincing" or better. | |||
| Nevertheless, in 2004, the exclusion of cold fusion papers (very active, by editorial policy, not through ordinary rejection at peer-review) from the more notable mainstream publications was still extensive. Token one-day panels were allowed at ACS conferences and American Physical Society conferences. | |||
| But by 2008, the ACS was ready to back the publication of the Sourcebook, and, in 2009, it featured, with a press release and press conference, a four-day session on Cold fusion where some very significant results, published in January 2009 in ] regarding finding low but unmistakeable levels of energetic neutrons in cold fusion cells, were presented, with relatively wide media attention. Apparently another Sourcebook is in press. | |||
| The 2004 panel, the ACS publication, the CBS special on cold fusion featuring ], continued governmental funding of cold fusion research (the is being held in October in Rome, sponsored by ]), rising publication in peer reviewed journals of increasing impact factor (Naturwissenschaften is a multdisciplinary journal with impact factor in that category of 50, just behind ] at 49), all point to increased acceptance. How far that acceptance goes is very hard to tell. There is no "Journal of Mainstream Opinion." And most scientists, outside of their specialties, know little about details of research in other fields. That's why the 2004 DoE review is important: there was a cross-section of experts there, uninvolved, given an opportunity to become knowledgeable. I'd say it was unfortunately short and shallow, but it was far better than nothing, and our opinion that cold fusion is rejected by the mainstream is based on the situation twenty years ago, not supported by more recent evidence; indeed, since 1991, the bulk of all peer-reviewed publication has been favorable to cold fusion. --] (]) 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| As to the book itself, it was published under peer review. '''It is not a collection of conference papers.''' Conference papers are published in the proceedings of conferences, and papers previously published were excluded, with one exception, a very significant conference paper by Fleischmann. (And we already have whitelisted, should anyone want to use it. It was usable before because of Fleischmann's notability, but, now, there is the additional factor of being republished by the ACS in a peer-reviewed compilation.) From the Foreword, ''"As a rule, only original research papers and original review papers are included in the volumes."'' Editors may have been confused by the fact that ''some of the research'' has been previously ''described,'' but, for example, Vyosotskii wrote an original review of his previously published work, from 1996 on, which was accepted. I'd still consider this primary source, because he is reviewing his own work, but with an edge of notability. --] (]) 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|more detailed discussion by Abd}} | |||
| Material from the Sourcebook should be used with care. Publication in the Sourcebook, in my opinion, establishes notability, it does not establish "acceptance" by the mainstream. Vyosotskii, as an example, is reporting work of such astonishing implications that to consider it accepted would be very foolish. It is so far out of the expected that, I suspect, it hasn't been taken seriously, even by most other cold fusion researchers. But from an experimental point of view, if what Vyosotskii reports is accurate as to his experiments, and they seem simple enough ... well, prepare to be astonished if it's confirmed. That hasn't happened, to my knowledge, nor has there been any disconfirmation or even noises about attempts or plans. He is reporting ] with strong evidence, very difficult to explain away, AFAIK. | |||
| On the other hand, some of the original research in the book represents confirmations of published work by others, which makes them a type of secondary source, plus, of course, there is a review of the field, overall, and specific reviews of various aspects, which should be considered golden unless contradicted by other quality source. | |||
| '''In my opinion, those parts of the book which are secondary source reviews are usable for fact, as with any peer-reviewed secondary source, where there is no source of comparable quality contradicting it,''' and especially where primary sources confirm the facts or likewise do other secondary sources, perhaps of lesser quality. Where it seems clear that something from the book hasn't been accepted, it should be used with '''attribution.''' While the comment "but this has not been generally accepted by mainstream physicists," is often a violation of ], nevertheless, where it seems reasonable, and where it increases consensus, I favor allowing the technical violation, but "not accepted" shouldn't be every other phrase in the article. It can be covered by a few blanket statements, generally, and there are some media sources for that. Older sources should not be used to imply present rejection. | |||
| Cold fusion is clearly still very controversial, and I see statements on blogs by nuclear physicists all the time about how bogus it all is. But they aren't experts in condensed matter nuclear science, what I see them write shows ignorance of the actual reported experimental results (why bother reading detailed reports of totally bogus and impossible experimental results?), they often repeat statements that were weak twenty years ago and clearly false in review, ("Where is the ash? No ash, there can't be nuclear reactions!" The ash is known (helium) and quantitatively confirmed by multiple reports as correlated with excess heat, at the "right" value for fusion, which doesn't prove fusion, because there are alternate pathways, the point being that they clearly aren't aware that the peer-reviewed papers exist.) The theory that Fleischmann was falsifying is one that has been solidly accepted theory with no recognized counterexamples for more than the lifetime of most of us: that theory implies that there is no difference between condensed matter nuclear science and what physicists actually studied and characterized, plasma nuclear science. As a cliche, Chemists say that the phenomena called "cold fusion" couldn't be chemistry, and nuclear physicists say it couldn't be nuclear physics.... Who are the experts? | |||
| It's a difficult problem for an encyclopedia, but my opinion has been that if we simply follow RS guidelines, without prejudice against authors and subjects, but only considering the reputation and reliability of ''publishers,'' and we firmly adhere to NPOV, which means that we don't allow our personal conclusions to warp the text, we will be on the right track, and if we seek maximized editorial consensus, we can hardly go wrong, even if we individually have biased POVs. --] (]) 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| ::I don't know why I thought this was conference proceedings - my mistake. I do (as I said above) accept this as RS. Notability isn't at issue here. In reply to the question 'who are the experts?' - the question is more 'what do non-specialist academics think?' There was a time when only those involved in cold fusion believed in it - if the point has been reached where others do, then, yes, that's mainstream. ] (]) 09:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Since the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review, it's been clear that the cold fusion evidence is convincing to at least many mainstream academics, and you can infer more from the review than that, for the division between the chemists and materials scientists (generally positive) and nuclear physicists (generally negative) is clear in the individual reports. Martinlc, it was never true that only those involved in cold fusion "believed in it," there was always plenty of opinion to the contrary, including more than one or two Nobel prize-winners, and, what is even more the real issue ("belief" is a red herring, many of the so-called believers are skeptics by habit), there have always been peer reviewers willing to pass papers on cold fusion when asked. Are these "believers?" Certain "mainstream" publications stopped submitting papers for peer review. We have RS on that. But others continued. The first question we need to answer is "Is research into cold fusion legitimate, recognized by the mainstream?" It was recommended by both DoE reviews. In fact, however, after 1989, attempts were made to request funding for research that was exactly as described in the report, by experienced researchers, and it was denied. Huizenga's influence was very strong, and in 1989, the mollifying language was only there because a NP winner threatened to resign as co-chair if it wasn't included, whereas in 2004, it represented a real consensus. The ''science'' is mainstream now, not just among cold fusion researchers, but the ''conclusions'' (nuclear or not?) remain very controversial, there was substantial opinion for "nuclear" in 2004, with a two-thirds majority unconvinced, and there is now more conclusive evidence published, but I'd have to infer "mainstream" only from the fact that reviewers at mainstream publications are accepting the papers. That means they believe the science is solid, which doesn't imply acceptance of the conclusions. For conclusions, we need peer-reviewed secondary source, and, in fact, the subject book provides that. I still advise caution. --] (]) 14:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I'll have to rain in your parade, sorry. | |||
| ]. After the debacle in 1989, only a group of researchers kept researching, with most scientists abandoning the field as failed. Their presence in the APS meetings was helped by ] because he thought that it was science, even if it was bad science (from his What's new column, I can't find the link), and in the ACS because the "''Gopal Coimbatore, program chair of the ACS's division of environmental chemistry, felt that unless a forum was provided, the subject might never get discussed; and 'with the world facing an energy crisis, it is worth exploring all possibilities'. ''" | |||
| Also, "''The ACS Symposium Series contains high-quality, peer-reviewed books developed from the ACS technical divisions' symposia. Each chapter is carefully authored by an expert in the field, and the collection of chapters edited by an internationally recognized leader in the field.''". The author is Steven Krivit, who has no scientific studies, and who has been publishing during six years a newletter called ] supporting cold fusion. | |||
| Krivit made a presentation at the latest ACS congress to defend that Cold Fusion was real and that its pariah status was all product of a terrible mistake back in 1989: | |||
| {{quote|1="I realize that for some of you, sitting here in this room about ... ''cold fusion'' , it may seem something like entering into the Twilight Zone, cos we have for many years. Well, I reassure that there was once upon a time, I was very surprised to find out that there was research six years ago, and I was working in the Information Technology bussiness around that time and I was very surprised that the research was still going on, and I started looking into it (...) It took me about three years (...) before accepting the possibility that there might be some real science (...)" 00:53-01:49 }} | |||
| The papers of a few Cold fusion conferences were also published by university presses of Cambridge and others. | |||
| I'll also say that OUP has also published | |||
| *"Voodoo science: the road from foolishness to fraud" in 2002 | |||
| *"A Field Guide for Science Writers, Volum 11" from 1998 reprinted in 2006 , | |||
| *"Responsible Conduct of Research" | |||
| *"The undergrowth of science: delusion, self-deception, and human frailty" in 2000 | |||
| And other university presses have published | |||
| *"Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science" Chicago UP in 1995 | |||
| *"Cultural boundaries of science: credibility on the line" Chicago in 1999 . | |||
| *"Undead science" Rutdgers in 2002 | |||
| *Fusion: the search for endless energy" Cambridge 1990 . | |||
| *"Uncertain Knowledge: An Image of Science for a Changing World" Cambridge in 2002 | |||
| *And a ''lot'' more UP books saying about the same thing | |||
| ''All'' of them say that cold fusion's reputation was killed in 1989 apart from a small group of researchers, and some speak of how the opinions of CF researchers are not shared at all by the mainstream. Krivit is one of those <s>researchers</s> a journalist that advocates for cold fusion (fixed per Abd's comment). | |||
| All together, the presence of the sourcebook can't be reasonably taken as evidence that cold fusion has suddenly become mainstream. Taking the book in isolation is disingenuous, and I'm tired of CF advocates trying to push it as a RS. | |||
| The CF advocates have the sensation that the field is getting more acceptation however that's a far shot from CF being accepted as mainstream or as valid, and far from CF papers being accepted as something other than papers from a fringe field that is still alive for some reason. I'll note that one of the 13 papers in volume 1 is about ], which is also not accepted by mainstream. As Martinlc says, this shouldn't be taken for anything other than sourcing what CF researchers think, and never as an expression of mainstream science. --] (]) 16:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The above is a rant from an editor who has spent too much time trying to prove that the field of condensed matter nuclear science (misnamed "cold fusion," it may not involve fusion at all) is "pathological science." He can source that opinion, but not from any peer reviewed reviews of the field; it's been in editorials, popular books, and the like, or off-hand mentions in sources he cites from long ago. Krivit isn't a cold fusion researcher, he's a ''journalist'' who has long covered the field, who is recognized ''in reliable source'' as an expert in that sense. He has that just appeared, . RS by our standards. "Mainstream"? Well, that is actually not part of RS, unless there is a contradiction of sources, where relative journal quality may arise. What counts is independent publisher and, for science, peer review. How we use RS is for editorial consensus to determine, i.e., is material from these sources reported as fact, or as attributed claim or opinion? But these are peer-reviewed secondary sources, and outright rejection of them, which is what Enric Naval has done in the past, is beyond the pale. The field is clearly alive, with ongoing publication in scientific journals, including the very high quality ]. --] (]) 02:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::See ] for fields that don't have good mainstream sources because they have been abandoned by mainstream. (Nature and a few top research labs published a few negative reports declaring the whole thing dead and buried, but a small group of researchers have continued to publish positive reports, with mainstream scientists not bothering to reply to them. That is why there are only positive papers in the last few years, they are all by cold fusion advocates, while nobody is bothering to replicate them. So, from mainstream you are getting neither positive nor negative papers) | |||
| ::I notice that Krivit has published his article in a journal about "Cutting-Edge Research on Environmental Processes & Impacts", not a journal on established Physics or Chemistry. I suppose that this was included because of being a " in Chemical Science" (fourth point in the bolded list) Mind you, Krivit makes a sensible point: | |||
| ::"Twenty years later, some people who had dismissed the field in its entirety are considering the validity of at least some of the reported experimental phenomena. As well, some researchers in the field are wondering whether the underlying phenomena may be not a fusion process but a neutron capture/absorption process." | |||
| ::I have been searching for some RS to source that some scientists think that some experimental results are real and that CF is caused by some small real phenomena that remains undiscovered, and that this is why it's being given more leeway lately. Still looking for some third-party independent source that says this. A mainstream one, not one from a CF researcher or CF advocate. If this shift has really happened, then it's been in the last few years since 2004, and it seems that it's still too soon to get a good source covering it. --] (]) 08:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::2004, the DoE review, one third of 18 experts, presumably a neutral sample or even skeptically biased, found the evidence for nuclear origin "somewhat convincing." One half-found the excess heat evidence "convincing." That's mainstream opinion, as of 2004, the best information we have about it, and it is a massive shift from 1989-1990 already. The "mainstream" you talk about as having conclusively rejected cold fusion is the large body of scientists who have not reviewed the evidence. This is all a red herring. The journal Krivit published in is mainstream, published by the Royal Chemical Society; chemists are far more likely to be accepting of LENR than physicists, because they know the experimental work that led to the nuclear hypothesis was sound. That is, the heat part, not the radiation measurements, which everyone accepts as bogus. The physicists remember the radiation errors and consider rejection of them proof of artifact and pathological science. Enric, you aren't following RS and NPOV guidelines. What you have is a circular argument: if the author approves of cold fusion, the author is fringe and therefore it's not mainstream. It's the publisher that counts, unless the publisher is explicit that this is a fringe view that they are allowing for freedom of speech or something like that. The ACS has put its mark on the Sourcebook and is issuing another this year. Don't you think that they would choose someone familiar with the field to edit it? Who else is going to write an article or paper? Huizenga? Park? One of the other anti fanatics, described in RS as such? The theory that there are no negative papers because the mainstream has abandoned the field is interesting, except that there were lots of negative papers published after the major positive ones, and none of them established a clear reason for rejection, most ignored the positive results, even early ones. Very isolated exceptions, a handful, and with only a little of the positive. And there are some very important results now. You can't pop the "off-topic journal" claim on ], and you know it. | |||
| :::What you and others have done is to reject peer-reviewed secondary source based on nothing other than your own opinion and a persistence of vision from long ago. In science, later publication trumps earlier, later secondary source trumps earlier, because, presumably, it's aware of the earlier work and incorporates it. Follow the guidelines, they are quite good. We don't reject peer-reviewed secondary source, independently published. If it's wrong, we balance it with source of equal or better quality. Because you don't have that source, you want to keep this information out, but with nothing to stand on. That's why it's a losing position, in the long run, it's impossible to keep reliably sourced information out of Misplaced Pages, and the effort causes nothing but disruption. --] (]) 13:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The 2004 DOE report said that their conclusions were the same as those of the 1989 DOE report (no federal funding for a cold fusion program, only recommendation for individual experiments), and the reviewers pointed out several flaws in the evidence, including lack of replication. | |||
| ::::And I point you to the list of UP books in my comment (all of them being full books, and the Krivit book being a compilation of papers in a OUP collection dedicated to publishing those compilations), and to the comment made by the ACS guy about why they allowed cold fusion into the ACS meeting. (Indeed, the ACS thing was covered by Nature in 2007 and BBC in 2009 , I suggest that people read these two articles to see the actual state of the art of CF). --] (]) 14:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, the 2004 DoE report says that, and, in this context, that statement is highly misleading. The conclusions that are "the same" are the recommended funding and the recommendation of further research. Underneath that hood, the reports were vastly different, and it's obvious, so that Enric keeps bringing this "conclusions" thing up is an example of how to mislead with true facts. I found nothing of great interest in those articles cited (but one I couldn't read, behind a pay wall), merely a few reported individual opinions. There seems to be nothing there about the really significant "ACS thing," which would be the greatly expanded seminar in 2009, the press release giving it a high profile, and the Sourcebook publication, which is being followed by another this year. Enric Naval is suggesting that we ignore peer-reviewed secondary sources in favor of off-hand, off-the-cuff comments? It's like he's trying to hold back the tide by sticking his finger in the dike, having to feel around underwater to find the hole. It's typical, and I'm grateful I won't have to deal with this any more. --] (]) 17:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think that people here should look at some of the university press books that I listed above, and to the Nature and BBC articles, and see by themselves if secondary sources say that cold fusion is currently accepted by mainstream. This is a collection of papers versus a lot of books about science, bad science, philosophy of science, history of science, etc. The author of the book himself sort of recognizes this lack of acceptance and says that the assistants to the 2009 ACS session must be feeling like they were in ] (source in one of my comments above). ] and ] apply here, and reports written by cold fusion advocates should be taken with a huge grain of salt (from , I notice that it was Krivit himself who made the editor work and decided what papers were reliable enough to be included in the book, and it was probably him who chose the peer reviewers?). | |||
| ::::::P.D.: Throwing statements about me trying to stop some tide is unhelpful. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. When some mainstream RS reports independently that the situation has changed, then I won't have any problem with the article saying so, and I won't lose any face for doing so. Refusing to acknowledge all the sources listed above is ''very'' unhelpful and runs directly against WP:V. --] (]) 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Enric Naval has misrepresented the sources he listed. I do not "refuse to acknowledge all the sources listed above," that is a direct and blatant distortion of my position, rather, those sources should all be used, as exactly what they are (though several of the sources are so weak that they would have no use, such as the guide for science writers). I have not claimed that "cold fusion is currently accepted by the mainstream," but neither can we say that it is ''currently'' "considered pathological science," which is what Enric wrote as if it were a continuing fact. There is no "mainstream" as some monolithic body of opinion. However, if we limit ourselves to those relatively informed about the whole body of research, instead of those relying on judgments made twenty years ago, clearly the trend is strongly toward acceptance. Of the 18 reviewers on the 2004 DoE panel, only one took a hard-line approach similar to the almost unanimous opinion of the 1989 panel. Anyway, not my problem any more, I'm now working with the actual researchers. --] (]) 03:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == 60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard == | |||
| ;Source in question | |||
| *{{cite book | last =Self | first =Jane | title =60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard: How America's Top Rated Television Show Was Used in an Attempt to Destroy a Man Who Was Making A Difference | publisher =Breakthru Publishing | date =November 1992 | isbn =0942540239 }} | |||
| This book is being put forth as a source by those that support the controversial training programs ] and ] developed by ]. It was removed as a source, but this was disputed , , , . The book should not be used as a source on Misplaced Pages: it fails ] as it comes from a non-notable publisher, lacks coverage in reliable sources, lacks editorial review, and both the publisher and author have a bias as being associated with Erhard himself and his controversial trainings. The book's publisher has acted as Werner Erhard's attorney. | |||
| ;Rationale | |||
| #The book is biased: the author self-admits in the book to being involved with Erhard's training for several years prior to writing the book. | |||
| #:Jane Self describes her association with Erhard's trainings as such: '''' | |||
| #The publisher is biased: The publishing company is associated with an individual named "Walter Maksym", who has acted directly as the attorney for Werner Erhard when Erhard sued individuals discussed in the book itself. | |||
| #:*The publishing company "Breakthru Publishing" publishes the same books as company "Walter Maksym Publishing". Compare this: '''', with this list of books published by Breakthru Publishing = the series of "Diets Don't Work" books. | |||
| #:*Walter Maksym represented Werner Erhard as his attorney, when Erhard sued 20 different defendants after a critical broadcast of ] '']'' where Erhard's daughters and business associates made controversial claims against him. See '']'' article, which states: '''' | |||
| #"Breakthru Publishing" is not regarded as a publishing company respected for editorial review, and has no standing within any of the fields related to this book's subject, such as ], ], or ]. | |||
| #:*When attempting to check if their website lists any form of editorial review - it appears that the website is itself abandoned . | |||
| #:*A listing of other books published by Breakthru Publishing yields only "Diet's Don't Work" and other series of marketing/sales to ] clientele - nothing related to ], see . | |||
| #There are no ] ] ] that significantly discuss the book. | |||
| #:*The wiki article about the book was deleted essentially for this very reason: (]). | |||
| #:*Search in books show it is not cited as a resource . | |||
| ---- | |||
| I present this issue here to see if previously uninvolved editors can help make a determination if this book is an ] ] ]. Than you for your time, ''']''' (]) 22:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I haven't read the book, so I can't speak to the actual quality of the writing (although if you say its subpar, I'll believe you). But given the close relationship of the publisher and Erhard, the type of fare the publisher usually puts out and the fact that the book has not apparently been reviewed or analysed by any reputable entity I'd say that ''any mention'' of the source in a Misplaced Pages article, and especially wrt claims about a living person, should require ''at least'' a couple of sentences describing its background and doubtful reliability. Without such caveats I don't think it would be an appropriate source for any article except one about the book or the author. ]] 22:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unfortunately, such caveats in prior sentences before the source would then itself be ] in article mainspace, as such, the source should probably not be used/mentioned in article mainspace at all. ''']''' (]) 22:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like the book is basically a ] source. If the person's view is already shown to be notable then it could be used as a source for what his opinions are, but the book cannot demonstrate notability or be used to support facts. ] (]) 12:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| That the book itself is not notable is not relevant to the question of its reliability, but does make it harder for us to accurately judge its reliability. | |||
| We no longer have an article on ], because of ]. Editors there noted that the article described the press as a vanity press, and none of them found reason to disagree with the article. That is a reason to conclude that the book is not independent of its author. Accordingly, the book should be treated as a ] source. The next question then is whether Jane Snee has previous work in the relevant field that is published by reliable third-party publications. I note DGG's opinion at ] that she has "one unimportant book, and nothing else". DGG usually looks hard for opportunity to include articles, and if he found nothing else I'm willing to rely on his conclusion. So I conclude that this is not the variety of self-published source that can be used in articles about subjects other than the author of the source. ] 15:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :We shouldnt play both sides against the middle. If the book was written and published by people associated with the group, then SPS specifically allows it as a source in articles about the group. Its opinions may be cited with attribution; I would recommend mentioning not only the title of the book but the publisher, which lets readers know it came from a specialized source. Language about the author's and publisher's association with the group, far from being original research, should be included if citable to reliable sources. In fact, the deleted articles could have been resolved as a merge/redirect to the article about the group. ] (]) 17:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{user|DreamGuy}} commented above: '''' - the community determined that the author's viewpoint is actually ], thus there is no reason to include commentary from a non-notable individual. {{user|GRBerry}} concluded that: ''''. As the community came to a consensus to delete the article about the author, the source should not be used. ''']''' (]) 15:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::If Breakthru Publishing is run by the group's attorney, then the source would be citable as a press release from the group. I would also suggest looking into a deletion review to create a merge-redirect for the deleted articles. ] (]) 14:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The source cannot be properly attributed as such, which would be ] on a main-article space page but plainly obvious as demonstrated above. Thus, the source should not be used. As there is a lack of ] ] ] on the book and on the author, there is no sourced material to merge, thus delete was the proper outcome. ''']''' (]) 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| It's plain that the book can't be used as an independent reference about Erhard; it may seem contradictory, but I think the association is too close to use as an independent source and not direct enough to qualify as a self-published source. Even if the book were published by Landmark itself, it would be subject to these limitations (quoted from ]): | |||
| #The material is not unduly self-serving; | |||
| #It does not involve claims about third parties; | |||
| #it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; | |||
| #There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; | |||
| The title itself violates these limitations, so it seems clear that the book is not suitable as a reference under any circumstances. ]] 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *We've concluded, and I see no reason to revisit that, that it is effectively a self-published source by the group. What we haven't yet done here, is examine its use to support specific claims in specific articles. In part, that is because the query raised here was quite broad and didn't list specific claims for review. But digging into what I can find, I see the following specific issues: | |||
| *# Whether the book itself can be listed in ]. (Formerly, it was in a "Related publications" sub-section. That header is no longer is used.) In that section, the claim effectively is that "This is a book about Ernhard." This is not resolved by determining whether this book is a reliable source, and arguments that the book is/is not a reliable source are not relevant to the decision to list it. What is relevant is if a reliable source can be found to assert that the book is a significant one about him. That would be a question about a different source, not yet presented here. Editors looking for such a source should be looking for one that is not self-published. | |||
| *# Whether the book can be used to support two claims removed in ]. In this article, these are claims about Scientologists/whatever the official name of the Scientology thingy is. Since this book is a self-published source, it should not be used in this article. | |||
| *# In ] I don't find that it is used or in dispute at all, so there is nothing to comment on currently. | |||
| *# Whether the book itself can be listed in ] (the "Books" subsection). The claim effectively is that "This is a book related to Erhard Seminars Training." Again, this is not resolved by determining whether the book is a reliable source, and arguments that the book is/is not a reliable source aren't relevant. What is relevant is if a reliable source can be found to assert that the book is a significant one about E.S.T. That would be a question about a different source, not yet presented here. Editors looking for such a source should be looking for one that is not self-published. | |||
| *# If there is any other claim at issue, I failed to find it. Feel free to ping me again if another specific claim is identified. ] 15:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Al-Ahram == | |||
| This has come up a number of times. Some editors have argued that ] is not a reliable source, alleging, among other things, that there is no such thing as a free press in Egypt and the paper publishes things that are anti-Semitic. These claims are generally made without resort to sources that support these positions. | |||
| Can we hear some editors views regarding whether or not ] is a reliable source? Disclosure: The particular Misplaced Pages article this pertains to at the moment is ] and the article in question is by ]. The talk page discussion on the issue is . ]<sup>]</sup> 14:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would tend to very leery of any source that has as its byline "''from occupied Jerusalem.''" That said the ''Ahram'' article is chock full of innuendo, unattributed quotes and an attempt to characterize an arrest for selling 1 kidney (and a 7 year old accusation of smuggling organs from Eastern Europe that was reported to but never investigated by the FBI) as a massive IDF organ harvesting conspiracy. Even the author of the ''Aftonbladet'' article admits he has no basis for the accusation other than "wanting to see it investigated." So, I would look for better sources than ''Al-Ahram''. Cheers. ] (]) 21:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::], from where Amayreh is writing is part of the ]. The UN calls it occupied. Are they an unreliable source? | |||
| :::Also, the question is not is the material in the article ], but whether or not ] and ] are reliable sources for their opinions and/or those of others for the purposes of the Misplaced Pages. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::However... for an attributed statement of opinion such as "According to the Egyptian news paper Al-Ahram, 'Israel is bad bad bad'<nowiki><cite to Al-Ahram></nowiki>" it ''would'' be a reliable source. ] (]) 00:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, there are reliable for what they claim they are saying, but that's missing the point. There are two aspects to reliable sources: 1) is what they say true or probably bullshit? 2) are they reliable in the sense of - are they mainstream and not ]? Sources that are ] are not inclusion worthy even if they are being used just to say what they are saying. AL-Ahram clearly fails both tests. And especially applied to this scenairo, where they are trying to perpetuate a blood libel. | |||
| ::::::BlueBoar: We've went through this before. Your stance, which allows ''everything'' into WP because we believe the unreliable source that they said what they claim to have said, is an extreme stance. It is not in line with Wiki-policy and fails the letter of the law and the spirit of ] and ]. Respectfully, --'']] ]'' 08:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: ''There are two aspects to reliable sources: 1) is what they say true or probably bullshit?'' No, no, no, no. We don't let editors decide that sources are unreliable because they print "bullshit" instead of what the editor believes is "The Truth™ ". In fact is inconceivable to me that someone could actually arrive at that conclusion following a good faith reading of the reliable source guideline. ] (]) 19:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You misunderstood, Dlabtot. There's no argument being made that there are unreliable because what they said in this specific instance is bullshit. The point being made here is that they are unreliable because they are renown for publishing bullshit. --'']] ]'' 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Would you care to back that statement up? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 06:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| ::::This particular article could easily have come from a western newspaper (including the claim that Jerusalem is occupied, in no respectable dispute). Whatever other faults there are in this newspaper, the "rigorous treatment" and testing it should be getting on this page is laughably absent. If an Israeli paper was getting such treatment, the cries of antisemitism would be deafening - this case makes Misplaced Pages (even in its control mechanisms, let alone amongst its editors) look Islamophobic. | |||
| ::::It is particularly disturbing that, according to the complainant, this failure to present any evidence has happened on every occasion, as if both Wikipedian editors and experts flaunt bigotry. ] (]) 07:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{spa|86.157.70.95}} | |||
| :::::::That warning has been applied by BrewCrew, who must be following me around. I don't wish to bring a different issue to this page, please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Operation_Defensive_Shield#Recent_edits and my Warnings Page (accusations of vandalism) for the locus of this problem. Please advise what I'm supposed to do, if not ask the people concerned directly, quoting from the Book of Rules. ] (]) 08:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Putting that aside for a moment so that we stay focused on the issue at hand ... the material being cited to Khalid Amayreh and Al-Ahram is . I just restored it after it was deleted by <s>Brewcrewer</s> ] . If people could comment on whether or not Al-Ahram is a reliable source for this information, as phrased or phrased differently, it would be much appreciated. I would note that Al-Ahram is the Arabic equivalent of the New York Times and the The London Times is terms of circulation and the way its viewed by the Arabic speaking world. As this is the world's encyclopedia, and not the West's alone, I hope people will take other perspectives into consideration when making their comments. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::And that is the key... This is a ] issue not an RS one. Yes, Al-Arham disagrees with western POV, and yes it is biased... but we still have to account for Al-Arham's POV. As far as WP:RS goes, it is a respected news outlet with a significant circulation in the Arab world. It passes our test for reliablility. | |||
| :::That said... no source is "always" reliable... context is very important and reliability depends greatly on the statement it is being used to support (even the New York Times can be unreliable for some statements)... and being reliable does not mean a source must be ''used'' in any specific article. There are a host of other policies and guidelines that might limit or bar the use of a source in a specific article. But, in general terms, most of the time, in most articles, Al-Arham is reliable. ] (]) 13:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think the question here is not reliability but notability. While Al-Ahram may not be reliable, it is the mouthpiece of the Egyptian state, and this makes its position notable. -- ] (]) 15:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Al-Ahram has a circulation slightly lower than the NYTimes, is read throughout the Middle East and by Arabs around the world, and is the biggest paper in the largest country in the Middle East. How do you expect to have a world view of topics by not using such a source and only using Israeli, European and American sources? What about ] is not met? Mainstream? 1 mil+ readers, seems mainstream to me. What exactly is objectionable to using al-Ahram? The BBC was used by the British government in attempt to instigate a coup in Iran. The NYTimes has printed disinformation fed directly from the Bush administration. For some reason their reliability remains unquestioned. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| : Agreed. ] (]) 19:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Its statements like these, Blueboar, that result in allowing the inclusion of statements of unreliable sources because they are believed to say what they say they are saying. The editors that are pushing for the inclusion here are not pushing for its inclusion because they want to use the unreliable source to show what the Arab media are saying. They want to use the unreliable source for the ''truthfullness'' of its statements. | |||
| ::We wind up with these ridiculous statements that Government-controlled-Holocaust-denying-hoax-spreading-antisemitic publications are equal to the New York Times and the BBC because these great media outlets have also sinned in the past. | |||
| ::The fact that lots of readers read that newspaper, means ]. The '']'' and '']'' had a huge readership, but we don't use the former for the ''truthfulness'' of any analysis regarding capitalism v. socialism and we don't use the latter for the ''truthfulness'' of anything regarding Jews. Similarly we don't use Holocaust-denying-hoax-spreading-anti-Israel publications for anything that pertains to Israel. --'']] ]'' 01:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is Nazi-baiting your fallback response in any RS/N discussion not going your way? How is it you are comparing al-Ahram to Der Sturmer? How does al-Ahram not meet the requirements of ], specifically ]? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| ::: We don't use ''any'' sources for the ''truthfulness'' of anything. Period. ''']'''. ] (]) 02:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You're not understanding what's going here, Dlabtot. ] is a condition of ]. Full stop. Al-Ahram is not a RS because they are goverment controlled and have a history of perpetuating anti-Israel and anti-Jewish lies. Full stop. '''Nevertheless''', some editors here are arguing for an exception to the ]/] requirements, claiming that Al-Ahram unreliability is not pertinent if we are not using their content for the truthfullness of their content,. They claim that since we are quoting Al-Ahram to show what they are saying, their unreliability is a non-factor. I hope this clears everything up for you. --'']] ]'' 02:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You are misrepresenting what al-Ahram is being used for. This is the passage the source is being used for in the article:<blockquote>Khalid Amayreh reports in an article in Al-Ahram that prior accusations of organ harvesting had been made by representatives of the Palestinian Authority. During a 2002 interview with Al-Jazeera, the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat made the accusation, saying, "They murder our kids and use their organs as spare parts. Why is the whole world silent? Israel takes advantage of this silence to escalate its oppression and terror against our people." Amayreh notes that no genuine investigation into the Palestinian allegations has ever been carried out, even though allegations of organ harvesting date back to before the 1990s, as outlined in a report by Saira Soufan on the treatment of Palestinian guerillas. She wrote that, "Upon return of the (Palestinian) soldiers' bodies to their mourning families, the pillage of body parts is discovered during the burial process. The empty cavities have been filled with garbage such as cotton wool, garden hoses, and broom sticks, then sewn up as a result of the so-called autopsy."</blockquote>It is also used for the following:<blockquote>Jonathan Cook, a journalist working in Israel / Palestine, says many Western journalists, himself included, have heard such rumors, but none before Bostrom had written of them. Cook also writes that, " the families making the claims were not given a hearing in the late 1980s and early 1990s, during the first Intifada, when most of the reports occurred, and are still being denied the right to voice their concerns today. Israel's sensitivity to the allegation of organ theft appears to trump the genuine concerns of families about possible abuse of their loved ones."</blockquote>Al-Ahram is being used to source statements from Palestinians about the issue. Nowhere is al-Ahram being used to say that Israel did in fact steal organs from Palestinians. Your idea that because Western media outlets have not given them that attention Misplaced Pages should not is against ], and to do that you are distorting ] into saying something it does not. Again, what about ] is not met? What about what al-Ahram is being used to cite is improper to include? You are trying to make it so Palestinian reactions do not appear in the article, an odd thing to do for an article focusing on allegations of stealing Palestinian organs. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 06:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :Its being used for exactly what ], ], and ] was intended to get rid of: The emboldment of crap. There are plenty of mainstream sources that cover the I-P conflict. They all realize that the underlying allegations are a joke and are focusing instead on the free-speech/lack of denouncement aspect of the controversy. The only sources that are willing to discuss the actual underlying nonsense allegations are fringe and unreliable publications. The quoted texts above proved my whole point. --'']] ]'' 07:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your brushing off of the Palestinian viewpoint on an article about the alleged theft of Palestinian organs is at odds with ]. And you are distorting both ] and ] to do so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 07:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :::He's not brushing off the Palestinian viewpoint. He's saying Al-Ahram is not a reliable source. It doesn't matter who's viewpoint they are reporting. They are a government controlled publication. They can not and do not report freely and thus are not a reliable source. I'd also suggest that Khalid Amayreh is not exactly a "reporter" in the sense most English speakers think of one and encourage editors to look up some more of his work before making up their mind about this issue. ] (]) 12:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sources are not disqualified from use simply because there is an element of government control/funding for the publication in question. I would suggest that you stop wasting people's time trying to disqualify the use of the most widely circulated publications in the Arab world. There are plenty of other newspapers that are government controlled/funded that we use all the time without any objections. Singling out Al-Ahram is not justified. Tiamut 14:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And what the f does this mean? "...Khalid Amayreh is not exactly a "reporter" in the sense most English speakers think of one..." He writes in English, for English-language newspapers. He's a journalist by any sense of the word. Do you have a source that indicates that he is not a journalist? Or are you just hoping to exploit people's latent racism against Arabs to get what is obviously a reliable source that you do not like persona non grata status at wikipedia? ]<sup>]</sup> 14:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If there are other newspapers that are government controlled those are not reliable sources either. Funding is not necessarily the same thing. The issue is if someone can ''dictate'' what the newspaper writes. If that is the case, then it's not a reliable source, now is it? | |||
| ::::::As for Khalid Amayreh, as I said, I encourage other editors to read some of his work and decide what they think for themselves. Your thoughts about people's "latent racism against Arabs" and whatever other insecurities you may have really don't interest me. ] (]) 15:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Perhaps NMMNG is referring unkindly to Amayreh's male pattern baldness (i.e. western journalists usually have more hair nowadays) or possibly that he's been imprisoned both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities. Either way, is this RS/N question about Al-Ahram or Amayreh or both ? What's the pass criteria ? Government controlled seems like an odd way to talk about Amayreh. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 15:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Right. I said Amayreh is government controlled. Funny and clever as always, Sean. ] (]) 15:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I didn't mean to suggest that you said that but do you see what I mean ? Is the problem the paper or the journalist or both ? It's not clear here because both are being challenged for different reasons. If government control is the issue I would have thought that for an editor of a government controlled paper he would be pretty near the bottom of the list of journalists likely to do as he's told. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying Amayreh is the editor of al-Ahram? | |||
| :::::::::The editor of al-Ahram is appointed by the Egyptian government. He works for them. That's not exactly RS material. Or at least for anything other than what the Egyptian government thinks. ] (]) 16:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::..and some more verbiage just to be polite and answer. No, I just meant for example that if I were an editor I wouldn't choose Amayreh as a journalist to write pieces on the basis that he could be easily controlled as a spokesman for an official government line. He's not that kind of journalist IMHO. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 19:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::An editor at al-Ahram wouldn't need to "control" him. He'd just not publish something that wasn't in line with government policy. ] (]) 20:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :There's a lot of verbiage posted above, but Al-Ahram is definitely a citable source. It doesn't matter if it's an official news agency of a country, by that logic then the VoA, BBC, and many other national broadcasters would be out. It would be a ''primary'' source on topics where the government or its allies or foes is the subject of debate, and some of its stories would require qualifiers and attribution, but you still may cite it, and it's likely the opinion of a national broadcaster is important enough to mention in an article. | |||
| :But that's pretty much moot, because theyre being cited for an interview with Arafat, not their own opinion. Whatever their political leanings, I'm pretty sure theyre reliable enough to conduct the interview. And whatever you think about Arafat, because of his position, his opinion is important enough to include in the article. | |||
| :Anyway it looks like the article resolved all this days ago, with careful attribution: ''During a 2002 interview with Al-Jazeera, the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat made the accusation'', as well as finding an independent news agency who also conducted an interview. ] (]) 17:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have tried to find the Al-Jazeera interview with Arafat online, but failed. So the only source for the interview with Arafat is Al-Ahram. ] (]) 20:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I can't see the whole quote but its mentioned too. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think Nableezy has a good point. Al-Ahram can be trusted for this information, regardless of their overall status as an RS. --] (]) 22:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Agree with above arguments which note that although one can argue that Al-Ahram is a biased source, by our standards, it is well-respected newspaper, and therefore it is a ''reliable source''. ] (]) 12:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Jake Tapper ABC News White House Correspondent's Blog == | |||
| {{resolved|Yes, it's a reliable source.}} | |||
| An editor keeps removing content sourced from him, but ] is ]'s Senior White House Correspondent, and his blog is on ABC News's website so I would assume it's just as credible as any other article published by ABC News. I think this is already settled but this other person doesn't think so, any input would be appreciated. | |||
| Examples: | |||
| Thanks. -- ] (]) 03:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The relevant policies aren't as clear as I would like, but this language (from WP:BLP) is helpful: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." I don't think there's any reason to distinguish between newspapers and broadcast TV network news organizations here. ] (]) 03:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I might be the editor to whom Dougie WII refers. In response to above, so far, no one has been able to cite any evidence that the blog has the newspaper's full editorial control. Even worse, ] states that "where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed." No one has shown any evidence that the news organization claims responsibility for the opinions. Finally, it should also be noted that (assuming I am the editor to whom Dougie WII refers) this is about controversial information about a ] where we are supposed to insist on high quality sources. ] (]) 04:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::From - " contributes regularly to "Good Morning America," "Nightline," "World News with Charles Gibson," and "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," as well as ABC News' digital properties, including ABCNews.com and ABC News Now." | |||
| :::He is the "ABC News senior White House correspondent" whose blog underwent a "rigorous editorial process," according to an . | |||
| :::It's a reliable source; this has already been explained to you at ]. Echoing what I said on the Jones talk page, Tapper's blog is used in articles such as ], ], ], ], ], etc. (closely monitored articles) His blog is by all the time. ] ] 16:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Agree, web writings of senior full-time journalists hosted by the publication they work for may be called 'blogs', but are in reality are more like old fashioned newspaper articles on a fast update. They can (with some care) be considered reliable sources. ] (]) 12:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The argument about other pages using them doesn't mean much since ] applies. Also, are they being used for statements of opinions or statements of facts? There's a difference between the two. Thank you for this link . Unless I missed it, this is the first time anyone (besides me) mentioned the need for editorial review. ] (]) 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This issue has been resolved. We've explained several times why it's a reliable source. You're the only one continuing to question the blog's credibility. ] ] 19:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::No, you've just talked without listening. ] (]) 20:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| According to ], Buchanan's book ] is not a reliable source for a historical claim if Buchanan is either "extremist" or "fringe". The book has over 1300 endnotes but the reliable source policy does not appear to allow for ANYTHING that might save an otherwise "fringe" source. So the question seems to simply be, is Pat Buchanan mainstream or not?] (]) 10:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not a reliable source because Buchanan is not a historian (he is a politician and educated as a journalist), because Crown is not an academic publisher, and because the book has not been received well by historians. The number of end notes is, at best, a crude heuristic, but not a guarantee for reliability. Not a ]. --] (]) 11:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, you've got pretty exacting standards because I once tried to cite the Chair of the History Dept at the University of Dallas and you that guy was reliable either, not even when the US Senate published the same claims at issue and other claims of this were cited by the ].] (]) 02:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I might add that excluding Crown Publishing means excluding the world's largest publisher, and well known PhDs like ] have called Buchanan's book .] (]) 03:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : (EC) Buchanan does not strike me as a reliable source as an historian. (Whether he's reliable as a political commentator is a different matter.) If his book has extensive endnotes, however, then presumably he gives citations to other sources which may be more respected and reliable. As with most questions of reliability, the answer really depends on exactly what facts you are trying to verify; my expectation is that if you really can't find any other sources to use then Buchanan's original research is fringe. ] (]) 11:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's debatable whether Buchanan is "extremist", and because the book is not self-published, he doesn't have to meet all the SPS caveats about being a recognized authority on the topic. We have to watch our political biases here. Not everybody to the right of Reagan is on the "fringe". | |||
| ::It's likely his point of view is notable enough to mention, depending on which article wants to use a cite from his book. Just attribute it as "conservative political commentator Pat Buchanan wrote..." ] (]) 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not sure Buchanan's opinions are notable on the topic. Sounds like ] to me. We have reliable sources that say he has an opinion, but nothing to indicate that his opinion is important on this topic. ] (]) 17:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The OP didn't say which article was planning to cite Buchanan's book. We'd have to see which article, how long the quote was relative to the article, and whether this was an extraodinary claim or just filling in fine detail. ] (]) 17:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, considering the question was about history then it's almost certainly undue weight to reference what Buchanan said, as that's not his area of expertise. ] (]) 18:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<small>Unless the article is "Pat Buchanan's views on history". :) ] (]) 18:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :I don't think he's fringe. He hasn't claimed that space aliens convinced Churchill to resist good ole peace loving Adolf. He's not ''quite'' extremist, though if you follow the line of logic he is basically arguing that Europe would be better off had the Holocaust been left to finish (obviously there are some problems with that contention, namely that '''no''' western power entered the war because of the Holocaust, but that is neither here nor there). He's ''wrong'' so it behooves us to bookend his claims with claims from real historians. In other words, he is a voice in the history of WWII. He's not a very important one, but he is a voice. We should include his claims where appropriate and take pains to ensure that we don't mislead the reader by qualifying them appropriately. ] (]) 17:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't believe that Buchanan has ever argued that "the Holocaust should have been left to finish". Buchanan's view is rather that the greatest evil of war is the breakdown in the norms of human behaviour that come with it, and hence the magnitude of the Holocaust was a consequence of war that might have been mitigated had the war, or its scale (originally localized to Poland) been limited. Buchanan also argues that the Red Army committed a number of large scale atrocities and denied the liberty of many Europeans and that this was aided and abetted by Churchill and FDR's alliance with Stalin.] (]) 02:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wouldn't consider Buchanan extremist or fringe, however, he's not a professional historian. His opinion might be notable, I'm not sure. Which article are we talking about? ] (]) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::A lot of Buchanan's work parallels with or draws from that of ]. According to the Wiki article for Nisbet, he was a "first rate 20th century sociologist". A professional sociologist is not a professional historian. Is Nisbet a reliable source? Does Nisbet become more or less reliable if Buchanan cites him? For examples for the type of particular cites at issue here, it would be to cite to Buchanan historical claims like "In Hungary, it was hard to find a women or girl over 10 who had not been raped by the “liberators” of the Red Army" or "at Teheran in 1943, when FDR moved into the Soviet embassy compound and assured Stalin he would not object to his keeping the half of Poland and the Baltic states Hitler had ceded to Stalin in their infamous pact....FDR asked only that word of his concession not leak out before the 1944 elections".] (]) | |||
| ::::I'm not familiar with Robert Nisbet, but I want to point out a careful distinction. No '''person''' is a ]. Only '''published works''' are. (And of course, not all published works are ], only those with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking are.) Keep in mind that academic and peer-reviewed publications are considered the most reliable sources. For a topic such as World War II, there should be plenty of such sources. So, no I would not be citing Pat Buchanan for those claims. ] (]) 22:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Pat Buchan is not a noted historian and therefore his books are not a reliable source. ] (]) 23:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Agree with Quest and Four Deuces. The Hungary claim in particular is clearly rhetorical (ie it is unlikely to be literally true), so it doesn't provide us with useful information or pass the verifiabilty test. Even if it were attributed, claims made by PB would not be notable in the context. --] (]) 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Buchanan's book ''is'' a reliable source for an attributed statement as to Buchanan's ''opinion'' on WWII. Whether his opinion on WWII is ''worth mentioning'' in a ''specific'' article is another matter (see ] and ])] (]) 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Which article would this be going in? If it's the main article on WWII, the book might not be appropriate to mention. If it's in an article about specific views on WWII, it may well be. ] (]) 12:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Articles where the specific examples would go in would be ] or ]. Other Buchanan material would be applicable to ].] (]) 04:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, academic and peer-reviewed publications are considered the most reliable sources. For a topics related to World War II, there should be plenty of such sources. So, no I would not be citing Pat Buchanan for those claims. ] (]) 03:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Tehran Conference would have to be expanded quite a bit to use Buchanan without creating an undue weight issue. Right now there aren't any reactions or alternative views sections. ] (]) 14:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Whois == | |||
| Is the result of a whois query a reliable source for an article on a website? --] (]) 04:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : No, imho. The results of a dynamic query are by definition not a ''published'' source. ] (]) 07:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Possibly. A HTML query is dynamic, too. However this would be a good time to use the "retreived on" field in the citation, and in the article body have something like "As of 2009, whois lists the site owner as..." | |||
| :If it's for uncontroversial information like the location of a website to fill out an infobox, that's fine. But if it's for something likely to be challenged, such as the owner of a controversial website, you would want a source that's verifiable to an archive somewhere. | |||
| :You also want to consider whether the information is relevant to the article. For instance, in an article about an underground press organization, the location might be important to show that it's beyond the reach of the authorities in the countries it covers. However, is the location of the registrar important, or is the location of the server ( try something like Netcraft, which shows the netblock owner ) important? ] (]) 12:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Not likely to be relevant to the article, but that isn't the query here. Very time sensitive, websites can change hosts quite readily, and the sorts of websites where this question would produce data relevant to the article are especially likely to change sites - so any reference should be date specific, not merely year specific. However, how would using this not be ], probably via synthesis? Even accepting the result as reliable, you can't engage in ]. ] 15:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see how a statement of the form "on date X, website Y was registered by Z" could be considered synthesis. I have trouble with verifiability (whois only answers questions of the form "who has registered website Y ''now''". On the other hand, this is public knowledge - it's even built into the infrastructure of the Internet. On the third hand, if the fact is notable, there should be a third-party RS for it. --] (]) 15:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Whois data is not published anywhere so how could it possibly be considered a published source? ] (]) 17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hmmm... not sure about that. Isn't Whois data published every time someone accesses the site and runs a querry? It isn't published in the same way a dead tree source is published, but it is "disseminated to the public" which is essentially the same thing (just as the airing of a TV program is equated with publishing). ] (]) 20:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ok, I am going to take this as a qualified "yes" to my question above which was what I thought. A whois query is a reliable source for the location of the registration for a website, with the usual qualifications about access date etc. --] (]) 22:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There's still a question of whether it's relevant to an article (besides the lingering concerns about verifiability). For example, which jurisdiction the registrar or the physical server is located in would be appropriate in articles about Indymedia or the Pirate Bay. Registry creation dates might be important to other articles. But for most websites, unless we're about to start adding hosting details to an infobox, it would just be trivia. ] (]) 14:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Source for Michael Moore's birthplace == | |||
| The birth place of ] is a topic of dispute, particularly as it pertains to his critics, who assert that he was not born in the blue-collar town of Flint, Michigan, as Moore has often asserted, but in the more affluent Flint suburb of Davison. Among them are David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke, who assert Davison as his birthplace in their 2004 book, ''Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man'', and provide as their source. Is it reliable? Normally, one would just cite Hardy and Clarke's book, but since this is a controversial point, the sources provided in such controversies is more relevant, I think. ] (]) 21:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :We'd need more than an online faq to dispute someone's birthplace. Do they have a copy of the long form birth certificate? ;) ] <small>(])</small> 21:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think both claims are incorrect. The cited reference for Moore's birthplace being Flint is his movie ''Pets or Meat: The Return To Flint'', wherein Moore states that he was born at St. Joseph's Hospital in Flint. But St. Joseph's (now Genesys East Flint Campus) is actually located in the suburb of ], at 1460 Center Rd. Burton, MI 48509-1429. So he was born in ], raised in ] but both are suburbs of ]. ] (]) 22:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Working from the current location of a hospital is original research, as the physical campus can relocate. I don't know whether or not this one has. ] 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::According to editor ], St. Joseph Hospital was located in Flint. The new hospital is located in Grand Blanc. ] (]) 17:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The main Genesys location is Grand Blanc. There is also a Genesys East Flint Campus at the former St. Joe's in Burton. ] (]) 17:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :My initial inclination is to doubt the reliability of both sources in this case. This issue has been discussed many times before. I looked through the archives of ]. I found two linked to sources that are unquestionably reliable by our standards: the New York Times biography of him, and the encyclopedia Encarta. The New York Times lists in its header "Birthplace: Flint, Michigan, USA" but in its text says "Michael Moore was born in 1954 in Davison, MI, a suburb of Flint". Encarta says "Moore was born in Davison, a suburb of Flint, Michigan.". Absent a reputable historian that has examined the birth certificate and published his findings, the article should probably reflect these sources. It may not be necessary to mention the dispute at all; Davidson is indeed a suburb of Flint and it is common to reference nearby large cities in saying where one is from. A geneaologist insists on precision in birthplaces, ordinary discourse does not. ] 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I take your point but disagree about the ''originality'' of my research. All I did was refer to ], which tells us that St. Joseph's Hospital is now part of the Genesys Health System and called Genesys East Flint Campus (the address for which is readily available through any number of means). Regardless, you have cited two great sources that say Davison. Cheers. ] (]) 14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a little late but I should point out that "birthplace" in vital statistics usually means the town where one's parents were resident at the time of birth, not the town the hospital was located in. If there's any doubt, you could say someone was "born in year X to Mr and Mrs Y of Shelbyville, a suburb of Capital City", and if there was an interest in the hospital, say if the hospital was located someplace distant, interesting, or it was part of a question of citizenship, then "at Springfield Hospital, Springfield" could be included. And let's not create a false dichotomy around "Flint". In the US ( except California for some reason ) it's common for people to say theyre from the nearest large city. ] (]) 14:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Village Voice Editorial "Swift Boat Swill" == | |||
| The article ] cites and quotes an editorial from the Village Voice entitled "Swift Boat Swill." Doesn't this article violate the NPOV criteria? It certainly contains misleading information, leaving out highly relevant information from the primary sources it claims to research (specifically, that the interviewees were unwilling or unable to provide corroborating information except in one case out of 46). ] (]) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : This is the reliable sources noticeboard, where we engage in discussions about the reliability of sources. This is not ], where they engage in discussions about the application of ] in articles. I doubt that anyone would dispute that the Village Voice editorial page is a reliable source for reporting on the editorial opinion of the Village Voice. ] (]) 06:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is my (limited) understanding that ] contains only discussions about NPOV issues on Misplaced Pages pages, and not about sources. ] (]) 04:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Correct. ] is a policy on Misplaced Pages. It helps guide us as to how to write Misplaced Pages articles. It is not in any way relevant in judging whether a source is considered reliable for a particular citation. In fact we expect sources to express, not a neutral point of view, but a 'single' point of view, and it is by describing those points of view, where significant and verifiable, that we write a good article. ] (]) 08:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If the only source has a 'single' POV that is a strong POV, how does one achieve accuracy? | |||
| :It appears the paragraph in question is the second to last of the subsection "Verification of participants' credibility", which begins "According to Army reports compiled by the Criminal Investigation Command (CID) and later reported by the Village Voice following declassification,...". The citation is actually to the fifth paragraph on the second page of the article , so a link to the second page should be used, not a link to the first page. The two page thingy is described as a "Feature" in the "News" section, not as an editorial. So this is not a source for the Village Voice's editorial opinion; it either is or is not a reliable source for facts. The author is "Nicholas Turse", who wrote exactly one other feature for VV.. So he is not a regular writer for them. At the end of the other 2004 article he was described as "a doctoral candidate at the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health and a regular contributor to the Nation Institute's tomdispatch.com.". Initially, there is no reason to believe that a doctoral candidate in a school of Public Health is an expert historical scholar. Yet it would appear that he is this fellow . So despite pursuing his PhD degree in a school of public health, he holds himself out to the public as an expert on U.S. war crimes. Your mileage may vary, but I'd tend to think of him as marginally reliable. It may be possible to find a superior source that discusses those documents, in which case use the better source. ] 13:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The Village Voice does have editorial oversight and they found him reliable as an expert on that topic, and plenty of other sources find the Village Voice reliable. Certainly someone can be an expert on a topic other than what they get a degree in, and I think that someone with a doctorate from the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health could very reasonably have studied war crimes, as the History and Ethics part is spot on and Public Health certainly overlaps the area in question. Different people can all be experts on the same topic despite having taken different routes toward knowledge. History of crimes, war or otherwise, can be picked up through history, criminology, sociology, a journalism focus on that area and so forth. I don't see any reason to doubt this individual's reliability. ] (]) 14:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::(Note, I indented the responses above for formatting reasons) Does Village Voice's "editorial oversight" extend to validating strongly POV articles, or just straight reporting. Is this an NPOV article by a reporter, or, more likely, a POV article by a partisan? Although this is a "feature article," the pejorative nature of the title is clearly a matter of opinion, not fact, which leaves the remainder of the article suspect (regardless of whether one agrees with the sentiment expressed). | |||
| :::There are at least two reasons to doubt the reliability in the relevant area: strongly POV title of the article, which is not a hallmark of a reliable source; and, the content of primary source documents. Photocopies of CID primary source documents exist which call the reliability of this article, in the relevant section, into question. Specifically, my counting of the results in the individual documents shows that of the 46 investigated, 6 could not be located, 25 refused to provide information, 10 backtracked on or renounced their claims, 6 caused subsequent investigations which found no corroboration, and 1 provided information which resulted in an ongoing investigation and eventual validation. Editors are welcome to go to the source link and read the photocopies, as I did. They are summarized here for convenience. | |||
| :::However, the primary documents exist (online) only as photocopies on a partisan site (), referenced by a ''WinterSoldier.com'' produced . I believe this leaves two possibilities: (1) the photocopies have been altered (this would be easy to detect and is hence unlikely); (2) the photocopies show the Village Voice article, in the relevant area, to be insufficiently complete at best and strongly POV at worst - in either case, not reliable for this issue. Note that the original documents should be available by ] but it isn't clear how physical possession of such documents would be helpful in this on-line world ] (]) 04:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You overlooked the 3rd possibility: (3) wintersoldier.com, a propaganda site that does not meet Misplaced Pages's standards as a reliable source, has created "summaries" of those government files that are subtly inaccurate. Therefore, the partisan-produced summaries of the government documents conflict with the findings of the Village Voice article based upon those same documents, which is presumed to have some degree of accuracy. I don't believe an eye-grabbing headline (a trademark of VV) throws the news article into disrepute. As strictly a matter of reliable sourcing by Misplaced Pages's standards, The Village Voice qualifies and the "wintersoldier.com" website does not. As a matter of accuracy (beyond the scope of this noticeboard), a brief cursory glance at your partisan non-RS website shows me numerous misrepresentations contained in their summaries. ] (]) 07:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The VV article looks reliable. - ] (]) (]) 07:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The discussion of the documents was related only to the photocopies on wintersoldier.com, not their summary. Each item in the summary provides a link to the document itself. Editors can judge for themselves, not whether the documents sustain wintersoldier.com's summaries, but rather facts that are contradictory to the summary in the VV. The document show that only one of those investigated was willing or able to provide information which led to verification of claims (the documents show further investigation warranted, history shows that investigation substantiated the allegations); that many refused to cooperate with the congressionally ordered investigation; and, that some had made claims at WSI that were more extreme than what they made in interviews described in the documents (such as claiming knowledge that was actually hearsay). The link is above. ] (]) 05:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] ] (]) 08:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Chicago-style pizza == | |||
| This source "," by a and published at Chicago's Restaurant Guide keeps getting removed from the ] by an anonymous editor. Could more people take a look at it. The issue is the claim that some people in Chicago refer to thin-crust pizza as flat, which is supported in the article, as opposed to the counter claim that the phrase is never used. ] (]) 01:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The original URL www.chicagorestaurant.com has become a redirect to a site that at first glance is different. Without digging into the history of the changes, I can't use the current site to validate reliability. I'm tentatively inclined to consider it reliable, however I don't see how it supports the claim. The page says "You can get plenty of thin-crust, flat pizza here, but Chicagoans treat that as a type of canapé ..." and "Some misguided old South Siders may try to kid you that the “real” pizza of Chicago is greasy flat stuff with a cardboardlike crust, but the true Chicago-style pizza began ...". Both are in the second/third paragraph, the last one before individual restaurant listings begin. The page does not use the word flat anywhere else. I don't see any way this paragraph, can support an article claim "There is also a thin-crust pizza unique to Chicago, generally described as such, but sometimes referred to as "flat" pizza", no matter how reliable the source is. It says nothing about the thin-crust pizza being in anyway unique to Chicago (and square cut is not a sign of uniqueness, I've seen it in restaurants copying specific Italian regions and in generic restaurants elsewhere. Assuming for the moment that the source is reliable, it doesn't support the claim that you were trying to support with it. ] 01:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would agree with you except for the placement of the comma. Coming before the word "here" it would support your reading, but coming after the word here, it turns, "flat pizza here" into a single clause (as in, "called flat pizza here." The comma is placed where it was in the original non-electronic printing (which I have sitting next to me and, although it isn't sourceable, the same author does make the argument that it is called "flat pizza" on the talk page under her[REDACTED] handle.] (]) 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I disagree because of placement of a more important comma. "Thin-crust" and "flat" have a comma between them. If "flat pizza" were a name/noun phrase, there should not be a comma after "thin-crust". There is, and there is no excuse for it if thin-crust is an adjective describing the thing known as "flat pizza", because a comma should never separate a final adjective from a noun or noun phrase. However, two coordinate adjectives, when used before a noun, are supposed to have a comma between them. (See The Chicago Manual of Style, , or even ], as well as plenty of online manual of style explanations.) The comma between "thin-crust" and "flat" indicates "flat pizza" is not being used as a name, flat is just one of two coordinate adjectives modifying "pizza", and thus that "flat, thin-crust pizza" would have been equally valid in that sentence. If you want to claim that the entirety is a naming phrase, then your equivalent phrase would be "called thin-crust, flat pizza here", and that can't support a claim of "called flat pizza" in our article. From this source the second use of the word flat is in the phrase "greasy flat stuff" - arguing from it you might conclude that it is called "flat stuff" (because as two adjectives to not have a comma the phrase probably should be in the order "flat greasy stuff", since flat describes shape and greasy describes condition and cumulative adjectices are usually in the order size, shape, condition/age, color, origin, material), but you can't get to called "flat pizza" from "flat stuff". You need better sourcing. ] 04:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agree with GRBerry. At best, the sources used are at best ambiguous... What is needed is a source that ''clearly'' uses the word "flat" as a name for this pizza style. ] (]) 14:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thirded. ] (]) 21:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Geographic map of Israel == | |||
| The geographical map of Israel of this article is misleading and it should be replaced as it includes the West Bank and the Golan Heights as part of Israel. This is contrary to the international law as those territories were acquired by war. | |||
| This principle was stated in the UN resolution 242 of 22 November 1967 which states: “...the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war...”. | |||
| http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement | |||
| The presented map should be changed with a new one showing the Golan Heights and West Bank as foreign occupied territories as correcly indicated for the Gaza Strip. | |||
| ==RfC: NewsNation== | |||
| Regards. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| <!-- ] 13:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740574870}} | |||
| {{rfc|prop|sci|rfcid=5F45265}} | |||
| <!-- ] 02:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}} | |||
| What is the reliability of ]? | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| :Which article are your referring to ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 09:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| :This query is the first contribution of the querying account. At this time, there is nothing to do here. ] 15:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The user making this request has replied on their ]. The article referred to is ], and the map in question is ]. ] (]) 15:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey (NewsNation)=== | |||
| :Oops...yes he has a point. The West Bank has been absorbed and it's being used in many pages. I'll drop a note at ]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 17:48, 11 September 2009 (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. – ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative.] (]) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. Compare ]. ] (]) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' why are we putting ''any'' stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “]” syndrome. ] (]) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for topics outside UFOs, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. - ] (]) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. ] (]) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for non-UFO coverage, '''Option 3''' for UFO coverage. ]@] 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (NewsNation)=== | |||
| :(ec) Ok. The image is a split image at two map scales. The image is used in 33 articles, including this one. The left hand panel uses three colors for land, a white for Isreal, a pale yellow for the West Bank and the Golan Heights, and grey for other countries. The white/pale yellow difference can be hard to see, depending on monitor settings (very washed out on my default settings), but is definitely there when examined. There is also a thin grey line between the two. There is no text in the left panel.<p> The right hand panel is a larger scale of just the northern portion. It has the same color differentiation and also includes the label "Golan Heights" (in a font more prominent than that used for towns/cities) across the Golan Heights region. A label for the West Bank would be at least 90% off this map, and thus is reasonably omitted. | |||
| *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) | |||
| :I conclude that the requester's desired change is already largely present in the map, as there are color differences and a label. It might be better to use colors that are easier to see the difference between, but I know my monitor settings are different from most peoples so I don't know if this is a significant issue. | |||
| :It might be a good idea to standardize colors somewhere, somehow. If we have ever had a centralized discussion somewhere about what color means what and what should be used in maps, I personally would not be aware of it, the maps I see day to day around here don't show evidence of standardized colors, the examples at ] don't use standardized colors. I conclude that we don't today have standardized colors with standardized meanings. If such a task were to be tackled, it would be a major project. I can't even recommend who to talk with that might be interested in such a project, so I don't know where to recommend that Giacintomodena go next. Since many of the maps are over at Commons, it is likely to be somewhere there. Perhaps the author of this particular map might be of help, his Commons talk page is , while his local talk page is ]. ] 18:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, so...we dont have maps showing a country's territory if the territory was gained through war....ok, so California can only be shown on a map of Mexico and not the United States then. Israel is the only soveriegn state over the Golan Heights, "West Bank" (which is not the official term for that territory btw), and the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Authority is not a state. It administers it in a similar way in which Greenland has self-rule within being a part of Denmark. You win something in war its yours. When did the US decide to give Spain back Guam or Puerto Rico? When did the UK give Gibraltar back to Spain? More recently when has China given back territory won from India in the early 1970s? I'm sorry, maybe I missed the part about "we dont show maps that show territory won by '''Jews''' in a war", which is what this proposal on here is really about. After 1948 maps everywhere showed the "west bank" as an integral part of Jordan (formerly Transjordan) and the Gaza Strip as part of Egypt. Those nations lost, and both have renounced their claims on those territories, claims that were in fact legitimate at that time, they have both signed treaties with Israel. No other nation claim those territories. They are not in dispute with a legitimate recognized '''state'''. They are within the borders of what is defended by the State of Israel. Treat the maps as such and do not bow down to the anti-semites who find their way here and try one thing after another to push down Jews and their state.] (]) 07:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've already posted a note at the IPCOLL article issues page. It must be changed to clearly differentiate between internationally recognised Israeli, Palestinian and Syrian territories. I'm sure it will be dealt with in due course. This is a no brainer. Misplaced Pages can't use maps like this that either accidentally or deliberately present a position that doesn't comply with ] and ] unless they are in articles where they are specifically used to illustrate the opinion of the vanishingly small, fringe minority who holds these views (which doesn't include either the Supreme Court of Israel(HCJ) or the majority of Israelis let alone the international community etc). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 08:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Fringe", ha! Um, the Golan Heights, as opposed to the "west bank" and Gaza Strip have in fact been ANNEXED by the State of Israel and are an integral part of the nation. This is not fringe theory thank you. The "west bank" and Gaza Strip are not claimed by any other nation. The PLO and Palestinian Authority and Hamas are '''not''' states, they are not sovereign, the agreements Israel signed giving the PA authority over the territories made that explicitly clear that Israel still has defence rights over that territory. If you are going to insist on this ridiculous claim that Misplaced Pages must not show one view over another on maps of territory, I expect you to support me now as I go to every single country's pages and demand that their maps be neutral as well. The Kuril Islands now can not be shown as being Russia's instead of Japan's even though since 1945 Russia has administered it, Japan still claims it. Gibraltar can not be shown as UK territory, The Amur River can not be shown as the border between China and Russia as neither recognizes it and both claim land on both sides. Border between Vietnam and China has to be shown as not determined because both nations claim different borders. Most of at least one province of India can not be shown as India's because since 1970's China has occupied the territory by force. Goa was conquered by India in the 1970's, similar in situation to Israel's war that lead to it gaining the west bank and Gaza, so why is it ok that India gets to occupy land gotten in war, but Israel cant even get that land shown on a map? Oh, yea, because Israel is a state created for Jews. I keep forgetting that double standard in world history applies here on Misplaced Pages too. I'll stop posting on this subject because just as in the UN and other organizations, Jews are outnumbered and majority decisions can be influenced by anti-semites and pro-Arab/Muslim individuals. Just remember one thing- the reason the UN has anti-Israeli "occupied territory" rulings is because of blatant anti-Jewish/Zionist positions by the Soviet Union and the over 50 Arab/Muslim countries, just as they were able to get rammed through at an international woman's rights summit in China about a decade ago an official statement declaring Zionism to be one of the most dangerous things in the world facing women's rights. Just because a large number of countries dont like a border it doesnt effect the situation on the ground and who won the war (or in this case '''won every single one of the many wars''', if you lose then dont cry about you losing and get the territory back because you suck at war but are good at propaganda and terrorism. Misplaced Pages caving into showing maps of the land as something it isnt, is only encouraging the propoganda of the Palestinian side it isnt being neutral to show maps declaring their side to be accurate.] (]) 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's too bad nobody ever sticks up for Israel on the Misplaced Pages. head.. desk. But that said it's appropriate to mark disputed territories such as Kashmir in a separate color, while the boundaries themselves should show the current reality. Remember that part of being a country is that other countries recognize you as a separate state and send diplomats to you. If some countries don't recognize Israel and/or send envoys to the Palestinian Territories instead that can be reflected on our maps, but in terms of color, not lines. ] (]) 14:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Useage of Arabic-language sources in ] == | |||
| == Is the aviation web site a reliable source for the history of WWII? == | |||
| This thread is opened at the request of @] following the dispute between me and @] in ] 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:<br> | |||
| 1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and<br> | |||
| 2. {{tq|1=Yemeni state-controlled media outlets}} wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets") | |||
| Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article. | |||
| ]: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used. <br> | |||
| ]: This is the version that Jav wants to keep | |||
| Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand): | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved: | |||
| * | |||
| ''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in ''The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast'' (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. also seems to be a relevant document. ] (]) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|1=There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle}}<br>]?<br>{{tq|1=citing Portuguese records}}<br>That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above ''']]''' 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. ] (]) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). ''The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama''. pp. 290-291. () ] (]) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--] (]) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?''']]''' 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. ''The Independent'' is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. ] (]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the ] was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended).{{efn|Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)<br>High School Flags<br>Tuesday, September 17, 2024<br>After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.<br>May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.<br>The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.}} He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023 {{pb}}{{talkreflist|group=lower-alpha}} ''']]''' 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.] (]) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the ] ] and ] sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) ''']]''' 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. ] (]) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. ] (]) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in , which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! ] (]) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hi, @]. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this: | |||
| ::::::"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." ] (]) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|1=capturing Al-Shihr}}<br>hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? ''']]''' 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder. | |||
| ::::::::I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. ] (]) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city ''']]''' 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. ] (]) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{outdent|8}} {{tq|1="Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, '''capturing Al-Shihr''',}} (Never happened btw) {{tq|1= and how important it would be to conquer Diu."}}<br> ''']]''' 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? ''']]''' 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned ''']]''' 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. ] (]) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::capturing a city != sacking it <br>your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here ''']]''' 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. ] (]) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Now show me where in your sources does it say that ''']]''' 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{outdent|7}} What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? ''']]''' 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. ] (]) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] so we can finish with and archive this, can we use those sources in anything other than the battle section? like the other sections that I've mentioned being deleted here ] <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. ] (]) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu == | |||
| Some editor used the site to draw a conclusion on independence or non-independence of certain countries during WWII. Can that site be used as a reliable source for general (non related to aviation) WWII history?<br />Regards,<br />--] (]) 17:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 18:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740333680}} | |||
| {{rfc|hist|bio|rfcid=5DC5768}} | |||
| The following genealogy sources are currently considered ] at ] (A), or in repeated inquiries at ] (B and C): | |||
| * '''A: Geni.com''' | |||
| * '''B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley''' | |||
| * '''C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav''' | |||
| :Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles. | |||
| :They should be: | |||
| * '''Option 1: listed as ]''' (change nothing to A; add B and C at ] as such) | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' (list them as such at ]) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2) | |||
| ] (]) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu) === | |||
| :I would say no. After all, we don't know what they are basing their claims on.--] (]) 18:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * A: See "Geni.com" at ]. | |||
| :It appears you are referencing the discussion at ]. The claim in question is not stated in prose, but appears through reading the article section headers to be a claim that "Tuva was an independent country and joined the Allies of World War II on 25 June 1941." I'd refuse to draw a conclusion based on that source, as it doesn't seem sufficiently reliable to conclude, but between that source and ] (itself with sub-par sourcing), there is certainly room to doubt the claim as expressed in prose. I'd say that the {{tl|fact}} tag the other editor wants in the article is appropriate until better sourcing turns up. It also quite possible when reasonable sourcing turns up that the conclusion will be that Tuva was not an independent state in 1941. The issue is functionally parallel to that for Mongolia - the real question is whether it was an independent state or not. (I note that editors at ] have chosen to discuss Mongolia but not to even mention Tuva. Current status would seem inconsistent between these two articles.) ] 18:27, 11 September 2009 (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. | |||
| ::Another problematic entry is ]]. Free France was not a country and it should be removed form the list. France is already listed as an original Allie. Thanks--] (]) 18:38, 11 September 2009 (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 === | ||
| :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) | |||
| At ] there's a question of whether is a reliable source for ] which it promotes and seems to have founded. My first reaction to the question was "Just look at it," but that might be viewed as impolite, so I thought I'd ask you folks. ] (]) 20:43, 11 September 2009 (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?  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) The primary issue with reliability sources is claim specific - is a source X reliable for claim Y in article Z. Undoubtedly, the site is reliable for some claims in some articles. (Whether it should be used in those articles is not our specialty here.) There are parts of the site that are definitely not reliable for this topic - e.g. the forums, personals, shopping pages, and chat areas. Other pages may be, so we have to review page by page and supported claim by claim. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :However, you are raising this in the context of an AFD. So even before we get to the specific RS issues, I have to highlight the issue of independence that has already been mentioned therein. ''If'' the website and the concept/event are not independent, then even if the sourcing is reliable it will do nothing to show notability. So for the purpose of the AFD, editors need it to be both reliable ''and'' independent. | |||
| :Read Background: B. ] (]) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll list the individual pages used in the article in current order. | |||
| ::<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) | |||
| : is used to support the claim "Slut Night is the name for butch-femme social gatherings—mainly for self-identified dykes". This post-header text of the webpage begins "Hints to help you carry on the Slut Night tradition... plus tips on advertising your event on this web site." A purpose of the page is to drive usage of the website, which ranks it pretty darn low on the reliability scale. In addition, the closest it comes to supporting this claim is "The premise of traditional Slut Night involves Femmes dressing up (or over-dressing or under-dressing) in their most risque, daring, diva drag." This page is not a reliable source for this claim, and is not a good source for anything. | |||
| : is used to support the claim "online networking which has brought on the "the golden age for Butch-Femme culture."" The page says "Because of computers, today is the golden age for Butch-Femme culture." The quote is accurate. The site is probably a reasonable source for claiming that, but it is a quotation that should be attributed in the article text. | |||
| : (same page) is also used to support the claim "In 1995, Texas-based Butch-Femme.com was created becoming "home to the first Butch-Femme-specific personals" and a few years later the first registered domain dedicated to butches and femmes." For this claim, this page is a self-published source. The page could be used in an article about butch-femme.com, but not about an independent subject. Even then it shouldn't be used for self-promoting claims such as "first". For this article, for this claim, either A) this is not an independent but not reliable source or B) this is a non-independent source that doesn't demonstrate notability and doesn't support peacock terms like "first". | |||
| : is used to support the claim that SN was born at social started by the website. Again, for AFD purposes this is a dammed if you do, dammed if you don't situation. I'd tend to credit the source as reliable for the author of the page believing it, and thus for a claim about it being their opinion, but also as definitively not independent. Which means that it doesn't show notability. | |||
| : is used to support the claim that "Slut Nights are usually informally called for and in regular rotation with Femmes and Butches United (FABU) chapters organizing them as needed to "bridge the chasm of cyberspace."" It is not a reliable source for this claim, as the phrasings "informally called for" and "regular rotation" both can't be supported. The quotation is from the lead sentence "One of the most special aspects of an online community is the way in which its members find to bridge the chasm of cyberspace and meet "in real time."". This sentence is not at all supported by this page regardless of whether the page is reliable. | |||
| : is used to support the claim that "The original San Francisco/Oakland outing was quickly followed by Slut Night events in New York City and Portland, Oregon." I'd say that the page is reliable enough to support a claim that "There was a Slut Night in Portland, Oregon." (The page only supports a date for when planning began, not for when it happened.) It doesn't support any of the rest of the current sentence, so can't be used to support that sentence regardless of whether the page is reliable. | |||
| :All in all, in three (1, 4, 5) of the six usages the page does not support the claim it is attached to, so the question of reliability of the source is not reached. In two (2b and 3) the page is either not independent or not reliable, so it doesn't support the article at AFD. In only one (2a) is the page clearly reliable, though slightly misused, and that is for the claim that computers/online networking caused/brought on "the golden age for Butch-Femme culture." That claim has nothing to do with Slut Night. As far as supporting the article to survive AFD goes, this source fails completely. If it can be kept solely because of other sources, 2b and 3 might be useful if and only if SN is not independent of the site. ] 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey A: Geni.com === | |||
| == 'Viewpoint' section of European Journal of Public Health: RS or opinion? == | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''.<strike>'''Question'''. Isn't it already deprecated?</strike>--] (]) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''' A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Unsure'''. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) ] (]) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The vast majority of editors adding Geni as a citation for the primary sources it hosts are using those sources in exactly the way that is prohibited (i.e. they are using it as the sole supporting source for a statement rather than as background support for secondary sources). Even that's rare, as way way more people are citing it for its user-generated (often Misplaced Pages-based) "profiles" rather than whatever historical records are uploaded there. ] (]) 05:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. Really bad. Needs to go away.—] 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Invalid RFC/No change''' - giving only options here that are highly negative is not a neutral stance. And there is no specific evidences shown or reason why this is even coming up or needs that all previous RSP should be declared invalid. (See discussions ). Cheers ] (]) 01:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why would we provide positive options when the overwhelming consensus already is that it is not reliable? There is absolutely no requirement that RSN RfCs be formatted with the standard options, especially when the aim isn't even to change the status quo GUNREL designation but rather to flesh out how we technically handle the source. And how could this possibly be declaring the previous discussions invalid, given that they all concluded Geni should not be used? The point of deprecating is to prevent ''new'' usage of the source, by warning editors who try to insert it that it's generally unreliable and tagging the citation if they go through with it. Geni is constantly being re-added by clueless people, deprecating would help a lot with cleaning it up. ] (]) 05:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley === | |||
| A question has been raised, can article (entitled "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?") appearing in the 'viewpoint' section of the ''European Journal of Public Health'' be considered a RS or is it better considered an opinion piece and RS only for the purposes of establishing the opinion of the author? Editors wish to use this to establish encyclopaedically the meaning of the term "denialism" as used in "climate change denialism", "AIDS denialism", "denialism" generally, and so forth. See ]. Thanks for your attention. ] (]) 11:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''', per background discussion. ] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment'''. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--] (]) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''' Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|ActivelyDisinterested}} I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "'''the source is generally prohibited'''". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) ] (]) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation. | |||
| :::Deprecation of this source will ''reduce'' the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--] (]) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again. | |||
| :::::::Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Generally unreliable'''. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) ''Generally unreliable'' is the one which says this: {{tq|"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"}} I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would ''only'' allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be ''prohibited''. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--] (]) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at ] shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he ''knows'' {{xt!|may be of little factual significance}} at face value just because he finds them "]" ({{xt!|but is reproduced by way of interest}}), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't ]. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. ] (]) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the '''Generally unreliable''' category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then ''only as far as we have to''. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Generally reliable''', in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate''' per ActivelyDisinterested.—] 00:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No Change''' - no entry to RSP needed and seems has been accepted. This just is not something that often comes up for question and seems has not been hard to figure out the nature of so it also does not need a RSP entry. Yet as can be seen by , it is used and that seems evidence that common view *is* de facto RS by usage. Really seems like just declaring all those edits wrong is not a useful thing. Cheers ] (]) 02:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Editors using a source does not make it "de facto" RS... We have thousands of hits for pinterest and the like, and used to have thousands to the Daily Mail; that doesn't mean any of those are actually reliable. If you're objecting to the whole concept of RSP this isn't the place to do it. ] (]) 04:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Usage has absolutely no bearing on reliability. Thousands of Wikipedians could be quoting from '']'', and that still doesn't make it {{!xt|de facto RS by usage}} for information on butterflies. | |||
| *::{{!xt|This just is not something that often comes up for question}} It ''does''. In Background: C ], I have indicated a long list of previous discussions on MedLands by Cawley, which has been going on for 15+ years (by now 17+ years). All this time, the conclusion that they reached repeatedly was that MedLands by Cawley was not reliable, but for a time it was thought that we could just gradually replace MedLands by other sources, and keeping MedLands template with a warning as a temporary measure until better sources had been found. However, that didn't happen, and the supposedly temporary measure became quasi-permanent until we agreed in the May 2023 RSN to no longer use the template or the website in any other way. And even after that, the website still gets used as a source by Wikipedians (usually new ones who were not aware of the previous discussions and the May 2023 decision). Deprecation is exactly what allows us to give editors a warning that it is not reliable, and to check out previous discussions and decisions, to prevent new usage. See also JoelleJay's response to your comment under Survey A: Geni.com. ] (]) 09:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav === | |||
| :It sounds like opinion to me.--] (]) 13:13, 12 September 2009 (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">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :'''Comment'''. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the ], Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". ] (]) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Deprecate'''. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; . --] 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site . And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. ]. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—] 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No change to either of these''' - seems this is referring to two different sources, both of which are somewhat widely used in WP and neither of which seems suitable for an RSP entry. Just not seeing sufficient case or benefit from any entry either. Cheers ] (]) 02:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:They are the same website; the old url is just broken now. And the fact that it is still being widely used is exactly why it needs an RSP entry and even more so to be deprecated... ] (]) 05:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{!xt|somewhat widely used in WP}}. Again, usage has absolutely no bearing on reliability. This is English Misplaced Pages, not Wikimedia Commons. Just because a source is widely used doesn't mean it gets a free pass. ] (]) 09:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)=== | |||
| ::Sure, it's the expert opinion of , who is basing the paper on his own views and those of many other published papers on denialism in respect to climate, AIDS, the Holocaust, tobacco, and so on. It's also published in a peer reviewed journal of some standing. '']'' is a concept much used in the modern world, with >100K Google hits, although it has not made it into most dictionaries, even if it is in the . ] 17:46, 12 September 2009 (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) | |||
| :: Thanks Wehwalt, I also believe that it would only be RS for establishing the opinion of the author, and the article itself should state, "According to expert McKee, ...". Ratel is, of course, the other editor involved in the dispute and I did ask very nicely if we could leave our disagreement at the ], but no... anyway... any other views? (By the way, 100K hits is nothing, Ratel; try 'Paris Hilton'). ] (]) 20:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Thanks for restoring the discussion from the archive; it evidently was not yet closed. It would seem that we've got a clear result though. Should I request a third party to formally close it with a conclusion, or how does this go with RfCs? ] (]) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The {{tl|RFC}} tag was missing, which would have added "DoNotArchiveUntil.." to the header to stop it from being archived. I've add the RFC tag which will list in for every to see (not just those to happen across it on RSN). I suggest waiting and seeing if any more comments come in, as they editors have taken part yet. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't see the point to this. I can see there being concerns about quality of niche sources, but do not see a reason why a RSP entry should be made or benefit for trying it. Why should the source choice of hundreds or thousands of editors at thousands of entries be disregarded ? How can they all be effectively replaced ? I'm thinking that their de facto opinion has to be given great weight and that all those cites would either stay or that holes would be made in the affected articles -- so any RSP entry seems just pointless or causing lots of trouble rather than making any improvement. Am I missing some magic wand or an urgent concern worth the trauma ? Cheers ] (]) 02:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why would I do a web search for a hotel? ] 11:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:These are all ''clearly'' user-generated and/or amateur SPS and therefore automatically unreliable, so the source preferences of the random drive-by editors adding it absolutely ''should'' be disregarded. I've removed thousands of citations to these and ], they almost invariably support undue trivia and frequently BLPNAME violations (e.g. full names, birthdates, and birthplaces of non-notable minor relatives) that shouldn't be in the article in the first place. ] (]) 05:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::It seems to me that Markbassett is trying to have it both ways. | |||
| *::* On the one hand, he claims that all three sources are {{xt|niche sources}}; that {{xt|there is no specific evidences shown or reason why this is even coming up}}; and that {{xt|This just is not something that often comes up for question}}. So it's a ''small matter'' about ''niche sources'' that are ''rarely discussed'' (and rarely used?), and there is no reason to discuss it now and change their status, because it's ''not important enough''. | |||
| *::* On ther other hand, he claims that {{xt|there is no that all previous RSP should be declared invalid}} (presumably he means previous RSN discussions on the source); that {{xt| seems has been accepted, it is used and that seems evidence that common view *is* de facto RS by usage. Really seems like just declaring all those edits wrong is not a useful thing.}}; that {{xt| are somewhat widely used in WP}}; and finally {{xt|Why should the source choice of hundreds or thousands of editors at thousands of entries be disregarded ? How can they all be effectively replaced ? I'm thinking that their de facto opinion has to be given great weight and that all those cites would either stay or that holes would be made in the affected articles}}. So it's a ''big matter'' about ''widely used sources'' that have been ''discussed many times before'', but there is no reason to discuss it now and change their status, because the usage of these sources in thousands of articles is ''too important'' and too impossible to be replaced by anything else. | |||
| *::These two lines of reasoning are in contraction with each other. These sources can't be simultaneously ''niche'' but also ''widely used''; ''rarely discussed'' but also ''frequently discussed at RSN before''; and ''not important enough'' but also ''too important'' to have their status changed. The second argument seems to undermine the first, as evidence is given for how often these sources are indeed used, and that they have been frequently discussed before at RSN, and that the impact of the decision could affect thousands of articles. The second argument also seems to invoke ]. Unfortunate though that might be, it may be the conclusion we sometimes have to reach about sources that have been frequently cited in the past, but have subsequently turned out to be (very) unreliable. ] (]) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfC: Jacobin== | |||
| == Is it illegal to use this? == | |||
| <!-- ] 17:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740070870}} | |||
| {{RfC|prop|pol|media|rfcid=857ECCA}} | |||
| Which of the following best describes the reliability of '']''? | |||
| * Option 1: ] | |||
| * Option 2: ] | |||
| * Option 3: ] | |||
| * Option 4: ] | |||
| — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Currently trying to expand the ] article and have been gathering sources. But I have run into this problem, one article in particular would allow me to verify alot of history about his early years, but unfortunatley it's behind a paywall and so unacceptable. However I have found a copy of the article though it's obviously just been copied across by someone who had access. Just wondering would it be wrong to use this secondary website as a source considering it probably shouldn't have these interviews posted on their website?<br /> Regards, --] (]) 13:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You are free to use a pay article if it helps and is a reliable source. Add (fee for article) before the <nowiki></ref></nowiki> ending.--] (]) 13:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks for clearing that up, --] (]) 13:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey: ''Jacobin''=== | |||
| *'''Option 2''' I am opposed to the use of ] and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. ] (]) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2/3''', bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. ] (]) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. ''And it was fixed.'' There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. ] (]) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? ] (]) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **::::I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including ] and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:::::You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***::::::You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***:::::::You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***::::::::No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***:::::::::I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we ]. I believe @] is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. ] (]) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***::::::::::Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. ] (]) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. ] (]) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) ] (]) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I note the failure to provide the requested source. ] (]) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **:::::Right back at you.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **::::::, your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. ] (]) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***::::::Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***:::::::Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? ] (]) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over ''Jacobin'' publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for ] which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation ()? <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --] (]) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Gamaliel}} Mostly ] and at ]. Kind regards, | |||
| :::::Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. ] <small>(])</small> 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment'''. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at ] and at ]. --] (]) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' (intext attribution) ] and ] cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of ] that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' ]: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. ] (]) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1-ish''' Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major ]. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that ''improves'' their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. ] (]) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC''' - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that ''Jacobin'' published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. gives ''Jacobin'' a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the ''New York Times'' (1.4) and ''Washington Post'' (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2/3''' While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes ''Jacobin''. While ''Jacobin'' is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, ''How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba'' is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of ''Jacobin'' is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by ''Jacobin'' that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think ''Jacobin'' is "unreliable" ''per se'', I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. ] (]) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Third party materials on rickross.com == | |||
| *'''Option 1''' for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. ] (]) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: '''''Option 2''': mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory.'' I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: '' I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus.'' In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. ] (]) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—] 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''1 or 2''', I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. ] (]) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak option 2''' per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. '''Strong oppose option 3''', though, for somewhat obvious reasons. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/2''' - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - ] (]) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/2''' Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''' <s>or 4</s> They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. ] (]) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of ''general'' reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the {{tq|no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2}} position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" ''always'' apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to ''how likely'' we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. ] (]) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''', it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as '']'' {{rspe|Reason}}. There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. ] and ] are quite clear. | |||
| :Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has ] for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a '''Bad RfC'''. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the ] where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant ] and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "]" which doesn't needs to be rehashed. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio''' Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated ] for deletion not long after the ], and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that ''Jacobin'' has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary ] and ]] sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias." | |||
| :I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that ] to falsely luring Americans into supporting ] based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable '']'' and contain no obvious factual errors. <b>]</b> ] 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2''', mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from ] {{tquote|Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely.}} A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. ] is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by ] and ]. Notably, ] is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. ] (]) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , ] ] (]) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You should probably read farther than the headline. ] (]) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. ] (]) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it ''literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice''. ] (]) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * (Summoned by ping in this thread) '''Bad RFC / No listing''' just as in 2021. Or '''Option 2''', it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as ]. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. ] (]) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: <small>This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but ''Jacobin'' is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --] (]) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) </small> | |||
| *::For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. ] (]) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. ] (]) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' The current summary at ] acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' ] already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a ]. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. ] (]) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''3'''. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than ''Jacobin'' to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it. | |||
| :It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The ''NYTimes'' has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, ''Nature'' finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the ] 'fact' that 80% of the world's biodiversity is found in the territories of indigenous peoples] are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in ], ], and ], and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the ''emotional hind-brain'' of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure. | |||
| A debate on ] is centring around whether or not newspaper articles not available on line (through age), but cited in full on rickross.com can be trusted as genuine. Obviously, if they can, the newspaper article itself can be the citation, not rickross.com. For example: . | |||
| :Which just strengthens my point, there're no blinders like ideological blinders, so its not so much a matter of how many fact-checkers you have as in how you maybe are presenting facts which, while individually true, are cherry picked or incomplete or out of context or one-sided or otherwise misleading. It might not even be intentional, exactly. Mind-sets are like that. Better to stick with ''Time'' or other people who are more into just blandly attracting a broad readership rather than with people who have points to make. | |||
| As I pointed out on the talk page there, a couple of books published by an academic publishing house refer to his website as and as an RS source. describes him as "an internationally recognized cult expert", again by an academic imprint (John Wiley and sons). | |||
| :They're big and smart enough that reporting their ''opinions'' are worthwhile, of course. "According to ''Jacobin'', consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine. As long as we include the qualifier. ] (]) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Is this enough to consider the articles genuine?] (]) 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Reply|Herostratus}} not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. ] (]) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I thought this had been discusssed before and that we don't use ross's site as a reliable source. He clearly has an anti cult position and unless we can find the articles elsewhere then they are unsupported.There are also plenty of citations where ross's credentials as "an internationally recognized cult expert" are disputed.] (]) 16:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't ''all'' publications are completely reliable ''for their contents''? If the ''News of the World'' says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the ''News of the World'', the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we. | |||
| :Also, you say the articles on Ross's site are cited in full and with accuracy. How can we know that? ] (]) 16:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The issue is that the citations for the article are heavily reliant on the ross archives, apart from that there is little to support verifiability or notability. ] (]) 16:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a non-issue. Just use ], ], ], ], ], or any other research database archive, and cite the source ''itself''. ''']''' (]) 16:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yea. agreed. ] (]) 16:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::And remember that things do not need to be on the internet to be reliable or verifiable... If these old newspaper articles are from standard newspapers, then they are probably available at any large public library... either in hard copy or archived on microfilm. If so, then they are verifiable. You can cite the newspaper article directly without linking to rickross.com. ] (]) 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Cirt - if you open the link I gave to the article, you'll see it's British and won't come up on the American search engines you gave and that I can access. In any case, as I wrote, the problem is that the article (and others like it) is not available on the internet at the newspaper's site, as it's before the paper went on-line. Off2riorob - the whole point of posting here is to ask for opinions about whether the rick ross website can be trusted as a repository of third party sources, so I don't understand the point you're making. | |||
| ::: Blueboar, I appreciate your answer. I am in no position to check the newspaper article, as I am about 8000 miles from the nearest British public library, and am not going to lie and claim I checked it. The question is, can I just go ahead and cite the newspaper article, presuming the rick ross institute won't have faked it?] (]) 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::*''You can cite the newspaper article directly without linking to rickross.com.'' '''Off2riorob''', is this an acceptable compromise?? -] (]) 01:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@{{user|VsevolodKrolikov}} - Other libraries near you may have access to these articles. Just ask your friendly local librarian. :) ''']''' (]) 16:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I live in Japan. I doubt they take the Daily Express in a library near me.] (]) 16:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Perhaps they have access to databases that do. Have you tried? ''']''' (]) 16:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: No, but I *seriously* have grave doubts they would, and I don't fancy the three hours it might take finding out they don't. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| ::::Well, perhaps you can find a friendly fellow Wikipedian who lives in England who would be willing to check the source for you. ] (]) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that ''in our own words'' because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for ''all'' races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. ] (]) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * It is well established that sources not available online can be used. So if an editor has physical copies of the articles that they know are complete and accurate, and can produce full citations then the sources can be used. (Incidentally, {{tl|cite news}} is an excellent tool for formatting a full citation.) Because the posting editor has used the actual original source, the citation is to the original source. If there is also an online copy that the editor has verified is the same, then a ] can also be added. The link is then for the convenience of readers and other editors. In this case, the reliability of the site hosting the copy is not at issue, because they are not the source of the edit. However, there is another rule that applies - we do not link to copyright violations. The disclaimer at rickross.com basically states flat out that they don't have copyright rights for much of what they are hosting copies of, and that copyright holders can request removal. On this basis, we shouldn't use convenience links to rickross.com copies of reliable source news articles. But the original news articles will remain reliable, and an editor that has looked at them can cite them with no link anywhere, or a link to an article behind a paywall. ] 02:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think the thing is our due weight policy says that due weight (noteworthiness) is apportioned based on the amount of attention given in reliable sources. I take that to mean opinion in generally reliable sources is worth reporting; opinion in generally unreliable sources isn’t. ] (]) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*Thank you, this is very helpful. I have attempted to use convenience links in a proposed edit on the talk page. - ] (]) 17:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The Daily Mail is not reliable for its own contents, having doctored its archives. ] (]) 00:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per ] – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. ] (]) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to ''Jacobin'' should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --] (]) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Links have been added=== | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. ] (]) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Please have a look and comment if the way the links have been inserted is correct for wikipedia. The cites link to ross's site claiming that that site is a internet archive? The actual article has still not been referenced or seen. The ross site is still the actual reference point. Please see and comment, the page is Thanks ] (]) 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per {{u|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d}}'s previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart! | |||
| ::{{tq| Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon {{RSP|Salon}}, Townhall {{RSP|Townhall}}). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with ]. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to: {{tq|centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement}} . So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. ] identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. ] (]) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) <u>Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet {{RSP entry|AlterNet}} , Daily Kos {{RSP entry|Daily Kos}} , Raw Story {{RSP entry|The Raw Story}} , The Canary {{RSP entry|The Canary}} , and the Electronic Intifada {{RSP entry|The Electronic Intifada}} .] (]) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)</u>}} | |||
| :As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory ] (]) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation {{tq|would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge}}. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in: | |||
| ::# ''Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order'' Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169 | |||
| ::# ''Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still.'' By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2 | |||
| ::# ''THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK.'' By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 <small>(note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the ] but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)</small> | |||
| ::#''The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy,'' Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p. | |||
| ::So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? ] (]) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. ] (]) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? ] (]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. ] (]) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. ] (]) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is ''too biased to be reliable'' personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. ] (]) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. ] (]) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their page states they offer {{tq|socialist perspectives}} and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supporting {{tq|radical politics}} and {{tq|very explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism}}. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms ''are'' commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of ] notes {{tq|the political diversity of contributors, incorporating "everyone from social democratic liberals to avowed revolutionaries"}}, so I don't think either you or Simonm223 are wrong on this. Different people are gonna use different terms and apply different meanings to each of them. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{tq|Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center.}} Where outside the United States are you talking about? The world where ]? Where ]? Is it Japan, where the conservative ] has been in power since 1955? Or China, where a media outlet that is as critical of the ] as Jacobin is of the ] would have long been banned, and their writers arrested? I think we all need a reality check here, especially if we want to represent reality in our articles. ] (]) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing they probably had in mind specifically other western democracies, as it's common for European countries to have a mainstream Socialist Party with an ideology listed as social democracy (to name a few: ], ], ], ], etc). | |||
| ::::::::I'm comfortable speculating this is their argument because it's one that's often repeated in American progressive-left circles. This argument is usually presented as follows: ] is viewed as the furthest left one can go in America, the things his supporters want are not radical to other developed countries (paid time off, universal healthcare, etc), therefore what is far left in America is only moderately left elsewhere. | |||
| ::::::::Not saying I entirely agree or disagree with that argument, either how Simonm223 phrased it or how I interpreted it. Just saying I think they had in mind comparable democracies, not the entire world. | |||
| ::::::::<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 16:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. ] (]) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::This has become a discussion about Overton windows rather than the source. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3 or 2''' - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be ''relied on'' (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like ''Jacobin'' that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like ''Quillette''). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in ''Jacobin'' are more noteworthy than they really are. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Jacobin's ] is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. ] (]) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::This is no more a good argument than it would be to state that the raison d'etre of X publication is to promote capitalism and the geo-political interests of the United States, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. | |||
| *::I could apply that faulty argument to shitloads of mainstream US publications that are currently considered to be generally reliable. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite ''Jacobin'', but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of ''The Economist'' or ''Reason'' (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to ''Quillette'', which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, on a hoax published in ''Quillette'', revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of ]) ] (]) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) ] (]) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Additional considerations apply'''. As I indicated in the ] which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that ] "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. ] (]) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''. Our ] is explicit that {{tq|reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective}}. I may not personally love the political perspective of ''Jacobin'', but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding ''Jacobin'' as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.{{pb}}Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we ''expect'' from a reliable source; and B) a case where ], as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number was {{tq|Information provided in passing}}, and we already know that such info occasionally {{tq|may not be reliable}}, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the ]. For a topic like ], looks like ''Jacobin'' is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try from the journal '']''. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.{{pb}}Finally, when a piece published in ''Jacobin'' is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, ]. ''The Economist'' and ''The Wall Street Journal'' publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of ''The Economist'', {{tq|editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources}}. ] (] | ] | ]) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 3''' or '''Option 2''', long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the ] was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. ] (]) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I've just scanned most of one article from the actual physical newspaper for comparison. From , we have: Sorry it's all chopped up like that, but that last bit extended across the entire page and my scanner isn't that big. Oh wait, there's more! It goes onto another page... Shall I scan that in, as well? It's across the entire page as well and will be chopped up again.. - ] (]) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:For the record, the that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of '']'', a book about the ], not the French. ] (] | ] | ]) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::''The Black Jacobins'' is named so because the author analogizes the actions of the Haitians to that of the French Jacobins. It's just adding an extra step (not to mention that the word has a known meaning on it's face, so it's mostly irrelevant.). Regardless, it's clearly derived, and it's frankly silly to even argue semantics. ] (]) 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing ]. Your objection doesn't make any sense. ] (]) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't ''inherently'' reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. ] (]) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::That is arguing semantics. ] (]) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::If that's your benchmark, then practically everything is arguing semantics, including this whole thread. "Jacobin publishes words -> what are the meaning of those words? (semantics) -> can we qualify those meanings as 'reliable?'" Clearly distinguishing factors, and I'm not interested in ''arguing semantics about the word "semantics"'' with you like a 12 year old. My vote's been explained, ]. ] (]) 17:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/Keep the current RSPS summary''' I think a few people arguing for additional considerations are misremembering the current RSPS legend. ''Additional'' considerations doesn’t refer to things like weight, or bias, or that you need to attribute opinion pieces because those are all standard considerations that apply to ''all'' sources. The current RSPS summary already says (in part) {{tq|Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.}} I can't find anything that indicates that's not still a perfectly good summary. ] (]) 01:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :No need to scan them... just check to see if the original is identical to what is posted at rickross.com... if so, then you can cite the original, and link to the copy at rickross.com as a convenience link ... the citation would go something like this: <nowiki><ref>News Article Title, Newspaper Name, Date, Page. (convenince link at: )</ref></nowiki> ] (]) 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1*''' Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. ] (]) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: One problem is that the editor above who complained that "the actual article has still not been referenced or seen" still claims this despite scans being linked to one article (so far) on the talk page. Another technique for a separate article (which is accessing a subscription newspaper through its snippet search results for sample checking of accuracy (several separate chunks, which come out 100% accurate)) is also rejected out of hand by the same user. What should be done in such a situation?] (]) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1:''' Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1/2''': generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. ] (]) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Bad RfC''' As on . ] (]) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on ]. In particular I found persuasive. Most recently cites a ''Jacobin'' article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find ''Jacobin'' worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow ''CJR''s lead? The arguments seem to be (1) ''Jacobin'' recently issued a major retraction and (2) ''Jacobin'' has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to ]. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat ''Jacobin'' differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like '']'' or '']''. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2 or Option 3''': Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. ] (]) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. This is not a ]. Its stated purpose is . Compare to the missions of the NYT: ; or the BBC: . The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver ''reporting''. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. ] (]) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a '''Bad RFC''' because there's no reason for initiating it, I support '''Option 2''' or '''Option 3''' because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. ] (]) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1'''{{spaced en dash}}''Jacobin'' may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that ''Jacobin'' isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like ''The Economist'', ''Jacobin'' publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be ''better'' than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very '''bad RfC''' given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by {{noping|Tayi Arajakate}}) and a complete lack of any examples of ''actual uses on Misplaced Pages where the reliability is questioned''. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Misplaced Pages. An absurd reason to open an RfC. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard"><span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px lightskyblue, -1px -1px 4px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">]</span> (] • ])</span> 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' per Silver seren and Wugapodes (and thank you for providing actual reported information on their editorial process rather than speculation, heavy irony in this whole discussion). This whole saga is based on one correction? Really? ] (]) 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --] (]) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bias has plenty to do with reliability, or can. It's a worthwhile thing to take into consideration. ] (]) 21:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3/4:''' An encyclopedia should focus on high-quality, fact-driven sources. Not on ones that report the news with ''heavy'' political agendas, at least not without qualifying it. Using a highly politically charged source (of whatever political persuasion) inevitably leads to | |||
| :# '''Bias and lack of objectivity:''' Sources with extreme political leanings present information ''very selectively'' and often distort facts to support an ideological agenda. This can lead to biased or one-sided entries that undermine neutrality. It can also lead to including content that is not encyclopedic. See ]. | |||
| :# '''Erosion of credibility:''' Misplaced Pages is expected to provide balanced, factual, and well-researched content. Reliance on politically extreme sources can damage its reputation as a reliable and neutral reference. | |||
| :# '''Misinformation and inaccuracy:''' Sources like ''Jacobin'' often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation. | |||
| :# '''Cherry-picking evidence:''' Extreme political sources may ''omit contrary evidence'' or fail to represent the full range of perspectives. This results in incomplete or skewed coverage. Critical context is lacking. | |||
| ;# '''Harm to reputation of the field:''' Normalizing unreliable content can set a dangerous precedent here. Per Misplaced Pages policy, a fact worthy of entry in an encyclopedia would be covered by ''multiple'' reliable sources. It would be difficult to "counter" each instance of citing ''Jacobin'' with another source of equal repute but on the opposite political extreme covering the same story. | |||
| :Further, ''Jacobin'' is mostly an ''opinion'' source. While it is not the worst source in the world, it hardly among reliable sources. According to Ad Fontes Media, which monitors news value and reliability, "Ad Fontes Media rates Jacobin in the '''Hyper-Partisan Left''' category of bias and as '''Mixed Reliability/Opinion OR Other Issues''' in terms of reliability." | |||
| :The goal of Misplaced Pages, which prioritizes reliable ], is to present information with a sense of ]. There is no shortage of such sources, and those are the ones to use. --] (]) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well said. ] (]) 21:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thank you, {{Reply|Iljhgtn}}. I'd also like to add that {{Reply|Herostratus}} put it nicely above: "If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it." --] (]) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is also a good point. I imagine that is why as a standalone source it likely should not be relied upon for reliable reporting on the facts, but that maybe it could work to bolster a claim made already by another reliable source. Option 2 of "Additional considerations" is where I am leaning. ] (]) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The OP @] also spoke to this. ] (]) 21:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::# All sources are biased, it's a natural part of human nature. This is covered by ], if that bias effects accuracy and fact checking then that needs to be shown by examples. Biased sources are not unreliable simply because of their bias. | |||
| ::# People's opinions of Misplaced Pages are not a criteria for determining a reliable source. | |||
| ::# Instances of errors or misinformation should be shown, saying they might exist isn't evidence that they do exist. | |||
| ::# This is again covered by ]. | |||
| ::# This point relates to NPOV not reliability. Editors should take ], ], and ] into account, but ultimately whether a source should be used is not the same as if a source is reliable. | |||
| ::-- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Detachment is specifically not required of sources per RSBIAS {{tq|"... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."}} -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Precision123}} did you employ ChatGPT or other LLM to compose this response? The structure is suspiciously similar to ChatGPT's writing style and your response is primarily platitudes with no specific examples or references to the specific policies undergirding RSP. Your sentence {{tq|Sources like Jacobin often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation}} is especially LLM-like and makes the spurious claim that {{tq|sources like ''Jacobin''}} may use {{tq|conspiracy theories}} which hasn't been brought up anywhere here. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard"><span style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px lightskyblue, -1px -1px 4px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">]</span> (] • ])</span> 02:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was going to comment on their lack of examples given for claims, but correctly assessed that someone else would probably do so. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is an unfortunate aspect of LLMs that they generate nice sounding wording that has no understanding of Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. They are an analysis/opinion magazine rather than a strait news source, so their pervasive bias has to be carefully considered when assessing its use as a source. ] (]) 00:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' Yes, we allow biased sources, but a source like this with explicitly declared bias that includes its title should be balanced against our NPOV policy, particularly. ] and ]. In Perennial sources we reserved option 1 for the established reliable sources like BBC or ''Time'' magazine. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion: ''Jacobin''=== | |||
| ::Off2riorob has been a thorn in the side of this article and is moving for deletion based on the idea that the articles at Rick Ross aren't genuine because Ross' site is anti-cult. I had to scan at least one article to prove that they are. Please see the discussion page for the article. I had similar convenience links, but Rob took them all out. I feel like Sisyphus or something. - ] (]) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Pings to {{yo|Feminist|The wub|Thebiguglyalien|Super Goku V|Simonm223|FortunateSons|Oort1|Burrobert|ActivelyDisinterested|Hydrangeans|Vanilla Wizard|Iljhgtn|Selfstudier|Horse Eye's Back|NoonIcarus|Harizotoh9|Springee}} who commented above. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Additional pings to {{yo|WMrapids|David Gerard|Bobfrombrockley|Shibbolethink|Crossroads|Herostratus|Dumuzid|Aquillion|Gamaliel|Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d|BSMRD|Wugapodes|Ip says|King of Hearts|Chetsford|Tayi Arajakate|MPants at work|Jlevi|The Four Deuces|Grnrchst|Szmenderowiecki|Dlthewave|Jr8825|Thenightaway|Nvtuil|Peter Gulutzan|FormalDude|Volunteer Marek|FOARP|Sea Ane|3Kingdoms|Bilorv|blindlynx|Jurisdicta|TheTechnician27|MarioGom|Novemberjazz|Volteer1}} who commented in the ]. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames ] and ]) and the discussions that followed at {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6#Jacobin (magazine)}} and {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability}} led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a ], followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. <span style="background-color:#B2BEB5;padding:2px 12px 2px 12px;font-size:10px">] <sub>]</sub></span> 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — ] <sub>]</sub> 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed. | |||
| :::There's no requirement for anybody here to be scanning articles. If the source is cited, then the onus is now on the person who doesn't like the cite to get to a library. I also second the idea of looking for excerpts in news archive searches, and sometimes those results make good convenience links even if theyre to a paywall. | |||
| Ironically, there can be no article about the book because it lacks notability. It was only reviewed in Jacobin. We are basically working to prevent things that will never happen. Under current policy therefore this source could never be used. | |||
| :::As far as providing convenience or archive links to a third party website there's a couple things we need to look at. The big one is copyright; is it likely that the articles were reprinted with permission? For example a corporation's "in the news page" with a reprint of a news article is probably done with permission, and is OK to link to. A news article pasted into an online forum is probably not. Neither would be a fansite with a collection of articles under an overbroad pronouncement of "fair use" or "if you're the copyright owner you can contact me to take these down". | |||
| Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to. | |||
| :::I can't seem to reach the site in question, but unless it's using language similar to described above, it sounds like a professional's site and similar to a corporation, it's likely that permission was obtained to reprint. The other issue of course is accuracy, but the author and site have reputation and have been cited in academic journals. If this was an individual making a claim the moon landings were fake then there would be a question, but this looks fine. ] (]) 14:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Ohio State Sentinel for pokemon article == | |||
| *'''Bad RFC''' because we should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, but since we're doing this: Jacobin is clearly an opinion outlet, not a news outlet. We shouldn't be relying on them for statements of fact for that reason alone. ] (]) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| source in support of this statement "In a The Ohio State Sentinel point-counterpoint, Matthew Thomas Gross felt that Charmander is superior to Bulbasaur, saying Bulbasaur has "shown evidence of sloth and laziness," and has lower speed rating than Charmander. In contrast, Clark Helmsley feels that Bulbasaur is superior, noting that it is higher in four of the six main Pokemon statistics (HP, Defense, Special Attack, Special Defense). Helmsley also feels that Bulbasaur's loyalty is more important than Charmander's ability to evolve into the powerful Charizard." It has been pointed out they have satire articles, which have been categorized as commentary sometimes. See . Is the pokemon article reliable for an article on ]? - ] (]) (]) 17:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. ] (]) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :They also have regular news articles, and commentary articles that are pretty normal.. - ] (]) (]) 00:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *::Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks. | |||
| ::I'm not familiar with Pokemon, but this article reads like one of those satires that say outrageous things in purpose to anger people without a sense of humour?? At most a joke article full of ]s that I can't catch, or a parody of those fans who have endless in-universe discussions about which is the better pokemon. | |||
| *::That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. ] (]) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --] (]) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Things like (in page 2) "(...) everybody knows that HP is the most important statistical category we have for evaluating Pokemon" or "my data comes from the National Pokedex, not from one of the lesser regional Pokedexes. The National Pokedex is recognized as the most authoritative source of information on Pokemon" or (in page 1) "Bulbasaur have a shown evidence of sloth and laziness. The official speed rating for Bulbasaur is 45, which is below average, (...) Bulbasaur, you see, is too lazy to move at a reasonable speed. (...) 'Bulbasaur can be seen napping in bright sunlight.' It goes without saying that any Pokemon who sleeps during the day is hardly dependable." or "Just last week, I completed a full thesis on the virtues of Bulbasaur versus Squirtle, and now I have to do it all over again, but with stupid Charmander." --] (]) 02:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *:They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is written in a tounge in cheek type of way. The only untruth I think is the thesis part, I think. - ] (]) (]) 16:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is for ], right? If the editors in the pokemon wikiproject have independently checked that they got all the facts right, then I suppose that there is no problem. --] (]) 03:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like ''New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times'' to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at ]. ] (]) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'll see what they say, since I'm not a Pokemon expert. - ] (]) (]) 03:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. ] (]) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what {{noping|Volunteer Marek}} was concerned about was ]. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. ] (]) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. ] (]) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It is not the case that a book review can ''only'' be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet ]. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. ] (]) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == The Heritage Foundation == | |||
| == Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard == | |||
| <!-- ] 16:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739462471}} | |||
| {{Moved discussion to|WP:Requests for comment/The Heritage Foundation|2=Due to how large the discussion has become, and size constraints on the noticeboard, this discussion has been moved to it's own page. <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| == RfC: TheGamer == | |||
| At ], there are some hearsay statements of one of her accused kidnappers, Nancy Garrido, being woven into the article. The statements are second or third hand and border on sensationalism in my view. In particular, regardless of how reliable a media source is, I don't think controversial statements by her against her husband - a co-defendant - are really to be considered "reliable". There's some discussion on ], and an against me (which may not apply because of ]). Policy-based input would be appreciated; probably the best place is at the article's talk page. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 14:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|OP has withdrawn the discussion. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 21:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| : NPOV issues are outside the scope of this noticeboard. ] (]) 05:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <s>TheGamer seems to be either user-generated content, or slop listicles. Additionally, it seems to source it's content largely from dubious YouTube content, Reddit posts, or Twitter/X threads. However it is listed as a source in articles such as ] purely in relation to one listicle that ranks Flowey in relation to other characters. What is the reliability of this site? | |||
| * Option 1: ] | |||
| == religionandspirituality.com == | |||
| * Option 2: ] | |||
| * Option 3: ] | |||
| * Option 4: ] | |||
| ]</s> | |||
| This site takes articles from anyone who cares to email them in (see http://religionandspirituality.com/write_for_us/) but has been used as a key source site for several articles including biographical pages. In particular: | |||
| *] uses this site as its only source, | |||
| *] uses this site twice, | |||
| *] uses this site as a key reference. | |||
| <span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Due to the lack of clear editorial control over article submissions and consequent website publication, I do not believe this site meets the requirements of ] or more generally ] and would like some third party confirmation or rejection of my view before removing it as a source from these articles. | |||
| * '''Bad RfC'''. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not {{tq|neutrally worded and brief}} as our ]. I would also ask why the ] about ''TheGamer'' available at the list maintained by ] isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about ], as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at ]. ] (] | ] | ]) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Nevermind then. I'll delete the info on the Flowey page that provides no encyclopedic value. The reason I proposed this originally was because TheGamer's content has gotten worse and more sloppy since 2020.<span style="font-family:Kurale; color:#ff0000;">]]</span> 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abottom}} | |||
| == Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer == | |||
| The relevant terms of the website are under http://religionandspirituality.com/terms/ where it states "You understand that R&S does not control and is not responsible for any Postings on the website". —] (]) 16:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Is this sigcov , reliable for ]? ] (]) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :My initial reaction was to say that this was not reliable.... but looking deeper this is another case of "it depends"... where we need to look at specifics and not make broad sweeping statements. The key here is that the policies of the website mean that the various essays posted on it can be considered self-published. We allow self-published material in BLPs when the material is self-published ''by the subject of the article'' (for example, we would allow a citation to the subject's own blog). But not when self-published by another. So, for example, since the citation to the website at ] points to something ''authored'' by Anita Revel, it can probably be considered reliable for a statement as to her opinion. On the other hand the article cited on the Sandana and at Stone articles does ''not'' seem to be authored by the subject of the article, so I would probably not consider it reliable. In other words... It depends on the author, the connection the author has to the subject of the Wikipeida article in question, and how you word the statement that the citation is being used to support (statement of fact vs statement of opinion). ] (]) 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. ] (]) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, thank you very much. ] (]) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==''Pirate Wires''?== | |||
| ::Good point. Perhaps my straightforward rule in this case is to apply ] where the author is the subject of a BLP, and consider it a failure of ] in all other cases (as I can't think of another exception as to why ] would not guide us to remove such references).—] (]) 17:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '']'' as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, ? — '''] | ] |''' 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case. | |||
| :Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. ] (]) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of {{talk quote inline|as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher '']'' lists him as a senior editor|q=yes}}? I just wanted to make sure ''PW'' was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — '''] | ] |''' 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. ] (]) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — '''] | ] |''' 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think this is a case for ], but it seems like a reasonable option ] (]) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . ] (]) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Invoking ] to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not ], and I would avoid using this publication for ]. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. ] (]) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::On the other hand... I will also note that these citations are essentially being used to support trivial stuff like a date of death or membership in an orgainzation. Unless there is controversy over this information, I would say that this is stuff that does not really ''need'' to be cited at all. But I think you get the jist of what I was saying ... examine ''who'' wrote the article at religionandspirituality.com ... and look at ''exactly'' what is being supported by the citation. Then use good judgement, applying all of our policies and guidelines. ] (]) 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * ''Pirate Wires'' should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered ] unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. ] (]) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It's Mike Solana's blog. ] (]) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. ] (]) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link {{U|Selfstudier}} provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." ] (]) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously ''his personal thing.'' ] (]) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. ] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. ] (]) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that ] and/or your own conclusion being reached? ] (]) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Considering that comment and the fact that founder ] is the chief marketing officer of ], Pirate Wires has a major ] with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-] source with respect to all related topics. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - ] (]) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Marginally reliable, there seems to be a pretty wide spread quality wise because they seem to allow their writer a loose leash. This means that some articles are very good and some are very bad. Personally I've found them solidly reliable for the more wonkish techy stuff but have a lot of issues when they start to cover politics or culture/society in general. Crypto seems to be the only blindspot within their otherwise area of expertise, their crypto coverage is just awful and should be avoided like the plague. When used I would attribute and I would strongly advise against any use for BLP not covered by ABOUTSELF. I agree that pieces by Solana should be treated as self published and that coverage by Pirate Wire is not to be considered independent of the Founders Fund. ] (]) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Need context before coming to RSN === | |||
| == Alger Hiss == | |||
| At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. ] (]) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Per <s>{{U|Slatersteven}}</s> its founder describes it as a ] - it should be treated accordingly. ] (]) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Not me. ] (]) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per {{U|Selfstudier}} apologies. I will strike above. ] (]) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It is not ] and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. ] (]) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an ] would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the ''shape'' of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a ], according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah by that criteria this is a SPS, one guys blog is still one guys blog even if they let their friends post. ] (]) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Usage in ] === | |||
| Editors regularly contributing to the article on ] are currently engaged in a discussion which may require a formal dispute resolution. I have been asked to suggest reliable sources for research on Hiss. | |||
| Is the Pirate Wires piece by ] a reliable source of claims for the ] article? Rindsberg has published other content about Misplaced Pages on Pirate Wires, including . — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It's at best, usable for the attributed opinion of Rindsberg only, but even then, it's obviously polemical and partisan. There's lots of right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages that I personally find disingenuous, but inevitably an article on "Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages" is going to have to include some partisan sourcing, but not framing it as fact is essential. I am unsure whether Pirate Wires is prominent enough a publication that it would be due to mention in any capacity. ] (]) 04:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I consider the following persons to be reliable sources on the Hiss controversy: | |||
| ::I don't even think its usable for that... Can't find anything that suggests that Rindsberg is a subject matter expert. ] (]) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Kai Bird, Pulitzer Prize winning author and historian. | |||
| :Sources in that article should have some leeway, as Misplaced Pages is obviously going to be criticised by such sources. But I totally agree with Hemiauchenia that framing is key. This is the opinion of a hyper partisan source, framing it as fact is wrong. Whether it should be included or not is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Svetlana Chervonnaya, historian who has collaborated with Kai Bird on research on the Hiss case. | |||
| :It is more or less a group | |||
| * D.D. Guttenplan, historian and contributor to ''The Nation'' magazine. | |||
| :blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Misplaced Pages editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. ] (]) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Jeff Kisseloff , author and historian. | |||
| ::Both unreliable and ]. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything.  <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Victor Navasky, Columbia University Professor and publisher emeritus of the ''The Nation'' magazine. | |||
| :::Agree fully. Unreliable and undue. ] (]) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Dmitri Volkogonov, Doctor of History, who performed extensive research on the Hiss case with the assistance of General Julius Kobyakov. | |||
| :almost certainly no. the article attacking[REDACTED] has falsehoods and even ignoring that and arguing its an opinion piece we could use with attribution , it goes at it from a very marginal POV … there are more useful opinion pieces from more reliable outlets out there.] (]) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 05:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :How is it used by others or is it even used by others? If sources have cited their work then I think we can as well. However, I would be very cautious about using it as an independent reference. Very cautious to the point where I would generally say no. Perhaps in a case where it's spot on topic (ideological bias of Misplaced Pages) but then only with attribution. Speaking generally, these sort of sources are always difficult as they may provide very good information but other than editors reading the text and using their own common sense, OR, etc, we don't have a good way to judge the quality of the output. BTW, this is also why I think "use with caution" may not be specific enough. Some sources are more like "use with caution but probably OK" while others are more like "use with extreme caution but there is probably a case where it provides more than about self content". ] (]) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Pirate Wires itself is notable as it's had coverage in other notable outlets but its viewpoint about Misplaced Pages per se might not have been documented in RS yet. But I'm confused -- Why are some of these other media outlets' self-published viewpoints ] without them necessarily being considered RS themselves? ] (]) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The term '']'' refers to sources without adequate editorial oversight, which includes most ]. ] are not self-published sources. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Imo Having Misplaced Pages articles that discuss whether Misplaced Pages is reliable, biased, antisemitic, etc is silly. We're all too inherently conflicted as Misplaced Pages editors to give a sober assessment of these topics and what is/isn't due to include. These topics are best left to scholars. That said, Pirate Wires is a lot less established than these other publications you mention. ] (]) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Outright rejecting ] because it's "right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages" and has "a very marginal POV" is the issue with ] that the piece is trying to critique. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::But it does affect ] weight (which requires balance between sources, and which is the real concern for something that, as a ] or a website with no reputation, would obviously be opinion at best.) The article already contains a large number of right-wing sources with a similar perspective; does this piece add anything to them? My feeling is that articles like this are subject to problems where editors try to do this nose-counting thing where they add dozens of opinionated or biased sources saying the same thing because they feel it's a ''really important'' perspective - but that's not how opinion is really meant to be used. If we have twelve sources that are fundimentially similar saying the same thing, they ought to be condensed down to a single sentence or so saying "a bunch of sources said X" (unless some of them are individually noteworthy on their own merits somehow, eg. if they're an opinion from a significant expert, but that obviously isn't the case here.) --] (]) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] makes a perfectly valid point. ] (]) 14:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's being rejected because it's a random tech guy's blog - not because it's right wing. ] (]) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::One thing @] said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because <s>s</s>he's just some person with a megaphone. ] (]) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. ] (]) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also, ] is a man. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Evidence has already been provided. In this thread. The founder brags about having no editorial board on twitter dot com. ] (]) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Getting neither the gender {{tq|"she's"}} nor the spelling {{tq|"Ashley Rindberg"}} correct shows me you may not have looked into this very much. ] (]) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Oh do stop. That's an awful lot to take from a bloody typo. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Here's a freebee for all the people looking to say Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias. This is what a reliable source accusing Misplaced Pages of a left-wing bias looks like: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793846 ] (]) 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased ] (]) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a ]. --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. ] (]) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I should add that the Manhattan Institute was discussed previously ]; the discussion was never closed or added to ] but by a quick nose-count the total unreliable + deprecate opinions outnumbered the "unclear" opinions almost two-to-one (and there were almost no people saying it was GREL.) --] (]) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::What game? I literally provided a source accusing Misplaced Pages both of left-wing bias and of bias against women at the same time. ] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*We don't actually require an RFC for every individual dispute; and sources certainly do not ''automatically default'' to reliable. Just doing a quick nose-count in this discussion suggests that it's extremely unlikely that an RFC on Pirate Wires' reliability would support your contention that it is reliable - numerous issues have been raised, especially regarding its lack of editorial controls and its lack of the {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} that RS requires. We can pull it through an entire RFC if you really think it's necessary but I think your time would be better-spent looking for more clearly reliable secondary sources covering this, if you want it in the article. This would also turn things back to the more fundamental ] problem I mentioned above - this looks identical to dozens of similar pieces posted by people with similar opinions; given that it's published in what's ''at least'' a low-quality source compared to the ones already in the article, what makes this one significant enough to highlight? --] (]) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :For disclosure, I originally wrote the ] article. I think the answer is ''no'' to this question specifically, and similar questions generally.<Br/>Pirate Wires is an advocacy media outlet. Its writing is in a punchy tone -- a tech-ish form of ] -- that blends opinion with explanatory reporting. They don't do spot news. So there's just no utility in using it for encyclopedia-writing.<br/>That's not to say it's either good or bad, merely that it doesn't serve the limited purposes for which we use sources here. (It ran a widely cited interview with ] and I don't think anyone believes they made-up the interview. But if we need to cite that interview in an article it can be referenced to any of the numerous RS that, themselves, cited it through précis', versus Pirate Wires directly.) In any case, anything it publishes that ''is'' encyclopedic will be covered in a second, more conventional RS and we should reference the second source. Anything not referenced in a pass-through outlet is probably undue. ] (]) 18:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Respectful comment:''' This discussion would be more helpful if we focused on how reliable sources treat a specific startup news organization and less on original research and personal opinion. --] (]) 21:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Please move this up to the other Alger Hiss thread, ]. ] (]) 06:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == CEIC data == | |||
| == Aristocide As a Force In History by Nathaniel Weyl == | |||
| I often see this site being used as a source for country-list data. They appear to be professional, but I'm not sure if they're considered a proper secondary source. They do not appear to be the same CEIC as the one owned by ], as they say they are owned by "ISI Markets". ] (]) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| In a content dispute by ] has been removed pr not a ], ] & ] from an article. Any comments? Only third opinions please. Thanks!--] (]) 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : The relevant part of the talk page is ]] (]) 06:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : The relevant article is ] | |||
| : The full citation is Nathaniel Weyl "Aristocide as a Force in History," '']'' 1967: 237-245. ] (]) 06:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*It is a very biased source, and any facts where it is used as a source should make it clear that the source is conservative. ] (]) 11:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*I don't see how this can be considered reliable, and I doubt that Weyl of is sufficient importance to be notable enough to include despite his unreliability. ] (]) 11:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::] has an article on Misplaced Pages, so the community clearly has found him notable enough for Misplaced Pages purposes. The question is if his opinions can be removed from Misplaced Pages in case he has something to say about the subject?--] (]) 05:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Having an article does not automatically make his opinion notable on any specific subject. ] (]) 14:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I quote, "Any comments? Only third opinions please. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" ] (]) 05:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: RE:] What seems to be the problem? I shouldn't clarify what exactly am I asking? Again, the question is either the removal done by you can be justified pr ] like you did? Comments on Weyl's ] do not answer the question.--] (]) 05:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I quote, "Any comments? Only third opinions please. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" ] (]) 05:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::OK, let me put it this way, the reason I'm interested in third opinions only is because I already know what your opinion is. There is no need to repeat it, I got it at the first time when you said it. But in case you insist, and this really bothers you that I ask questions here, feel free to add your opinion once more if you like.--] (]) 06:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The point is '''your''' opinion should not be involved here, and that you are interrogating 3rd parties and putting your opinion to them argumentatively. ] (]) 20:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :* Weyl appears to be a biased source, and ''Intercollegiate Review'' does not qualify as a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, it appears clear the the source is not a Reliable Source in general, although it may be considered reliable as either the viewpoint of Weyl or of Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the body that sponsors ''Intercollegiate Review''. ] (]) 12:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Meh. Peer-reviewed helps, but isn't required. What's being cited is not controversial; most of the citation block is about the well-known purges in Soviet history, and that could be cited to other sources if this general knowledge even needs a citation. Then the citation block could be something like "Author used the term "aristocide" to refer to the various purges..." Really an undue weight issue. ] (]) 13:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. ] (]) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Church of Satan - == | |||
| ::If in question use secondary sources.] (]) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Fantasy Literature == | |||
| This website is used as an unqualified reliable source in a number of articles and BLPs including: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| I see this source around a lot and I would like to have it settled for whether it is OK to use for reviews. It looks good to me and not promotional or any of the typical sorts of issues that plague these kinds of websites, but I am not sure, and I would like to know before I use it on pages, and sometimes books are cited to this at NPP and I am unsure how I should judge it. I would judge it as decently established but it looks to me to be straddling the line between online review publication and blog. It's used on about 160 already. Anyone else have any thoughts? ] (]) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The site has various documents and guides for members, none of which seems to contain a clear editorial policy or standard terms of use for the website. The site is not an open forum or a blog/wiki but there are processes for members to publish publicly available articles on the site and add links to other (uncontrolled) sites, for example http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SIGARTLST.html and http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SETI.html (two of the special interest groups). | |||
| :It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:. I'd be hesitant to use it for ] purposes. ] (]) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Pages on the site have been quoted in Misplaced Pages articles as if they were reliable sources (not just copies of the text from other reliable sources) or as if the text were an extract from a published Journal (which as original writing for the website they are not). I may have overlooked something here but if the site doesn't make it as a reliable source I would like a clear rationale for removing such references as any source in the area of religious topics is likely to be contentious (''with the obvious exception of authors writing about themselves or celebrity interviews; ] then applies'').—] (]) 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is the terms its staff work under: | |||
| ::In the case of ], there is only one cite to the CoS, it is this section: ]. The cite is to a press release from CoS announcing that Donovan (a CoS spokesperson) had resigned from the CoS; the cite to CoS is backed up by a 2nd cite to the subject's website also announcing his resignation from the CoS. No problem with that article. Checking others now. ] (]) 13:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. ] (]) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The link in the reference is to http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html which in fact does not mention Donovan at all, so appears out of date - please read it before declaring it as okay here.—] (]) 13:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? ] (]) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::: |
:::I'd say unusable for notability purposes. I'd likely leave it off other pages unless it had something significant to say that better sources didn't. ] (]) 14:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| : |
:Not an RS. ] (]) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::There is a link to http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/RMCarducci.html in EL.—] (]) 13:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks, missed that one. It is an EL and is not germane to this discussion page. ] (]) 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::] contains only 1 cite to CoS, a courtesy link to subject's autobiography where subject details his involvement with CoS (subject's book is also cited as a source). ] (]) 13:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::] contains only 1 cite to CoS, again a courtesy link, to the book ] (ISBN 978-0962328626) by ], a history of LaVey's organization. ] (]) 13:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I disagree with your reading of the reference. This is a web citation, not a book citation. It links to http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/CShistory2MC.html which in turn mentions the book "The Church of Satan" as further reading at the end of the web article. The text of the web article referenced should be the facts under review, not the book which is mentioned in passing.—] (]) 13:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The CoS website section that is cited contains an excerpt from the book itself. You are welcome to change the template to a <nowiki>{{cite book}}</nowiki> if it bothers you that much. ] (]) 13:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Er, yes it bothers me because it is '''not an extract''' and was never a simple book citation. The article actually states that it is "condensed from" and "with supplemental material". This makes the text original rather than an extract.—] (]) 13:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::So far, all of the articles listed, with the exception of ], seem to be appropriate uses of the CoS cite. ] however, is a mess. Most of the sources look inappropriate (blogs, opinion pieces, and the like) and could use the attention of some editors more familiar with the subject than I. Cheers. ] (]) 13:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Is “Zannettou, Savvas "A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitism". a reliable source for ] == | |||
| == Office Open XML support claims == | |||
| I can’t find evidence it’s been published. ] ] 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I have an argument about the sourcing of information regarding organizations supporting the Office Open XML file format in the ] article. | |||
| An editor keeps removing fully sourced information (at least 20 removals of the information by now) on very obvious supporting organizations like the "Open XML Formats Developer Group" and the "Open XML Community". | |||
| This is an example of such an removal edit | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=prev&oldid=314061479 | |||
| This editor current argument for that removal is that the information is not allowed because of ] sources/references. | |||
| However ] does allow reference by organization on themselves provided that those references are providing objective information. And things like the number of members of an organization or the listed goal/mission statement of an organization can be objective read on the site of an organization and referenced as such. It is not unduly serfserving if an organization that is created for supporting development around a file format states on it's site that it does exactly that. | |||
| :I'm not up for reading it right now, but it's been published, and the correct citation is: Zannettou, S., Finkelstein, J., Bradlyn, B., & Blackburn, J. (2020, May). A quantitative approach to understanding online antisemitism. In ''Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Web and Social Media'' (Vol. 14, pp. 786-797). Google Scholar shows where it can be accessed. If it's kept, the references to it in the Notes section should change "Savvas" to something like "Zannettou et al." ] (]) 21:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Also the removed information contains quite a few third party references like: | |||
| ::I should add that the Zannettou et al. citations that currently exist in the article are preprints, which generally are not RSs, per ]. The other citation was also subsequently in conference proceedings. Conference proceedings might or might not be reliable sources for specific content, depends on the conference and the content. ] (]) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's important to keep in mind that ''most'' of the preprints people link to as sources were eventually published; we just link to the preprints as courtesy links because they're usually what's available. PREPRINT even mentions this. --] (]) 15:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, but in that case, you still need the correct citation for wherever it eventually appeared, and if there's a link to that final version in full, then you should link to the full final version rather than a preprint draft. In this particular case, the citations themselves were not for the final version, and the final versions are both available in full elsewhere. ] (]) 15:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :What's the context for this question? Where is it being cited/do you want to be able to cite it? ] (] | ] | ]) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. ] ] 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry; that's my bad. I was running on low sleep and shouldn't have been on Misplaced Pages, and I read your prose where you don't include a link but glazed past the header text where you did include a link. ] (] | ] | ]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :See https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7343/7197 ] (]) 15:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Apologies, I missed another one, also apparently never published."Zannettou, Savvas, Tristan Caulfield, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Michael Sirivianos, Gianluca Stringhini, and Guillermo Suarez-Tangil. "On the Origins of Memes by Fringe Web Communities." arXiv.org, September 22, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12512." ] ] 08:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I provided a link to the published version of that one in my second comment above. The citation is Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018, October). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. In ''Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018'' (pp. 188-202). There's an alternate citation at the top right of the copy where it says "ACM Reference Format." ] (]) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| http://blogs.msdn.com/nzisv/archive/2007/06/19/open-xml-community-site.aspx | |||
| ::@] ACM is reputable, but I seem to have forgotten that we can use published conference papers, but not papers simply presented at a conference. Sorry. ] ] 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are ] in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. ] (]) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, I mean when is a paper submitted to a conference run by a reliable organisation an RS? When submitted? If published as part of the publication of the conference papers? ] ] 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A paper that's been submitted to a conference should be treated like a preprint. A paper that appears in conference proceedings is more likely to be an RS, but that will depend on whether the conference is one that reviews all papers in a way that's similar to peer-reviewed journals, and — as always — on the WP content that it's being used as a source for (a paper can be an RS for some content and not for other content). Assuming that the papers do substantiate the WP text, I'm guessing that they're RSs (Google Scholar indicates that they've been cited over 200 times). ] (]) 16:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is published, Conference proceedings of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 14. AAAI has been around since 1979 with respected associations. Submission to a conference is not sufficient to meet any standards. Acceptance by a reputable conference after peer review (some conference talks are invited and not peer reviewed) is a good indicator of reliability though not a guarantee (the conference paper may well be revised between acceptance and publication in a proceedings and even then might in the long run not be considered reliable). As it stands, I would say reliable for the use of Happy Merchant online unless other sources can be found undermining its reliability. ] (]) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would consider a paper published in the proceedings of a respected conference a reasonably reliable source. If it was contradicted by peer-reviewed research or, even better, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of available literature I would give it a bit less due than those sources. But I'd say that yes, at its base, this looks reliable. ] (]) 16:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks all. I'm really cross with myself for not checking on Google Scholar - ironically I've just done that with another paper. I would have saved you all a lot of time if I had done that. ] ] 18:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/microsoft-says-support-open-xml-growing-036 | |||
| <!-- ] 19:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1751745462}} | |||
| Should we be using articles from the Hawar News Agency, especially in relation to the (geo)political side of Rojava? This also includes articles in the scope of the Syrian civil war. It has ties to the SDF, which means there is a significant conflict of interest here; <s>I should also add that the YPG/YPD/SDF , which raises concern over its reliability.</s> I want to get community consensus before I do anything, especially because the article in question (]) is related to a CTOP. 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :(Copying this response from the talk page of the ]:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It ''shouldn't'' be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in ''The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics'', ''The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts'', ''Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State'', and ''Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria''.<br>(The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). ] (]) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Having read through the article you linked it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be: <br>{{tq|"In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."}}<br>As well as:<br>{{tq|"Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."}}<br>So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).<br>Hawar News Agency has some ] and would probably be covered by ]. Issues of bias (]) and opinion (]) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. ] (]) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that ] the reliability of ''Hawar'', I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --] (]) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If we consider TRT sub-optimum in relation to Rojava and the Syrian war because of its affiliation to the Erdogan government (see above on this noticeboard), the same should apply to Hawar. It’s fine for reporting the statements by AANES/PYD/SDF or uncontentious facts, but it should always be attributed and triangulated for anything at all contentious. I’d rate it above Al-Masdar and below the SOHR for reporting facts about eg battles in the Syrian war, but like them is a weak source. ] (]) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} from the ]: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the '''SDF-linked''' Hawar news agency said...". 💽 ] 💽 🌹 ⚧ <sup>(''']''')</sup> 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The difference between Hawar and TRT seems to be how they are treated by independent academics and subject experts; as far as I know, TRT has been repeatedly accused of spreading outright falsehoods (), whereas Hawar is seemingly deemed to be mostly reliable despite its connections to the PYD and SDF. ] (]) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Being censored is a ] issue and a reason to use a source with caution (with attribution for anything remotely contentious), but it doesn't automatically render them completely unreliable. The big question is whether they're yielding to pressure to publish things that are actually inaccurate rather than just one-sided. If not, they can still be used with caution - we'd want to cite better sources when possible and avoid giving ] weight to a source with a clear bias, but there's some advantage to having sources that are close to conflicts. And a major problem with removing sources simply for being subject to censorship is that it could produce systematic bias by removing every source from a particular region; I'm not familiar with the Syrian press specifically, but in other regions with similar censorship, there's still a difference between sources that carefully report as much as they can get away with and as accurately as they can within the restrictions of government censors, and sources that full-throatedly broadcast misinformation to support the party line. --] (]) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: LionhearTV == | |||
| http://www.infoworld.com/%5Bprimary-term-alias-prefix%5D/%5Bprimary-term%5D/microsoft-escalates-odf-fight-openxml-group-483 | |||
| {{Moved discussion from|Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources#RfC: LionhearTV|2= Royiswariii, 19 January 2025 00:55 (UTC)}}<!-- ] 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740135721}} | |||
| I want your comments about the reliability of LionhearTV, I can't determine whether it is reliable or not, on ], the Lionheartv is in the unreliable section, but, despite of that some editors still using this source in all Philippine Articles. So let's make a vote: | |||
| http://unweary.com/2006/03/apple-an-openxml-developer.html | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/development/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=183701603 | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| ] ] 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| http://www.macworld.co.uk/procreative/news/index.cfm?newsid=16697&pagtype=allchandate | |||
| :'''Deprecate'''. The Philippines has plenty of ] to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. ] (]) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''': For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin: | |||
| ::LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as and . | |||
| ::In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the , which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ] and ]. Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees. | |||
| ::A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the ] talk page in September 2024 (see ]). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (]) and the ] (]). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about ], which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented, {{tq|It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.|quotes=yes}} | |||
| ::At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as '''unreliable''' on ] as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN. | |||
| :<span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? ] (]) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's immaterial on how we determine ]. What could be very important that other ] missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of ]. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. ] (]) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option 3'''. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. ] (]) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles: | |||
| ::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)<br/>Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024) | |||
| ::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)<br/>Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025) | |||
| ::These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include: | |||
| ::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)<br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024) | |||
| ::# LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024) <br/>Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024) | |||
| ::I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of ]. <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Option 3''' - As much as possible, LionhearTV and its sibling sites under the eMVP Digital should not be used as sources when more reliable outlets have coverage for a certain event, show, actor and so on. Even if a certain news item is exclusive to or first published in a eMVP Digital site, other journalists will eventually publish similar reports in their respective platforms (refer to some examples posted by AstrooKai). -] @ 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::What I fear in these kinds of low quality sources is that people will find something very specific about someone, e.g. "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group," and this low quality source is the only source that carried this fact, and since this it is not blacklisted, this does get in as a source, and most of the time, that's all that's needed. We don't need articles on showbiz personalities tracking their every movement as if it's important. Blacklist this. ] (]) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|Discussion about moving RFC to RSN}} | |||
| :::@], @], @], if you don't mind we can move this discussion to ] to get more opinions and votes on other experienced editors. ] ] 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Support'''. ] (]) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Support'''. Though, I suggest finishing or closing this discussion so that we don't have two running discussions that tackles the same thing. If we want to construct a consensus, we better do it in one place. Alternatively, we first seek consensus from the local level first (by finishing this discussion) before moving one level up (the RSN). <span style="border-radius:7px;background:#dc143c;padding:4px 6px 4px 6px;color:white;">]</span> (]) 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| *'''Option 3'''It's a blog. That means ] applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for ] or under ] (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. ] (]) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is , and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. ] (]) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. ] (]) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 4''' Their reportings are obviously flawed and a per example above copypasting is a not a good look nor a good indication for "reliability" and it is often used in BLP, yikes. '''''Warm Regards''''', ] (]) (]) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Hatebase.org == | |||
| I have reverted these continouos removal edits quite a few times and have asked for mediation (but no mediator has come forward). | |||
| Is a reliable source? ] (]) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I am really desperate for outside opinion on the issue. | |||
| Could anyone provide opinion on the sourcing of the material in dispute ? ] (]) 14:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:Is there an ] for this? And/Or some context for the use case? ] (]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::I have checked and I can't find any previous discussion, hence why I opened this one. There is ] about the site. I intend to use it to expand list of slurs articles. ] (]) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>I’m not making a statement on the source, as I’m not familiar with it .</small>Then this doesn’t require an RfC, just a normal source discussion, if you’re concerned about reliability. Do you mind removing the descriptor from the title? And best of luck! :) ] (]) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay, I just added it because I saw some of the other discussions had it. I am removing it from the title. ] (]) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That happens, don’t worry about it! Thank you! ] (]) 20:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :used in 4[REDACTED] articles, seems highly premature. use best judgement until it can't be resolved in an article's talk page between editors, and needs wider[REDACTED] community feedback. ] (]) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wish this were otherwise because it looks like a really interesting website but it uses user-generated content. Which is a problem from an RS perspective. ] (]) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::None of the uses are for anything other than Hatebase itself, and as the site was been retired since 2022 it's unlikely it will see much more use ('retired' as it's been closed to editing, all user data deleted, and may go offline at any point, so not quite closed but very close). As most of the supporting data is gone, and what there was was user generated, I don't think it could be used as an RS. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 00:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == LaserDisc Database? == | |||
| :Probably reliable, but this looks like a contentious debate over what "free" means in free software and what "support" means by vendors. Way to much to sort out here, maybe you should ask an opinion at one of the computing Wikiprojects. ] (]) 13:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I'm working on adding citations to ]. I'm looking for a source that supports the sentence "Image Entertainment released another LaserDisc" . I've found the laserdisc in question on LaserDisc Database . Can I use it as a source? The "register now" box states that users can "submit" new Laserdiscs, which implies some editorial oversight compared to other websites with user-generated material (although it looks like there ). My other options are or interlibrary loaning the original Laserdisc. ] (]) 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: I already tried to ask for mediation on the wikiproject page weeks ago but noone responded. ] (]) 17:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The bottom of the page has {{tq|"Disclaimer: The data on this webstite is crowd-sourced..."}} and from the page you linked it's unclear what amount of checking is done before any submitted updates happen. Worldcat is the better option. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 21:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Dana Press == | |||
| ::oops, I missed that. Thank you for the advice. I'll use WorldCat if I can't find a news article. ] (]) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles == | |||
| Would the be a suitable source for medical articles? Would it be a suitable source for commentary from a psychiatrist on a controversial proposed syndrome? I'm thinking of ''Try to remember'' by ] on the ] and ] pages. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 19:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Is reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Why wouldn't it be? ] (]) 13:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unlike a university press or an entity like ] where it's clearly identified as a ''research'' and ''scientific press'', this is a with interests in scientific subjects. I don't know it's reputation, history and reliability. Could I use books published by them as a ]? Can the claims found in books published by them be treated and used as freely as those found in a review article in ]? The areas ''this book'' discusses are pretty controversial and touch on medical, psychiatric and scientific topics so it'd be nice to know beforehand whether it should be treated with kid gloves or can be used substantially without concern. I'd be happier if it could be used freely, but I'd rather know before doing so in a lot of pages. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 14:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the question is mis-stated. What you should be asking is: "Is Dana Foundation Press" a ''reputable'' publisher? We don't really judge reliability based on the publisher, but rather on the individual publication (and to a lesser extent on the reputation of the author) A publisher might publish one book that is solidly reliable, and another that is completely unreliable. | |||
| :::In this case, I see no indication that Dana Foundation Press wouldn't qualify as a reputable publisher. We certainly should not exclude sources simply because they were published by Dana. On the other hand... this is not to say that every thing they publish is reliable. Even reputable publishers can publish unreliable sources. ] (]) 20:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yet some press are clearly reliable, correct? If it's a scholarly or university press with a policy of peer review of all publications? I'm asking in the abstract, I had always treated the publisher as the primary source of reliability and university press as sacrosanct. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 10:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Per their about page they are not a normal news source, but a promotional platform. Their articles, etc are likely based on press releases and information from the subject of the article. So they might be reliable as a ] source within the limits of ]. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] - is a pamphlet a source? == | |||
| == Global Defense Corp == | |||
| There’s a small dispute on this article regarding the nationality of this conductor. An editor provided a source, but I don’t agree it can be considered as such. The source is a “Biographical pamphlet of Tibor Kozma at the Tibor Kozma Library at Indiana University” which I think is vague and doesn’t meet the criteria of verifiability. Please visit ]. Can that be considered a source? Thank you for your time and your help.--] (]) 16:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :If it's in the Indiana University library, it's probably reliable. - ] (]) (]) 03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree - good enough as an RS for a fact.] (]) 03:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Global Defense Corp should be deprecated as it is a incredibly unreliable source which frequently fabricates information they are incredibly biassed against Russian technology to such an extent as to lose all objectivity here I will share just a small snippet of the blatantly false information they have spread over the years | |||
| == Math by an undergrad at ] == | |||
| 1. they've claimed that Azerbaijan using either an Israeli or Turkish drone was able to destroy a Armenian nebo-m radar which is impressive considering Armenia doesn't even have that radar or has at any point Displayed any interest in buying that radar there evidence for this is a footage of Azerbaijan destroying a p-18 radar and them claiming it's the nebo-m and they didn't just claim this once they've claimed it at least twice in two different articles. | |||
| My question: Is this http://www.scribd.com/doc/19743935/The-Real-Number-of-Protesters-Zac-Moilanen considered a legitimate source to provide a counterbalance to other, lower numbers, since no official count of the protesters has been made? The math and the sources look correct to me, but I am being told that I cannot use it. | |||
| ] (]) 03:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 2. in this article you can see a picture of the SU57’s internal weapons bays but what they don't tell you is that this picture is CGI at no point do they communicate this in fact they claim it's from the Sukhoi design Bureau even though it's not. | |||
| :The Scribd document is a ] by a non-expert, and hence not acceptable as a a source on wikipedia. ] (]) 03:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 3. in this article they talk about how the S 400 range decreases against objects at low altitudes which is true but fail to explain that this is true for all radar guided Sam systems thanks to an effect known as radar horizon where objects at low altitudes are able to hide behind the curvature of the earth and therefore can only be detected at certain distances but not only do they not explain this to the reader creating a false impression that this is an issue unique to the S 400 but they even claimed that Turkey accused Russia of fraud because of this. which is weird for several reasons one Russia has at no point claim that the S400 range does not decrease with altitude but also because it implies Turkey believed the S 400 could defy the laws of physics they also have no source of this claim and no other articles on the Internet claim this. | |||
| ::Among the references used for the SPS are "Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum", "President Hussein's 2012 Resignation: A historical Prediction", ], and ]. ] ] 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's not a RS, and it's quite likely plain wrong - the maths is one thing, but there are so many other assumptions that it's plain worthless. --] (]) 08:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 4. In this article they claimed SU57 lacks sensor fusion which it doesn't and then just ignore that low probability of intercept radar is a thing . | |||
| == occult library == | |||
| 5. in this article they berate the S 400 for not intercepting Israeli F35’s in Syria but forgot to mention that Russia and Israel were long believed to have an agreement in the Syrian civil war to not engaged each other. | |||
| This site is used as a reference source in a number of articles relating to the occult and religion and is a personal website (registered to Matthew Ewing) that has been set up as an on-line occult/magic/chaos magick library. Not all the texts have a clear copyright status or attribution or dates or original source attribution and some are copies of informal emails where relevant text has been pasted within them. | |||
| There bias is also evident in just in the words that they say frequently attacking Russian equipment with ad hominems such as cooling the S 400 ,another lame duck missile system, or starting there articles with stupid Russians or Russian equipment exposed. they also lack of any transparency no one knows who owns the website none of the articles say the names of the people that wrote them making the website Even more suspicious but despite all of this they are still frequently cited all the time on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Examples of usage: | |||
| *] | |||
| Sources | |||
| *] | |||
| 1.https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/02/01/turkey-exposed-fatal-flaws-in-russian-made-s-400-surface-to-air-missile/ | |||
| *] | |||
| 2. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/11/rostec-nebo-m-radar-is-it-a-scam-or-propaganda/ | |||
| As the site itself makes no warranty for the validity of the copies of texts it makes available and is not currently maintained (based on the home page announcement), it does not appear to be sufficiently independent or reliable to use as a reference site. An independent view would help with the rationale to retain or remove these references.—] (]) 09:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a primary source, so it can't be overused. These are the criteria for a reliable source of this kind: | |||
| :# ''The material cited is not unduly self-serving;'' | |||
| :#:It doesn't look like it is. | |||
| :# ''It does not involve claims about third parties;'' | |||
| :#:Haven't investigated but on first glance no. | |||
| :# ''It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;'' | |||
| :#:Haven't investigated but on first glance no. | |||
| :# ''There is no reason to doubt its authenticity;'' | |||
| :#:Don't think there is. | |||
| :# ''The article is not based primarily on such sources.'' | |||
| :#:None of your articles appear to be, except maybe ]. | |||
| :It appears to be a reasonably reliable primary source.--] (]) 19:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 3. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2020/12/28/russian-su-57-will-carry-four-missiles-in-the-internal-weapons-bay/ | |||
| == Citing a source that requires payment == | |||
| 4. Radar Horizon. (n.d.). www.ssreng.com. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.ssreng.com/pdf/Radar_Horizon.pdf | |||
| This seems questionable. I have to pay to check a reference and if I remove the referenceas unreliable due to payment requirement it's put back with the claim that the guideline is for external links only. Isn't an inline citiation with a link to an offsite webpage external link?--] (]) 02:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82 | |||
| : External links and references are not the same thing. External links are general information pages, put at the bottom of the article. References may often cost money to check - books for example, or subscription journals.] (]) 03:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 6. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2022/01/24/sukhoi-su-57s-x-band-n036-byelka-and-n036l-1-01-l-band-radars-are-not-what-you-think/ | |||
| :Using a reference that is not available online for free, is not a problem at all. Often the highest quality references (books, academic journals) fall in such a category. It is not ok to remove such references, unless you are confident that they are fraudulent or being misrepresented. If you believe that a particular reference, which you don't have access to, is dubious request the concerned editor for a quote and further details on the talk page, ask at ], ], or even here and someone may be able to look it up. ] (]) 03:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. I actualy just reverted it, so I will self revert it back with an apology, though for clarity, could someone explain the precise difference between a website reference which requires an online payment and a book that has to be purchased. It seems to me that the security risk alone would make it something to disuade, as well as produce a promotional effect to a news organization which requires payment for the full news story. I have an odd since of right and wrong I guess.--] (]) 03:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *There isn't really a difference between having to buy a book (or journal access) and having to pay for lexis nexis. ] (]) 04:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Well there really is a difference but if you don't want to discuss it I can understand, this is probably the wrong place for that anyway. Thanks.--] (]) 04:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ** We are not ''promoting'' a news source or journal when we link to their website; we are just ''crediting'' them for spending resources on the actual reporting and writing that we (as a tertiary source) rely on, ''and'' telling the reader where to look in order to find further details. It would be unethical, and arguably illegal, to use their labor without credit, and a disservice to our readers to not provide a link if one is available - even if it requires payment. This is no different from our expecting that people who quote[REDACTED] articles at least acknowledge the source (as required by ] and ]) and ideally link to it. ] (]) 04:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ** {{Ec}} What's the difference as far as we are concerned? I'm not sure where you get the impression I don't want to discuss it. ] (]) 04:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **madsci, are you referring to content that can ''only'' be obtained via internet and ''must'' be paid for? That might be a problem but is fortunately quite rare. In actual fact, you can verify most content for free by visiting your local library (or using our own ]). If any source, webware or treeware, is pay-only we would prefer to replace it with a freely available source. Ultimately though, we trust our editors who have paid the money to accurately report what they have read. As noted, you can always ask the editor to provide quotations to back up their assertions on what is in the source. ] (]) 04:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sometimes it's possible to contact the author(s) of a particular text and ask for confirmation of a quote. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">]</span> 08:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This came up fairly recently. It is customary to add (fee for article) at the end of the ref. Aside from that, there is not much you can do. I've written several FA's about Nixon's early career, and much of that involved LA Times, NY Times, Wash Post articles not available for free online, but certainly available by visiting a library that has the paper on microfilm. A free source would be preferable, but is very often not possible.--] (]) 08:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : We'd be unlikely to produce a quality encyclopedia if we limited our sources to those that are available online for free. ] (]) 15:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Usually when I cite newspaper articles whose only online copies are behind for-pay barriers I just give the details that I have for the print article and omit any url. On the other hand for academic journal articles I do usually include a link, because that still would allow large numbers of Misplaced Pages readers to find the articles for no additional cost by using their employer's or their local university library's site license for the content. That all seems to me a reasonable balance between properly citing our sources and not promoting for-pay sites, but I'd welcome contrary opinions. —] (]) 21:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| 7. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2019/09/22/over-hyped-s-400-and-s-300-surface-to-air-missile-failed-to-detect-f-35i-adir/ | |||
| == Daily Pioneer / Sandhya Jain == | |||
| 8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from | |||
| I don't believe that legal commentary by this author is reliable, based on : | |||
| https://thearabweekly.com/when-israel-bombs-syria-russia-turns-blind-eye ] (]) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Quotation|"Indians will be shocked to know that America’s Black adult citizens don’t have an automatic right to vote, like Whites do. That privilege is granted for 10 years at a time by the reigning American President since John F Kennedy; Mr George W Bush granted the latest extension, and no amendment has been mooted to end this mockery of Black citizenship."}} | |||
| :Do we use them? ] (]) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The S 400 Misplaced Pages page has 20 citations from them and the su 57 Misplaced Pages page has four. ] (]) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that they're generally unreliable but I'm not so sure I'd chalk it up to bias rather than incompetence. They seem to be suggesting that the news they publish is a sideline to their core business of international security consulting... But they're spamming the cheapest ads on the internet alongside that content suggests that this is their primary income. To me it looks like a vanity site, I also suspect they are ripping stories off or using generative AI. ] (]) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. ] (]) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the one thing that seems to be universally agreed on is that this is not a reliable source. ] (]) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would agree, that regardless of whether it's bias or incompetence, it all adds up to unreliability. Cheers. ] (]) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Should we trust ] for statistics == | |||
| A cursory glance at the ] demonstrates how remarkably out of touch this author is with reality. | |||
| Certain pages about certain living subjects contain an infobox template that really emphasises view counts and subscriber statistics. However, that data is often sourced from ]. Here's what WP's page about Social Blade says; | |||
| The article was published two months ago, and has not yet been corrected. ] (]) 07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| "An official YouTube Twitter account, @TeamYouTube wrote that "Please know that third party apps, such as SocialBlade, do not accurately reflect subscriber activity." Social Blade's Twitter account responded to that tweet, commenting "We don't make up data. We get it from the YouTube API. We rely on it for accuracy." Social Blade's community manager Danny Fratella suggested that YouTube content creators may notice subscriber and view count purges more due to a higher accessibility to data-tracking tools like Social Blade." | |||
| Comments from Radiantenergy: | |||
| ::* Please read the quote again it only says - "That privilege is granted for 10 years at a time by the reigning American President since John F Kennedy" - this is not a wrong statement. If she had said "George W Bush extended for 10 years then it would have been a wrong statement. In 2006 George W Bush decided to extend this Act for 25 years. | |||
| ::* Secondly there was opposition from the Republicans in 2006 against renewing the 'Voting Rights Act of 1965'. What's this act? This Act outlawed the discriminatory voting practices on African Americans in the United States and its provisions prevented limited voting discriminations in the South. If George Bush didn't extend this act in 2006 it then there would have been discriminatory voting practices in the South. After 25 years there will be another round of debate about this act and it will be up to the President at that time to renew this act again. | |||
| ::* I don't see there is anything wrong in what Sandhya Jain reported above. Whether we agree or not this Act pretty much decides on the voting priviledge rights of the Black Americans living in the South. ] (]) 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The question is should we trust it? | |||
| ::::Nonsense. The act precludes descriminatory measures on racial grounds. It would equally outlaw discrimination against whites if there were a black majority in a jurisdiction. It does not justify the claim that whites have a legally automatic right, but non-whites do not. Indeed the concept of an "automatic" right for any group is nonsensical. In theory, in the future ''any law'' might be passed changing voting rights. ] (]) 16:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Plus, why do pages about gamers and vloggers place so much emphasis on what appears to be arbitrary, trivial information that is prone to fluctuation?]] 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::How does this act helps Black Citizens and why is it so important to African Americans? | |||
| ::::::* The Fifteenth Amendment prevented states from denying citizens the right to vote based on race. However this legislative act prevents states from enforcing discriminatory tactics aimed at preventing minorities fair opportunities to participate in the voting process. Earlier there were variety of ill-conceived tricks. Such was the “grandfather clause.” One had to descend from citizens who had the right to vote, which meant, in most cases, former slaves and their descendants couldn’t vote. Some states continued to disenfranchise blacks by requiring literacy tests. | |||
| ::::::* This Act protected citizens' right to vote primarily by forbidding covered states from using tests of any kind (like literacy tests) to determine eligibility to vote, by requiring these states to obtain federal approval before enacting any election laws, and by assigning federal officials to monitor the registration process in certain localities. Congress has amended the Act several times since 1965 to include other ethnic groups under its coverage. | |||
| ::::::* Pretty much this act re-enfranchised black southerners, helping elect African Americans at the local, state, and national levels. ] (]) 16:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It is ] - I don't think ] applies since it is drawing its data out of an API but I'd say it's a marginal source. ] (]) 16:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **Just a note, the quotation from the Daily Pioneer above is wrong in almost every detail. (1) The United States' black adult citizens do have an automatic right to vote on the same basis as white adult citizens under the ] since 1870. However, the problem was that this right was openly violated by some states and localities until the ] of 1965. (2) The Voting Rights Act contains provisions requiring certain states and localities to "pre-clear" changes to their election laws or policies with the Justice Department or a Federal court. These provisions are subject to expiration and renewal, and have been renewed several times, most recently for 25 years (not for 10 years). However, even if they were not renewed, black people would still have the right to vote. Other provisions of the Voting Rights Act are permanent and do not require periodic renewal. (3) The decision to renew the pre-clearance provisions is not made by the president unilaterally; it requires a regular ]. (4) John F. Kennedy was not directly involved in the Voting Rights Act; it passed in 1965, almost two years after he was assassinated. Lyndon Johnson was the president who signed it into law. --] ] 00:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It certainly isn't a source that I would trust but it is frequently cited in certain articles to populate value statement parameters such as subscriber count, view count, like count etc in ]. My understanding is that ] sources shouldn't be used to verify value statements? ]] 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Prior discussions for reference; ], ], ], ]. The general opinion appears to be that it's marginal at best. Personally I doubt how reliable their data is, if it's available from the original source that should be used and if it's not available from the original source I wouldn't trust it. They also have 'rankings', which are worthless for anything other than the opinion of Social Blade. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: EurAsian Times == | |||
| :Insufficient context. '''What do you want us to do?''' ] (]) 07:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 23:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740610876}} | |||
| ::This concerns the article ], an Indian guru of disputed respectability. ''The Pioneer'' is a source used to include material defending Baba, which some editors want to remove. The source to be included is different from the one quoted here, which is unrelated to the Baba article and which is unly mentioned here to suggest that the journalist Sandhya Jain is not very reliable. ] (]) 08:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfc|prop|pol|rfcid=11A50DD}} | |||
| The (used to have its own article but it was apparently PRODed) is cited in several hundreds of articles, mostly pertaining to Russian military hardware and South Asian issues, but not exclusively. It was mentioned ] ] ] on this noticeboard but only on a surface level. | |||
| :Sorry, too late at night, forgot to include the link to . | |||
| :I highlighted the voting rights act "confusion" because, quite honestly, I don't think that a source with such non-existent fact checking and editorial control should be part of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 08:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| In light of all this, how would you rate the EurAsian Times? | |||
| :::Thank you, Jain's writing is listed under op-ed. It represents her own opinions and the opinions of the Pioneer. It is not a work of factual journalism. It cannot be relied upon for facts outside of Jain's own mind. | |||
| :::Usage a, "However neither Sai Baba nor any organisation associated with him has been charged or implicated for sexual abuse, either directly or indirectly, and that reputable media agencies and independent journalists have not been able to confirm a single instance of sexual abuse linked to Sai Baba or his organisations." is a copyvio of the article quoted. Sandya jain (as the by-line is) in the article "Move to malign Sai Baba fails" is giving editorial opinion, not journalism. Usage a cannot be substantiated. The commentary and copyvio should be removed. Check entire article for copy vios from jain's article. | |||
| :::Usage b is factual, and can't be substantiated from an editorial. | |||
| :::Usage c is acceptable: fact of the matter is jain's commentary. | |||
| :::Usage d is contradictory: a withdrawn suit does not result in trial. Useage d goes to facts. Unacceptable as facts from an editorial. | |||
| :::Usage e is OR fantasy and lies, should be deleted as not substantiated in the source, even though the source is not RS for international law or US law. | |||
| :::Usage f is an incorrect use. Cite directly the papers involved. | |||
| :::Finally, the source is misformatted as a citation and appears incorrectly. | |||
| :::Source is only an RS for the opinion of ''Pioneer'' and Sandya jain. Source is not-SR for: facts of the case (its an op-ed), international law. All footnote subletters correct as of 08:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC) ] (]) diff read: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&oldid=314635012 | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| Comments from Radiantenergy: | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| ::::Bhimaji, did not present the facts correctly. He started with another article totally unrelated to the Sathya Sai Baba article by Sandhya Jain and about a totally different subject. I would like to clarify on a few things here. | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| ::::* The Daily Pioneer article used in the Sathya Sai Baba article is this - http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html. | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| ::::* The 'Daily Pioneer' article is mainly centered around the 'Alaya Rahm case filed in the Superior Court Of California in 2006'. | |||
| ::::* This was already discussed in detail in the ] for a week and conclusions were made by reputed wikipedians about the 'Daily PIoneer' article and the 'Alaya Rahm case'. Here's the link to the earlier ] discussion: | |||
| :::http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question. | |||
| ::::* It was a very long discussion between 4 experienced outside wikipedians who looked at the 'Alaya Rahm case covered in the Daily Pioneer article and the BBC documentary' for almost a week. | |||
| ::::* It was concluded in that ] discussion that the above 'Daily Pioneer' article related to the 'Alaya Rahm case' is reliable sourced. The above 'Daily Pioneer' has important refutations to 'Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba'. | |||
| ::::* It was concluded in the ] that 'The Daily Pioneer' article must be included in the Sathya Sai Baba article and removing it will be a violation of BLP. | |||
| ::::* I don't see the point in discussing the same material that has already been discussed in detail for a week in the ] board earlier and on which conclusions were already made. Thanks. ] (]) 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 22:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) <small>PS: it is the first time I create an RFC, I hope it is not malformed</small> | |||
| ::::The Pioneer article reported that the Alaya Rahm case was dropped. This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. The article stated that there has been no charges of any kind against Sai Baba. This is a fact not an opinion. Most of the article is reporting not opinion.] (]) 20:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey (EurAsian Times)=== | |||
| :::::* This Reliable Source notice board is for finding if a source is reliable or not from other outside wikipedians. In this case this source 'Daily Pioneer' had already been discussed for a week in the ] board by 4 experienced wikipedians. This source was declared as reliable. I think there is no point in continuing this discussion about the same material which has already been dealt in detail. This only causes more confusion to the editors. Thanks. ] (]) 21:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Option 2/Do not enter to RSP''' I’d tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I don't see a reason to make any RSP entry -- there doesn't seem to be a lot of RSN discussions to summarize or adjudicate and if it is in use hundreds of times then making a RSP entry at this point seems to be problematic. Cheers ] (]) 02:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I presented an example of factual inaccuracies from this source. Yes, the articles were on different subjects. So what? We're talking about the reliability of the source. I am arguing that Jain is not a reliable source. Articles on different subjects are completely relevant - if Jain is inaccurate about one topic, why should we trust articles on another subject? ] (]) 21:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (EurAsian Times)=== | |||
| == CorenSearchBot == | |||
| * Previous discussions at ] (2024) ] (2023), and ] (2022). It looks like there's already consensus that it's unreliable and an RfC is not necessary. ] (]) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yes, there is already strong consensus for its general unreliability (with just one dissenting editor in all of those discussions). I guess the only question is whether it should be deprecated, given its quite frequent use ] (]) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I agree that most opinions expressed about it were negative, but it felt a bit like shaky ground to be able to know if it could still be used for some specific things, be treated as generally unreliable, or to actually deprecate. That is why I wanted clarification before potentially going on a hunt. Sorry if an RfC was overkill for this one, but I figured that since it is used quite a lot it could be good to clarify. '''''<span style="color:#503680">] ] ]</span>''''' 10:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == flightconnections.com == | |||
| This bot thing found the website that has the content that I'm using in the article I've created. This is not a copyright infringement, which I can prove IF there warning notice provided some instruction on how to go about doing so!! | |||
| I wonder if flightconnections.com is a reliable source. Examples of it use are on and . In both cases ] asks for {{tq|airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet ]}}. I have doubt if flightconnections qualifies as reliable. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 02:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages is unbearably convoluted; although it's a great concept in theory I understand now why it doesn't work in practice. I AM TIRED OF GOING IN CIRCLES. | |||
| :I can't find any information about who runs the site or where it gets it's information from. There are quite a few articles promoting it or about how to use it, but that is unsurprising as it operates an affiliate programme. From a Google book search it has some extremely limited USEBYOTHERS (note several of the results are not reliable sources), but not enough to be meaningful. I couldn't get any useful results from Google Scholar. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If there is a way to prove that this is not copyright infringement please tell me. The page I'm referring to is called 'Megaregions'. | |||
| :I do see it as reliable. They are from one of the large brokers (likely either Cirium or OAG, I wish they said who) and simply providing a wrapper to explore that data, and selling ads and subscriptions to pay for the extremely expensive subscription the brokers charge. ] (]) 19:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It can work at least as a starting point. It lists both charter and regularly scheduled flights. You can find the flight number of a given route and then cross-reference it on another source as well. --] (]) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Pegging == | |||
| Thank you | |||
| : I'm sorry you had to put up with that. For every dude who posts content that belongs to him (and is even willing to grant liberal permissions for its use), there are like ten thousand others who plagiarize. Anyways, if you can demonstrate that you own the content and are willing to license it under ] Attribution Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA), you can email permissions-en wikimedia.org stating so. ]''']''' 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| At this point, after educating people about pegging for the last 14 years, I do indeed qualify as an expert. I am the go-to person for information about pegging in the sex education world. | |||
| == Quick question www.ar-15.us == | |||
| perhaps be reviewed? I am the only sex educator I know of who ''specializes'' in pegging. I have taught countless classes since 2012 (in person and over Zoom) for beginners, equipment, and advanced pegging, and written many, many articles about pegging as well. Were they published in magazines or on websites that made me edit the crap out of what I'd written until it lost its meaning? No. Wouldn't play that game because the message was too important to me, and because they wanted free material. | |||
| Is a reliable source? I only want to use it to show the rifling twist rate.--] (]) 21:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I am not a person of notoriety like Tristan Taormino or Dan Savage, but that does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about or what I put out into the world about pegging is just my 'opinion'. There have been no 'studies' on pegging and there aren't likely to be anytime soon, for obvious reasons. | |||
| == ] "reference" == | |||
| Since when was the only measure of an expert their notoriety? I have gone down the rabbit hole of pegging and remained there. I have held space for all the different expressions of pegging during that time, which are numerous. I have advised hopeful and how to approach their partners, while also educating them about the (intensely) common misconceptions and assumptions about the sexual act, and so many more things that are a part of pegging. Masculinity, role reversal, communication, etc, etc. | |||
| This article is ]. Besides the[REDACTED] article and a link to it, there are , one is a youtube video of some drunks in Kentucky yelling at each other, and the other is on a novelist's site. It has been asserted on the afd that the novelist's site is both a reliable source and the one sentence there is enough to establish the game as notable and verifiable enough to merit an article. I do not think so. I find the assertion that one sentence articles can be created/copied from a single random mention online to be disturbing to say the least. I would appreciate it if other people took a look and offered their opinion on the reliability/notability/verifiability of the source and basing an article entirely on that one sentence source. ] (]) 01:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have helped countless couples find the best equipment for them, which is much more complicated and individual than a cheap strap-on and dildo. Educating interested people about pegging has been my mission for the last 14 years. Other sex educators have more surface knowledge about this sexual act - knowledge that can be gleaned from a simple Marie Claire article. | |||
| :It may be a reliable source, on the AFD it was pointed out the site was written by an anthropologist with expertise on Mongolia. However, a single source is not enough to justify notability. I suggested at the AFD that the article be redirected to ] which had a brief and unsourced mention of the game. ] (]) 13:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| My apologies if I sound a little irritated. My intentions are good. Famous people are not the best sources, necessarily. In sex education circles I am widely known as the go-to expert. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| https://peggingparadise.com/ (my original website) | |||
| I went through this article and removed some of the "references" that did not support the text, self-published sources, blogs, social networking sites, and press releases. I was reverted without comment. I'd appreciate if an uninvolved editor could look at a few of these sources and comment. Thanks. -] (]) 03:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.theartofpegging.com/ (my educational and patron platform) | |||
| == The Orlando Sentinel on Rifqa Bary. She wants to be a prophet == | |||
| https://pegging101.com/ (pegging with no kink for the vanilla people) | |||
| The article in question here is on the topic of ] and all the controversy over her conversion and custody. I have found some sources which contain block buster information. These are the websites of news papers, they are not opinion pieces. One declares Rene Stutzman and Amy L. Edwards Sentinel Staff Writers 12:14 a.m. EDT, September 17, 2009. They are not the only ones reporting this. It has been picked up at least by the desert news But they re relying on the reporting of the Sentinel. | |||
| With Respect For All That You Amazing People Do, | |||
| My question is should we run with these sources or should we wait? Wait for some kind of independent forensic examination of the writings to be sure they are hers and not written after the fact to make her look batsh_t crazy, loco, cattywampus. Though I would not write that conclusion, what else would the majority of our casual readers conclude? She is a living person after all so ] rules apply. What say you all?--] (]) 15:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Ruby Ryder ] (]) 05:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Ms. Ryder, | |||
| == ''Neverwinter Nights 2'' Vault == | |||
| :What would help here is if you could point us to either reliable, independent sources citing your work, or of you writing for publications that you don't publish yourself.... something that helps us see that, as you say, "in sex educations widely known as a go-to expert." I fully believe that you are. | |||
| :The problem with someone using your sources as a reference has to do with Misplaced Pages's rules on using self-published sources, which your websites, videos, etc, count as. We can use such sources as reference (if within some limits), but only if we can see that the creator is a ''recognized'' expert in the field... and by recognized, that means either cited by or hired to write on the topic by reliable sources. I know that it seems like your voluminous experience and the visible quality of your materials should count for something here, but alas it does not. I don't think we'd be expecting, say, the New York Times or the Journal of the American Medical Association in this case, just some recognizable source that takes such sexual matters seriously. It doesn't even have to be material that is online (although that would help.) Articles that quote you or recommend your sites or training services would really help. Can you point us to such citations? -- ] (]) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages editors cannot use their own judgement to assess the expertise of someone. There are people who research topics and work in a field their entire lives who become experts in those fields and publish their work on their own websites. But there are also pseudo-experts who do the same thing. Editors on Misplaced Pages are not allowed to use their own judgement to discern the difference between the two, but must rely on a third party to establish their expertise. If you have ever given an interview on pegging for a newspaper or a magazine, or had your website cited by a sexologist or another recognizable sex expert as a good resource on pegging, for instance, then that would allow us to recognize the reliability of your site for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Could you comment on and notify the article talk page you want to edit? We really cannot help without context around what changes you want to include. | |||
| :that conversation from 2017 is old. I have no clue if that is what Misplaced Pages editors believe today, nor the state of the article you want to change. ] (]) 19:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am highly confident that ] is the main article on the topic. ] (]) 19:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would concur. ] (]) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Their comment wasn't asking which page the 2017 discussion was on (which is linked to), but was asking RubyRyder to leave a comment on the talk page of that article. ] (]) 20:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Is the only reason we want to include this information because its from RubyRyder and it would be good publicity? or is there a specific bit of info that they want to include that is missing? | |||
| ::::* have they tried including it and seeing what happens? (see ]) Are regulars who wrote and watch the pegging article notified that this debate is happening? | |||
| ::::* This post seems mostly like rehashing and trying to start up an argument from 2017 for the sake of a debate. would like info on what we are doing here, exactly, and what the debate is? | |||
| ::::] (]) 20:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Moved discussion from|Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_23_January_2025|2=Thank you for your response. I understand the reasoning. I was asked for other sources, and below I am listing well-known sexologists and people with letters after their name who have interviewed me on their podcasts. | |||
| Cam Fraser - the Power and Pleasure of Pegging with Ruby Ryder: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0naA7WaumMhL1t5wE2vaj5?si=IFqLYzGzT_aQomGXWKvSww&nd=1&dlsi=3c896a210a7d4408 | |||
| Hi- I was wondering if I could get some more input on a number of references used in '']'', before taking it to FAC. Specifically: , , and . My feeling is that most of NWN2Vault is unreliable because it is user-contributed content, but the first of these seems to be an official press release or the like (so it would be a primary source, but not otherwise an unreliable one), and the latter two are interviews with the game's designers which appear to have been conducted by the site's operators or somesuch, but I'm not positive. Here again, what the game designers said is probably primary but reliable. However, before going to FAC and then having this come up, I was wondering if I could get some feedback beforehand. Thanks! –] (] • ] • ]) 19:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Pegging with Ruby Ryder:https://sunnymegatron.com/ruby-ryder-pegging-paradise/ | |||
| == Source in ] == | |||
| Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Butt Stuff 201: Pegging & Vagus Nerve w/ Ruby Ryder: https://sunnymegatron.com/vagus-nerve-pegging/ | |||
| See ] for the discussion that led here. | |||
| Smart Sex, Smart Love with Dr Joe Kort - Ruby Ryder on Pegging - https://joekort.com/ruby-ryder-on-pegging/ | |||
| ] has been on my watch list for a long time (both because he is an LGBT writer and because I'm generally a fan of his). I just popped in from a long wikibreak and discovered that an editor's sourced additions to the article were reversed with the comment that "this article is not a reliable source". | |||
| Please let me know if you have further questions or if I can help in any way - and if there is a better way to respond to this conversation. | |||
| I was curious, so I checked out the source in question. It's published in a collection of essays from a very reputable academic press (]). The article's author is John Maynard. After a quick Google search, I found that Maynard is a professor at NYU with a rather impressive CV in the field of Victorian literature (of which Wilde is a part). | |||
| With respect, | |||
| Confused at the dismissive tone of ]'s talk page post, I commented that we shouldn't so blithely condemn the article as "non academic" and I expressed surprise that Ottava Rima would act so disrespectfully to what seems to be a notable academic. You can see the talk page to see how the discussion went (i.e. not well). I made no edits to the actual article, as I felt that would probably just devolve into an unproductive edit war. | |||
| Ruby Ryder ] (]) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I will quickly note that Sunny Megatron is an XBIZ Sexpert of the Year award according to our ] page, and is used as a reference elsewhere. ] is clinical director of The Center for Relationship and Sexual Health. So these aren't random peoplecasts. That does not establish, of course, what information you are to be cited for... and as others have, I suggest that you take the issue back to ] for fresh discussion. -- ] (]) 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The question I want to ask here is this: Ottava Rima seems of the very strong impression that s/he can dismiss this article as reliable based upon disagreeing its content. From what I remember of my tenure here long ago, we cannot simply dismiss such an academic source without referring to other reliable sources which would argue the point. In other words, editors are not allowed to make evaluations of the ''content'' of sources that come from reputable, peer reviewed presses. | |||
| ::agreed. I think RubyRyder seems useful as an expert. their information could be used, if correctly attributed. ] (]) 23:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you. These look like good sources. Ultimately the reliability of a source is dependent on the specific article text that it is being used to support, so your site still wouldn't be reliable to support a ], for instance, but it should be reliable to support general statements about pegging. ] (]) 01:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == NationalWorld.com == | |||
| I have seen piles of utter crap in published articles before, but I always thought that the standard on the Wiki was to counter those articles with other reputable sources which discuss the topic. Editors ''cannot'' simply rule on the content of sources by their own fiat (unless, in my opinion, they have some sort of credentials, but even THAT is not policy!). Whatever shape the final article takes, dismissing peer reviewed sources is dangerous at best. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 21:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The source appears fine to me, I'm not sure what ottava rima's problem with this is. I have placed a note on the talk page to say this is being discussed here. ] (]) 23:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::1. The source lacks references. 2. The source only mentions Wilde in passing. 3. The source presents a fringe point of view. 4. The writer is not an expert in Wilde studies. These four things show that the source cannot be used in the matter attempted (in order to declare that Oscar Wilde was a pederast). As I stated, find the material in an actual Wilde biography by an expert who studied the matter and then it could be added. Otherwise, this source fails the requirements. ] (]) 23:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| What do we think about being used for ]'s month of birth? Courtesy ping to {{yo|Diademchild}}.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Ottava Rima, you do this repeatedly, and will argue unrelentingly that an author is not acceptable because you, OR, (OR by initials, OR by nature) think so, rather than because the author is a problem. I see nothing remarkable or problematic in John Maynard's statements. They are simply a summary of established knowledge. That is the nature of companion books of this kind. Established experts contribute. As for the assertion that Oscar Wilde was a pederast, that's hardly in dispute by anyone. I am by profession a Victorianist. ] (]) 23:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Established knowledge? Please, find a source for that. You cannot just make things up. He had no source for his statement. If you can't find it in a Wilde biography, why are you even claiming it is established? Come on, at least pretend to have some intellectual integrity before arguing for the inclusion of a source. There is no legitimate way to claim that -that- source represents common or majority view, and guess what? If it did, you would use the -other- sources. Either way, your argument has no merits and your pushing it is disturbing. "that's hardly in dispute by anyone" That is a pure fabrication and it is disturbing that you would claim such. ] (]) 00:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: looks fairly authoritative to me. What is the issue with citing his opinion in the article? ] (]) 00:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So, would a physicist be able to speak on engineering simply because they are close? That CV proves that he has -nothing- on Oscar Wilde. At least two of them are collections of essays, which further undermines his statement as an expert. The section is not about opinion furthermore. Plus WP:FRINGE states that only -notable- opinions are included. His opinion is not notable. ] (]) 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Based on ], not necessarily crap. ] (]) 21:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The source is fine. I do not have to ''find'' a source, since this board is about determining the ''value'' of specific sources. This specific source is fine. Your arguments are spurious. The absence of footnotes in the source has no bearing on its reliability. Wilde is mentioned in the context of a discussion of the relevant issue. The source does not present a fringe point of view, but a mainstream one. There is in practice no such thing as "Wilde studies"; there are studies of various aspects of nineteenth century culture, including literature, social attitudes etc in which Wilde's life and work are implicated. For example, an expert on Wilde's verse may well be less qualified than an expert on the sexual underworld at the time to comment on his sexual behaviour. ] (]) 00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Remember that ] says full names or birth dates should be widely published by reliable sources and that the standard for inclusion isn't just verification. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 23:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::BTW we do not expect a reliable source to "find a source" either. Nor do we accuse them of making things up just because we feel like it. ] (]) 00:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::Well, the article doesn't actually have a full DOB. Policy suggests "err on the side of caution and simply list the year". ] (]) 09:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::This section is about using this source to support the month. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 10:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think you do. BTW, I am a regular contributor to the relevant board. ] (]) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What is fringe about Wilde being homosexual or a pederast? | |||
| *"Creating the Sensual Child: Paterian Aesthetics, Pederasty, and Oscar Wilde's Fairy Tales" by Naomi Wood in Marvels & Tales, Volume 16, Number 2, 2002, pp. 156-170 | |||
| *Michael Matthew Kaylor, Secreted Desires: The Major Uranians: Hopkins, Pater and Wilde (2006) | |||
| ] (]) 00:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And please don't dismiss legitimate biographers as an "expert on verse". This individual has not proven themself an expert on -any- aspect of Wilde. ] (]) 00:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No one has done so. Your misrepresentations are as plain as day. I gave an illustration of a general point about the nature of sourcing and expertise. ] (]) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Maynard is an established expert on Victorian literature and sexuality in the same. That should be good enough for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :If ] can produce sources that disagree with Maynard then please do so. ] (]) 00:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::And lets not forget that " thought of himself as in a tradition fostered by Greek pederastic love, expressed guilt for his same-sex acts/desires." is the statement in question. ] (]) 00:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is not how Fringe works. You must prove that it is the dominant view. There are dozens of biographies. You have to prove that the reliable biographies that are recognized by critics do view it as a dominant theme. Maynard is not an established expert on Wilde. He may be an expert on -Browning-, but that does not make him an expert on Wilde. The fact that you would try and claim such shows that you don't understand the field. It is clear that there are three people who aren't respecting the rules. You guys go to push this forward and I will ask AN for blocks for pushing such nonsense. Respect the rules or stop. It is clear that the source for reliable info on Wilde's biography comes from Wilde biographies. The fact that none of you seem willing to stick with them is really telling that you are not here to improve the page. My record in the articles on the field verifies my knowledge. I even have an FA on a biography of a Victorian individual that was related with pederasty. That shows that I know what I am talking about. So stop the nonsense. ] (]) 01:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::], kindly stop threatening other editors. I am merely pointing out that an opinion in an essay by a respected expert on Victorian literature and sexuality is a good source. There may be other opinions that counter this. If so please produce them and have both in the article. Please read up on ] and ]. ] (]) 01:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Jez, you are not showing how this works. Controversial points of view must demonstrate that they are mainstream. This would require at least referencing one standard Wilde biography claiming it. The fact that you are ignoring this is really problematic and shows that you are not acting appropriately. This is a major problem. Everyone knows that biographies are build off of biographical sources. Biographical sources are not those that merely state things in passing. They are major works devoted to the topic. Please stop now. And your referring to the above is only verification of disruption. I suggest you go find a biography or don't respond. ] (]) 01:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:40, 24 January 2025
Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 910, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465
Additional notes:
Shortcuts- RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
- While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
- This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.
RfC: NewsNation
 |
|
What is the reliability of NewsNation?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Survey (NewsNation)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for reporting not related to aviation, astronomy, or physics. Unreliable for reporting on these topics generally, and for UFOs specifically (including, but not limited to, shape-shifting Mantids, flying saucers, time-traveling psychonauts, human/space alien cross-breeding programs, the Majestic 12, and treaties/diplomacy with the Galactic Federation of Light).
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- In an interview on NewsNation on 13 December 2024 related to the 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings, Coulthart said "... the White House is making completely false claims! The people of New Jersey are not alone"! . Multiple federal and state investigations, as well as independent evaluation by experts including Jamey Jacob and Mick West, all concluded sightings were misidentification of routine aerial and celestial objects.
- Writing in The Skeptic, Ben Harris identifies Coulthart as one of a group of UFO celebrities, describing their approach thusly: "Drama is to the forefront; they ride their high horses, full of their own self-import, their truth, making demands of Congress – and mainstream media – who they think are ‘missing the story of a lifetime’."
- He wrote a UFO book titled Plain Sight which Jason Colavito described as a "conspiracy narrative" and a "slipshod summary".
- The Australian Skeptics gave Coulthart their "Bent Spoon Award" for “espousing UFO conspiracies, including unsubstantiated claims that world governments and The Vatican are hiding extraterrestrial alien bodies and spacecraft on Earth.”
- The Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a TV special on Coulthart's reporting in which they closed by asking "Has Coutlhart gone crazy, or is he a visionary? while strongly implying the former.
- The Sydney Morning Herald has described him as a "UFO truther" with "little appetite for scrutiny".
- Coulthart seems to have had a leading role in promoting a debunked 60 Minutes (Australian TV program) investigation into an alleged child sex ring run by British politicians.
- Beyond Coulthart, NewsNation reporters have other issues with UFOs:
- In 2023, according to our own article on NewsNation (sourced to the Washington Post: ), the channel "was forced to issue corrections after incorrectly claiming that The Intercept had obtained leaked information regarding Grusch's mental health".
- In December 2024, reporter Rich McHugh did a stand-up near LaGuardia Airport in New Jersey and showed an aerial object that he breathlessly (literally, he's panting the whole time) said "... was more sophisticated than I could ever imagine ... I couldn't believe what I was seeing". The thing he couldn't believe he was seeing was, according to Mick West's analysis, a Boeing 737 .
- NewsNation seems to have made an overt and conscious editorial decision to lean into UFOs for ratings purposes . In many cases, these stories are masked as conventional science reporting but with a heavy "/spooky event" frame. Ross Coulthart is NewsNation's UFO beat reporter and files most of its prolific reports on the paranormal. Coulthart appears to be a true believer and uses NewsNation to engage in space alien advocacy versus conventional forms of journalism.
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage Personisinsterest (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2: Generally reliable for broad topics. They turn loony when covering UFOs. Don't consider them for UFO coverage. BarntToust 22:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 3 their mishandling of UFO topics suggests they're more interested in sensationalism than accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 per Chetsford. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 since I think their general reporting is reliable. Attribution may be a good alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. Compare WP:ROLLINGSTONE. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 why are we putting any stock in an organization known primarily for babbling about UFOs? This is a severe case of “broken clock” syndrome. Dronebogus (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for topics outside UFOs, Option 3 for UFO coverage. - Amigao (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 I would go with Option 2 but their UFO coverage makes me consider Option 3. I think for anything outside of UFO-related topics they are generally reliable. Other sources should be cited. Frankserafini87 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for non-UFO coverage, Option 3 for UFO coverage. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (NewsNation)
- For purposes of clarification, the reliability of NewsNation has previously come up in two different RSN discussions and two different article Talk page discussions. Beyond that, however, it's repeatedly invoked to source UFO articles to the point that constant re-litigation of its reliability via edit summaries is becoming a massive time sink. Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)
This thread is opened at the request of @Kovcszaln6 following the dispute between me and @Javext in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) on the multiple issues regarding that article.
I have translated the article from both the Arabic (My native language) and Portuguese (Using a translator) articles to try and include both POVs of the battle. Javext claims that the sources that I've used are completely unreliable and shouldn't be used on the article because he claims that:
1. The academic backgrounds of the writers of those sources are unknown (keeping in mind that they were written by Yemenis who have limited internet access), and
2. Yemeni state-controlled media outlets
wrote them (also keeping in mind that Yemen is a poor and fractured state without any budget to have "state-controlled media outlets")
Now, Javext has removed all the sources and text that they support from the article and used other sources (some of which I find no problems with using, although they provide little context compared to the other sources) and kept the sources that I've brought when I translated the Portuguese article.
Special:diff/1266430566: This is the version of the article that has the Arabic sources and is the version that I want to keep and then expand with other sources that both I and Jav has used.
Special:diff/1266448873: This is the version that Jav wants to keep
Sources used by the version that I want to keep (I have run them through Google Translate's website translator for yall to understand):
- (This one doesn't want to get translated using the website translator but it gets translated if you right-click and press "Translate to English" on chrome)
Extra source that I want to use after the dispute is resolved:
Abo Yemen✉ 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't speak directly to the content dispute but none of the links you posted are wiki-appropriate sources. They're amateur essays. Please use academic publications instead. If you can't find a reliable source that supports your viewpoint, that viewpoint doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle
WP:AGE MATTERS?citing Portuguese records
That is one of the things that we were discussing in the dispute. We have enough Portuguese POV in Jav's revision. Plus did you see what the sources were citing in the revisions above Abo Yemen✉ 07:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)- Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- One example of another secondary source comparing the accounts (after C. F. Buckingham) is Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1997). The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama. pp. 290-291. (link) GordonGlottal (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why I didn't say "cite these contemporary descriptions" but "expect appropriate sources to engage with them". If you want to account for non-Portuguese perception, the way to do it is find sources that discuss contemporary Arabic descriptions, not use modern amateur essays based on nothing. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- GordonGlottal, why do you think that? They look to be published sources at least.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I tried searching for info about him online but there is limited info about him as Yemen doesn't have the best internet and the guy is really old to care about posting about himself online (Apparently he had been documenting the history there since the Quaiti Sultanate was a thing according to a Facebook post made by a high school that he attended). He is cited by multiple Arabic language sources, like the Independent (ofc) and al-Ayyam Aden (linked above), and is mentioned in others . He also published a book about the city of Shihr . He was also visited by the minister of education of Yemen in 2023
- This is definitely the strongest source, I didn't see that you'd added it. The Independent is a solid newspaper, but specialist, technical sources are a requirement for this kind of disputed claim. I don't know who Bamousa is and google just turns up mentions of his education activism and participation in a literary society—can you find out anything about him? The basic thing is that there needs to be evidence, or a source saying it that we can assume would not be saying it without evidence. If there isn't any evidence there could still be a "modern legend" section based on these sources, I think, because it is interesting how the event is being discussed. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The independent arabia source cites a historian's account. Does that still count as unreliable?Abo Yemen✉ 15:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are contemporary Arabic-language descriptions of this battle, and I would expect appropriate sources to engage with them directly. One is translated into English by R. B. Serjeant in The Portuguese off the South Arabian Coast (1963), pp. 52-53, and compare note by C. F. Buckingham at ibid., pp. 171-172, citing Portuguese records. This also seems to be a relevant document. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- Machine translation: Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamusa, a native of Al-Shahr and a graduate of the third class of Al-Mukalla High School for Boys (now Bin Shihab High School for Boys)
High School Flags
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
After years of parting, Abu Bakr Bin Shihab High School for Boys in Mukalla embraced Mr. Mohammed Omar Bamoussa, who graduated on the educational ladder for years and is now at the age of retirement. He visited the high school and in his gaze with passion and love for the past years, he climbed the stairs of the high school to the second floor to the office of the principal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Al-Amari, who welcomed him warmly and said that this visit gave us a boost and moral support, and the visit for Mr. Bamoussa was to ask about the old administrators, services and guards who were who were in the period of the sixties and seventies, but unfortunately the administration could not answer this and invites everyone who has information about them to raise it quickly, as Mr. Bamoussa has been working for years on writing a book about the beginning of education in Hadramawt since the time of the Qaitian Sultanate in the sixties and the beginning of the seventies, and he made a very important statement that the first principal of the high school is Mr. Karama Bammin from Tarim and then came after him Mr. Al-Sudani Al-Taloudi and this was a surprise for us and he confirmed this in his book that will see the light after completion of it.
May God prolong his life and give him health and wellness to provide us with important information about the history of education in Hadramawt.
The high school administration thanks Mr. Mohammed Bamoussi for this visit and this effort exerted by him for this wonderful work, and wishes the officials in the Ministry of Education, the governorate office and the local authority to adopt such people who raise the slogan of education and the slogan of Hadramawt, the land of science, knowledge and culture.
Abo Yemen✉ 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Uh huh sure, but cant we use those sources for sections on the article that aren't related to the events of the battle, like the Special:diff/1266430566#Background Special:diff/1266430566#Losses and Special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections? After all, some information that is still in the infobox was sourced from those sources. I have also found a book about the history of the city Internet Archive a txt version of the book that can get machine translated can it be used? (Hijri dates are used in that book) Abo Yemen✉ 07:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah basically, I don't see this as proof of anything. I've had a few other conversations on here about whether it's valid to include something based on an academic commenting to a reporter, and it just doesn't seem like a reliable genre of source. Even if Bamousa turned out to have sterling credentials. One of the problems is that the comment is often well outside the expert's field of expertise. Reporters don't want to call 1,000 different sources for each niche subject, so they rely on a small number of people who are willing to comment on almost anything, and these academics, who might be ultra-rigorous in another context, just regurgitate the same loose thinking anyone else would. Bamousa is a local retiree who is very active in the literary society and wrote a biography of a 20th-century bureaucrat/writer, but he probably doesn't know any more about 16th-century history than anyone else. If there's some proof of this narrative, it should be possible to find someone referencing it directly. Those references may exist but not be digitized, which is frustrating, but until one is found I think the page has to treat the contemporary evidence we do have as definitive.GordonGlottal (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about these publications. Judging from the material itself, the authors do not possess any level of technical expertise and are not basing their judgements either on any form of evidence, or on any previously published scholarship. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, @GordonGlottal. Unfortunately I am not able to translate the letter itself, since it is very difficult to even understand which words were used, I can only go by the catalog description you gave, which translated into English looks like this:
- "Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India , his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr, and how important it would be to conquer Diu." Javext (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
capturing Al-Shihr
hm didn't you say the goal was just to sack the city and go? Abo Yemen✉ 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)- I said it was a strong possibility, considering that it was very normal for those types of Portuguese actions of piracy against Muslim coastal cities and the fact that Al-Shihr was a very common spot for the Portuguese to plunder.
- I also stated that if there was a reliable source that stated otherwise, I would accept it. Javext (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Source? If you are going to send those Arabic amateur essays please don't even bother responding. Javext (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well now we know that this isn't the case and the portuguese had failed to capture the city Abo Yemen✉ 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Javext If you're able, I think it would be a great contribution if you could copy out and translate whatever description is in this letter, which is the only primary source I could find, and then put it in a quote box or etc. as appropriate for a primary source. I know the letter contains relevant info from the catalog description but it doesn't seem to have been published anywhere and I don't read even modern Portuguese. It's probably just a few words but we may get lucky! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have been really busy these last few days and wasn't able to respond to Abo Yemen. Thank you for your participation in this debate. Javext (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
-
"Number 41 - Letter from Henrique de Macedo to the King, written from Goa on October 22, 1523, states his services in India, his campaign with D. Luis to the strait, capturing Al-Shihr,
(Never happened btw)and how important it would be to conquer Diu."
Abo Yemen✉ 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- All of your sources said that they sacked the city, but nothing about capturing it was mentioned Abo Yemen✉ 15:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. The Portuguese captured the city and sacked it. Once again, this doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
your initial sources said nothing about the Navy capturing the city but the letters say that they captured it. Something must be wrong here Abo Yemen✉ 18:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You were just denying that this happened after I showed you the sources, why are you asking this now? Didn't I just give them above? Javext (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now show me where in your sources does it say that Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Once a gain they captured the city and THEN sacked it. Keep in mind that doesn't mean they kept control of it. I am not going to repeat this again. Javext (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- capturing a city != sacking it
- You cannot prove something that didn't happen. Do you have any source saying that they captured the city? Abo Yemen✉ 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Never happened" isn't actually a source. Just a reminder that because they captured the city doesn't mean they retained it. Javext (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- What sources about capturing a city did you show me? Those letters clearly show that the portuguese wanted to capture the city and they failed as we have no proof of them being there after the battle was over. But did they lie to whoever they sent this letter to? Abo Yemen✉ 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Look bro, the letter doesn't state they failed, it states the Portuguese captured the city and then sacked it. For the fourth time, this DOES NOT mean they retained control of the city. Javext (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @GordonGlottal so we can finish with and archive this, can we use those sources in anything other than the battle section? like the other sections that I've mentioned being deleted here #c-Abo_Yemen-20250108072200-GordonGlottal-20250107223800 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- not even a legacy section like the one you proposed? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- In general I think we've established that there is currently no way of including any claim which cannot be directly traced to the 16th-century Portuguese histories or the Hadrami chronicles (which agree). This is because no source cites any other form of evidence, and because it represents the approach of English-language academic books. I have not reviewed the details and I do not know which claims qualify, but you're free to add anything you can find in an appropriate source. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu
|
|
The following genealogy sources are currently considered Generally unreliable at WP:RSP (A), or in repeated inquiries at WP:RSN (B and C):
- A: Geni.com
- B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Long after being listed / labelled generally unreliable, these unreliable sources are still being (re-)added to hundreds to tens of thousands of articles.
- They should be:
- Option 1: listed as Generally unreliable (change nothing to A; add B and C at WP:RSP as such)
- Option 2: Deprecated (list them as such at WP:RSP)
- Option 3: Blacklisted (not mutually exclusive with option 1 or 2)
NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Background (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)
- A: See "Geni.com" at WP:RSPSOURCES.
- B: See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#Have we got lists of reliable and unreliable websites for genealogical research?, in particular subsection #genealogy.eu, where this RfC for the 3 sources in question was prepared together with @ActivelyDisinterested. The other sources discussed there fall outside the scope of this RfC.
- C: See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) (Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley) of May 2023 (also initiated by me, with ActivelyDisinterested's assistance). NLeeuw (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Preliminaries
- Probably need to add the website Genealogics.org to the list of unreliable sources. It also uses Misplaced Pages articles which would be WP:CIRC. --Kansas Bear 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: Done. Better now before the first vote comes in. NLeeuw (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- That reminds me: maybe I should just have three separate subsections for Survey per source? That would make the voting process much easier. The voting format I'm proposing might be confusing. NLeeuw (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- AD and I have decided to limit ourselves to these three sources for now in order to prevent a WP:TRAINWRECK. But it could be a good follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you clarify for us why these sites are being grouped together? I'm only familiar with Geni. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you disputing that they are unreliable? If so, why? If not, why waste time with this RFC? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are websites that previous discussions have decided are unreliable. However due to their nature they are continually readded to articles. I believe NLeeuw is looking to get them deprecated or potentially blacklisted to stop that. For a similar instance see WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 453#RfC: Universe Guide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read Background: B. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't really see how this survey can change anything for geni.com? I tried clicking on the links but there is a lot to read. I don't want to cause a major distraction but I also notice a remark there that Burkes and Debretts are generally reliable. That's certainly not true for old editions which many editors are tempted to use. But even for new editions, the reliability depends upon the period etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey A: Geni.com
- Deprecate. User-generated junk that should be flagged when introduced. JoelleJay (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate.
Question. Isn't it already deprecated?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC) - Deprecate A user generated source that just keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn users against adding it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unsure. Some doubt about deprecation as RSP says that primary sources uploaded to geni can be used as primary sources here. Is there a way of communicating that to users rather than giving a blanket warning? (I might be a little ignorant of how deprecation works in practice!) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The vast majority of editors adding Geni as a citation for the primary sources it hosts are using those sources in exactly the way that is prohibited (i.e. they are using it as the sole supporting source for a statement rather than as background support for secondary sources). Even that's rare, as way way more people are citing it for its user-generated (often Misplaced Pages-based) "profiles" rather than whatever historical records are uploaded there. JoelleJay (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. Really bad. Needs to go away.—Alalch E. 00:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Invalid RFC/No change - giving only options here that are highly negative is not a neutral stance. And there is no specific evidences shown or reason why this is even coming up or needs that all previous RSP should be declared invalid. (See discussions RSP discussions here ). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why would we provide positive options when the overwhelming consensus already is that it is not reliable? There is absolutely no requirement that RSN RfCs be formatted with the standard options, especially when the aim isn't even to change the status quo GUNREL designation but rather to flesh out how we technically handle the source. And how could this possibly be declaring the previous discussions invalid, given that they all concluded Geni should not be used? The point of deprecating is to prevent new usage of the source, by warning editors who try to insert it that it's generally unreliable and tagging the citation if they go through with it. Geni is constantly being re-added by clueless people, deprecating would help a lot with cleaning it up. JoelleJay (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey B: Medieval Lands / MedLands by Charles Cawley
- Deprecate, per background discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. I think this source has been often discussed in a superficial way, together with other sources, which does not always lead to a clear perspective. This is not like the other two. It collects a lot of useful extracts from primary sources than can be helpful for getting a grip on a topic. Although it is basically the work of one editor, this editor was assigned to do this for an organization which does make some efforts to maintain a reputation for quality. (The FMG publishes a journal, and it posts some online corrections to Keats-Rohan's reference works for the 11th and 12th century, and she has noted those helpful efforts in print.) On the other hand, Medlands does not use secondary material very much, so it is normally not going to the type of source we would use on WP on its own for anything non-obvious. I note these complications because I see that sources like Ancestry.com and Findmypast also have special notes about how they can sometimes have useful primary materials. To give a practical example of what might go wrong, what I saw in the past whenever this source was discussed, is that it was even deleted from external links sections and so on. I think this is a source that can be used for external links at the very least. I feel hesitant to say that it should NEVER EVER be used even in the main body to be honest, although I don't use it on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate Crawley has no academic background in history and MedLands is self-published. It is not published by FMG only hosted by them. That it contains a lot of useful information is not the same as it having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, something it doesn't have. Deprecation isn't blacklisting, editors are warned against adding it not blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editors who know the fine print will be the ones using the source correctly, and will know how to handle the situation. The issue is that editors who don't know keep adding this as a reference to support content, and the many discussions on the source show they isn't support for that. Adding a warning when editors post will at least get editors to ask why they are getting the warning, and help them understand the situation.
- Deprecation of this source will reduce the pointless pseudo-legal debates, by reducing the problem of the source being repeatedly readded. Editors should use their own good judgement, but as repeated discussion about this source have shown that isn't happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes the cost of not having to continuously patrol for this source and have the same discussion about it's reliability again and again.
- Separately before the two of us fill the survey section with our disagreement (mea culpa), should we move this discussion to the Discussion section? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we both know exactly what I mean about what will happen in reality when WP goes into bot mode. I am just saying that there is a cost to rule making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion has been against using this source for at least a decade, and deprecation doesn't stop anyone wanting to question from discussing it. Deprecation doesn't in anyway stop editors from discussing anything. What effect this will have is to warn editors when they try to add the source, anything else is as you say your misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes in effect it would reduce the possibly of any discussion, good or bad, by effectively making the source not worth discussing, or am I misunderstanding? The fine print would be irrelevant in practice, and that is my concern in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: I see the fine print, but we know editors who need simple rules don't understand fine print in practice. The text for deprecated says "the source is generally prohibited". I'm thinking these sorts of decisions should be made if they reduce the number of useless pseudo-legal debates, and not increase them. (In reality the main principle we should always follow is that good editors will judge based on context IMHO. There are so many possible contexts, and trying to make rules to cover them all is not always a good idea.) Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally unreliable. I first read the definitions of the categories we are voting on. (I hope others do also.) Generally unreliable is the one which says this:
"questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published"
I think that's the accurate description in this case. It also seems to match what others are arguing, and so I note with some concern that there might be misunderstandings about what "deprecate" really means on WP. How I read it, deprecation would only allow use for self-description (for example if there was a Medlands article), and otherwise it would be prohibited. To repeat what I wrote elsewhere, I am not advising editors to use this website, but its collection of medieval primary sources is possibly going to be useful here and there to someone, and I don't think bots (or bot-like editors) should be sent out to "attack" without looking at context every time someone mentions it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can explain what real disadvantages the Generally unreliable category would bring? I doubt we disagree on much here. But one idea which is guiding me is that generally speaking, I don't think we can or should try to predict every case, and write rules for everything. We should only break the basic, proven WP way of working when we really have to, and then only as far as we have to. By this I mean sources should be judged according to the core content policy, in the context of specific examples, which we can't predict. So my approach here is to read the definitions of the categories we can choose from, and pick the accurate one. I think I did it correctly. Deprecation seems to be for extreme cases where we literally accept that WP editors will now sometimes beat each other with a virtual stick if anyone dares post such a source, even in an external links section. I can understand how this might be for the best when we look at Geni, however... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful as a reference work, or as introductory material for the interested reader, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". Just like Misplaced Pages itself isn't a "source", but a collection of sources. The "Rurik dynasty" case outlined at the May 2023 MedLands RSN shows just how careless Cawley is in using sources, e.g. taking known problematic primary sources that he knows may be of little factual significance at face value just because he finds them "interesting" (but is reproduced by way of interest), and citing private emails from others as "sources" that we can't verify. Surely our readers deserve a higher standard that this. NLeeuw (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally reliable, in my experience. Furthermore, it provides footnotes to almost every claim that one can use instead of linking to the website. Ghirla 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate per ActivelyDisinterested.—Alalch E. 00:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- No Change - no entry to RSP needed and seems has been accepted. This just is not something that often comes up for question and seems has not been hard to figure out the nature of so it also does not need a RSP entry. Yet as can be seen by this search, it is used and that seems evidence that common view *is* de facto RS by usage. Really seems like just declaring all those edits wrong is not a useful thing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editors using a source does not make it "de facto" RS... We have thousands of hits for pinterest and the like, and used to have thousands to the Daily Mail; that doesn't mean any of those are actually reliable. If you're objecting to the whole concept of RSP this isn't the place to do it. JoelleJay (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Usage has absolutely no bearing on reliability. Thousands of Wikipedians could be quoting from The Very Hungry Caterpillar, and that still doesn't make it de facto RS by usage for information on butterflies.
- This just is not something that often comes up for question It does. In Background: C Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 405#fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy), I have indicated a long list of previous discussions on MedLands by Cawley, which has been going on for 15+ years (by now 17+ years). All this time, the conclusion that they reached repeatedly was that MedLands by Cawley was not reliable, but for a time it was thought that we could just gradually replace MedLands by other sources, and keeping MedLands template with a warning as a temporary measure until better sources had been found. However, that didn't happen, and the supposedly temporary measure became quasi-permanent until we agreed in the May 2023 RSN to no longer use the template or the website in any other way. And even after that, the website still gets used as a source by Wikipedians (usually new ones who were not aware of the previous discussions and the May 2023 decision). Deprecation is exactly what allows us to give editors a warning that it is not reliable, and to check out previous discussions and decisions, to prevent new usage. See also JoelleJay's response to your comment under Survey A: Geni.com. NLeeuw (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Editors using a source does not make it "de facto" RS... We have thousands of hits for pinterest and the like, and used to have thousands to the Daily Mail; that doesn't mean any of those are actually reliable. If you're objecting to the whole concept of RSP this isn't the place to do it. JoelleJay (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey C: genealogy.eu / genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav
- Deprecate. SPS that is far too widely cited already, probably because the url looks like it's some official site. JoelleJay (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- genealogy.euweb.cz by Marek Miroslav, which advertises itself as genealogy.eu and has often been cited as such on English Misplaced Pages, even though "genealogy.eu" these days indeed redirects to a different website (https://en.filae.com/v4/genealogie/HomePage.mvc/welcome; which is outside the scope of this RfC). NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which website were you looking at? If you type genealogy.eu you seem to be redirected to a completely different website which I GUESS is not the one we are meant to be discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. Another self published source that keeps getting readded, deprecation will warn editors against doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. I am surprised this one is being used a lot. I have not come across it yet I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Lancaster (talk • contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. The site is useful for quick checks. In general, it's a faithful transcription of such classic sources as the Europäische Stammtafeln, Dworzaczek's Genealogia (Warszawa, 1958), etc. It's better to refer our readers to the published sources, of course (if one has access to them). By the way, the site has not been updated since 2005. Ghirla 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, it may be useful for quick checks, but it shouldn't be cited as a "source". NLeeuw (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. The site, from what I can tell, doesn't tell us where they get the information. For example; Foix. --Kansas Bear 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that is neither obvious nor transparent. Plus, it could be a copyvio if they just steal or plagiarise each other's work. NLeeuw (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This one (like most others) seems to be adapted from Paul Theroff's site here. And Theroff said more than once that his main source is the Europäische Stammtafeln. Ghirla 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. WP:SPS. Deprecation will have a positive effect. And while it's always possible that someone in the know, who's really into genealogy, has the ability of figuring out out how the operator of this website makes it have the content that it has, that's not useful for determining reliability.—Alalch E. 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- No change to either of these - seems this is referring to two different sources, both of which are somewhat widely used in WP and neither of which seems suitable for an RSP entry. Just not seeing sufficient case or benefit from any entry either. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are the same website; the old url is just broken now. And the fact that it is still being widely used is exactly why it needs an RSP entry and even more so to be deprecated... JoelleJay (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- somewhat widely used in WP. Again, usage has absolutely no bearing on reliability. This is English Misplaced Pages, not Wikimedia Commons. Just because a source is widely used doesn't mean it gets a free pass. NLeeuw (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- They are the same website; the old url is just broken now. And the fact that it is still being widely used is exactly why it needs an RSP entry and even more so to be deprecated... JoelleJay (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (Geni.com, MedLands, genealogy.eu)
@ActivelyDisinterested: my apologies also. To be clear, I respect your concern, and I think I understand it. I think we've conveyed our concerns, and laid out some pros and cons, and background principles. I'm not stressed about that. I think its a point of getting the balance right. In practical reality the three sources should not normally be used, and I see no big disagreements. I just think the difference between the two categories offered is (or should be) meaningful, and I wanted to make that clear. I am not really disagreeing with any other specific point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Although I disagree I can understand you position. It's to easy to get stuck in disagreement spirals are part of RFCs. Let's see if anyone else brings any new ideas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I previously commented that a seperate warning for generally unreliable sources would be helpful, for ones that are problematicly readded on a regular basis would be useful. That way a warning would appear but wouldn't come with the baggage of deprecation. At the moment deprecation is the only resource available, but it is a somewhat blunt hammer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested Thanks for restoring the discussion from the archive; it evidently was not yet closed. It would seem that we've got a clear result though. Should I request a third party to formally close it with a conclusion, or how does this go with RfCs? NLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The {{RFC}} tag was missing, which would have added "DoNotArchiveUntil.." to the header to stop it from being archived. I've add the RFC tag which will list in for every to see (not just those to happen across it on RSN). I suggest waiting and seeing if any more comments come in, as they editors have taken part yet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested Thanks for restoring the discussion from the archive; it evidently was not yet closed. It would seem that we've got a clear result though. Should I request a third party to formally close it with a conclusion, or how does this go with RfCs? NLeeuw (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see the point to this. I can see there being concerns about quality of niche sources, but do not see a reason why a RSP entry should be made or benefit for trying it. Why should the source choice of hundreds or thousands of editors at thousands of entries be disregarded ? How can they all be effectively replaced ? I'm thinking that their de facto opinion has to be given great weight and that all those cites would either stay or that holes would be made in the affected articles -- so any RSP entry seems just pointless or causing lots of trouble rather than making any improvement. Am I missing some magic wand or an urgent concern worth the trauma ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- These are all clearly user-generated and/or amateur SPS and therefore automatically unreliable, so the source preferences of the random drive-by editors adding it absolutely should be disregarded. I've removed thousands of citations to these and similar sites, they almost invariably support undue trivia and frequently BLPNAME violations (e.g. full names, birthdates, and birthplaces of non-notable minor relatives) that shouldn't be in the article in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to me that Markbassett is trying to have it both ways.
- On the one hand, he claims that all three sources are niche sources; that there is no specific evidences shown or reason why this is even coming up; and that This just is not something that often comes up for question. So it's a small matter about niche sources that are rarely discussed (and rarely used?), and there is no reason to discuss it now and change their status, because it's not important enough.
- On ther other hand, he claims that there is no that all previous RSP should be declared invalid (presumably he means previous RSN discussions on the source); that seems has been accepted, it is used and that seems evidence that common view *is* de facto RS by usage. Really seems like just declaring all those edits wrong is not a useful thing.; that are somewhat widely used in WP; and finally Why should the source choice of hundreds or thousands of editors at thousands of entries be disregarded ? How can they all be effectively replaced ? I'm thinking that their de facto opinion has to be given great weight and that all those cites would either stay or that holes would be made in the affected articles. So it's a big matter about widely used sources that have been discussed many times before, but there is no reason to discuss it now and change their status, because the usage of these sources in thousands of articles is too important and too impossible to be replaced by anything else.
- These two lines of reasoning are in contraction with each other. These sources can't be simultaneously niche but also widely used; rarely discussed but also frequently discussed at RSN before; and not important enough but also too important to have their status changed. The second argument seems to undermine the first, as evidence is given for how often these sources are indeed used, and that they have been frequently discussed before at RSN, and that the impact of the decision could affect thousands of articles. The second argument also seems to invoke WP:HARDWORK. Unfortunate though that might be, it may be the conclusion we sometimes have to reach about sources that have been frequently cited in the past, but have subsequently turned out to be (very) unreliable. NLeeuw (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to me that Markbassett is trying to have it both ways.
- These are all clearly user-generated and/or amateur SPS and therefore automatically unreliable, so the source preferences of the random drive-by editors adding it absolutely should be disregarded. I've removed thousands of citations to these and similar sites, they almost invariably support undue trivia and frequently BLPNAME violations (e.g. full names, birthdates, and birthplaces of non-notable minor relatives) that shouldn't be in the article in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: Jacobin
|
|
Which of the following best describes the reliability of Jacobin (magazine)?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate?
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Survey: Jacobin
- Option 2 I am opposed to the use of WP:GREL and think that no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2. With that being said, I would list New York Times or the CBC in precisely the same way and I don't believe that any of the complainants have demonstrated in any way that Jacobin is less reliable, per Misplaced Pages's standards, than any other American news media outlet. I am deeply concerned that many of the complaints are about "bias" when reliability does not include a political compass test. This is not grounds to treat a source as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2/3, bias is one thing, getting things down right incorrect is another. As was demonstrated in the pre-discussion, the notion around the housing stock was truly an egregious error. This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts. When that happens, "Generally unreliable" or at minimum, "Additional considerations" makes sense as the guidance when using this source. I do not think further deprecation is warranted though since the reporters seem to be of a mixed quality, some are more diligent than others and the bias merging into wanton disregard for facts varies there too. The problem is, we rate sources, not just individual writers, and therefore as far as a source rating goes, "Option 2" or "Option 3" then makes the most logical sense. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. And it was fixed. There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected only after significant outside pressure and even then the correction was weak and inaccurate. The guy who wrote the article was explicitly mocking the people who pointed out his error and accusing them of something along the lines of being corporate shills. It also wasn’t a single incident as they publish nonsense regarding Russia and Ukraine, including and up to outright conspiracy theories, pretty regularly. It simply is not a reliable source, however much one agrees with their editorial stance. Volunteer Marek 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including User:Iljhgtn and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? Volunteer Marek 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You misquote the editor (to your benefit), for someone so interested in errors supposedly motivated by bias that seems odd... In context its clearly stronger than that "This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." when nothing suggests that this was the result of narrative pushing (thats how you push a narrative either, as you've pointed out although lingusitically similar its an embarrassing and obvious error). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t see any “conspiracy theories” from anyone here, including User:Iljhgtn and your attempts to characterize a pretty reasonable statement (“bias that creeped” in) as such are kind of offensive and disingenuous. Can you make an argument without making false and insulting accusations against others? Volunteer Marek 01:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we WP:FOC. I believe @Horse Eye's Back is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its you who needs to provide a source to substantiate your allegations against a living person. ""This was not a typo, or a miscalculation, this was bias that creeped so heavily into the newsroom as to make the writers push a narrative, instead of report on the facts." is a BLP violation unless a source is provided or the author drops dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am pretty shocked by these accusations if true, and would ask we WP:FOC. I believe @Horse Eye's Back is a good editor and contributor to these discussions normally though, so I think I must be missing something or a miscommunication may have occurred. I will give them time and space to explain if they feel explanation is warranted. I sure would appreciate it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- No , I’m not. I’m simply asking you to refrain from trying to falsely characterize other people’s comments as “conspiracy theories” in a cheap attempt to delegitimize them since they’re clear nothing of the sort. Not everything you disagree with is a “conspiracy theory”. In this particular case, the article clearly had false info in it. No one has ever said that “information was changed” (as if on purpose) so please stop pretending otherwise. What was said was that “bias creeped in” which I think is a fair characterization. So please quit it with the strawman’ing. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You keep dancing around... Do you really believe that the information was changed to push a narrative? (and remember that such a specific claim about a living person falls under BLP, so if the answer is yes a source needs to be provided) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You literally accused another editor, without basis in fact, of pushing “conspiracy theory” as a rhetorical device on your part to discredit and debase their views. You have absolutely no room to accuse others of, according to you, “misquoting” (which I did not do). And your attempts to litigate the meaning of “narrative pushing” (of course the article was trying to push a narrative! It was an opinion piece! That’s what opinion pieces do - this one just did it with false facts) are just typically tiresome. Volunteer Marek 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And what is your source for that? Nobody else is saying that this was the result of bias, the sources say that "third largest corporate owner of housing" became "owns a third of housing" which is a very understandable mistake. You appear to have constructed your own conspiracy theory around this incident. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whats “not math”? The difference between .0006 and .33? You sure? Volunteer Marek 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And let’s see these “every major and minor publications” that make these kinds of error. Volunteer Marek 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I note the failure to provide the requested source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its not math so the factor that it mistates it by is irrelevant, they are much more similar statements as written and to me (someone who works with the writing of other human beings every day) it is entirely understandable. That sort of error is made by every major and minor publication, it’s how they handle it which counts and here it was handled well. You can of course respond to this with a source which says that this is a major error, but I don't think that such a source exists (if it does I couldn't find it) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im sorry but “third largest owner” turning into “owns one third of all housing stock” is NOT an “understandable mistake”. It misstates the actual fact by a factor of 500. Maybe if this was like a student in some freshmen class using AI to write a paper that would be “understandable” (and still get an F) but this is supposed to be a professional, who’s job it is to get this stuff right and this is supposed to be a serious organization that has an editorial board that does fact checking. Which they obviously didn’t do. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right back at you. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- , your turn and no stonewalling now provide the source or go away. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right back at you. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that. Volunteer Marek 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your source that this was "exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative" and not simply an error is what? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lol, those are standard corrections for minor misstatements not exaggerations of something by a factor of several hundred to push a narrative and then mocking and attacking people who point out the error and then putting up a half assed note. By your standard Daily Mail and Breitbart (both unreliable) would count as RS since they too have issued corrections in the past. No, reliable publications do not make errors of this magnitude and when they publish corrections they directly address any mistakes. Breitbart, Daily Mail or Jacobin unfortunately don’t do that. Volunteer Marek 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have to say I question your judgment in supporting option 3 "generally unreliable" over Jacobin publishing and then retracting a single erroneous sentence, and for having a bias/narrative/agenda, when you also !voted option 1 "generally reliable" for The Heritage Foundation which routinely publishes fabricated information without retraction. Could you kindly articulate how an admittedly biased outlet with a team of fact checkers is apparently significantly worse than a think tank that churns out misinformation and disinformation (and has a team of paid staff working around the clock to target, dox, and threaten Misplaced Pages editors)? Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was corrected. Your entire case is based on a single incident where a single writer made a single mistake. And it was fixed. There is absolutely no grounds for "Generally unreliable" on the basis of presented evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 A screenshot of a tweet documenting an already corrected error is insufficient to depreciate a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: Mostly Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). Kind regards,
- Thank you for the links. I will repost once I've read through those discussions. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: Mostly Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). Kind regards,
- I do not see that in the above discussion, can you link to any discussion of this? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are a lot more issues about Jacobin than just a tweet, and include more recent topics after the last RfC like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 at the very least, change current assessment. It might be easier to comment if editors agree or not to change the current category. My position is based on coverage that mixes opinion with facts and its use of unreliable sources, some of which have been deprecated by this noticeboard (like The Grayzone). I went into more detail about this at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8#Jacobin and at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Rfc: Jacobin (magazine). --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 (intext attribution) WP:RSBIAS and WP:RSOPINION cover most of the points here. Jacobin publishes opinions peice that should have intext attribution. This is how they are used in the large amount of WP:USEBYOTHERS that Jacobin also has. I may not like Jacobin very much but bias, opinion, or minor mistakes do not make a source unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." The example given was a mistake in a book review, cubsequently corrected, about how much housing stock Blackstone owned. No reasonable editor would use this review as a source for an article on housing or Blackstone and more than one would use a reliable source on U.S. housing for an article about 19th century French poetry. TFD (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1-ish Jacobin are clearly a biased source but they are also clearly as reliable for facts as any other major WP:NEWSORG. When they make mistakes, they correct themselves, and that improves their reliability, it doesn't hurt it. Loki (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2: additional considerations/bad RFC - based on the discussion above, evidently there's some kind of social media uproar about some thing that Jacobin published and later corrected. It's poor timing to hold an RFC on reliability both when emotions are high and when it's in response to an isolated incident, both of which are true here. But ignoring that, it seems (again from the discussion above) that Jacobin published something that was egregiously incorrect, then retracted or corrected it. That's pretty much the standard we expect of reliable publications: errors are compatible with reliability, it's how the publication responds to and corrects errors that determines reliability in this context. Media Bias/Fact Check gives Jacobin a "high" reliability score of 1.9 (out of 10, lower scores are better), which is in the ballpark of the New York Times (1.4) and Washington Post (2.1). However, they also give it a "left bias" rating of -7 (a 20-point scale with 0 as completely unbiased), which is on the edge of their extreme ratings. Editors should consider attribution, and/or balancing this source's POV against publications more to the right. Ivanvector (/Edits) 17:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2/3 While BIAS usually covers issues like, it may not be entirely sufficient for advocacy media, which includes Jacobin. While Jacobin is a fine publication and I've sourced it myself, the reality is it does not usually report Who/What/Why but almost exclusively publishes explainers and analysis pieces that have a designed structure. For instance, How Biden Embraced Trump’s Terror Smear Against Cuba is not an editorial or opinion piece, it's presented as straight news reporting in the form of an explainer article. But, as an encyclopedia, we obviously can't start injecting artistic wordsets like "terror smear" into articles. So merely saying that BIAS can cover the case of Jacobin is not sufficient. For the purposes of encyclopedia writing, there will never be anything chronicled by Jacobin that is appropriate for WP which we can't find a superior source for elsewhere. They don't do spot news, data journalism, or investigative reporting, which are the three ways we use newsgathering media to reference articles. Simply looking at the current issue, I don't see a single story that is actually reporting things. Each article is an opinion piece lightly packaged as an explainer. So, while I don't think Jacobin is "unreliable" per se, I don't see any value of using it for the very scope-limited purpose of encyclopedia-writing. Chetsford (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 for facts and 2/inline attribution otherwise for articles that are mainly opinion. The hoohah over an article that was actually about Mark Fisher and since corrected such that it doesn't even mention Blackstone seems like a one off. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing in the above discussion or that I've seen in the last year leads me to deviate from my !vote in the previous RfC which was this: Option 2: mostly a partisan opinion source usable with attribution if noteworthy, but occasionally publishes well-researched pieces by experts in their fields, on topics that might not be covered in more mainstream sources, in particular on the history of the left or on socialist theory. I also think that the closing of the last RfC, and in particular green flagging on RSP, did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, as I argued when this came up on this board in 2023: I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus. In short: I think we need to approach it in a much more case by case basis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 My assessment hasn't changed from last time, jacobin publishes mostly opinion so this is largely a moot point and the rest of what they publish often contradicts itself—blindlynx 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1 or 2, I think that most of the time they should be used with attribution but they're generally reliable enough that I don't think we should be requiring attribution. I also question the need for a new RfC... It doesn't seem like there has been anything substantial since last time so this shouldn't have been opened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weak option 2 per above voters (especially AD and Bob), but I won't die on that hill if the consensus ultimately feels differently. Strong oppose option 3, though, for somewhat obvious reasons. The Kip 18:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1/2 - I don't like Jacobin. They read to me like the socialist equivalent of Christian rock. But they have an editor, publisher and corrections, and I'm reasonably sure they're not actually liars. It's an opinion outlet, like a leftist analogue of Reason. I'm not convinced coverage in Jacobin connotes notability. So I'd give them a strong "considerations apply" - attribute, not ideal for notability - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1/2 Jacobin's fine. It's left-leaning, but it doesn't cook up facts or make shit up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3
or 4They publish outright falsehoods and when they issue corrections these are weak and weaselly. The recent completely absurd claim in one of their articles that Blackstone owns 33% of US single family housing stock is an example (it’s actually 1/10 of 1%). Whether you’re sympathetic to their editorial position is irrelevant. Garbage is garbage and facts are facts and as an encyclopedia we can’t rely on click bait nonsense for sources. Volunteer Marek 19:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 1, with attribution for analysis and opinion pieces. The Blackstone mistake was bad, and the author's petulant attitude upon being corrected leaves much to be desired. But the error was corrected relatively promptly, and they have an editorial team on staff. I'm not in favor of downgrading a source based on a single mistake. However, Jacobin has an explicit editorial stance that informs nearly all of its articles, and if it's used for more than straightforward facts, it should probably be attributed as e.g. "the socialist magazine Jacobin". I'm open to changing my view if others can demonstrate a more sustained pattern of errors or falsehoods. Astaire (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 (with caveats) due to the lack of developments since the last RfC which could actually change the conclusion of general reliability, as opposed to demonstrating fallibility or bias. I do have some sympathy with the
no media outlet, no matter how reliable, should be listed higher than option 2
position articulated above, but I think that comes down to how we interpret "generally reliable" in practice. In other words, "additional considerations" always apply, in principle. The difference between option 1 and option 2 comes down to how likely we expect those "additional considerations" to be of practical relevance, and how exactly we should address them. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 1, it doesn't seem anything has changed since the last RfC. Corrections and retractions is what a reliable source is expected to do and is a sign of reliability. Mistakes which are far greater than this are commonplace across the array of reliable sources (what matters is whether there are corrections or not) nor does partisanship equate to unreliability. Here the error appears to be about what's more or less a single sentence, an ancillary point or side-note in an opinion piece which has been corrected since. It should be treated no different a manner than any other openly partisan neworgs such as Reason (RSP entry). There is no requirement for reliable sources to be "neutral" or for the matter any standard that suggests newsorgs with an explicitly stated ideological position are any better or worse in matters of reliability than newsorgs that don't have an explicitly stated ideological position. WP:NEWSORG and WP:BIASED are quite clear.
- Though the standard disclaimers apply which are to check for whether what they publish has due weight for inclusion (not an issue of reliability), use in-text attribution with their political position made apparent when quoting opinion and that the context always matters. That there is a subreddit post critical of a error that was corrected is no basis for determining reliability of sources on Misplaced Pages or starting an RfC, so this is also a Bad RfC. This discussion has been had at a much greater depth in the previous RfC where it was shown that the magazine in question has quite significant use by others and affirmatory coverage from reliable secondary source demonstrating that they generally have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which doesn't needs to be rehashed. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1: Bad RfC + L + Ratio Creating this RfC immediately after some sort of ostensible social media outrage (ex. I nominated David Joyner (business executive) for deletion not long after the Killing of Brian Thompson, and people got so upset that they brigaded it via external social media) seems like a bad idea. It's been made clear in the past that Jacobin has a perspective (like literally any media outlet) but don't sacrifice factual accuracy to get there. My previous vote remains true: "While it wears its political perspective on its sleeve, it has proven itself time and again in its robust fact-checking. The issue with conservative and reactionary sources on the WP:RSP isn't that they have a bias – it's that they constantly express said bias through the use of provable mis- and disinformation. Jacobin does not sacrifice factual accuracy for the sake of a bias."
- I would say the same of any other outlet whose perspective coexists peacefully with actual facts. The sort of neoliberalism adopted by American news outlets which we categorize as generally reliable (correctly so) isn't some sort of default worldview that needs to be treated as sacred and less biased than any other. If we're allowed to point to a single incident, then I could just as easily (but wouldn't, because I'm acting in good faith) point to the NYT's 2002–2003 reporting about Iraq and WMDs which was so unbelievably mistaken and grounded in literally nothing that we spend a paragraph attributing it to falsely luring Americans into supporting an illegal invasion based on lies, yet Misplaced Pages (even in the days when that story was reasonably fresh) would balk at the idea of calling them 'marginally reliable', let alone 'generally unreliable'. Meanwhile, this one is literally just a typo in a single article – a bad typo, but one anyone with a brain could understand didn't reflect reality and which was quickly corrected. Reading some of the stories on the front page right now, they report on events similar to what would be covered in a magazine like the generally reliable New York and contain no obvious factual errors. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2, mainly per u:BobFromBrockley. The Blackrock error was quickly corrected, so I don't hold it against them. Consider this quote from CANZUK
Anglo-conservatives sometimes fantasize about reuniting the dominions ... where workers could be exploited freely.
A not-insignificant percentage of the content supported by Jacobin is of similar nature. Alaexis¿question? 21:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - Option 1 A screenshot from Reddit detailing an error which was corrected is not reason to lower our consideration of the reliablity of the publication. WP:GREL is generally reliable, not always reliable. Admittedly the publication does contain a lot of opinion peices, however that is already covered by WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL. Notably, The Economist is similarly heavy on opinion pecies and community consensus is that it is WP:GREL. TarnishedPath 22:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 Jacobin is basically the left-wing equivalent to the right-wing British Magazines Spiked and The Spectator. Like these publications, most of its content is opinion orientated, and citing less opinion-focused sources should be preferred. It's clear that the current "generally reliable" rating is suggesting to readers of RSP that Jacobin's opinionated content is usable carte blanche without caveat, which I do not think is accurate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- You should probably read farther than the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- "The CIA bungled intel pre-9/11" is somewhat the opposite of a conspiracy theory since it literally attributes to incompetence what conspiracists attribute to malice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The pieces (which are both by staff writer Branko Marcetic) are strongly slanted, but you're perhaps right that saying they are "pushing conspiracy theories" is going a bit far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- You should probably read farther than the headline. Simonm223 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some Jacobin pieces have openly pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories , as well as conspiracy theories about the Euromaidan which have not been retracted. The Green RSP rating has mistakenly led people to believe these pieces were reliable , Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Summoned by ping in this thread) Bad RFC / No listing just as in 2021. Or Option 2, it is a liberal analysis magazine, to be considered frequently as WP:RSOPINION. See you at the next 1-day social media hysteria. MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but Jacobin is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I find it really funny when Americans see somebody holding mainstream social democratic politics and start calling them extreme. Simonm223 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For whatever far left and anti-liberal mean in the US, I guess so. It does not change my point at all. MarioGom (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't really matter for the purposes of the RFC, but Jacobin is not remotely liberal. It's far left, and quite anti-liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1. Correcting a mistake is a sign of reliability. The normal caveats about bias/opinion and attribution apply, but not seeing enough to move it down to 2. -- Patar knight - /contributions 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 The current summary at WP:RS/P acknowledges that Jacobin is biased and that editors should take care when using it, which is exactly how it should be. Bias and adherence to factual accuracy are two different things; neutrality is not objectivity and vice versa. We do not need to demote it purely for being biased. Agree with others that an RfC being started based on a Reddit thread of a screenshot of a tweet of an editor who made a mistake which was ultimately corrected is a bit silly. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 as per the analysis by Selfstudier, XOR, and Tayi. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 WP:GREL already has certain considerations and it doesn't mean that 100% of what is published can make it to WP. Editors are expected to use their judgement. The article in question is a WP:NEWSBLOG. I don't see any reason for downgrading them based on a reddit thread. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 This entire RfC appears to be politically motivated and is predicated on a correction of a sentence that mixed up "third largest" with "a third of". Many other mainline newspapers have made similar, if not worse, errors before. The question is whether corrections were made when such errors were pointed out. And the correction was made here, meeting requirements of reliability. This is likely also about an opinion article, which makes this even more pointless. Silverseren 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Weapons of mass destruction from the New York Times? Was that ever retracted? TarnishedPath 11:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- 3. If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it.
- It's not a matter of some particular instance about mistakes regarding mixing up "third largest" with "a third of" or whatever. Heck everybody does stuff like that. The NYTimes has has published more (unintentionally) misleading or plain-wrong charts than I've had hot meals. I mean, here we've got Nature finding that "among the 348 documents that we found to include the are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some in BioScience, The Lancet Planetary Health, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and 19 news articles targeted at a specialist audience." Imagine that. I would guess that that's largely because "puts indigenous peoples in a good light" trumps "is true" in the emotional hind-brain of the leather-elbow-patch set. It's not a lefty thing in particular, right-wingers are just as bad I'm sure.
- Which just strengthens my point, there're no blinders like ideological blinders, so its not so much a matter of how many fact-checkers you have as in how you maybe are presenting facts which, while individually true, are cherry picked or incomplete or out of context or one-sided or otherwise misleading. It might not even be intentional, exactly. Mind-sets are like that. Better to stick with Time or other people who are more into just blandly attracting a broad readership rather than with people who have points to make.
- They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine. As long as we include the qualifier. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Herostratus: not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Backseat comments are totally fine. I live for them. I'm not sure about the details of our rule, but aren't all publications are completely reliable for their contents? If the News of the World says "the moon is made of green cheese" we can certainly say "According to the News of the World, the moon is made of green cheese" if for some reason that was useful. The ref is just so the reader can check that they did indeed print that. Similarly for any opinion or other statement. Since all entities are reliable for their own contents, I assume we are not talking at all about that. Why would we.
- @Herostratus: not to backseat comment but if "They're big and smart enough that reporting their opinions are worthwhile, of course. "According to Jacobin, consumption of oligarchs is (due to their high protein-to-fat ratio) a potential avenue for ameliorating world hunger" is fine." isn't that a 2? I'm in much the same boat and offered a split 1/2, my understanding is that a 3 shouldn't be used for opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that in our own words because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for all races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. Herostratus (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the thing is our due weight policy says that due weight (noteworthiness) is apportioned based on the amount of attention given in reliable sources. I take that to mean opinion in generally reliable sources is worth reporting; opinion in generally unreliable sources isn’t. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is not reliable for its own contents, having doctored its archives. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- What we are talking about is: if entity X says "FBI stats say that African-American violent crime was up 50% in Los Angeles in 2024", can we say that in our own words because we can be confident that it is true because we know that entity X has a good fact-checking operation? Can we be very very sure that entity X would also point out if violent crime for all races was also up 50%? Can we be very very sure that this increase is not because the FBI started using a new definition of "violent crime", because entity X would surely point that out? Can we be very very sure that violent crime in the city of Los Angeles is steady and the increase is purely from Los Angeles County (or whatever), because entity X would surely point that out? In other words -- can we be very very sure that entity X would not cherry-pick some facts and leave out others because they are here to make points? We want to be careful about being led by the nose by these people. Herostratus (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 The author's attitude certainly leaves much to be desired... but I don't think a single mistake that was quickly fixed – in a blog piece, which generally wouldn't even be cited except in very limited circumstances and with attribution per WP:NEWSBLOG – is a good enough reason to downgrade their reliability. Smallangryplanet (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 My opinion is unchanged from the previous RfC. It is absurd that we've opened up another RfC over a minor issue that was quickly corrected, all because a few neoliberal redditors got mad about it. I think citations to Jacobin should require attribution, but trying to tar them as unreliable over this one case is ridiculous. Log off Reddit, there is nothing worthwhile to be found there. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2. I concur with other editors that this RFC should never have been opened. Please be more considerate of your fellow editors' time. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 possibly Option 3. I don't see that the source is any better than it was in 2021. Per Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's previous comments and references from the 2021 RfC copied below as well as this recent incident. Yes, making a mistake and correcting it is good but when the mistake is so egreious and the author attacks people who note the error how much faith should we put in the source? Last time I also noted that per Adfont's media review (not a RS but still worth a look) this source is more biased than Breitbart!
Normally, we put these extremely ideological sources in the Option 2 category (e.g., Salon (RSP entry), Townhall (RSP entry)). Jacobin obviously doesn't report straight news, so it (i) always needs to be attributed and (ii) check to see if it complies with WP:WEIGHT. However, Jacobin has additional issues. Its stated political mission is to:
centralize and inject energy into the contemporary socialist movement
. So it is more in line with an advocacy group than a news source. Also, it has pretty fringe views. James Wolcott identifies Jacobin as part of the alt-left . It's pretty fringe-y on topics concerning Venezuela , the USSR/Communism , and anti-semitism , . I would avoid using Jacobin for those topics. But if you need a socialist/Marxist opinion on something, then Jacobin is definitely a good source to use. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Based upon Noonlcarus's comment, Jacobin does seem to frequently use deprecated/unreliable sources for facts. Some examples include Alternet (RSP entry) , Daily Kos (RSP entry) , Raw Story (RSP entry) , The Canary (RSP entry) , and the Electronic Intifada (RSP entry) .Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, when a source is this biased we have to ask if that level of bias is going to have too great an impact on both the weight they give various facts thus leading to questionable conclusion and their ability to verify otherwise factual claims as we saw here. I think that puts the source deep into the use with caution territory Springee (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation
would reflect more on the biases of editors than on the true quality of the source and would again push Misplaced Pages away from the goal of collecting knowledge
. This is a group that is regularly equated in academic best sources with fascism such as in:- Neo-fascist trends in education: neo-liberal hybridisation and a new authoritarian order Díez-Gutiérrez, Enrique-Javier, Mauro-Rafael Jarquín-Ramírez, and Eva Palomo-Cermeño, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS). Sep2024, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p125-169
- Pandemic abandonment, panoramic displays and fascist propaganda: The month the earth stood still. By: McLaren, Peter, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 00131857, Feb 2022, Vol. 54, Issue 2
- THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY THINK TANK. By: Stewart, Katherine, New Republic, 00286583, Sep2023, Vol. 254, Issue 9 (note that the think tank that they call "The West Point of American Fascism" in this article is the Claremont Institute but that they refer to Heritage as participating in Claremont events.)
- The Road Ahead Fighting for Progress, Freedom, and Democracy, Weingarten, Randi, American Educator. Fall2024, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p2-9. 8p.
- So I guess my question is one of consistency: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the fascist-adjacent Heritage foundation? If not why do you believe that the Heritage Foundation is more valuable to the "goal of collecting knowledge" than Jacobin? Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. Springee (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you want to cite those sources to support an argument you should tell us what they say or at least why you think they support your position. As for your question, I already answered. It doesn't matter if the HF is more or less compromised because the purpose of each is different. When it comes to topics of automobiles Honda is more compromised than the AP but they also might be a better source if we are asking about stratified charge combustion in automobile engines. Springee (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- On this charge I will defend Springee. I don't necessarily agree with them but I'm not seeing the dissonance in their arguments, especially as they seem to be going 2/3 on both (there is not formal vote here but that seems to be the upshot of what they're saying). Their slighlty idiosyncratic argument about the purspose of the source being primary is also one which they've been making consistently for years. With all due respect I think you're being too hard on Springee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is too biased to be reliable personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? Springee (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their About Us page states they offer
socialist perspectives
and approvingly includes quotes describing them as supportingradical politics
andvery explicitly on the radical left, and sort of hostile to liberal accommodationism
. Crossroads 22:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms are commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of Jacobin (magazine) notes
the political diversity of contributors, incorporating "everyone from social democratic liberals to avowed revolutionaries"
, so I don't think either you or Simonm223 are wrong on this. Different people are gonna use different terms and apply different meanings to each of them. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would strongly advise against getting too side-tracked by having a conversation about "social democracy" vs "democratic socialism" (same goes for any arguments over distinctions between "left" vs "liberal" in this thread). I can say from experience that these semantics rabbitholes are shockingly deep, and they're not at all necessary or helpful for this RfC. All I'll say is that these terms are commonly used as synonyms by at least some people, and the "Ideology and reception" section of Jacobin (magazine) notes
- Jacobin is not merely social democratic; their About Us page states they offer
- We do agree on disliking the RSP bucketing system. My personal opinion is no news media source should be treated as a blanket "generally reliable" because reliability is contextual. However I do think that Jacobin is, from a global perspective, not in any way ideologically extreme. Social democracy is a normal left-of-center political position. The extreme-right shift of US politics over the last few decades makes them seem like outliers but that's the real bias problem right there. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center.
Where outside the United States are you talking about? The world where barely 20% of countries recognize same-sex marriage? Where sixteen countries have banned the burqa? Is it Japan, where the conservative Liberal Democratic Party has been in power since 1955? Or China, where a media outlet that is as critical of the Chinese Communist Party as Jacobin is of the Democratic Party would have long been banned, and their writers arrested? I think we all need a reality check here, especially if we want to represent reality in our articles. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)- While I can't speak for them, I'm guessing they probably had in mind specifically other western democracies, as it's common for European countries to have a mainstream Socialist Party with an ideology listed as social democracy (to name a few: Spain, Portugal, France, Albania, etc).
- I'm comfortable speculating this is their argument because it's one that's often repeated in American progressive-left circles. This argument is usually presented as follows: Bernie Sanders is viewed as the furthest left one can go in America, the things his supporters want are not radical to other developed countries (paid time off, universal healthcare, etc), therefore what is far left in America is only moderately left elsewhere.
- Not saying I entirely agree or disagree with that argument, either how Simonm223 phrased it or how I interpreted it. Just saying I think they had in mind comparable democracies, not the entire world.
- Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- This has become a discussion about Overton windows rather than the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. I don't feel the need to put a million qualifiers on a comment on a WP discussion board when all I really need to say is that the United States has an abnormal political compass compared to its peers. But also there used to be lots of socialists, for instance, throughout the Middle East. American allies killed most of them. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- We may not be disagreeing at all given we both are giving them a "2". I'm arguing that their bias is too much to make them a 1. The possible 3, the same score I gave them last time, is a concern regarding things like the issue that started the recent discussion. I was about to post something about really disliking the RSP's simplistic bucketing. It's really not a good system as we really should put more effort into asking if a source is appropriate for the claims being supported and when an encyclopedia should be citing strongly biased sources in general. If we need to use such a strongly biased source is the information DUE? Springee (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take the idea that a publication being openly social democratic is too biased to be reliable personally offensive. Anywhere outside the United States Jacobin would be seen as barely left of the political center. But I will concede that Springee is being consistent. And I actually agreed that think tanks should be treated as primary sources. Frankly, were Springee to be more reasonable on the "political bias" overreach, we might otherwise be agreeing. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The list of texts are available via Misplaced Pages library which is why I provided bibliographical information rather than links as links to material on WP library don't work. With the exception of New Republic all are academic journals. And now please answer my original question: do you believe Jacobin is more ideologically compromised than the Heritage Foundation? Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are missing a major difference. HF isn't a media source, they are a think tank. Jacobin is a media source, not a think tank. I've argued that all think tanks should be used with great care and in particular we should generally not cite them unless an independent RS points to their work. So the question is can we cite HF when a RS mentions the views/claims/etc of HF with respect to the article topic. In that regard I'm suggesting we treat them more like a primary source vs a RS. Jacobin is different and the relevant question is can we treat them like a regular RS as we do with many other news media sources. If Jacobin publishes a claim about an article subject should we cite them? I argue they should be evaluated by the same standards we use for news media sources. By that standard it's strong bias etc means we should use it's claims and reports with caution and should question if they have weight to justify inclusion. In your post above you provided a list of texts but absent links I can't see what they say nor if their arguments are sound or crap but they don't impact the distinction I've made. Springee (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And yet you rated the Heritage Foundation at 2/3 below and didn't find any problem with their extreme ideological bent, saying in their defense that deprecating the foundation
- Option 3 or 2 - Right-wing outlets that mix opinions in their articles, selectively choose facts to promote a political agenda, or sloppily misrepresent the truth have rightly been marked as unreliable ages ago. There is no reason to have a different standard for other political positions. And regardless of that, outlets that do that cannot be relied on (i.e. are unreliable) to present an accurate picture of the facts on a given topic, nor are their writers' opinions noteworthy in our articles. Op-eds from even mainstream papers like NYT, WaPo, etc. are routinely removed as sources; outlets like Jacobin that consist entirely of such articles should likewise not be used (and we have already done this for right-wing opinion outlets like Quillette). The green checkmark at RSP misleads editors into thinking opinions and claims published in Jacobin are more noteworthy than they really are. Crossroads 22:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jacobin's raison d'etre is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. 2601:340:8200:800:30C1:6FF8:F57B:FCF8 (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is no more a good argument than it would be to state that the raison d'etre of X publication is to promote capitalism and the geo-political interests of the United States, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting.
- I could apply that faulty argument to shitloads of mainstream US publications that are currently considered to be generally reliable. TarnishedPath 05:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Jacobin's raison d'etre is to promote socialism, and it has a strong ideological perspective that makes it unreliable for coverage of contentious geopolitical issues, hard news, or factual reporting. However, it may be used with caution for topics within its area of expertise (such as the theory and history of socialism, labor movements, and socialist cultural commentary), provided proper attribution and corroboration from neutral sources are applied. 2601:340:8200:800:30C1:6FF8:F57B:FCF8 (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1. Folks have said it well already so I won't belabor the point. I can't really imagine an occasion when I would cite Jacobin, but I consider them roughly a left-wing equivalent of The Economist or Reason (also publications I'd be unlikely to cite –– all three of these are usually rather predictable and tend to offer shallow analysis). I wasn't sure how we list those other two so I checked RSP just now and saw that they're 1s. Yes, OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but I was more interested in getting a baseline on where the community draws the line between 1 and 2. With respect, I object to Crossroads' comparison to Quillette, which leans heavily into platforming fringe ideas and displays little editorial oversight. (Interestingly, here's some solid reporting by Jacobin on a hoax published in Quillette, revealing the latter's abysmal editorial practices, courtesy of this past RSN discussion.) Generalrelative (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Personally I don’t see Reason and Economist as equivalent, and was surprised to see Reason green flagged for the same reason that I don’t think Jacobin should be. That is, whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. The Jacobin piece on the Quillette hoax looks good to me, but everything else they’ve published by that author wouldn’t be usable for facts as they’re pure op eds. I’d put the Spectator and National Review in the category as Jacobin and Reason. (Whereas Spiked and American Conservative are worse, red flag territory rather than amber.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Additional considerations apply. As I indicated in the discussion above which I started, the mere fact that Jacobin thought it appropriate to publish a statement that Blackstone Inc. "owns a third of US housing stock" indicates that they do not do adequate fact-checking before publishing articles. Therefore, one should attempt to corroborate any facts they publish with more reliable sources before relying on Jacobin to support any factual statements in articles. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1. Our guideline on reliable sources is explicit that
reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective
. I may not personally love the political perspective of Jacobin, but they don't go out of their way to platform disinformation that flatly contradicts academic consensus about reality. Regarding Jacobin as unreliable on the grounds of its bias would require evidence that said bias leads it to regularly publish misinformation and untruths. I haven't seen this established.Moreover, the error brought up that somehow has sparked this RFC was both A) corrected in a timely manner, which is what we expect from a reliable source; and B) a case where context matters, as the original source was a book review of several books written by Mark Fisher. If cited, it should be cited to warrant information about Fisher or his books or the genre he wrote in, etc. The Blackstone number wasInformation provided in passing
, and we already know that such info occasionallymay not be reliable
, and so we use our best judgment as editors, citing and reading a wide variety of sources and going to the best sources. For a topic like Mark Fisher, looks like Jacobin is a good resource. For Blackstone and housing, try an article from the journal Urban Studies. Not every source is perfect at every subject, but when a source has a known editorial staff, issues corrections to publications, and is grounded in reality, it's reliable, even if I wouldn't personally enjoy talking politics with the editor.Finally, when a piece published in Jacobin is an opinion piece, we can just treat it as such, per our guideline about opinion pieces in reliable sources. The Economist and The Wall Street Journal publish a lot of opinion pieces too, yet GREL they've remained. As the perennial list says of The Economist,editors should use their judgement to discern factual content—which can be generally relied upon—from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources
. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3 or Option 2, long overdue for the reasons already set out in this thread. And frankly, the idea that a magazine whose name is derived from the people who instituted the Reign of Terror was ever acceptable w/o issue is offputting by itself. Just10A (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, the founder has said that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of The Black Jacobins, a book about the Haitian Revolution, not the French. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not that that is relevant anyway when assessing reliability. TarnishedPath 01:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Black Jacobins is named so because the author analogizes the actions of the Haitians to that of the French Jacobins. It's just adding an extra step (not to mention that the word has a known meaning on it's face, so it's mostly irrelevant.). Regardless, it's clearly derived, and it's frankly silly to even argue semantics. Just10A (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing semantics. Your objection doesn't make any sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't inherently reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. Just10A (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is arguing semantics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- If that's your benchmark, then practically everything is arguing semantics, including this whole thread. "Jacobin publishes words -> what are the meaning of those words? (semantics) -> can we qualify those meanings as 'reliable?'" Clearly distinguishing factors, and I'm not interested in arguing semantics about the word "semantics" with you like a 12 year old. My vote's been explained, get over it. Just10A (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is arguing semantics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was referring to the semantics of what counts as "derived from." And no, while the name clearly doesn't inherently reflect relevance. If a source called "The KGB Times" came up on the noticeboard for reliability, it's perfectly reasonable for a person to point out "Hey, I don't think it's reliable for reasons x,y, and z, andddd the name also doesn't exactly inspire confidence." That's all I'm saying. Don't twist my statement into something it's not. Just10A (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear your argument about the name being relevant to reliability is literally arguing semantics. Your objection doesn't make any sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, the founder has said that in naming the magazine, he was thinking of The Black Jacobins, a book about the Haitian Revolution, not the French. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1/Keep the current RSPS summary I think a few people arguing for additional considerations are misremembering the current RSPS legend. Additional considerations doesn’t refer to things like weight, or bias, or that you need to attribute opinion pieces because those are all standard considerations that apply to all sources. The current RSPS summary already says (in part)
Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.
I can't find anything that indicates that's not still a perfectly good summary. CambrianCrab (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1* Jacobin is a biased source, something that should obviously be considered by anyone thinking of sourcing them for anything contentious, but their reporting has never been an issue in terms of establishing basic factual information about a situation. One writer for a book review making a dumb statement that was corrected by the source doesn't change that. BSMRD (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1: Nothing of substance has been presented to suggest that this source is not GREL. Most of the reasons being presented for MREL appear to be about bias, but that is not of direct relevance to reliability unless it can be shown that any bias directly impinges somehow on its reliability. That it provides a perspective from a rarefied position on the political spectrum is a moot point in terms of reliability. Arguably it is good to have sources from all different positions on the political spectrum for the purposes of balance, but that is, again, irrelevant to its reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1/2: generally reliable, they have a correction policy. Bias for opinion pieces and essays should be taken into account, attribute accordingly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RfC As on 25 July 2021. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 I previously commented in the 2021 RfC based on our guideline for use of biased sources. In particular I found this 2019 assessment by the Columbia Journalism Review persuasive. Most recently this January 4, 2025 article from the Columbia Journalism Review cites a Jacobin article from November 2024 positively. A major trade publication in the field of journalism still seems to find Jacobin worth citing as "demonstrat convincingly" how Harris lost the pro-labor vote in the 2024 election. Why should we not follow CJRs lead? The arguments seem to be (1) Jacobin recently issued a major retraction and (2) Jacobin has a left-wing bias. I could buy into (1) if they constantly issued retractions, but no one has shown that that is the case. (2) is contrary to WP:BIASED. Altogether, I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently from reliable but right-of-center-biased publications like The New Criterion or The Atlantic Monthly. — Wug·a·po·des 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 or Option 3: Not only is Jacobin an extremely biased, ideologically charged source, but their reporting has been called into question multiple times. At the very least, additional considerations do apply. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2. This is not a WP:NEWSORG. Its stated purpose is "to foster class consciousness and build the institutions that can tame and eventually overcome capital". Compare to the missions of the NYT: "We seek the truth and help people understand the world."; or the BBC: "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain". The NYT and the BBC are both biased (every source is biased), but they do at least aim to deliver reporting. Jacobin, on the other hand, is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't make it automatically unreliable, nor does that make it solely a source of opinions, but that does makes it qualitatively different from the newspapers that others have compared it to - and that is an important additional consideration worth noting. For the record, I disagree that one incident of inaccuracy is enough to downgrade a source, particularly one that was corrected. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just because I note that my earlier !vote wasn't posted in to this section, for the avoidance of doubt, whilst I think this is a Bad RFC because there's no reason for initiating it, I support Option 2 or Option 3 because it is strictly an opinion site and not one that should be relied on for statements of fact about anything but itself. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 – Jacobin may be biased, but that has no bearing on reliability. They have many well-respected articles that have been cited by other reliable sources, have transparent editorial controls, and a demonstrated process for retraction and correction. I see a couple complaints above that Jacobin isn't a news organization; however, this isn't relevant to reliability. Just like The Economist, Jacobin publishes more retrospective, interpretive articles which for certain subjects can often be better than using contemporaneous news articles. Overall this is a very bad RfC given the creator's undisclosed connection to the previous overturned RfC (see comment by Tayi Arajakate) and a complete lack of any examples of actual uses on Misplaced Pages where the reliability is questioned. This is as far as I can tell a knee-jerk reaction to a single example of an error on an unrelated topic in an offhand remark inside a book review, and which wasn't even used on Misplaced Pages. An absurd reason to open an RfC. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 per Silver seren and Wugapodes (and thank you for providing actual reported information on their editorial process rather than speculation, heavy irony in this whole discussion). This whole saga is based on one correction? Really? Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 1 bias has nothing to do with reliability. Meanwhile, corrections are a strong signal of reliability. --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bias has plenty to do with reliability, or can. It's a worthwhile thing to take into consideration. Herostratus (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3/4: An encyclopedia should focus on high-quality, fact-driven sources. Not on ones that report the news with heavy political agendas, at least not without qualifying it. Using a highly politically charged source (of whatever political persuasion) inevitably leads to
- Bias and lack of objectivity: Sources with extreme political leanings present information very selectively and often distort facts to support an ideological agenda. This can lead to biased or one-sided entries that undermine neutrality. It can also lead to including content that is not encyclopedic. See Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not.
- Erosion of credibility: Misplaced Pages is expected to provide balanced, factual, and well-researched content. Reliance on politically extreme sources can damage its reputation as a reliable and neutral reference.
- Misinformation and inaccuracy: Sources like Jacobin often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation.
- Cherry-picking evidence: Extreme political sources may omit contrary evidence or fail to represent the full range of perspectives. This results in incomplete or skewed coverage. Critical context is lacking.
- Harm to reputation of the field: Normalizing unreliable content can set a dangerous precedent here. Per Misplaced Pages policy, a fact worthy of entry in an encyclopedia would be covered by multiple reliable sources. It would be difficult to "counter" each instance of citing Jacobin with another source of equal repute but on the opposite political extreme covering the same story.
- Further, Jacobin is mostly an opinion source. While it is not the worst source in the world, it hardly ranks among reliable sources. According to Ad Fontes Media, which monitors news value and reliability, "Ad Fontes Media rates Jacobin in the Hyper-Partisan Left category of bias and as Mixed Reliability/Opinion OR Other Issues in terms of reliability."
- The goal of Misplaced Pages, which prioritizes reliable secondary sources, is to present information with a sense of detachment. There is no shortage of such sources, and those are the ones to use. --Precision123 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well said. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Iljhgtn:. I'd also like to add that @Herostratus: put it nicely above: "If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it." --Precision123 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is also a good point. I imagine that is why as a standalone source it likely should not be relied upon for reliable reporting on the facts, but that maybe it could work to bolster a claim made already by another reliable source. Option 2 of "Additional considerations" is where I am leaning. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- The OP @Feminist also spoke to this. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is also a good point. I imagine that is why as a standalone source it likely should not be relied upon for reliable reporting on the facts, but that maybe it could work to bolster a claim made already by another reliable source. Option 2 of "Additional considerations" is where I am leaning. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- All sources are biased, it's a natural part of human nature. This is covered by WP:RSBIAS, if that bias effects accuracy and fact checking then that needs to be shown by examples. Biased sources are not unreliable simply because of their bias.
- People's opinions of Misplaced Pages are not a criteria for determining a reliable source.
- Instances of errors or misinformation should be shown, saying they might exist isn't evidence that they do exist.
- This is again covered by WP:RSBIAS.
- This point relates to NPOV not reliability. Editors should take WP:DUE, WP:BALASP, and WP:FALSEBALANCE into account, but ultimately whether a source should be used is not the same as if a source is reliable.
- Thank you, @Iljhgtn:. I'd also like to add that @Herostratus: put it nicely above: "If you can't get a better, more disinterested outfit than Jacobin to vouch for a given fact, that's poissibly a problem. Maybe the fact just isn't important enuff to use, seeing as nobody else has seen fit to bother reporting it." --Precision123 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Detachment is specifically not required of sources per RSBIAS
"... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."
-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC) - @Precision123: did you employ ChatGPT or other LLM to compose this response? The structure is suspiciously similar to ChatGPT's writing style and your response is primarily platitudes with no specific examples or references to the specific policies undergirding RSP. Your sentence
Sources like Jacobin often contain errors, conspiracy theories, or exaggerated claims that, when included in encyclopedia entries, could mislead readers and spread misinformation
is especially LLM-like and makes the spurious claim thatsources like Jacobin
may useconspiracy theories
which hasn't been brought up anywhere here. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)- I was going to comment on their lack of examples given for claims, but correctly assessed that someone else would probably do so. TarnishedPath 03:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is an unfortunate aspect of LLMs that they generate nice sounding wording that has no understanding of Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well said. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2. They are an analysis/opinion magazine rather than a strait news source, so their pervasive bias has to be carefully considered when assessing its use as a source. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 2 Yes, we allow biased sources, but a source like this with explicitly declared bias that includes its title should be balanced against our NPOV policy, particularly. WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. In Perennial sources we reserved option 1 for the established reliable sources like BBC or Time magazine. Brandmeister 09:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion: Jacobin
- Seeing as there's substantial disagreement in the pre-RfC section above, I've gone ahead and launched this RfC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pings to @Feminist, The wub, Thebiguglyalien, Super Goku V, Simonm223, FortunateSons, Oort1, Burrobert, ActivelyDisinterested, Hydrangeans, Vanilla Wizard, Iljhgtn, Selfstudier, Horse Eye's Back, NoonIcarus, Harizotoh9, and Springee: who commented above. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Additional pings to @WMrapids, David Gerard, Bobfrombrockley, Shibbolethink, Crossroads, Herostratus, Dumuzid, Aquillion, Gamaliel, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, BSMRD, Wugapodes, Ip says, King of Hearts, Chetsford, Tayi Arajakate, MPants at work, Jlevi, The Four Deuces, Grnrchst, Szmenderowiecki, Dlthewave, Jr8825, Thenightaway, Nvtuil, Peter Gulutzan, FormalDude, Volunteer Marek, FOARP, Sea Ane, 3Kingdoms, Bilorv, Blindlynx, Jurisdicta, TheTechnician27, MarioGom, Novemberjazz, and Volteer1: who commented in the 2021 RfC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should also disclose that the previous RfC was initially closed by you (back then under the usernames User:Mikehawk10 and User:Mhawk10) and the discussions that followed at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6 § Jacobin (magazine) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340 § Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability led to an overturn on grounds of it being heavily flawed and ostensibly a supervote, followed by a re-close afterwards. Especially considering your statement in the above section questioning that (re)closure now, which also partially forms the basis for this RfC. Those discussions might also answer your question on why it was (re)closed in the manner it was. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've tried to ping everyone from the prior RfC and from the discussion above. This was done manually: I excluded 1 vanished account and I tried to ping people by their current usernames if they have changed names since then. If I missed someone, please feel free to notify them. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per my prior comments about space constraints I've split this to its own section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've just moved the RFC out of the discussion again. The RFC shouldn't be made a subsection of the prior discussion, due to ongoing issues with overloading on the noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Editors should bear in mind that reliability does not mean infallibility. It merely means we can use sources where applicable. In this case, the impeached article is a book review, which combines a description of a book and the reviewer's opinions. The only acceptable use of a book review - whoever wrote it and wherever it is published - is in an article about the book reviewed.
Ironically, there can be no article about the book because it lacks notability. It was only reviewed in Jacobin. We are basically working to prevent things that will never happen. Under current policy therefore this source could never be used.
Our time would be better spent ensuring that RS policy is adhered to.
TFD (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RFC because we should not be rating things just for the sake of rating things, but since we're doing this: Jacobin is clearly an opinion outlet, not a news outlet. We shouldn't be relying on them for statements of fact for that reason alone. FOARP (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, there was one example that generated the 2023 discussion which was Jacobin being used to source a description of the 2014 Maidan Revolution as "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", so that's one occasion of it being used to source something questionable. It was also used by the same editor on the 9/11 attack page to source the claim that the CIA facilitated the attacks and intentionally withheld information that could have stopped the attacks.
- That editor is now blocked (because of their conduct on this noticeboard I think?) but they used the green flag at RSP to justify their edits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely a bad RfC, I rolled my eyes when I was pinged about this. Nothing fundamental has changed about Jacobin's editorial line or policy since the last RfC was opened four years ago. I can't believe we're hashing this out again because of a single reddit post. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding my !vote above I do agree this is a bad RFC because there's not ever been an example presented of Jacobin being used to source anything even remotely questionable during the RFCBefore discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Jacobin author who wrote the nonsense claim that Blackstone owns 1/3 of US housing stock literally mocked the people who tried to correct him and the correction - which itself was inaccurate and weaselly - was issued only after social media pressure. This is an outlet that very obviously does not care one bit about fact checking if it gets in the way of producing click bait pieces. It’s exactly the kind of source we should NOT be using, especially as the whole media landscape is shifting that way. Volunteer Marek 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- They issued a correction. This is what we expect of reliable outlets. Your personal characterization of the correction as "weaselly" is your personal opinion on tone and has nothing to do with any Misplaced Pages policy. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right. Volunteer Marek 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at WP:VPP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? TarnishedPath 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade The Economist. TarnishedPath 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly. And that is kind of what I was getting at when I suggested the right venue for what Volunteer Marek was concerned about was WP:VPP. If we allow these kinds of sources then we allow these kinds of sources. I would be happy to restrict these kinds of sources more than we do but it has to be handled at a policy level rather than via exceptions to present policy. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm not the biggest fan of them because there's so much oped stuff but we've never thought that reason to downgrade The Economist. TarnishedPath 14:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah my point is just that a lot of editors are establishing a double standard where Jacobin is being held to a higher standard than what Misplaced Pages generally expects from news organizations. I would like it to be measured against the same standard as anyone else. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Was the weapons of mass destruction bit ever retracted by New York Times? As far as I'm aware it wasn't. Perhaps we should be wasting community time and having a discussion about them? TarnishedPath 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes facts are facts and garbage is garbage but as long as we allow garbage like New York "Iraq has WMDs" Times to be treated as a reliable source I don't see why we should treat Jacobin differently. Jacobin is compliant with Misplaced Pages's requirements. If you want to talk about tightening those requirements I'd be open to the discussion at WP:VPP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Did this correction at least state what the correct % was? Like, the correction itself tries to make it seem like a minor overstatement rather than, you know, a completely wild exaggeration that tried to take advantage of general innumeracy. “I’m a billionaire!”. “No you’re not”. “Ok that was an overstatement”. Come on. It’s quite disappointing to see how many people are fine with misinformation, weak sourcing and “alternative facts” as long as it agrees with their ideological preconceptions. Whats even more disappointing is when these are people who are claiming to be building a factual encyclopedia. Facts are facts and garbage is garbage, regardless of whether it come from the left or right. Volunteer Marek 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- This does not appear to be an outlet generally characterized as producing click bait. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not the case that a book review can only be used in an article about that specific book. For example, they are frequently cited in biographies of authors, in order to demonstrate that those authors meet the relevant wiki-notability standard. And an article about the pedagogy of some subject could cite reviews of textbooks about that subject. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The Heritage Foundation
Moved to WP:Requests for comment/The Heritage Foundation – Due to how large the discussion has become, and size constraints on the noticeboard, this discussion has been moved to it's own page. LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: TheGamer
OP has withdrawn the discussion. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 21:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TheGamer seems to be either user-generated content, or slop listicles. Additionally, it seems to source it's content largely from dubious YouTube content, Reddit posts, or Twitter/X threads. However it is listed as a source in articles such as Flowey purely in relation to one listicle that ranks Flowey in relation to other characters. What is the reliability of this site?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate?
Kaynsu1 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bad RfC. While begun in good faith, this RfC is malformed. The opening statement is not
neutrally worded and brief
as our information page about RfCs advises. I would also ask why the existing guidance about TheGamer available at the list maintained by WikiProject Video games isn't considered sufficient. If this is at root a page-specific concern about Flowey, as the opening statement causes it to appear to be, the matter can surely be handled better at Talk:Flowey. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Nevermind then. I'll delete the info on the Flowey page that provides no encyclopedic value. The reason I proposed this originally was because TheGamer's content has gotten worse and more sloppy since 2020.Kaynsu1 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Ontario Bar Association and Artificallawyer
Is this sigcov , reliable for Draft:BRYTER? HelixUnwinding (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The first link goes to a summary of a detailed software review by Friedrich Blase, the “Innovator-in-Residence” of the Ontario Bar Association. It looks like Dr. Blase, whose LinkedIn profile references writings on legal technology, might qualify as a subject matter expert, so I would be inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. The second link goes to a blog, which would not be a reliable source. John M Baker (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you very much. HelixUnwinding (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Pirate Wires?
Pirate Wires describes itself as an "American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." It doesn't shout "reliable source" to me (feels more like a group blog), but could somebody else take a look at this and help me determine if (a) its articles, or (b) its claims about itself should be cited in articles or BLPs, as was done here? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wouldn’t this be an aboutself citation anyway? I would be more concerned about primary/OR here in that case.
- Regarding the source: they are likely to be pretty biased, but according to the page linked, they seems sufficiently reliable for this, unless someone can dig up large-scale issues I missed. Employees, proper funding etc. all seem to be fine. FortunateSons (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of
as of January 2025, his profile at the online publisher Pirate Wires lists him as a senior editor
? I just wanted to make sure PW was something worth mentioning at all, or if it was more akin to 'he's the senior editor this super-serious blog' and name-dropping a site that bore no mention. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. FortunateSons (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is a case for BRD, but it seems like a reasonable option FortunateSons (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd eschew calling out any of his particular articles over others, since there's... no reason to, right? Without reliable third-party sourcing, they're no more notable or inclusion-worthy than his others. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’m not sure, but think being descriptive is fine for “articles about Misplaced Pages” and stuff, “critical“ is probably better coming from a specific source, even if it’s obvious. With everything else, it’s probably a question of DUE, not RS. FortunateSons (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- So I'd be fine enough trimming it to something to the effect of
- Pirate Wires has a strong right wing "libertarian tech bro" bent to its coverage, unsurprising given its links to Peter Thiel. The way it frames events is often strongly slanted, sometimes to the point of being misleading. Take for instance the recent story claiming that the WMF had been taken over by "Soros-backed operatives" . I would argue that this framing is conspiratorial and hyperbolic. I think it might sometimes be usable with caution for uncontroversial facts, but more objective sources should be preferred. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a Business Insider story on Pirate Wires that gives a good sense of its ethos . Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Invoking George Soros conspiracy theories to attack an organization is not a good start for Pirate Wires, a new publication that does not have much of a reputation at this point. Definitely not generally reliable, and I would avoid using this publication for claims about living people. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it a "group blog", it just has a niche audience in the tech industry. It is certainly more factually based than Fox News. The article you linked is using it problematically though. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Words of the founder Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Solana is the founder and operator of Pirate Wires, so maybe it's wise to consider his pieces in particular self-published. No idea the level of editorial rigour other contributors are under though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pirate Wires should be considered Generally reliable. The information that they publish, though perhaps from a libertarian or right wing political slant, is generally truthful/accurate and therefore should be considered WP:GENREL unless someone is able to provide substantial evidence and examples that disprove this. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's Mike Solana's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link Selfstudier provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously his personal thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- What "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" are you referring to? Can you cite specific examples please and quote from the source directly? Also, are there other reliable sources which then criticize PW for "inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions" or is that WP:OR and/or your own conclusion being reached? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ashley Rindsberg, the author of the article with inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, its main utility may be as a tool to identify potential disinformation vectors that could degrade the integrity of Misplaced Pages content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are many other editors from what I can tell, such as Ashley Rindsberg. It is not even close to a blog. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- When the editor in chief is also the owner and there is no editorial board for him to answer to and also he writes a lot of the content I don't know how we could describe it as anything other than a personal blog. Even if he sometimes brings in guest writers it's still quite obviously his personal thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. I was not happy about Pirate Wires being used for that whole fiasco. But as for the evidence look above at the link Selfstudier provided in which Mike Solana says, "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever." Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have an evidentiary basis for your claim? I ask because I was recently described in a Pirate Wires article as a member of a powerful pro-Hamas group, and while this was entertaining in its foolishness, the important point for RSN is that it was a factual error. The article contained many inaccuracies about various things, and it was clear that no attempt had been made to avoid errors and erroneous conclusions. So, using it for BLPs might be unwise, and the notion that it is "generally truthful/accurate" seem highly questionable. Of course, I only have one data point, so it could be an outlier, but I doubt it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Considering that comment and the fact that founder Mike Solana is the chief marketing officer of Founders Fund, Pirate Wires has a major conflict of interest with all of the individuals and organizations associated with Founders Fund, and is a non-independent source with respect to all related topics. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pirate Wires is trashy far-right culture wars content. It is at best a group blog - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Marginally reliable, there seems to be a pretty wide spread quality wise because they seem to allow their writer a loose leash. This means that some articles are very good and some are very bad. Personally I've found them solidly reliable for the more wonkish techy stuff but have a lot of issues when they start to cover politics or culture/society in general. Crypto seems to be the only blindspot within their otherwise area of expertise, their crypto coverage is just awful and should be avoided like the plague. When used I would attribute and I would strongly advise against any use for BLP not covered by ABOUTSELF. I agree that pieces by Solana should be treated as self published and that coverage by Pirate Wire is not to be considered independent of the Founders Fund. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Need context before coming to RSN
At this point, the source is used in only 7 articles in mainspace. . in general, RSN really shouldn't be used to approve sources ahead of time, editors exercise their own discretion, debate merits of source in the talk page of article, and come here if the same source is debated over and over again, or if reliability is still at issue. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per
Slaterstevenits founder describes it as a WP:SPS - it should be treated accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- Not me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh dear did I misread? OOPS should be per Selfstudier apologies. I will strike above. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not WP:SPS and its founder merely said things along the lines of "I am not bought and paid for nor a mouthpiece for any billionaire" etc. Now I do not know the veracity of that statement for sure, but I do not see that Mike Solana declared Pirate Wires to be SPS or a blog. It has numerous other independent journalists and appears to run as a full-fledged journalistic organization like any other, with their own right leaning or right-libertarian bias of course. But bias is not a reason for a source to otherwise be deprecated or considered SPS or anything else, it is just the nature of nearly every source that some bias to one direction or another is to be expected. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not me. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an WP:RS would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
. A statement like "I am the overwhelming majority owner of pirate wires, with no board. nobody tells me what to write or cover, nor will they ever" makes it pretty clear that it's not structured the way we'd expect a RS to be structured. I'm with the editors above who describe it as a blog - there's just nothing here that even has the shape of an RS. The fact that the person who runs it sometimes also includes guest posts by other people doesn't change the fact that there's no editorial board, no source of fact-checking, and most of all no reputation. Like... what makes you think that it's a WP:RS, according to the criteria we use? Where do you feel its reliability comes from? --Aquillion (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Yeah by that criteria this is a SPS, one guys blog is still one guys blog even if they let their friends post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- But they don't have any indication of editorial controls, or a fact-checking process, or any of the things that an WP:RS would have; neither is there any reason to think they have a particular
Usage in Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages
Is the Pirate Wires piece "How Misplaced Pages Launders Regime Propaganda" by Ashley Rindsberg a reliable source of claims for the Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages article? Rindsberg has published other content about Misplaced Pages on Pirate Wires, including "How Soros-Backed Operatives Took Over Key Roles at Misplaced Pages". — Newslinger talk 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's at best, usable for the attributed opinion of Rindsberg only, but even then, it's obviously polemical and partisan. There's lots of right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages that I personally find disingenuous, but inevitably an article on "Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages" is going to have to include some partisan sourcing, but not framing it as fact is essential. I am unsure whether Pirate Wires is prominent enough a publication that it would be due to mention in any capacity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't even think its usable for that... Can't find anything that suggests that Rindsberg is a subject matter expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sources in that article should have some leeway, as Misplaced Pages is obviously going to be criticised by such sources. But I totally agree with Hemiauchenia that framing is key. This is the opinion of a hyper partisan source, framing it as fact is wrong. Whether it should be included or not is a discussion for the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is more or less a group
- blog that mostly publishes opinion, including eg antisemitic Soros conspiracy theories. Any Misplaced Pages editor reading their coverage of this project will immediately spot multiple falsehoods and errors, and also personal attacks on names editors based on these inaccuracies. At best on a par with Quillette. In short, not reliable for this topic, and if this topic is a guide to how robust its general reporting is it’s probably not reliable for anything. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both unreliable and WP:UNDUE. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agree fully. Unreliable and undue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both unreliable and WP:UNDUE. Rindsberg's views on any topic are quite irrelevant to anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- almost certainly no. the article attacking[REDACTED] has falsehoods and even ignoring that and arguing its an opinion piece we could use with attribution , it goes at it from a very marginal POV … there are more useful opinion pieces from more reliable outlets out there.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- How is it used by others or is it even used by others? If sources have cited their work then I think we can as well. However, I would be very cautious about using it as an independent reference. Very cautious to the point where I would generally say no. Perhaps in a case where it's spot on topic (ideological bias of Misplaced Pages) but then only with attribution. Speaking generally, these sort of sources are always difficult as they may provide very good information but other than editors reading the text and using their own common sense, OR, etc, we don't have a good way to judge the quality of the output. BTW, this is also why I think "use with caution" may not be specific enough. Some sources are more like "use with caution but probably OK" while others are more like "use with extreme caution but there is probably a case where it provides more than about self content". Springee (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pirate Wires itself is notable as it's had coverage in other notable outlets but its viewpoint about Misplaced Pages per se might not have been documented in RS yet. But I'm confused -- Why are some of these other media outlets' self-published viewpoints included without them necessarily being considered RS themselves? Manuductive (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- The term self-published refers to sources without adequate editorial oversight, which includes most group blogs. Well-established news outlets are not self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Imo Having Misplaced Pages articles that discuss whether Misplaced Pages is reliable, biased, antisemitic, etc is silly. We're all too inherently conflicted as Misplaced Pages editors to give a sober assessment of these topics and what is/isn't due to include. These topics are best left to scholars. That said, Pirate Wires is a lot less established than these other publications you mention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Outright rejecting Pirate Wires because it's "right-wing criticism of Misplaced Pages" and has "a very marginal POV" is the issue with WP:RSN that the piece is trying to critique. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- But it does affect WP:DUE weight (which requires balance between sources, and which is the real concern for something that, as a WP:SPS or a website with no reputation, would obviously be opinion at best.) The article already contains a large number of right-wing sources with a similar perspective; does this piece add anything to them? My feeling is that articles like this are subject to problems where editors try to do this nose-counting thing where they add dozens of opinionated or biased sources saying the same thing because they feel it's a really important perspective - but that's not how opinion is really meant to be used. If we have twelve sources that are fundimentially similar saying the same thing, they ought to be condensed down to a single sentence or so saying "a bunch of sources said X" (unless some of them are individually noteworthy on their own merits somehow, eg. if they're an opinion from a significant expert, but that obviously isn't the case here.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Chess makes a perfectly valid point. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's being rejected because it's a random tech guy's blog - not because it's right wing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- One thing @Hemiauchenia said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because
she's just some person with a megaphone. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, Ashley Rindsberg is a man. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Evidence has already been provided. In this thread. The founder brags about having no editorial board on twitter dot com. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Getting neither the gender
"she's"
nor the spelling"Ashley Rindberg"
correct shows me you may not have looked into this very much. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- Oh do stop. That's an awful lot to take from a bloody typo. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a freebee for all the people looking to say Misplaced Pages has a left-wing bias. This is what a reliable source accusing Misplaced Pages of a left-wing bias looks like: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.2020.1793846 Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased Iljhgtn (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should add that the Manhattan Institute was discussed previously here; the discussion was never closed or added to WP:RSP but by a quick nose-count the total unreliable + deprecate opinions outnumbered the "unclear" opinions almost two-to-one (and there were almost no people saying it was GREL.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- This too, in addition to my comment below. Frankly I'm finding this interaction very strange. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- What game? I literally provided a source accusing Misplaced Pages both of left-wing bias and of bias against women at the same time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Manhattan Institute is a think-tank with no particular reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it is obviously not a WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Two can play that game. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased Iljhgtn (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Getting neither the gender
- We don't actually require an RFC for every individual dispute; and sources certainly do not automatically default to reliable. Just doing a quick nose-count in this discussion suggests that it's extremely unlikely that an RFC on Pirate Wires' reliability would support your contention that it is reliable - numerous issues have been raised, especially regarding its lack of editorial controls and its lack of the
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
that RS requires. We can pull it through an entire RFC if you really think it's necessary but I think your time would be better-spent looking for more clearly reliable secondary sources covering this, if you want it in the article. This would also turn things back to the more fundamental WP:DUE problem I mentioned above - this looks identical to dozens of similar pieces posted by people with similar opinions; given that it's published in what's at least a low-quality source compared to the ones already in the article, what makes this one significant enough to highlight? --Aquillion (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is your opinion that it is a blog. That itself would need evidence and probably an RfC. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- One thing @Hemiauchenia said I half-agree with. The question of Misplaced Pages bias is one best answered by academics - which we should document appropriately and neutrally - the opinion of Ashley Rindberg on a blog with no editorial board is not a notable opinion, again, not because of its left-right bent but because
- For disclosure, I originally wrote the Mike Solana article. I think the answer is no to this question specifically, and similar questions generally.
Pirate Wires is an advocacy media outlet. Its writing is in a punchy tone -- a tech-ish form of gonzo journalism -- that blends opinion with explanatory reporting. They don't do spot news. So there's just no utility in using it for encyclopedia-writing.
That's not to say it's either good or bad, merely that it doesn't serve the limited purposes for which we use sources here. (It ran a widely cited interview with Jack Dorsey and I don't think anyone believes they made-up the interview. But if we need to cite that interview in an article it can be referenced to any of the numerous RS that, themselves, cited it through précis', versus Pirate Wires directly.) In any case, anything it publishes that is encyclopedic will be covered in a second, more conventional RS and we should reference the second source. Anything not referenced in a pass-through outlet is probably undue. Chetsford (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Respectful comment: This discussion would be more helpful if we focused on how reliable sources treat a specific startup news organization and less on original research and personal opinion. --Precision123 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
CEIC data
I often see this site being used as a source for country-list data. They appear to be professional, but I'm not sure if they're considered a proper secondary source. They do not appear to be the same CEIC as the one owned by Caixin, as they say they are owned by "ISI Markets". Wizmut (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like just a big database. I would trust the first party sources for raw data more. EEpic (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If in question use secondary sources. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Fantasy Literature
I see this source around a lot and I would like to have it settled for whether it is OK to use for reviews. It looks good to me and not promotional or any of the typical sorts of issues that plague these kinds of websites, but I am not sure, and I would like to know before I use it on pages, and sometimes books are cited to this at NPP and I am unsure how I should judge it. I would judge it as decently established but it looks to me to be straddling the line between online review publication and blog. It's used on about 160 already. Anyone else have any thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It has the appearance of a blog. It has a sort-of staff:. I'd be hesitant to use it for WP:N purposes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is the terms its staff work under:
- Basically they're unpaid volunteers who become voting members of the staff. They are expected to review an unspecified but regular number of books in order to maintain their membership. It isn't clear that there's much in the way of editorial oversight beyond a pledge not to plagiarize review material. Considering their concentration on volume of reviews and appearance of loose editorial standards I'd be hesitant to use this group to establish the notability of a book. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- So just for notability purposes it is unusable or is it something that should not be included on pages that are notable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd say unusable for notability purposes. I'd likely leave it off other pages unless it had something significant to say that better sources didn't. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Is “Zannettou, Savvas "A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitism". a reliable source for Happy Merchant
I can’t find evidence it’s been published. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not up for reading it right now, but it's been published, and the correct citation is: Zannettou, S., Finkelstein, J., Bradlyn, B., & Blackburn, J. (2020, May). A quantitative approach to understanding online antisemitism. In Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 14, pp. 786-797). Google Scholar shows a few places where it can be accessed. If it's kept, the references to it in the Notes section should change "Savvas" to something like "Zannettou et al." FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should add that the Zannettou et al. citations that currently exist in the article are preprints, which generally are not RSs, per WP:PREPRINT. The other citation was also subsequently published in conference proceedings. Conference proceedings might or might not be reliable sources for specific content, depends on the conference and the content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's important to keep in mind that most of the preprints people link to as sources were eventually published; we just link to the preprints as courtesy links because they're usually what's available. PREPRINT even mentions this. --Aquillion (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but in that case, you still need the correct citation for wherever it eventually appeared, and if there's a link to that final version in full, then you should link to the full final version rather than a preprint draft. In this particular case, the citations themselves were not for the final version, and the final versions are both available in full elsewhere. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's important to keep in mind that most of the preprints people link to as sources were eventually published; we just link to the preprints as courtesy links because they're usually what's available. PREPRINT even mentions this. --Aquillion (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I should add that the Zannettou et al. citations that currently exist in the article are preprints, which generally are not RSs, per WP:PREPRINT. The other citation was also subsequently published in conference proceedings. Conference proceedings might or might not be reliable sources for specific content, depends on the conference and the content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's the context for this question? Where is it being cited/do you want to be able to cite it? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Hydrangeans I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry; that's my bad. I was running on low sleep and shouldn't have been on Misplaced Pages, and I read your prose where you don't include a link but glazed past the header text where you did include a link. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Hydrangeans I'm a bit confused by the question - did you look at the article? It's cited several times there and as I can't find evidence that it's been reliably published I don't think it should be used. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- See https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7343/7197 GordonGlottal (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Apologies, I missed another one, also apparently never published."Zannettou, Savvas, Tristan Caulfield, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Michael Sirivianos, Gianluca Stringhini, and Guillermo Suarez-Tangil. "On the Origins of Memes by Fringe Web Communities." arXiv.org, September 22, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12512." Doug Weller talk 08:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I provided a link to the published version of that one in my second comment above. The citation is Zannettou, S., Caulfield, T., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Sirivianos, M., Stringhini, G., & Suarez-Tangil, G. (2018, October). On the origins of memes by means of fringe web communities. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018 (pp. 188-202). There's an alternate citation at the top right of the copy where it says "ACM Reference Format." FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @FactOrOpinion ACM is reputable, but I seem to have forgotten that we can use published conference papers, but not papers simply presented at a conference. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are published in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I mean when is a paper submitted to a conference run by a reliable organisation an RS? When submitted? If published as part of the publication of the conference papers? Doug Weller talk 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- A paper that's been submitted to a conference should be treated like a preprint. A paper that appears in conference proceedings is more likely to be an RS, but that will depend on whether the conference is one that reviews all papers in a way that's similar to peer-reviewed journals, and — as always — on the WP content that it's being used as a source for (a paper can be an RS for some content and not for other content). Assuming that the papers do substantiate the WP text, I'm guessing that they're RSs (Google Scholar indicates that they've been cited over 200 times). FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is published, Conference proceedings of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), volume 14. AAAI has been around since 1979 with respected associations. Submission to a conference is not sufficient to meet any standards. Acceptance by a reputable conference after peer review (some conference talks are invited and not peer reviewed) is a good indicator of reliability though not a guarantee (the conference paper may well be revised between acceptance and publication in a proceedings and even then might in the long run not be considered reliable). As it stands, I would say reliable for the use of Happy Merchant online unless other sources can be found undermining its reliability. Erp (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would consider a paper published in the proceedings of a respected conference a reasonably reliable source. If it was contradicted by peer-reviewed research or, even better, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of available literature I would give it a bit less due than those sources. But I'd say that yes, at its base, this looks reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks all. I'm really cross with myself for not checking on Google Scholar - ironically I've just done that with another paper. I would have saved you all a lot of time if I had done that. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would consider a paper published in the proceedings of a respected conference a reasonably reliable source. If it was contradicted by peer-reviewed research or, even better, a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of available literature I would give it a bit less due than those sources. But I'd say that yes, at its base, this looks reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I mean when is a paper submitted to a conference run by a reliable organisation an RS? When submitted? If published as part of the publication of the conference papers? Doug Weller talk 15:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that I'm following. Both papers were published in conference proceedings. FWIW, even preprints are published in WP's sense of this term, which is only "a source that is made available to the public in some form." Even if there are no conference proceedings, it's possible to use a conference paper that was presented, as long as the presenter has made it publicly available (e.g., via something like arxiv.org). But all of this only establishes that the paper is published and therefore verifiable, not that it's a RS for the content in question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @FactOrOpinion ACM is reputable, but I seem to have forgotten that we can use published conference papers, but not papers simply presented at a conference. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Hawar News Agency
Should we be using articles from the Hawar News Agency, especially in relation to the (geo)political side of Rojava? This also includes articles in the scope of the Syrian civil war. It has ties to the SDF, which means there is a significant conflict of interest here; I should also add that the YPG/YPD/SDF heavily censor narratives critical of theirs, which raises concern over its reliability. I want to get community consensus before I do anything, especially because the article in question (Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria) is related to a CTOP. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Copying this response from the talk page of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria:) Of course we have to use Hawar, simply because it is one the most prominent news sites from Syria. It shouldn't be used as the sole source for contentious issues (unless it cites claims), but for basic facts such as local election results, regional policy decisions, etc. it is one of the only sources available. It is also used as a source by academic researchers such as in The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics, The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts, Soldiers of End-Times. Assessing the Military Effectiveness of the Islamic State, and Statelet of Survivors. The Making of a Semi-Autonomous Region in Northeast Syria.
(The following part is new, written for RSN:) These are books written by experts on Syria, released by reputable publishers such as Oxford University Press, and they have seemingly deemed Hawar to be a partisan, but useable source. Speaking from experience as an editor who has been active in editing articles on the Syrian civil war for ten years, I would also note that Hawar was previously discussed by editors and similarily assessed, as it is fairly reliable though should be used with caution in especially problematic fields such as casualty numbers (where partisanship becomes a major problem). Applodion (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC) - Having read through the article you linked it doesn't show that media is heavily censored. A relevant sentence would appear to be:
"In the current situation, the journalists we interviewed usually stress that, on the one hand, they enjoy relative freedom of expression. The PYD did not forcefully close those it considers as antagonistic media. Reporters can move freely in the region and cover a wide array of issues. Additionally, journalists from international or regional media are also generally allowed to operate freely. However, they also say that there is always a tension with the authorities in power and there are red lines that cannot be crossed."
As well as:"Gradually, they seem to have adopted an editorial line that is less critical, if not supportive, of the political system in Rojava. This support, according to some local journalists, is not due so much to direct imposition from the authorities, but rather to their own convictions and, even more important, to the feeling that doing otherwise would be very unpopular in a conflict-ridden context."
So it doesn't sound like they have the most freedom of media, but it appears a long way from heavily censored. Restrictions on reporting matters that could effect security are common in areas of conflict (and even outside of them).
Hawar News Agency has some WP:USEBYOTHERS and would probably be covered by WP:NEWSORG. Issues of bias (WP:RSBIAS) and opinion (WP:RSOPINION) don't immediately make a source unreliable. In general I would agree with Applodion, reliable but caution should be taken for issue where it's bias or censorship of security matters may effect it's reporting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC) - Agree with above, helpful to understand its bias, but this means to use with caution and understanding rather than preventing use. CMD (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with the above. If we are citing it for contentious claims, then it's better we provide attribution. Unless OP or someone else can come up with credible sources that question the reliability of Hawar, I don't see any reason to worry about its inclusion. Looking over the article, it seems most of the citations to it are for easily verifiable facts (i.e. changes in AANES leadership, recognition by the Catalan parliament, etc.), rather than anything contentious. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- If we consider TRT sub-optimum in relation to Rojava and the Syrian war because of its affiliation to the Erdogan government (see above on this noticeboard), the same should apply to Hawar. It’s fine for reporting the statements by AANES/PYD/SDF or uncontentious facts, but it should always be attributed and triangulated for anything at all contentious. I’d rate it above Al-Masdar and below the SOHR for reporting facts about eg battles in the Syrian war, but like them is a weak source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: "Misdirected US strike killed 18 allied fighters in Syria" from the Associated Press: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the SDF-linked Hawar news agency said...". 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- The difference between Hawar and TRT seems to be how they are treated by independent academics and subject experts; as far as I know, TRT has been repeatedly accused of spreading outright falsehoods (such as here), whereas Hawar is seemingly deemed to be mostly reliable despite its connections to the PYD and SDF. Applodion (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- That would indicate a need for caution. Whether to the level of TRT I couldn't day. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: "Misdirected US strike killed 18 allied fighters in Syria" from the Associated Press: "On Thursday, the group held funerals for 17 of its fighters in the border town of Tal al-Abyad, the SDF-linked Hawar news agency said...". 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there anything to show that Hawar is not independent of the SDF? I couldn't find anything making an explicit link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Being censored is a WP:BIASED issue and a reason to use a source with caution (with attribution for anything remotely contentious), but it doesn't automatically render them completely unreliable. The big question is whether they're yielding to pressure to publish things that are actually inaccurate rather than just one-sided. If not, they can still be used with caution - we'd want to cite better sources when possible and avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to a source with a clear bias, but there's some advantage to having sources that are close to conflicts. And a major problem with removing sources simply for being subject to censorship is that it could produce systematic bias by removing every source from a particular region; I'm not familiar with the Syrian press specifically, but in other regions with similar censorship, there's still a difference between sources that carefully report as much as they can get away with and as accurately as they can within the restrictions of government censors, and sources that full-throatedly broadcast misinformation to support the party line. --Aquillion (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: LionhearTV
Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Sources § RfC: LionhearTV – Royiswariii, 19 January 2025 00:55 (UTC)
I want your comments about the reliability of LionhearTV, I can't determine whether it is reliable or not, on New Page Sources, the Lionheartv is in the unreliable section, but, despite of that some editors still using this source in all Philippine Articles. So let's make a vote:
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Royiswariii Talk! 10:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Deprecate. The Philippines has plenty of WP:RS to choose from. If you are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find refs for something or someone and have to use this, I'd say consider against and don't add it to the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: For better understanding and context, especially for editors unfamiliar of this topic's origin:
- LionhearTV is a blog site, as described on its "About Me" page, established in 2008 and functioning primarily as a celebrity and entertainment blog. The site is operated by eMVP Digital, which also manages similar blog sites, such as DailyPedia and Philippine Entertainment.
- In addition to these blogs, LionhearTV organizes the RAWR Awards, which recognize achievements in the entertainment industry. This accolade has been acknowledged by major industry players, including ABS-CBN and GMA Network. Like other awards, the RAWR Awards present physical trophies to honorees.
- A discussion about LionhearTV’s reliability as a source took place on the Bini (group) talk page in September 2024 (see Talk:Bini (group)/Archive 1 § LionhearTV as a reliable source). The issue was subsequently raised on the Tambayan Philippines talk page (Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 52 § Lionheartv) and the WP:RSN (Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 452 § LionhearTV). However, these discussions did not yield a constructive consensus on whether LionhearTV can be considered a reliable source. The discussion at Tambayan deviated into a debate about SMNI, which was unrelated to the original subject. Meanwhile, the sole respondent at the RSN inquiry commented,
It may come down to how it's used, it maybe unreliable for contentious statement or comments about living people, but reliable for basic details.
- At this moment, LionhearTV is listed as unreliable on Misplaced Pages:New page patrol source guide#The Philippines as result of the no consensus discussion at RSN.
- AstrooKai (Talk) 13:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? AstrooKai (Talk) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's immaterial on how we determine WP:RS. What could be very important that other WP:RS missed out on that only this blog carries? If it's only this blog that carries articles about something, it's not very important. This blog is the very definition of WP:RSSELF. I'm surprised we're having this conversation. A blacklist is needed. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm more surprised on how a single person actively manages three blog sites and one accolade, with the accolade even giving out physical trophies to its winners. Like, how is he/she funding and doing all of these? AstrooKai (Talk) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lionheartv is one person operation. How can there be editorial discretion on that case? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 3. There's something about its reporting and organizational structure that is off compared to the regular newspapers. Borgenland (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
- LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)
Sunstar: https://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts (December 10, 2024) - LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2025/01/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 11, 2025)
Manila Republic: https://www.manilarepublic.com/dylan-menor-signs-with-universal-records/ (January 14, 2025)
- LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/2024-spotify-wrapped-radar-artists-hev-abi-bini-lead-the-philippine-charts/ (December 8, 2024)
- These are two instances I found so far where other sources copypasted from LionhearTV. But I saw other instances where LionhearTV is the one who copypasted from other sources, such examples include:
- LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)
Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/showbiz/music/2024/12/29/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-i-m-okay-to-cinemas-0948 (December 29, 2024) - LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/06/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game/ (June 27, 2024)
Original: https://www.abs-cbn.com/starmagic/articles-news/bini-set-to-showcase-sneak-preview-of-their-new-single-cherry-on-top-in-mobile-game-22637 (June 24, 2024)
- LionhearTV: https://www.lionheartv.net/2024/12/moira-dela-torre-brings-her-new-album-im-okay-to-cinemas/ (December 30, 2024)
- I honestly don't know about these editors, they just copying each other's works. Probably cases of churnalism. AstrooKai (Talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Though, I find it strange and concerning that reputable sources copypasted some of LionhearTV's articles:
- Option 3 - As much as possible, LionhearTV and its sibling sites under the eMVP Digital should not be used as sources when more reliable outlets have coverage for a certain event, show, actor and so on. Even if a certain news item is exclusive to or first published in a eMVP Digital site, other journalists will eventually publish similar reports in their respective platforms (refer to some examples posted by AstrooKai). -Ian Lopez @ 15:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- What I fear in these kinds of low quality sources is that people will find something very specific about someone, e.g. "This person was seen in a separate engagement vs. the others in their group," and this low quality source is the only source that carried this fact, and since this it is not blacklisted, this does get in as a source, and most of the time, that's all that's needed. We don't need articles on showbiz personalities tracking their every movement as if it's important. Blacklist this. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
| Discussion about moving RFC to RSN |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Option 3It's a blog. That means WP:SPS applies. This means it might be contextually reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF or under WP:EXPERTSPS (with the usual condition that SPSEXPERT prohibits any use of SPS for BLPs) and so I don't see any pressing need for deprecation, but this is very clearly a source that is not generally one we should use. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is Fashion Pulis, and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah that's fine. I was just saying that, in general, those are the only two avenues to use someone's blog. Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, the person behind this blog is not a subject matter expert. Like, we don't even know who this is. (One subject matter expert in Philippine showbusiness that I know of that runs a similar blog is Fashion Pulis, and I event won't even use the blind items as sources there lol) As explained above, once this gets to be used as a source, it won't be challenged and people just accept it as is. This is a low quality source that has to be blacklisted. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Option 4 Their reportings are obviously flawed and a per example above copypasting is a not a good look nor a good indication for "reliability" and it is often used in BLP, yikes. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Hatebase.org
Is hatebase.org a reliable source? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is there an WP:RFCBEFORE for this? And/Or some context for the use case? FortunateSons (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have checked and I can't find any previous discussion, hence why I opened this one. There is an article about the site. I intend to use it to expand list of slurs articles. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’m not making a statement on the source, as I’m not familiar with it .Then this doesn’t require an RfC, just a normal source discussion, if you’re concerned about reliability. Do you mind removing the descriptor from the title? And best of luck! :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I just added it because I saw some of the other discussions had it. I am removing it from the title. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- That happens, don’t worry about it! Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I just added it because I saw some of the other discussions had it. I am removing it from the title. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’m not making a statement on the source, as I’m not familiar with it .Then this doesn’t require an RfC, just a normal source discussion, if you’re concerned about reliability. Do you mind removing the descriptor from the title? And best of luck! :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have checked and I can't find any previous discussion, hence why I opened this one. There is an article about the site. I intend to use it to expand list of slurs articles. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- used in 4[REDACTED] articles, seems highly premature. use best judgement until it can't be resolved in an article's talk page between editors, and needs wider[REDACTED] community feedback. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wish this were otherwise because it looks like a really interesting website but it uses user-generated content. Which is a problem from an RS perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- None of the uses are for anything other than Hatebase itself, and as the site was been retired since 2022 it's unlikely it will see much more use ('retired' as it's been closed to editing, all user data deleted, and may go offline at any point, so not quite closed but very close). As most of the supporting data is gone, and what there was was user generated, I don't think it could be used as an RS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
LaserDisc Database?
I'm working on adding citations to the home media section of King Kong (1933). I'm looking for a source that supports the sentence "Image Entertainment released another LaserDisc" . I've found the laserdisc in question on LaserDisc Database here. Can I use it as a source? The "register now" box states that users can "submit" new Laserdiscs, which implies some editorial oversight compared to other websites with user-generated material (although it looks like there may be just one editor). My other options are worldcat or interlibrary loaning the original Laserdisc. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- The bottom of the page has
"Disclaimer: The data on this webstite is crowd-sourced..."
and from the page you linked it's unclear what amount of checking is done before any submitted updates happen. Worldcat is the better option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- oops, I missed that. Thank you for the advice. I'll use WorldCat if I can't find a news article. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Usage of AirPlay Direct for music articles
Is airplaydirect.com reliable for use in articles about music (such as songs, albums, artists, etc.) GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Per their about page they are not a normal news source, but a promotional platform. Their articles, etc are likely based on press releases and information from the subject of the article. So they might be reliable as a WP:PRIMARY source within the limits of WP:ABOUTSELF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Global Defense Corp
Global Defense Corp should be deprecated as it is a incredibly unreliable source which frequently fabricates information they are incredibly biassed against Russian technology to such an extent as to lose all objectivity here I will share just a small snippet of the blatantly false information they have spread over the years
1. they've claimed that Azerbaijan using either an Israeli or Turkish drone was able to destroy a Armenian nebo-m radar which is impressive considering Armenia doesn't even have that radar or has at any point Displayed any interest in buying that radar there evidence for this is a footage of Azerbaijan destroying a p-18 radar and them claiming it's the nebo-m and they didn't just claim this once they've claimed it at least twice in two different articles.
2. in this article you can see a picture of the SU57’s internal weapons bays but what they don't tell you is that this picture is CGI at no point do they communicate this in fact they claim it's from the Sukhoi design Bureau even though it's not.
3. in this article they talk about how the S 400 range decreases against objects at low altitudes which is true but fail to explain that this is true for all radar guided Sam systems thanks to an effect known as radar horizon where objects at low altitudes are able to hide behind the curvature of the earth and therefore can only be detected at certain distances but not only do they not explain this to the reader creating a false impression that this is an issue unique to the S 400 but they even claimed that Turkey accused Russia of fraud because of this. which is weird for several reasons one Russia has at no point claim that the S400 range does not decrease with altitude but also because it implies Turkey believed the S 400 could defy the laws of physics they also have no source of this claim and no other articles on the Internet claim this.
4. In this article they claimed SU57 lacks sensor fusion which it doesn't and then just ignore that low probability of intercept radar is a thing .
5. in this article they berate the S 400 for not intercepting Israeli F35’s in Syria but forgot to mention that Russia and Israel were long believed to have an agreement in the Syrian civil war to not engaged each other.
There bias is also evident in just in the words that they say frequently attacking Russian equipment with ad hominems such as cooling the S 400 ,another lame duck missile system, or starting there articles with stupid Russians or Russian equipment exposed. they also lack of any transparency no one knows who owns the website none of the articles say the names of the people that wrote them making the website Even more suspicious but despite all of this they are still frequently cited all the time on Misplaced Pages.
2. https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/07/11/rostec-nebo-m-radar-is-it-a-scam-or-propaganda/
4. Radar Horizon. (n.d.). www.ssreng.com. Retrieved January 6, 2025, from https://www.ssreng.com/pdf/Radar_Horizon.pdf
5. Butowski 2021, pp. 78–82
8. When Israel bombs Syria, Russia turns a blind eye. (2022, January 3). thearabweekly.com. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from https://thearabweekly.com/when-israel-bombs-syria-russia-turns-blind-eye Madnow2 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do we use them? Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The S 400 Misplaced Pages page has 20 citations from them and the su 57 Misplaced Pages page has four. Madnow2 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that they're generally unreliable but I'm not so sure I'd chalk it up to bias rather than incompetence. They seem to be suggesting that the news they publish is a sideline to their core business of international security consulting... But they're spamming the cheapest ads on the internet alongside that content suggests that this is their primary income. To me it looks like a vanity site, I also suspect they are ripping stories off or using generative AI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. Madnow2 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the one thing that seems to be universally agreed on is that this is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would agree, that regardless of whether it's bias or incompetence, it all adds up to unreliability. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will agree with you that they are incompetent But I think you can be incompetent and bias, some mistakes they've made such as having a image of the SU57 that is CGI on the web page and claiming it was a picture taken by Sukhoi I could see that being a result of incompetence but stuff like claiming Turkey accused Russia of Fraud over the S 400 because its range decreased against objects at lower altitude I have a harder time believing is just incompetence specially since the mistakes that they made seemed to always understate Russian equipment’s capabilities I have never been able to see and correct me if I'm wrong any incidents where they have overstated a piece of Russian equipment’s capabilities and yet I have seen dozens of mistakes in the opposite direction which suggests to me it is not random error. but quite frankly if their biassed or not I think is irrelevant even if we somehow conclude that they do have a neutral point of view there is still no way they could be considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards as they do not meet the other criteria mainly the one which is in quote ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’ there is no universe where they pass that one and as a result they cannot be considered a reliable source something which you agree with this alone should be enough to get the website Deprecated irrespective of if their bias or not. Madnow2 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Should we trust Social Blade for statistics
Certain pages about certain living subjects contain an infobox template that really emphasises view counts and subscriber statistics. However, that data is often sourced from Social Blade. Here's what WP's page about Social Blade says;
"An official YouTube Twitter account, @TeamYouTube wrote that "Please know that third party apps, such as SocialBlade, do not accurately reflect subscriber activity." Social Blade's Twitter account responded to that tweet, commenting "We don't make up data. We get it from the YouTube API. We rely on it for accuracy." Social Blade's community manager Danny Fratella suggested that YouTube content creators may notice subscriber and view count purges more due to a higher accessibility to data-tracking tools like Social Blade."
The question is should we trust it?
Plus, why do pages about gamers and vloggers place so much emphasis on what appears to be arbitrary, trivial information that is prone to fluctuation?𝔓𝔓 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is WP:PRIMARY - I don't think WP:SELFPUB applies since it is drawing its data out of an API but I'd say it's a marginal source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It certainly isn't a source that I would trust but it is frequently cited in certain articles to populate value statement parameters such as subscriber count, view count, like count etc in this template. My understanding is that WP:PRIMARY sources shouldn't be used to verify value statements? 𝔓𝔓 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Prior discussions for reference; Aug 2021, Jan 2024, June 2024, RFC June 2024. The general opinion appears to be that it's marginal at best. Personally I doubt how reliable their data is, if it's available from the original source that should be used and if it's not available from the original source I wouldn't trust it. They also have 'rankings', which are worthless for anything other than the opinion of Social Blade. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
RfC: EurAsian Times
|
|
The EurAsian Times (used to have its own article but it was apparently PRODed) is cited in several hundreds of articles, mostly pertaining to Russian military hardware and South Asian issues, but not exclusively. It was mentioned a few times on this noticeboard but only on a surface level.
In light of all this, how would you rate the EurAsian Times?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
Thank you. Choucas Bleu 🐦⬛ 22:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) PS: it is the first time I create an RFC, I hope it is not malformed
Survey (EurAsian Times)
- Option 2/Do not enter to RSP I’d tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I don't see a reason to make any RSP entry -- there doesn't seem to be a lot of RSN discussions to summarize or adjudicate and if it is in use hundreds of times then making a RSP entry at this point seems to be problematic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion (EurAsian Times)
- Previous discussions at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 458#Eurasian Times (2024) Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 399#The Eurasian Times (2023), and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 389#EurAsian Times (2022). It looks like there's already consensus that it's unreliable and an RfC is not necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, there is already strong consensus for its general unreliability (with just one dissenting editor in all of those discussions). I guess the only question is whether it should be deprecated, given its quite frequent use BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that most opinions expressed about it were negative, but it felt a bit like shaky ground to be able to know if it could still be used for some specific things, be treated as generally unreliable, or to actually deprecate. That is why I wanted clarification before potentially going on a hunt. Sorry if an RfC was overkill for this one, but I figured that since it is used quite a lot it could be good to clarify. Choucas Bleu 🐦⬛ 10:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, there is already strong consensus for its general unreliability (with just one dissenting editor in all of those discussions). I guess the only question is whether it should be deprecated, given its quite frequent use BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
flightconnections.com
I wonder if flightconnections.com is a reliable source. Examples of it use are on Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport. In both cases WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT asks for airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE
. I have doubt if flightconnections qualifies as reliable. The Banner talk 02:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't find any information about who runs the site or where it gets it's information from. There are quite a few articles promoting it or about how to use it, but that is unsurprising as it operates an affiliate programme. From a Google book search it has some extremely limited USEBYOTHERS (note several of the results are not reliable sources), but not enough to be meaningful. I couldn't get any useful results from Google Scholar. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do see it as reliable. They are buying the data from one of the large brokers (likely either Cirium or OAG, I wish they said who) and simply providing a wrapper to explore that data, and selling ads and subscriptions to pay for the extremely expensive subscription the brokers charge. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- It can work at least as a starting point. It lists both charter and regularly scheduled flights. You can find the flight number of a given route and then cross-reference it on another source as well. --Precision123 (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Pegging
At this point, after educating people about pegging for the last 14 years, I do indeed qualify as an expert. I am the go-to person for information about pegging in the sex education world.
Could this conversation about the veracity of my 'opinions' in 2017 perhaps be reviewed? I am the only sex educator I know of who specializes in pegging. I have taught countless classes since 2012 (in person and over Zoom) for beginners, equipment, and advanced pegging, and written many, many articles about pegging as well. Were they published in magazines or on websites that made me edit the crap out of what I'd written until it lost its meaning? No. Wouldn't play that game because the message was too important to me, and because they wanted free material.
I am not a person of notoriety like Tristan Taormino or Dan Savage, but that does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about or what I put out into the world about pegging is just my 'opinion'. There have been no 'studies' on pegging and there aren't likely to be anytime soon, for obvious reasons.
Since when was the only measure of an expert their notoriety? I have gone down the rabbit hole of pegging and remained there. I have held space for all the different expressions of pegging during that time, which are numerous. I have advised hopeful givers and receivers how to approach their partners, while also educating them about the (intensely) common misconceptions and assumptions about the sexual act, and so many more things that are a part of pegging. Masculinity, role reversal, communication, etc, etc.
I have helped countless couples find the best equipment for them, which is much more complicated and individual than a cheap strap-on and dildo. Educating interested people about pegging has been my mission for the last 14 years. Other sex educators have more surface knowledge about this sexual act - knowledge that can be gleaned from a simple Marie Claire article.
My apologies if I sound a little irritated. My intentions are good. Famous people are not the best sources, necessarily. In sex education circles I am widely known as the go-to expert.
https://peggingparadise.com/ (my original website)
https://www.theartofpegging.com/ (my educational and patron platform)
https://pegging101.com/ (pegging with no kink for the vanilla people)
With Respect For All That You Amazing People Do, Ruby Ryder RubyRyder (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ms. Ryder,
- What would help here is if you could point us to either reliable, independent sources citing your work, or of you writing for publications that you don't publish yourself.... something that helps us see that, as you say, "in sex educations widely known as a go-to expert." I fully believe that you are.
- The problem with someone using your sources as a reference has to do with Misplaced Pages's rules on using self-published sources, which your websites, videos, etc, count as. We can use such sources as reference (if within some limits), but only if we can see that the creator is a recognized expert in the field... and by recognized, that means either cited by or hired to write on the topic by reliable sources. I know that it seems like your voluminous experience and the visible quality of your materials should count for something here, but alas it does not. I don't think we'd be expecting, say, the New York Times or the Journal of the American Medical Association in this case, just some recognizable source that takes such sexual matters seriously. It doesn't even have to be material that is online (although that would help.) Articles that quote you or recommend your sites or training services would really help. Can you point us to such citations? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate the work that you do. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages editors cannot use their own judgement to assess the expertise of someone. There are people who research topics and work in a field their entire lives who become experts in those fields and publish their work on their own websites. But there are also pseudo-experts who do the same thing. Editors on Misplaced Pages are not allowed to use their own judgement to discern the difference between the two, but must rely on a third party to establish their expertise. If you have ever given an interview on pegging for a newspaper or a magazine, or had your website cited by a sexologist or another recognizable sex expert as a good resource on pegging, for instance, then that would allow us to recognize the reliability of your site for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. Photos of Japan (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Could you comment on and notify the article talk page you want to edit? We really cannot help without context around what changes you want to include.
- that conversation from 2017 is old. I have no clue if that is what Misplaced Pages editors believe today, nor the state of the article you want to change. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am highly confident that Pegging (sexual practice) is the main article on the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would concur. Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their comment wasn't asking which page the 2017 discussion was on (which is linked to), but was asking RubyRyder to leave a comment on the talk page of that article. Photos of Japan (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is the only reason we want to include this information because its from RubyRyder and it would be good publicity? or is there a specific bit of info that they want to include that is missing?
- have they tried including it and seeing what happens? (see WP:BRD) Are regulars who wrote and watch the pegging article notified that this debate is happening?
- This post seems mostly like rehashing and trying to start up an argument from 2017 for the sake of a debate. would like info on what we are doing here, exactly, and what the debate is?
- Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am highly confident that Pegging (sexual practice) is the main article on the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2025 – Thank you for your response. I understand the reasoning. I was asked for other sources, and below I am listing well-known sexologists and people with letters after their name who have interviewed me on their podcasts.
Cam Fraser - the Power and Pleasure of Pegging with Ruby Ryder: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0naA7WaumMhL1t5wE2vaj5?si=IFqLYzGzT_aQomGXWKvSww&nd=1&dlsi=3c896a210a7d4408
Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Pegging with Ruby Ryder:https://sunnymegatron.com/ruby-ryder-pegging-paradise/
Great American Sex Podcast with Sunny Megatron - Butt Stuff 201: Pegging & Vagus Nerve w/ Ruby Ryder: https://sunnymegatron.com/vagus-nerve-pegging/
Smart Sex, Smart Love with Dr Joe Kort - Ruby Ryder on Pegging - https://joekort.com/ruby-ryder-on-pegging/
Please let me know if you have further questions or if I can help in any way - and if there is a better way to respond to this conversation.
With respect,
Ruby Ryder RubyRyder (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)- I will quickly note that Sunny Megatron is an XBIZ Sexpert of the Year award according to our XBIZ Awards page, and is used as a reference elsewhere. Joe Kort is clinical director of The Center for Relationship and Sexual Health. So these aren't random peoplecasts. That does not establish, of course, what information you are to be cited for... and as others have, I suggest that you take the issue back to Talk:Pegging (sexual practice) for fresh discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- agreed. I think RubyRyder seems useful as an expert. their information could be used, if correctly attributed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. These look like good sources. Ultimately the reliability of a source is dependent on the specific article text that it is being used to support, so your site still wouldn't be reliable to support a medical claim, for instance, but it should be reliable to support general statements about pegging. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
NationalWorld.com
What do we think about NationalWorld.com being used for a living porn star's month of birth? Courtesy ping to @Diademchild:.--Launchballer 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on National World, not necessarily crap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Remember that WP:DOB says full names or birth dates should be widely published by reliable sources and that the standard for inclusion isn't just verification. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, the article doesn't actually have a full DOB. Policy suggests "err on the side of caution and simply list the year". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- This section is about using this source to support the month. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, the article doesn't actually have a full DOB. Policy suggests "err on the side of caution and simply list the year". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)